Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me start by thanking the Senators from New Mexico and Nebraska for their assistance in moving this amendment. The amendment I am offering today is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding the Essential Air Service or EAS program. It highlights the continued importance of the EAS program and provides that sufficient funding levels be provided to eligible communities in the future. Mr. President, rural America faces many challenges. I do not have to tell you that people in rural areas of this country are struggling. They are struggling to make ends meet. And they are struggling with their transportation system. In recent years, funding for transportation programs that people in rural areas rely on have been dramatically cut. Amtrak service has been reduced. Rural transit programs are disappearing. Highway funds are threatened. And the Essential Air Service program is constantly under attack. Without an adequate transportation system, economic development, and job creation in these areas cannot take place. Just as urban areas depend upon transportation programs, so do those folks who live in rural areas. When Congress voted to deregulate the airline industry, there was clear recognition that some communities would be left without air service. The EAS program was intended to be the safety net for rural America. In order to protect those communities from losing air service altogether, carriers would receive a Federal subsidy as an incentive to continue operating in rural markets. In Montana, we have seven communities in the EAS program--the most communities in the program outside of Alaska. It is a vital program and it is essential to many people. The EAS program provides access. It connects the most rural areas of my State to the rest of the country. I do not know if most Members are aware of this, but Montana is as large as the area between Washington, DC and Chicago. That puts things into context. We are a big rural State. That is why continuation of the EAS program is so important. Many people in Montana rely on the EAS program. If they need to get to Billings or elsewhere to see the doctor or a specialist, they need to know that air service is available. And in order to attract new businesses to an area, there needs to be adequate air service. Many companies look at the transportation system available to an area before deciding to locate. Without access to air service, companies and the well-paying jobs they bring with them, will go elsewhere. I was very disappointed that this Congress cut the EAS program by 30 percent last year. The result of these huge cuts in the EAS program has meant reduced service to our smallest communities. And the air carriers that provide this service have had to struggle to make ends meet because of these cuts. I fought hard against a reduction in the EAS funding. The EAS program is such a small program, yet it has been dramatically and unfairly targeted. This goes against the intent of Congress when it recognized that our smallest communities deserve continued air service. You can be assured that I will fight this year to make sure this Congress and the Appropriations Committees do not make the same mistake again. This resolution is the first step. Again, I thank the Senators for their support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering my bill, the Public Buildings Reform Act. Let me start by expressing my thanks to the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and the Chairman of the relevant Subcommittee, Senator Warner, for their support of this bill. Mr. President, the Public Buildings Reform Act will go a long way to helping Congress make wise decisions on public buildings construction. It will help Congress achieve some discipline with respect to the cost of new federal buildings and courthouses. Specifically, the bill will bring some sanity to the courthouse construction program. I have been working on the courthouse construction program for quite some time. And the more I have learned about the program, the more concerned I have become. It is very important that we reform the courthouse construction program and this bill will do that. Why? Because the budget requests for new courthouses get larger and larger each year. Let me give examples from the last five years of budget requests--in FY 1993, the courthouse construction program request was $132 million or 22 percent of the GSA budget request; in FY 1994, the courthouse construction program request was $566 million or 76 percent of GSA's budget request; in FY 1995, courthouse requests were $419 million or 87 percent; in FY 1996, courthouse requests were $639 million or 63 percent and this year, FY 1997, courthouse requests are $632 million or 88 percent. Mr. President, this is a lot of money. And we need to spend it wisely and only on those courthouse projects that are truly needed. The Public Buildings Reform Act will help us do just that. It accomplishes two major goals--prioritization of courthouse projects; and gaining control of the Courthouse construction Design Guide. Let me briefly summarize the major provisions of the bill. First, the bill will require the General Services Administration (GSA) each year to submit a three-year plan to Congress. This triennial plan will prioritize courthouse and non-courthouse projects. The first year of the three-year plan will contain the projects requested for authorization or appropriation. The second and third years of the three-year plan will be informational lists of projects expected to be requested in the future. Each year, the projects must be listed in a priority order. All of this information will help Congress determine which projects are truly necessary--which is more important than ever as we work to balance the federal budget. As part of the three-year plan, GSA must also submit a five-year strategic capital asset management plan--which is a long-term plan of projects. GAO has stated that the lack of long-term planning has created a situation where ``absent this information, Congress has little practical choice but to consider projects individually. And since there is no articulated rationale or justification in a long-term strategic context for GSA's proposed projects, other projects can seem just as defensible.'' Now I must tell the Senate that this year, the Administrative Office of the Courts has heard our calls for a prioritized list of courthouses. And they submitted a list of projects to the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is a good step and I commend the Courts. But this bill will take us the next logical step and give Congress a preview of impending projects. In addition to the priority list, the bill will require GSA to submit additional information to the Environment and Public Works Committee to justify project requests. For courthouse projects, this will include the projected number of judges to be housed in the new courthouse; the year when the current courthouse met or will meet its maximum capacity; the level of security risk at the current courthouse; and the expiration date of any current leases housing the courts. This information will enable the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Congress to do a better job in assessing the need for new courthouses. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill will solve what I see as a major problem with the courthouse construction program. That is, the standards for courthouse design seem to be ever changing. And, of course, the changes always seem to lead to more expensive projects, not cheaper ones. To fix that problem, this bill will require GSA, along with the Courts, to rewrite the courthouse construction Design Guide and develop fair, responsible standards for courthouse construction. GSA then will be in charge of making sure that all courthouses constructed in this country do not deviate from the standards contained in the Design Guide. Why should this be done? One reason was cited by the GSA Inspector General in a report issued on September 27, 1995. The report said the ``Courts Design Guide is a document which provides specifications, requirements, and standards for constructing and outfitting courthouses. It has evolved over the years and has produced larger, more grandly appointed courtrooms and chambers. As a result, costs related to implementing the design standards written by and interpreted by the Courts have escalated. The language and requirements in the Courts Design Guide help explain some of the perceived excesses in new courthouse projects.'' This does not mean courthouses will be drab--they will continue to be appropriate to the dignity of the Courts. But they will not be palaces. It means that we will have an effective checks and balances on the design of courthouses. Mr. President, it is important for judges to understand that this is not their money. It is the taxpayers money. And the taxpayers demand and deserve to know that their tax dollars are not being thrown away on extravagances like marble floors and brass doorknobs. In Montana, our judges do not have palatial courthouses. In fact, many of our judges are not even housed in a federally-owned courthouse--they are in leased space. But they are able to provide due process of the law without these extras. As Congress looks to make deep cuts in many important social and domestic programs, it is only fair that we make sure that tax dollars are not needlessly wasted in the construction of federal buildings. Again, Mr. President, I thank Senators Chafee and Warner for their support of this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a subject of great importance to Montana, my home State, and also to me personally. That is the subject of the proposal to cut the gas tax by 4.3 cents over the rest of the year. I am reminded of a comment made by the great Irish conservative thinker, Edmund Burke, in reflections on the revolution of France where he said: Among an infinite number of acts of violence, of folly, some good may be done. They who destroy everything certainly will remove some grievance. They who make everything new have a chance that they may establish something beneficial. That is about where we stand today with the 104th Congress. The Congress is approaching its close. The present-day revolutionaries are getting ready to put on their hot tar and feathers and mount up on the rail to be ridden out of town. Behind them will remain a rather weird legacy: Government shutdowns, attempts to repeal the Clean Air Act, weaken protection of our lakes and streams, slash student loan programs and cut school lunches, and radical experiments with $270 billion Medicare cuts. But hidden away in this mess are a few good things--a few grievances removed, a small number of beneficial things established. They are hard to find, but over the next 5 months or so, we need to dig them out, pass them and get them up to the President to sign. It is a tough job, but today we have found one of them, and that is repeal of the gas tax. Folks are hurting at home. Wages are stagnant, cattle prices are down, but the cost of housing and the cost of college and a lot of other necessities are going up, and we should be here to do something about that. Some of these problems are pretty complex. But we can start with a few simple solutions that will put some more money in an ordinary working man's or woman's pocket. That is what repealing the gas tax will do. Probably that should be enough reason to repeal it, but fairness and principle also say that a gas tax that is not devoted directly to transportation funding is a bad idea and ought to be repealed. The price of gas in Montana is up from $1.29 a gallon in March to $1.42 today, as reflected by this chart: $1.29 March 26 and up in just a short period of time, over 1 month, up to $1.42 a gallon. Who knows where it will be tomorrow, the third line on this chart. As part of this, Montanans already pay 27 cents a gallon under a gas tax in our State--that is the State gasoline tax--and 14.1 cents a gallon for transportation under the Federal gasoline tax. The rest, 4.3 cents a gallon, is an excise tax that goes to general revenues. Like all single-product excise taxes, this 4.3-cent tax is unfair, it is narrowly based, and it is grossly unfair to the West where we have to drive a long way to work, to the grocery store, or to the hospital. That is why I have opposed gas taxes. I opposed the gas tax hike in 1990. I remember back in 1993, the administration proposed a gas tax of 9.3 cents a gallon. I spent nearly a month fighting them down, a tenth of a cent by a tenth of a cent to the present 4.3-cent level. As I said then, and I will quote, ``I will vote for the $500 billion deficit reduction plan because I don't want to let perfection be the enemy of the good. The deficits we have run up have already laid a $4 trillion debt on the backs of our children, and fast action on the deficit is the best way to increase business confidence and keep interest rates low so jobs will be created by expanding business and people can refinance their mortgages. But make no mistake about it, the gas tax is a weak point in this package.'' The majority leader's proposal is a relatively modest proposal. It does not cure the weak point in the 1993 package completely by repealing the gas tax; instead, it is a temporary 7-month reduction, essentially a limited constructive response to an emergency caused by the sudden increase in gas taxes last month. There is a little work ahead. We need to balance the budget, so we need to make sure that the gas tax cut is offset and does not widen the deficit. That is critical. The offset needs to be a fair one and does not simply put a new burden on working people, and we need to be sure that oil companies do not simply use the gas tax cut to raise prices again. With that aside, it is a good idea. As historians mull over the Government shutdowns and otherwise pick through the debris left by the revolutionary Congress, they will be able to say, ``At least they got one thing right.'' We ought to be able to do this quickly, to take a few cents a gallon off at the pump, and at the same time we ought to be able to raise the minimum wage. I was on the phone yesterday with some minimum wage workers in Bozeman. A raise of 90 cents an hour will let them stay ahead on electric bills and on water bills. It will let a single- working mom give the kids a night at the movies every once in a while, give a donation to a church, maybe buy a couple of books, and that is not asking a lot. So these are the right things to do. We ought to get the gas tax repealed by Memorial Day, and we ought to get the minimum wage raised by Memorial Day. I hope people in both parties will take a fair, independent look at these ideas because they are good ideas, and they help ordinary people make ends meet. They deserve the Senate's support. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in December of last year, my staff and I, as well as some Montanans who were in the DC area, traveled hundreds of miles to West Virginia to see a football game. It wasn't just any ordinary football game, it was the NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship, which pitted the University of Montana against Marshall University. The game was the most exciting of my life. After a come-from-behind drive that lead to a last minute field goal, the University of Montana Grizzlies won their first football championship in the school's history. That day I saw my team beat an opponent that ESPN said was the heavy favorite. I saw my team beat an opponent that had played in the big game many times before. I saw my team beat an opponent that has so dominated Division I-AA football that they will soon be moved to Division I competition. You see, my team possessed qualities that are hard to measure: heart, self-discipline, work ethic. A player can learn these qualities from only one person, their coach. Mr. President, I was saddened, but not disappointed, to learn that Don Read will retire from coaching the Montana Grizzlies football team. I was saddened to see that our coach, with 10 straight years of winning seasons and a national championship under his belt, had decided to move on. But I was not disappointed because I know that Don will still play a major role in his community. Ask anyone involved with Grizzly football and they will tell you that Don is not only a great coach, but an even better person. UM president George Dennison said it best: The Read legacy has much more substance than winning at all costs. For him, winning mattered. But other things counted more. As his record and actions revealed, the welfare and success of his players as students, athletes and human beings always came first. Coach Read rode a wave of success that went beyond winning football games. He made winners of his players on and off the field. Don would be the first to tell you that Montana has been good to him. On behalf of all of us in our State, coach, you have also been very good to Montana. Mr. President, I close by asking to have printed in the Record an editorial published by the Missoulian that reflects my sentiments exactly. The editorial follows: [From the Missoulian, Apr. 16, 1996] Thanks for the Memories, Don Thank you, Don Read, for 10 truly remarkable and wonderful years. That national NCAA championship was something. Those faces of UM's athletes, the thrill, the pride. It was classy win on all fronts, earned outright by coaches and players alike. We still ride high. Thanks for those very impressive statistics. Ten seasons, all winners. Ten wins against the Bobcats. Wow. Thanks for selecting high-quality assistant coaches who lead with skill and compassion. Thanks for loving and respecting Missoula. We saw you walking, with your wife, Lois along the river, through downtown streets, on campus, in your own neighborhood, meandering through the Farmers' Market. You took time to know this place and all it offers. Even when you built a new house in an old district, you did so with sensitivity to neighborhood history and character. Thank you for loving your family. We saw that, too, when you talked with pride and respect of your own children and grandchildren. And who knows what marvelous effect you've had on other children. Kids who gathered to watch the Grizzlies practice met a coach who welcomed them and their daydreams--and who offered them gum and wise words on the sidelines: UM's players, too, seem to understand both the value of individual accomplishments and the necessity and beauty of teamwork, traits made strong by the quality of leaders on the coaching staff. Thank you for carrying yourself with pride and honor on the road, during and after the season, when meeting with alumni, when talking to fans, when wooing contributors, when meeting everyday people. Never once did we cringe at what you said or how you acted, in private or in public. Did you ever whine about salaries or belittle players or make snide comments about other coaches? Not that we ever heard. Even after losses you offered nothing but words of support and pride and encouragement along with honest analysis. Thanks for the seasons. For the wins. For the class. The pleasure was ours.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to call to your attention to the extraordinary generosity of a few outstanding citizens in my home State. Dr. James Elliot, Dr. Rae Johnston, and Dr. Van Kirke Nelson treated more Medicaid patients than any other doctors in Montana. These doctors are willing to accept Medicaid patients--and lots of them--even though they know that Medicaid will reimburse only a fraction of what a private insurance company would pay. I want to publicly thank these doctors for their dedication to the medical profession and for helping people who depend on Medicaid. Dr. Elliot, Dr. Johnston, and Dr. Nelson are willing to make sacrifices for the benefit of others. We can learn from their benevolence and their valuable community service. On average, Medicaid pays only 70 percent of what a doctor charges. The doctor is forced to either swallow the cost, or choose not to see Medicaid patients. This is what makes physicians like Dr. Elliot, Dr. Johnston, and Dr. Nelson so special. For example, Dr. Elliot averages a staggering caseload of 40 to 60 patients a day, not counting the trips he makes to the emergency room. In 1995, he treated more Medicaid patients than any other doctor in Montana. His Medicaid caseload was so high that the State audited him a few years ago. The State not only found no evidence of improprieties, they also found that Dr. Elliot charges less than average for most services. And listen to Dr. Nelson, a personal friend of mine, describe his Medicaid patients to the Daily Inter Lake: These are real people who may be on tough luck-- He explains,-- people struggling to make ends meet on low-paying jobs, and single mothers with little income. These are the sons and daughters of a lot of my friends. So when the Senate debates legislation concerning Medicaid, I urge you to remember these outstanding citizens--these doctors who are willing to make sacrifices in order to assure that ``people on tough luck'' receive the health care they deserve. Dr. Elliot, who serves Medicaid recipients in the Havre area; Dr. Johnston, a Missoula area physician; and Dr. Nelson of Kalispell, whose daughter and daughter-in- law, both physicians, will probably continue the tradition of caring for underprivileged patients, deserve our admiration. The State of Montana is indebted to them, and to all the physicians in my State who serve Medicaid patients, regardless of their income or ability to pay. I am proud to commend them before the U.S. Senate today.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill. I am very pleased to see that today, Congress is putting aside its petty divisions and rivalries to work together on a bill that will help people. Today, when the Senate votes on the Health Insurance Reform Act, we show our support for a bipartisan effort that will address the health needs of millions of Americans and thousands of Montanans. Record of the Congress That is a truly important step forward for this Congress, and not only on health policy. At the beginning of 1995, a lot of Montanans had high hopes for this Congress. But those hopes have vanished in the mess of bumbling revolutionary experiments and government shutdowns which the leadership, particularly in the House has created. Rather than make people a little more prosperous and secure, the Congress seems to have deliberately done just the opposite. It has gone from closing Yellowstone and Glacier, to a proposal to let Medicare wither on the vine, to bills that would set up a Commission on closing National Parks and dump all the public lands on the States. The fact is, the 104th Congress has let our state down pretty badly. All too often, rather than do something good and positive for the people, it has done something irrational and destructive. A Second Chance But this health insurance reform is a second chance for the Congress. A sign that with some more maturity and experience, we can accomplish something good. This bill, taken as a whole, means some more security and stability for hard-working people. It means that if you lose your job, you won't also face the loss of your health insurance and the constant threat of lifelong debt in the case of an accident. It means that if you own a small business, you will have more ability to buy insurance for yourselves, your family and your employees. And it means you can upgrade your skills and change your job without being denied insurance due to health troubles. Belinda Byrd Look at the case of Belinda Byrd from Great Falls, Montana. She wrote to me last year to explain her case and that of her sister. Belinda suffers from hydrocephalus, or ``water on the brain,'' and she is about to undergo her fourth brain surgery. She is fortunate enough to receive coverage through the Government Champus program. But she wrote to me about the problem with pre- existing conditions because of the problems her sister is having getting health insurance. Belinda's sister has the same condition and can not get affordable health insurance because of her health problem. Montana and Health Insurance Mr. President, that is wrong. We should not tolerate it even in one case. And the sad fact is that it is not just one case. Thousands of Montanans, and millions of Americans, have concerns just about as grave as those of the Byrd sisters. As I have walked across the State in the past 2 years, a few subjects come up everywhere. In towns, on ranches, at small businesses, and in roadside coffee shops. The need to raise the minimum wage. The low cattle prices. And the fear of losing health insurance. For individuals, today's bill will make a big difference. It will let self-employed people deduct most of their health insurance costs. Big businesses can already do this. Folks who are self-employed and buy their own health insurance out of pocket should be able to deduct it too. That is basic fairness and decency. With this reform, we raise the deduction from today's 30 percent of insurance costs to 80 percent. It is not all the way to 100 percent, but it is a very big step forward. For farmers, ranchers, and small business owners, health insurance will be available and more affordable. We may have to do more down the line, but we are making a good start here. And for people like the Byrd sisters who have pre-existing health conditions, this means justice and security. No longer will having an illness, no matter how treatable it is, mean going without affordable health insurance. Medicare Fraud and Abuse Finally, we take some initial steps to fight health care fraud and abuse, particularly in Medicare and Medicaid. Today, anywhere from 5 percent to 10 percent of our Nation's entire trillion dollar health care bill goes to fraud. We need to step up our Federal efforts to fight this problem and I support efforts to do so. However, I would caution that the savings we get from fighting fraud and abuse in Medicare or Medicaid must go to guarantee solvency for these essential programs. It should not pay for new tax breaks as last year's Medicare cuts would have done, nor to pay for untested ideas like Medical Savings Accounts. Conclusion Mr. President, I am very happy to be here supporting this bill. It is a sign that Congress is getting the message. Moving away from partisanship and revolutionary experiments. And moving toward practical, effective steps that makes life better and more secure for Montanans and all Americans. I appreciate the work of the Labor Committee Chair, Senator Nancy Kassebaum and her counterpart, Senator Ted Kennedy. They have done this country a great service with their work on crafting this bill and moving it through the legislative process. I hope it will get the Senate's support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues listened very closely to the Senator from Iowa. The big debate here is how to save Medicare. Senators on one side of the aisle say we have to cut Medicare to save it. We had this big debate over whether we should cut $270 billion out of Medicare in the next 7 years. We spent a lot of time debating this issue. Unfortunately, the majority Members in this body ended up deciding that, yes, we should cut that much money out of Medicare over 7 years. I think every Member on this side of the aisle voted against that. Obviously, if we are going to save Medicare, we ought to first look at waste. It is clear there is waste in Medicare. We all know there is waste in Medicare. The General Accounting Office has documented the waste. The Senator from Iowa has listed all the Federal agencies that documented the millions of dollars lost to waste. Each of us, at home, talks to senior citizens, to providers and others who, on an anecdotal basis, tell us about waste in Medicare. We all know there is waste in Medicare. We also know it takes a long time to get something done around here, way too long. Too many times we debate issues, not months but years. It takes way too long to get something meaningful accomplished around here. I think tonight we are debating a very important bill. We are going to pass this bill, hopefully tonight, that will take solid steps to provide better insurance coverage for millions of Americans and thousands of Montanans. This is important and I strongly support this bill. At the same time, we have the chance to take the steps necessary to cut some of the waste in Medicare. Tonight, let us pass this amendment. It is not perfect. There will be a lot of opportunities to work with it, during the conference committee, but let us get started. Let us pass this. We all know we should. Let us just do it. It might not be perfect, but we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. Every Senator here tonight knows that this is a good amendment. We all know it is on the right track. I, for the life of me, do not understand why we just do not accept it tonight, work on it in the conference committee, maybe fix it up a little bit, get it enacted into law, and begin to attack a lot of the waste that exists in Medicare. I hope Senators listened to the examples the Senator gave tonight. There are many more. They are outrageous--trips to Italy, sports cars. You would be amazed what waste, fraud, and abuse occurs in our Medicare program. It is outrageous. So, let us begin to do something about it; just begin. We heard the figures. GAO says up to 10 percent. That is $18 billion. Let us be honest, we are not going to get a full $18 billion recovered. We know that. But, as the Senator from Iowa says, let us at least make a start. Let us not say we are not going to do it tonight because we have a no-amendments policy. We have already adopted one amendment, and another one, already tonight. Certainly this is in the category of amendments that we know should be passed. Otherwise, we run the risk that nothing will happen to fight fraud and abuse in the Medicare program this year. What is going to happen next year? We do not know, as we attempt to address the waste that exists in Medicare. I am not going to belabor the issue. It is getting late tonight. The Senator from Iowa has listed all the various provisions of his amendment. I just hope we can leave the partisan fighting and political rhetoric behind and do something which we know the people at home whom we represent want. Let us begin to take some very critical and concrete steps to address the waste and fraud that does exist in Medicare. That is where we should begin, rather than just cutting Medicare. First, let us cut the waste out of Medicare and the fraud out of Medicare before we cut Medicare services and programs that help millions of seniors nationwide. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this one is real simple. If you raise the minimum wage, you provide working people with a higher salary and a better standard of living. And so I come here in very strong support for the minority leader's effort to give working people a raise by increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the conference report to H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act--the farm bill. Mr. President, this is a bill which has been too long in coming to the floor of the Senate. The authority contained in this bill expired on New Year's Eve. This debate began on the 1995 farm bill. And with the tardiness of our action this bill will barely be in time for the 1996 crop. I will cast my vote in favor of adopting this report. I feel that it is essential that we get this legislation passed and to the President for his signature. It is time for our Nation's food producers to know what their program will be in the coming year. It is my hope that by next week, this bill will be signed into law. The Secretary of Agriculture has recommended that the President sign it. And the President has indicated he will do so. So I am pleased that today we will pass this bill. There are a number of important items which have been included. In my mind, the most important inclusion is retaining the 1949 Agricultural Act as underlying, permanent law. Mr. President, I am convinced that the 1949 act is the reason we have had this farm bill debate. And I expect that 7 years from now, it could very well be the reason we have a farm bill debate at the sunset of this bill. This legislation contains a number of valuable conservation programs. In our part of the country, the Conservation Reserve Program, the CRP, is a major factor in wildlife habitat conservation, water quality enhancement, and soil conservation. We are continuing this valuable program. And we are authorizing a new Environmental Quality Incentive Program which will help producers of both crops and livestock to make management changes for the improvement of the natural resource on which their future and their livelihood depends. This program will also provide for cooperative efforts with conservation organizations to enhance wildlife habitat. It's a win-win for States like Montana. I am pleased that this is comprehensive legislation--it extends beyond the commodity programs. In addition to conservation, we have addressed credit, research, trade, rural development, and promotion activities. In the arena of trade we have authorized the important Market Access Program, the Export Promotion Program, and the Foreign Market Development Program. These programs are vital to our export activities. Agriculture trade is a real bright spot in our total trade effort. Our agriculture exports last year were over $54 billion dollars. This year, we are expected to exceed that, reaching $60 billion. That will leave us a positive agriculture trade surplus of $30 billion. The commodity program featured in this bill directs our farmers to obtain an ever-increasing percentage of their income from the marketplace. In today's world, that means American producers will need to be very competitive and expand their exports. And while our export programs are not funded at levels I would prefer, they will go a long ways toward our export goals. The commodity programs will provide farmers the flexibility to plant crops which the market demands. No longer will the Government be making planting decisions. While that will be helpful to many farmers that flexibility will carry with it a need to develop and improve alternative crops to grow more successfully in arid climates like that in Montana. Only then will Montana farmers have true planting flexibility. The work at Agricultural Research Stations like the one in Sidney, MT will be an important part of this equation. In this year, with good prices and sizeable payments it should be a pretty good year for our Montana producers. I hope that the prices we are now experiencing can be maintained. If so, this program should work well for the entire 7 years it is authorized. However, we need to take advantage of the strong price cycle we are in to reform the crop insurance program so it is a more functional system of risk management. If we fail to accomplish this task we could be in for tough times in the late years of the bill. There are other problems I see in this bill. I am disappointed that this will end the Emergency Livestock Feed Program. And I would like to see the loan rate caps removed. I would also prefer that the research title was authorized for the entire 7 years. This forces a research title to be authorized next year or to risk authorization by appropriation in our important research program. Some might find these to be small concerns, however, to my State they are important. Before I close Mr. President, I want the record to reflect my appreciation for the work of our Senate conferees on this issue. They had a difficult task and I would like to thank them because this bill is far preferable to the bill brought to conference by our colleagues across the Hill. So I would thank the conferees, especially the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in getting this accomplished. And with that Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this morning we were sad to learn of the passing of one of our most distinguished former colleagues, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine. Ed Muskie served our Nation in many ways. He was a soldier. A Governor. The first chairman of the Budget Committee. The Secretary of State. The Democratic Party's candidate for Vice President. He also was responsible, in large part, for one of the most positive and profound legislative achievements of postwar America: the passage of the environmental laws of the 1970's, to clean up our Nation's air, water, and waste. Remember what things were like 25 years ago. We had experienced decades of industrial growth without environmental protection. Lead in the air caused brain damage in children. Toxic waste dumps all across the country caused cancer. The Cuyahoga River even caught fire. Something had to be done. And, as chairman of the Environmental Protection Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Ed Muskie saw that it was. He worked tirelessly to create bipartisan support for landmark environmental laws. The Clean Water Act, requiring rivers and streams to be fishable and swimmable; the Clean Air Act, cutting emissions from cars and factories; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Endangered Species Act. These laws are not perfect. But, on the whole, they have been remarkably successful. Our air is cleaner. Lead emissions fell nearly 90 percent. To put it another way, we took nearly five ounces of lead out of the sky for every American man, woman, and child. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates are way down, and half as many Americans live in cities with unhealthy air as in 1970. Our water is cleaner. You can swim without getting sick and eat the fish you catch in twice as many rivers and streams. Even the Cuyahoga River has revived, to become a center for tourism in downtown Cleveland. The bald eagle is back from the brink of extinction. Overall, because of the work of Ed Muskie and his colleagues, our children are growing up in a more healthy and beautiful America. Mr. President, I am reminded of the Latin epitaph on the tomb of Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of St. Paul's Cathedral. It's inside the cathedral, and it says, ``If you would see his memorial, look around.'' So it is with Ed Muskie. If you wish to see his memorial, look around you: at the air in our cities; at the Potomac River, or the Cuyahoga; at a cleaner environment from Maine to Montana; at a nation that is more healthy and more beautiful because of his work. He was a great environmental statesman, and his passing diminishes us.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Michael Shea, age 8, of Dillon MT, was tragically killed in an accident on June 30, 1995. Although Michael's life was taken, he helped save the lives of four other people. All are in good health, leading normal lives today because Michael was an organ donor. On the day of his death his heart was flown from Montana to Seattle to be transplanted in a 4-year-old girl, Paige Roberts. Paige, who was born with a complex heart defect, had been waiting for a donor for 3 months. This 4-year-old little girl is alive today thanks to Michael. Michael also donated his liver to a Baltimore woman. One of his kidneys was given to a girl in Seattle and the other to a woman in southwest Washington. All are now in good health. The tragedy of Michael's death has given other people the hope of life. We so easily forget how fragile life is. We take for granted the advancement of medicine in this country. Michael's heart was used for the second pediatric heart transplant in Children's history. It is so easy to forget that medicine is about saving people's lives. We get caught up in debates about health care and forget the real importance of it--it is about saving people's lives. I would also like to mention Michael's mother, Eileen, for her strength. The void left by the absence of Michael can not be easily filled for Eileen or any of the Shea family. It is certainly not easy to lose a child that should--in theory--outlive you. Eileen is a model mother. She took the time to explain death to Michael when his grandfather died, to explain the significance of being a donor for herself and let him come to his own decision on the subject. And Michael told her he wanted to be an organ donor. I admire her courage when faced with the death of a son, she understood the importance of giving life to others. While the sound of Michael's footsteps racing up and down the stairs may have been silenced in Eileen's house, the echo of his generosity reminds us all of the fragility of life and the importance of medicine. Although modern medicine could not save Michael, it did help save four other people's lives. We can all learn from Michael's generosity and remember the importance of being a donor. This 8-year-old boy from Dillon, MT, is a heroic example for children and adults alike. We should all take the time to fill out a donor card. It is as easy as writing to Living Bank, P.O. Box 6725, Houston, TX 77265.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Like most Americans, I believe we would all be better off with fewer lawsuits. But, as we vote on this legislation, we must also ask ourselves if we are being fair to average Americans who are injured by dangerous products. As I will discuss in more detail in just a moment, I believe my home State of Montana has done a fine job of discouraging unnecessary litigation and excessive damage awards. We have found a balance--a fair balance--that works for Montana and I believe other states should be allowed to the same.

Mr. BAUCUS. Now, I believe that many companies have legitimate grievances with some of the State tort laws. But they should take the complaints to the States and do the job there. It is simply unnecessary--and really, it is wrong--to bring in Federal law enforcement and Federal courts to nationalize the tort laws. And its potential impacts on Montana workers compensation law show how dangerous--and costly for small businesses--this can become. As Chief Justice Turnage said, it is unnecessary and unwise for Congress to try and take over these State responsibilities. Montana has managed its liability laws for over 100 years. We have exercised our rights in a responsible and balanced way. And we should be able to do so for the next hundred years. And Congress, for its part, should get back to its real business and what the people expect--working together to balance the budget, raise the minimum wage, and help our families provide themselves and their children with a secure future. Exhibit 1 The University of Montana School of Law, Missoula, MT. Re H.R. 956 counterproductive for Montana employers. Sen. Max Baucus, Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC. Dear Sen. Baucus: As a Montana law professor who teaches workers-compensation courses, I urge you to consider, before voting on H.R. 956, the ``Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996,'' how surely and severely Section 111 of that bill would impact Montana employers and their workers compensation insurers. Section 111(a)(3) of H.R. 956 clearly rewards manufacturers and sellers of defective workplace equipment who blame employers for injuries to their employees. Consequently, even employers who are otherwise immune from liability under Montana's workers compensation scheme will frequently be dragged into costly lawsuits between injured workers and the manufacturers or sellers of defective machinery. H.R. 956 will also increase workers compensation premiums in Montana by forcing Montana employers and their workers compensation insurers to pay for workplace injuries which are currently the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers of defective products. Whatever its other merits, H.R. 956 undeniably shifts additional costs of workplace injuries caused by defective products onto Montana employers. Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, H.R. 956 seriously jeopardizes the core immunities historically enjoyed by Montana employers. H.R. 956 forcibly injects the issue of employer fault into a previously no-fault state workers compensation scheme. The bill also expressly preempts all inconsistent state statutes--including those guaranteeing exclusive-remedy protection to employers. If (as seems likely) the Montana Supreme Court, in any of several pending appeals, finds limits to such a faultbased workers compensation system under Montana's Constitution, then H.R. 956 will automatically preempt the exclusive-remedy statutes now taken for granted by Montana employers. Please consider carefully the unfavorable, perhaps unintentional, impacts of H.R. 956 on Montana employers. Please contact me if I can provide additional information or assistance. Thank you. Respectfully, Prof. David Patterson.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words in support of the basic bill we are debating, the Domenici bill. I appreciate the parliamentary position we are in; that is, the Bumpers amendment on fees pending with the Jeffords second-degree amendment pending. I want to direct my comments not to those specific amendments--the first- and second-degree amendments--but rather to the substance of the bill. I want to begin by reminding my colleagues what this debate is really all about, and also what it is not about. I want to begin by pointing out that, frankly, this bill fundamentally is about providing ranchers with grazing rules that are fair, grazing rules that are predictable, and grazing rules that are certain. The Domenici bill is also about assuring that where grazing does occur on Federal lands, it does not occur at the sacrifice of wildlife, it does not occur at the sacrifice of quality or public access. Namely, we honor the principle of multiple use. The goal, simply put, is to see that ranchers stay in business while assuring outstanding hunting and fishing. It is that simple. I might say, in my State of Montana this balance exists, and it exists today, and I want to see that balance continue. Let me add a word about what this debate is not about. This debate is not about protecting those few ranchers who abuse the land. As far as I am concerned, the holder of any grazing permit has the right to graze livestock on his public land. That is the right of that permittee. But that right comes with a responsibility, a responsibility to be a good steward of the land, good steward of water and wildlife and allotment. If that responsibility is not met, if the land is abused, then that permit should be ended, it should be terminated. Basically, that is what should be done, that is what should happen. In my State of Montana, there is a famous painting painted by the great cowboy artist Charlie Russell, who had the unique gift for capturing the life of the Old West on canvas. There is one Russell painting that comes to mind called ``Waiting for a Chinook,'' also known as ``The Last of 5,000.'' It was painted by Charlie Russell as he was sending a card and letter back to the owner of the ranch. The owner happened to be in New York City. This is a ranch he was associated with in Montana. It is a painting of a lone cow. It is a lone cow standing in the middle of a blizzard. Coyotes are circling and waiting for that cow to fall. It was a year when most of the herds in Montana were decimated. This pretty much sums up the challenges that we have faced as ranchers in Montana. Ranchers have to face the severity of Montana winters. They have to deal with predators, not only coyotes, but wolves. They have to deal with very wide swings in the cattle market cycles. While the Russell painting does not reflect it, today's ranchers have to deal with the challenge and frustration of Canadians pumping beef into the U.S. market and meatpackers manipulating market prices. So, taken as a whole, it all makes for a mighty uncertain livelihood. That is what S. 1459 is about. It is about giving ranchers a Federal grazing policy that is stable and fair, that will encourage ranchers to remain good stewards of both their private lands and the public lands where they graze. The bill provides the tools to set Federal policy in that direction. It gives ranchers the stability of 12-year permits. It is very important. It recognizes the investments that ranchers make in range improvements, also important, and protects individual water rights, equally important in the West. As I was listening to the Senator from Vermont talk about these big ranches of the West, there is one point the Senator from Vermont seems to forget--that it does not rain in the West. In Vermont, it rains a lot. Here you get about 40, 50 inches of rain. In my part of the country, west of the 100th meridian, the average rainfall is about 14, 15, 16 inches a year. That is all year around, including snow and rain. That is why there are big ranches in the West. You have to have a lot more space to graze your livestock because there is not a lot of rain for the grass to grow. The bill also, I might say, Mr. President, protects not only water rights, but it makes the Forest Service and BLM grazing rules much more uniform, also important, because ranches have one set of regulations on BLM land and a different set on Forest Service lands. It helps to assure that Federal grazing policy is basically the same whether it is BLM or Forest Service land. The predictability of this bill benefits not only ranchers, but all users of our public lands; that is, hunters, rock hounds, birdwatchers, hikers, you name it. There is a popular bumper sticker I frequently see on cars passing by as I am walking across my State of Montana. Let me tell you what that bumper sticker says. It says, ``Cattle, Not Condos.'' That is what would happen if our family ranches simply became too unprofitable to stay in business. The land would be subdivided. Wildlife habitat would be fragmented. Access to many of our favorite fishing holes would be cut off, as stream and riverfront lots are sold for cabin sites. We would lose the great sense of openness, wide open spaces that help make Montana the ``Big Sky State.'' John Schultz of the Gran Prairie Ranch, near Grass Range, in Fergus County, summed it up when he wrote me, ``The recreationists and hunters use this land extensively * * *,'' that is the land that this rancher owns, private land as well as public land, ``* * * however, there is only one man who maintains the water and manages the grass so the plant population is diverse and in good condition. Not only do the livestock benefit, but the wildlife do as well.'' The simple fact is that a strong, viable ranching industry is of benefit to all Montanans. It benefits the small communities that rely on the ranchers' business, and it benefits sportsmen who enjoy the outstanding hunting opportunities created by large tracks of undeveloped wildlife habitat. It helps provide the tax base for many of our rural communities, our schools, and our hospitals. That is what this bill is about. It is about establishing a Federal policy that helps us be good stewards of the land and remain economically viable. It is a policy that makes the Federal Government a partner rather than a pest. Let me go back to what this bill is not about. It is not about excluding the public from having a full say in how we manage our public lands. It is not about compromising on environmental protection. Critics of this bill maintain that the bill bars meaningful public participation when it comes to range improvement. That is not accurate. Under the bill, a simple postcard guarantees an interested citizen a seat at the table for virtually every decision affecting range management on our public lands. They will be given notice of all proposed permit actions and provided with an opportunity to comment and informally consult with BLM or Forest Service land managers before a decision is made. Following that decision, they have the right to lodge an administrative appeal. If they are still unhappy, they can take their grievance to Federal court. So under this bill the door is open to the public at virtually every stage of the process. This legislation also recognizes the progress that the current resource advisory councils have made in developing standards and guidelines for responsible grazing on our Federal lands. The work of these councils will continue to serve as the basis for setting grazing standards. Most importantly, these standards will be developed by Montanans, not Washington bureaucrats. The legislation also maintains high environmental standards for ranchers. Just listen to this. Today, over 70 percent of lands managed by the BLM in Montana are rated good to excellent --70 percent. That is, 70 percent of the BLM lands in the State of Montana are rated good to excellent. Less than 5 percent of the BLM land is in poor condition; that is, not great, could be a lot better, but it is not bad. So, 70 percent good to excellent; 5 percent in poor condition. The legislation provides the tools, however, to assure that the conditions in the poor allotments are improved. On-the-ground decisions reflect sound science. The bill requires a permit-level review of monitoring data every 6 years to ensure that good stewardship is not only the goal, but is actually being practiced. In closing, I want to go back to what this bill is about. It is about putting into effect fair, balanced grazing rules that will allow our ranchers to make a living. It is also about recognizing that sportsmen and recreationists use the public lands. It is their right, too. That Federal policy must be one of mutual respect and accommodation for all legitimate uses of the resources. We have to work together, come together. That is what this bill does. It helps reduce the division, the acrimony, the dissension of all the groups that have been trying to deal with this policy. It helps bring people together. That is what this does. It goes a long way to strike a balance, which I think is very helpful to better and more sound Federal land policy. I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am proud to bring to the attention of the Senate, the courage and patriotism of a brave young Montanan. Shawn Austin, a Billings-born 21-year-old, was shot in the left shoulder while patrolling his base in Northern Bosnia. Shawn spotted an intruder trying to break in through his camp's perimeter. When Shawn challenged him, the intruder opened fire. Shawn was hit, but he was able to return fire and the intruder fled. Fortunately, the bullet did not hit any bones and caused little damage. God willing, Shawn will be back on his feet very soon. He is the second soldier in the American peace-keeping force in Bosnia to be injured. And I think this occasion gives us a chance to pause and think deeply on our Nation's mission in this troubled part of the world. I spoke with Shawn's parents, Terry and Doreen, last week. They are proud of and concerned about their son. I share their concerns. And I salute Shawn Austin for his bravery in the line of duty. He has paid a high price for our country. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This bill is regulatory reform in the very best sense. It will make a practical difference in the daily lives of men and women who operate small businesses and create jobs in Montana and all across the country. It will do so without undermining the environmental and health and safety laws that protect our families and our communities. Mr. President, we need to cut back the Federal bureaucracy. I do not think there is anybody who disagrees with that. There is too much redtape. People know that. They tell Congress that. They are correct. Already the administration has eliminated some 16,000 pages of Federal rules and redtape. Think of that. The administration has already eliminated 16,000 pages. It is a good start but we can do more. Moreover, some Federal regulations just do not make sense like the rule that required loggers in northwest Montana to buy steel toed boots even though they work on slippery frozen slopes where those kinds of boots can actually create a hazard, or the rule that would have banned the use of common bear sprays that hikers need to protect themselves. Rules like these drive Montanans crazy, with good reason. We got those rules withdrawn. But we need a more comprehensive solution, so we do not have to react to every stupid rule that comes along. And, in large measure, this bill provides it. Three aspects of the bill are particularly important. The first is making is simpler for business to comply with the law. We need strong health and safety laws. And we need them enforced. But, when it comes to small businesses, regulators need to start with an attitude of cooperation rather than confrontation. Montana small businesses want to comply with the law. After all, they live in the community. They want it to be clean and safe. But, in too many cases, the laws and regulations are written in such gobbledy-gook that average folks cannot figure out what they are supposed to do. This bill helps. For example, it requires agencies to issue guidebooks, written in plain English, explaining what steps a small business must take to comply with new rules. And it requires agencies to give decent answers to small businesses that have specific questions about how a new rule applies to them. Now, these requirements may be bad news for lawyers, but they are good news for small businesses. The second is strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Reg flex, as it is called, is designed to make sure that as they write new rules, the bureaucrats pay specific attention to how small businesses and towns will be affected. Unfortunately, this requirement has been ignored to often. So the bill allows a small business to go to court to require an agency to comply with the law. During last year's debate on regulatory reform, I was concerned about creating dozens of new opportunities for lawsuits, especially from large corporations, that would clog the courts and bring things to a halt. But I think the provision in this bill makes good sense. It will not have that same defect. It is focused on small business. And it just assures that agencies have taken a reasonable look at the impact their rules will have on small businesses. The third is the Nickles-Reid amendment. This provision requires agencies to submit major new rules to Congress for review before they become effective. This review will inject an important check into the system. We in Congress can be a backstop for common sense. We can help sort out the good rules from the bad. If an agency goes haywire, like OSHA did with its logging rule, Congress can reject the rule. But if an agency is doing a good job, protecting public health and safety, things will stay right on track. All told, Mr. President, this is a solid bill. It will cut redtape and make the bureaucracy more responsive to the concerns of small businesses. Moreover, it is a bipartisan bill. It is a model of how we should be legislating around here. I compliment the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, and the ranking member, Senator Bumpers, for their hard work drafting this bill, developing a consensus, and bringing the bill to the floor. I am proud to cosponsor it and hope it will pass with overwhelming support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and state what this amendment is all about and what it is not all about. This amendment is about harvesting dead and dying timber in an environmentally responsible manner. That is all this amendment is about. It is not about hurting the timber industry, taking away jobs, or stopping timber harvesting in our national forests. It is not about that at all. Once a person thinks clearly and thoroughly through the actual words of the amendment, particularly as modified by the Senator from Washington, one will see that this is about trying to find an expedited way to salvage and harvest timber in an environmentally responsible way. It is not about taking away jobs, once one reads the amendment, particularly as modified by the Senator from Washington. Mr. President, about once a month I spend a workday in my State as staff. I show up at 8 o'clock in the morning with a sack lunch. I work straight on. Sometimes I bag groceries. I deliver the mail other days. I serve meals to senior citizens. I was once a UPS worker delivering packages. I have done lots of jobs. I have also worked on the green chains in several mills of my State, in the plywood plants, the stud mills at various and different locations working with the mill workers--talking to the mill workers, men and women who work on green chains and work in the mills. And I have a pretty good sense of where people are and what they want. It is trite, but it is true: They want jobs. But they also want hunting and fishing. They want jobs in a very responsible and environmental way. During the summer of 1994, I spent one of my workdays with the fire crew on the Little Wolf fire on the Flathead National Forest near Kalispell, MT. I spent the day fighting the fire. It turned out that my chief was a person from the Fort Belknap Reservation, had a group going all around the country. This crew knew how to fight fire. I had a devil of a time keeping up with them. They are tough. They are good. The Little Wolf fire was just one of hundreds of fires that raged during that long, hot summer in Montana. There were lots of fires in the West, particularly in my State, and when fall of the year finally came around and the last of the fires was finally put out, there were thousands of acres of our national forests that were burned. It is amazing how many acres were burned. Like most Montanans, it is clear that a lot of that timber had to be salvaged. I supported and I encouraged efforts to harvest that burned timber, get it to the mills, and provide jobs. Following the fires of 1994, I wrote a letter to Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas, and I asked him to make salvage logging a priority. I asked him to use winter logging--you can log in the winter under certain circumstances--to harvest these burned logs, because I believe, as I stated in my letter to him, when done in an environmentally responsible manner, it is not only good business, but it is also good, long-term, prudent forest management to salvage that timber. After all of that, Congress did act and enacted this so-called salvage rider. And I think that is where Congress went wrong--went too far. Rather than looking for responsible ways to promote the harvest of salvaged timber, what did Congress do? Essentially Congress passed a so-called salvage rider, passed a provision that exempted the Forest Service from complying with our environmental laws, from complying with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and all of the Federal environmental and natural resources laws. The rider provision also prohibited the public from contesting timber sales that the public thought would impair the hunting or fishing on particular forests. It just cut the public out. So, first, it went too far because it said that the environmental statutes do not have to be observed. And, second, it cut the public out of the process. Some wise person once said that for every complicated problem-- believe me, this is a little complicated--there is a simple solution, and it is usually wrong. Most complicated problems do not lend themselves to simple solutions. Most complicated problems lend themselves to nonsimple solutions; that is, working hard, rolling up our sleeves, dotting the i's, crossing the t's, and trying to work out a pretty reasoned and balanced solution. That is what the Murray amendment does. It is an attempt to--and it is, if one reads the language, a provision that very much provides a framework to accomplish that result. Let me give you two examples of how the current salvage rider--that is, the so-called current salvage rider law that we now have facing us--has aroused opposition in my State. The first example is the Hyalite drainage in the Gallatin National Forest. Where is that? The Hyalite is located about 7 miles outside of Bozeman. It is a very popular recreation, hunting area. Bozeman is in Gallatin County, one of the more prosperous parts of our State. It is sought after. A lot of people moving into Montana like to go to Gallatin. It is very near the Hyalite. Locals hike and ride bikes in 31 miles of trails. A herd of about 600 elk--and occasionally grizzly bears--make their homes in the Hyalite. And the city of Bozeman gets about 15 percent of its water from the Hyalite Creek. The Forest Service has proposed a timber sale in the Hyalite under the salvage logging rider. The Forest Service says that they can do it; they can harvest timber without hurting recreation, without hurting wildlife, or Bozeman's drinking water. I must say a lot of people in Bozeman are not too sure about that. If the Forest Service can cut timber and amply protect elk habitat and water quality at the same time, most people think the Forest Service should welcome accountability to the public. They should want explained to the public how they are doing this. Doing this under a law that evades all environmental protection raises obvious and understandable concerns in Bozeman. It is kind of like buying a used car. You buy a used car. You want to believe the salesman, but you also want to have your mechanic take a look under the hood just to be safe. And the Hyalite is very important to Bozeman. The people there want the safety that the Clean Water Act and the National Forest Management Act provides. I think that is reasonable. The second example is the Middle Fork salvage sale in the Flathead National Forest. This proposed sale is a narrow strip of land just between Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. The trees the Forest Service wants to cut in the Middle Fork are not burned. Rather, they are trees that the Forest Service has determined are infected by root disease. Like most Montanans, I have a very deep reverence for Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall. We all do in Montana. Like the Grand Canyon is to Arizona or Yosemite is to California, Glacier and ``the Bob'' are part of our Montana identity. So I do not think it is asking too much in any timber sale in this area to be held to a very high conservation standard. Ironically, I do not believe the Forest Service and the timber industry need to be excused from obeying the law. I have seen the work they do. It is good. And except for the rare exception, these men and women are good stewards of the land, and they harvest timber without hurting water quality or elk habitat. Where there are opportunities to harvest timber that has been ravaged by fire or disease-infected timber, or ravaged by windstorms, the Forest Service, I think, should move quickly. That is the whole point of the Murray amendment. The Forest Service does not, however, need to suspend environmental laws to do so. In fact, since this salvage rider has gone into effect, the Forest Service has committed to carrying out their salvage timber program in full compliance of all environmental laws. Rather, the Forest Service needs the flexibility to protect the planning process and avoid many of the procedural requirements that simply slow their response time down. That is why I support the Murray amendment. It replaces the existing salvage law with a process which recognizes that salvage timber is different from green timber. It calls on the Forest Service to identify salvage logging opportunities, prepare the necessary analysis, and offer the timber up for sale in a very short timeframe--about 6 months. This is a quick turnaround when you consider that normally it takes the Forest Service much longer to prepare a green timber sale. The Murray amendment does this while honoring our environmental laws and the public's right to be involved in making the decision. Mr. President, I was struck by an article that ran in last Sunday's Great Falls Tribune entitled ``Finding Common Ground.'' This article does something that we rarely see these days; it told the good news. It let the public know about the impressive work that groups all over our State--like the Swan Citizens Ad Hoc Committee, the Smith River Coordinated Resources Management Commission, and Blackfoot Challenge-- are doing to promote jobs and economic development while protecting our quality of life. I believe the Murray amendment is such an amendment. It will provide the framework for future consensus building on how we can manage our national forests. I compliment the Senator for making the change which will help us moved toward our common ground. Let me say, in closing, let us not lose sight of what this amendment is. It is about providing jobs and protecting the environment. I urge Senators to support her commonsense effort to find the median in between the common ground to get the job done.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Mikulski. We have to balance the budget, and everyone has to sacrifice a bit. The new Congress does deserve some credit for trying. But it has gone about the job in the wrong way. It wants to give new tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations. And to do that, Congress has threatened a back-door tax increase on rural America through higher water rates, and threatened the creation of good jobs by turning its back on critical research and development in environmental technologies. This amendment will help set things right. stopping the back-door water tax First, we will help small towns and rural communities meet their obligations without slapping folks with higher water bills. How do we do that? Well, we provide money for the State revolving loan funds. These help communities and water systems treat their sewage and provide safe drinking water. Without this fund, these communities still have to keep the water safe. But they can only do it by raising water rates, sometimes through the roof. With this amendment, small towns can keep their drinking water safe while keeping water rates low. Without this amendment, many just can not do it. So if Congress does not pass the Lautenberg amendment, the 25 million Americans who get their water from a small drinking water system could see a back-door tax increase through higher water bills. That includes virtually everyone in rural America. protecting high-wage jobs Second, by adopting this amendment we will protect high-wage jobs that make our country cleaner, healthier, and more competitive. We do it by restoring money for the Environmental Technology Initiatives [ETI] at the Environmental Protection Agency. Through this program, companies and local governments can participate in research and development of new technologies. In Montana, small businesses like Yellowstone Environmental Sciences in Bozeman and public-private partnerships like the Western Environmental Technology Office in Butte are some of the most innovative players in addressing our Superfund problems. They are also some of the most promising sources of high-wage jobs for the future. Elsewhere in America, the ETI Program is verifying the performance of new technologies that are suitable to the special cost and performance needs of small drinking water systems. It is helping to reduce dangerous toxic emissions released by the metal finishing processes used by over 3,000 metal finishing facilities nationwide. It is speeding up approvals of new analytical methods which can rapidly determine the nature of contamination at toxic waste sites, and make cleanups faster. The ETI is a great example of how Government and the private sector can cooperatively advance technology while protecting the environment. conclusion So we need to balance the budget, but we need to do it the right way. This amendment keeps us on the path to a balanced budget while setting the priorities straight. It will protect good jobs and prevent Congress from imposing a large back-door tax on the average family's water rates. It will help make sure our country is the clean, healthy Nation our children deserve. I urge support for the Lautenberg-Mikulski amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to lift the moratorium on the listing of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Senator Reid, who is the ranking member of our Endangered Species Subcommittee, has described why the moratorium is bad policy. I agree with him. And I would like to emphasize one particular point. The moratorium makes a bad situation worse. In Montana, the Endangered Species Act is not an abstraction. If affects people's daily lives. Loggers are concerned about restrictions that apply in grizzly country. Ranchers are concerned about wolves. At the same time, average folks all across Montana believe, deep down, that Montana's wildlands, and wildlife, are an irreplaceable part of what makes Montana the Last Best Place. So people have strong feelings, and different perspectives. But one thing is clear to everyone. The Endangered Species Act is not working as well as it should. It is driving people apart rather than bringing them together. It is a situation that must be remedied. So what does the moratorium do to improve the situation? Nothing. In fact, it makes things worse. A moratorium on listings is a makeshift, stopgap measure. Once it expires, listing will resume, and farmers, ranchers and homeowners will face the same restrictions under the act that they face today. In the meantime, species that would otherwise be afforded protection under the act continue to decline. For those species that survive, recovery may be much more difficult and expensive, imposing additional and unnecessary burdens on private landowners. Is there a better approach? Yes, I believe there is. It may not be as simple as moratorium. It may not make as good a slogan. But, in the long run, it is the only way to really improve the Endangered Species Act. What is it? Sitting down, listening to one another, and trying to resolve our differences in good faith. Let me give you an example. During the last Congress, I introduced a bill to reform the Endangered Species Act. To improve the listing process. To involve the States more. To encourage more cooperation with landowners. It was a good bill and it had the endorsement of the western Governors of our country, the endorsement of the environmental community, and we had several hearings on it here in Washington. We also had a hearing on the bill in Ronan, MT. Now, as some of you may know, Ronan is in western Montana, south of Flathead Lake, in the heart of grizzly country. We had the hearing in July, on a Saturday, at the local high school. It was packed. Hundreds of people attended. And more than 70 testified. Some represented groups like the Stockgrowers, the Mining Association, and the Sierra Club. Others were there because of their deep personal interest in this legislation. The hearing started out a little tense. But by the time it ended 7 hours later, there was a sense that we agreed more than we disagreed. That we could get beyond politics and find ways to work together. That we could have a strong Endangered Species Act and a strong economy. When it comes to the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, we need the same kind of an approach. In fact, some of the people involved in that hearing have established the Montana Endangered Species Act Reauthorization Committee. It includes Democrats and Republicans, loggers and environmentalists. They, too, have come together--not in support of a moratorium, but in support of commonsense reforms that will protect wildlife while improving the practical operation of the Endangered Species Act. I suggest that we take the same approach here, that we get beyond the slogans and the politics, that we lift the moratorium, and that we concentrate on what the people back home sent us here to do--that is, to work together to resolve differences and solve problems. I know the Senator from Idaho is going to engage in that effort on the subcommittee. Mr. President, on the Safe Drinking Water Act, he worked diligently to get groups together. There was not a lot of politicking and sloganeering going on, or headline grabbing. He did a great job in helping to get groups together in a commonsense way. It is the same approach we must take in the Endangered Species Act, not engage in sloganeering, which tends to cause more problems than solve problems. I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the very gracious Senator from Texas--5 or 6 minutes would be appropriate.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the action just taken on the second reading of H.R. 497 be vitiated.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is all too easy for people in Washington to lose sight of what really matters. What really matters is how decisions made here in Washington actually affect average American families. The Medicare Program is a good example. As the future of Medicare is debated, we are going to hear a lot of fancy words, a lot of concepts thrown around by both sides. But let us not forget that premiums, deductibles, copayments, and managed care mean nothing in and of themselves. Let us not lose sight of the bottom line. The bottom line is how the Medicare Program helps people, average, hard-working, descent people in my home State of Montana and across the Nation. Are the proposed changes in Medicare going to actually help seniors live in dignity and security? Will they actually help average working families begin to plan for a secure retirement? Will they actually give these same families the peace of mind of knowing that they will not be forced to shoulder the costs of their parents' medical expenses? Not long ago I was going through my mail from home and I came across a letter that helped drive these points home. It came from Mrs. Ethel Ostheller in Libby, MT. Libby, you might know, is a small town in the northwest corner of our State. Mrs. Ostheller is 85 years old. She is widowed and lives off Social Security. She has had some serious health problems. She had a heart attack. She still owes a little over $700 to the hospital, and she now pays about $150 each month for prescription drugs, none of which is covered by Medicare. She writes to me about these problems. Let me just read to you the closure of her letter which reflects her concern, but yet the optimism which is so typical of people across our country. So with all of this, I'm worried [she writes]. I wonder what more can happen. But I'm not as bad off as lots of others. I'm trusting in God, living one day at a time, and I keep busy. I think that typifies and represents the decency and the goodness and the basic common goodness of Americans. How will any changes in Medicare affect people like Ethel Ostheller? That is what this debate is about. For her and thousands of other Montanans, Medicare is a health issue but also a pocketbook issue. It helps them plan for a secure retirement and to make ends meet. That is why we must work to assure that Medicare remains solvent and that the Medicare trust fund is not raided, not raided in order to pay for other programs or to pay for tax breaks for the very wealthy, as was the case in Speaker Gingrich's budget last year. That is also why we must work to assure that the Medicare Program is run as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, that is not the case for either Medicare or Medicaid today. The General Accounting Office estimates that about 10 percent of Medicare's total costs result from waste, from fraud, from abuse. That is about $18 billion this year; 10 percent wasted or lost through fraud or abuse. We all know that $18 billion is a lot of money, but let me put this in perspective: $18 billion is enough money to run the government of the entire State of Montana for 6 years. More to the point, $18 billion is enough money to reduce the health care costs of every Medicare recipient by $500 each year. That is $500 each year Medicare patients now pay because of Government waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. That drives up--that fraud and abuse--Medicare costs. It is robbing our seniors, robbing people like Ethel Ostheller, of hundreds of dollars each year. How does this happen? Typically, it involves fraudulent billing practices by a Medicare or Medicaid provider; that is, a doctor or a hospital, one of the various providers. It occurs in every State in the Nation and in every segment of our health care industry. There have been abuses in ambulance services, clinical laboratories, medical equipment suppliers, home health care, nursing homes, physician and psychiatric services, and rehabilitation. Let me cite some examples. These were uncovered by the General Accounting Office and also by the Senate Special Committee on Aging. A medical equipment company in California billed Medicaid half a million dollars for merchandise they said they delivered to needy patients. What happened? It was a ruse. The patients did not need the equipment; the company never made delivery of the equipment, but they sent the taxpayers the bill anyway. Another example: Medicare paid $7.4 million to a company for surgical bandages that were never used. And still another case in Great Falls, MT--unfortunately, my home State: An ophthalmologist overbilled Medicare by $200,000. He was prosecuted and convicted by our U.S. attorney in Billings. While these incidents may be extreme, they are not isolated. Frankly, I am disappointed with the Federal agencies that are supposed to have jurisdiction over all this. They have let this go unchecked for too long and have only recently begun to take action. I must say they are not alone. A tough approach to fraud and abuse is almost completely lacking in the Gingrich plan that Congress is considering. The $270 billion in cuts, which was so harsh on beneficiaries and hospitals, contained a pathetically low amount for fighting fraud and abuse. We must have zero tolerance for those who willfully cheat the Medicare system--zero. Ultimately, they are stealing money from ordinary Americans, average American families. They are stealing money away from seniors, people like Ethel Ostheller, who depend upon Medicare to help make ends meet. They are also stealing money from millions of Americans who are working today and deserve to know that Medicare will be there when it is time for all of them to retire. In the weeks ahead, I intend to come forward with proposals to get tough on Medicare fraud. I look forward to working with a number of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to find commonsense solutions to this very serious problem. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first want to make a general observation with respect to the previous Senator's statement on the salvage sales. I think we all agree that we are striving for balance here; namely, we want to assure that dead, diseased, dying timber, that is, salvaged timber, is harvested appropriately. That means there is a role to speed up salvage sales, but we also want to make sure we do not abuse our environmental statutes, abuse environmental protections. I know the Senator, as all Senators are, is hoping to try to find the correct balance between those two extremes. One extreme is to go in and cut timber, dead, diseased, dying timber, and also green timber, as we do not want to abuse the salvage sale provision, but at the same time we want to make sure that our environmental statutes are adequately protected, because all Americans want balance and they want to make sure our forests are protected and want to make sure that they are also properly managed.