Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very generally, the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota is an amendment to improve upon the bill before us. Improvement is necessary in order to provide some kind of certainty so farmers know in the future--when prices are not as high as they are now--that there is some stability, some certainty. Improvement is necessary so farmers can continue to farm, continue to pay the bills and make payments on the equipment and fertilizer. In short, so they can stay in business. We know that today prices of wheat are higher than they have been in many years. It is the same for most other commodities. So this amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota accomplishes several objectives, all of which I strongly support. One of them, the main one, the main philosophy and rationale, is more stability, particularly in those years--we know it is going to come--when prices are going to be low. One provision which is also important is improving the marketing loan mechanism, to increase the loan rate from 85 percent of the 5-year average to a level of 90 percent. That is very important, particularly in years of low prices. The amendment also eliminates the mechanisms by which the Secretary can reduce the loan rate. The so-called Findley amendment and the stocks-to-use adjustment are both eliminated. The amendment also removes the arbitrary caps on loan rates which are contained in the bill. These caps serve to render loan rates lower at those times when the loans are most useful to producers--times when prices are low. Again, with this amendment there is a little bit more stability, a little more certainty at those times when we know prices are going to fall. That is one of the main reasons I support this pending amendment. Another is to change the crop insurance. Back in 1994, the crop insurance reform package imposed requirements that producers purchase catastrophic crop insurance coverage in order to participate in the farm program. Basically I think it had some benefits, though I would have preferred to fix certain problems. But the pending bill totally eliminates that requirement. What is the effect? The effect of eliminating mandatory coverage. And that basically seals the fate of the Federal Crop Insurance Program because we will have fewer farmers participating. For the crop insurance program to work, more farmers have to participate. That is basically the theory of insurance. The more everybody is involved, the more insurance works. The provisions in this bill are going to end that linkage between insurance purchase and farm program participation. I expect that fewer producers are going to participate in the crop insurance program. That means the crop insurance program will be at greater risk. It should be modified, but it should not be eliminated. Mr. President, I strongly urge Senators to think down the road a little bit. Think of the years when prices are going to be lower. Let us improve this bill by taking care of those situations when prices will be lower and we will have a little more stability and a little more certainty. Mr. President, I thank our Democratic leader for so aggressively and effectively working to help improve this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is time to get the farm bill done. So I rise in support of this bill. But I do so with some misgivings. Now, I know that the first rule of medicine is ``Do no harm.'' And I am well aware that a lot of Americans have adjusted their expectations of this new Congress. A year or so back, they had high hopes. Today, they consider it a good month when the Congress simply decides not to do anything harmful or destructive. They're relieved that we haven't shut the Government down in nearly a month, and that the plan to let Medicare wither on the vine seems to have stalled. Our Number One Industry So sometimes doing nothing is better than doing harm. But, Mr. President, with the farm bill, it is just not good enough to wait any longer. Agriculture is the largest industry in my State. Our State statistics service reports that Montana has about 22,000 farms, averaging about two residents per farm. Those farms support almost 50,000 additional Montana jobs in agribusiness and the food industry. So our failure to provide some policy direction puts almost 100,000 people directly at risk, not to mention the tens of thousands of others in small banks, gas stations, auto dealerships, and other small businesses who depend on a strong rural economy. That is true across the country. In rural States, the entire economy depends on successful production agriculture. In urban areas, stable, fair and predictable food prices are the key to consumer well-being. In international trade, agriculture is one of our bright spots. Our agricultural exports will reach $58 billion in 1996--an all-time record for any country, and twice our projected $29 billion in imports. And we all know that nobody and no country can be safe or secure without a reliable supply of food. All this depends on a sound approach to farm policy. And the first element of a sound farm policy is to avoid giving farmers new troubles and headaches. Yet, if Congress delays the farm bill any longer, that is just what will happen. Farmers all over America are preparing to put their 1996 crop into the ground. In Montana, and across the Great Plains, many already have their winter wheat planted. If the bitter cold has not destroyed their crop, they will begin harvesting in a few months. These producers need to know what rules they will operate under when that harvest comes in. Because of the dereliction of the Congress, they have no idea what those rules will be. So the time has come to take up this admittedly imperfect bill, get it past the Senate, and ask the House to follow suit. We need to act now. Successes of the 1996 Farm Bill Now let me talk for a few moments about the bill. And let us begin with the good news. I would like to mention six points in particular. The most important good news, of course, is that when the 1996 farm bill passes, producers will have a few years of certainty and stability ahead. They will be able to run their businesses without fear that the Government will make them change horses in midstream. Two, we restore the safety net which the original more radical ideas proposed to abolish. That is, it continues the 1949 Agricultural Policy Act in case Congress threatens to let farm policy lapse altogether as it did last year. Thus, producers have the confidence that a single year of drought, flood, or collapsing prices will not financially ruin them. Three, we include several provisions to assist an industry which has suffered from Government mistakes. That is the sheep industry. In this bill we authorize a sheep industry improvement center, which will be a clearinghouse to improve research and infrastructure for the industry. We also introduce some fairness into the lamb market by making Australian and other foreign lamb to meet the same freshness requirements as American lamb. Four, we reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program, one of our environmental success stories. It also authorizes two other critical environmental programs--the Livestock Environmental Assistance Program and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program--which help producers improve the management of the natural resources on their farms and ranches, and with it the quality of life in rural America. Five, we reauthorize the nutrition program, meaning a continuing guarantee of assistance for children and poorer Americans. And six, in the 1996 farm bill we increase planting flexibility, so producers can base their planting decisions according to the market and their potential profits, rather than on rules established by the bureaucracy. The Major Flaw Now let us look at what may be the real flaw in the bill. My greatest concern is the so-called decoupling of farm payments from prices and volume of production. In essence, a farmer will now get a straight payment regardless of how much he or she produces and regardless of the price. Since the forecasts call for a good harvest in 1996, this will be very good for farmers for at least the next year. However, if we get a bad year in 1997 or 1998, the payments may be inadequate. Equally serious, but more of a long-term problem, is that by decoupling payments from the market, we may decouple farm policy from the broad public support it has enjoyed since the creation of the farm program during the Depression. Most Americans can see that agriculture is a volatile business, and understand the need for some stability from year to year. It may be that the public at large will be less enthusiastic about a straight payment that remains high in good years. Only time will give us the answer to that question. But we know that delaying action any longer this year will mean a year of questions, uncertainty and difficulty for farmers. So the time has come to pass the 1996 farm bill. I will vote for this bill, and I hope the Senate will pass it. And I would ask the House to act as quickly as possible--to stop toying with revolutionary experiments--to cut their vacation short--and to get the job done.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the job of a news photographer is not an easy one. For every picture of a child enjoying building a snow man with her parents--there is a picture of a crime scene or a picture of a car wreck. Only the photographers themselves truly understand how tough this job is, with the long hours and never knowing when or where they will have to go to do their job. I rise today to honor one of the best news photographers our country has--Gene Fischer of the Helena Independent-Record--who retires today after 35 years to the day of chronicling the lives of Helenans and Montanans on the front page and sports pages of our newspapers. My home town is Helena. Gene is the type of hard-working Montanan I have in mind when I say that we in public service need to focus on every day folks who work hard to make a living and serve their community. From his first job stuffing papers for the Billings Gazette in 1951, to his promotion to chief photographer for the Independent Record in 1974--Gene has kept his nose to the grind stone and worked hard. He has achieved goals and worked hard to become the best he can be. His career and his drive are excellent examples for our children and students as they search for their mission and role in their lives. It has become a popular thing to criticize the news media these days. Whether it be the hype of the O.J. Simpson trial, the goofy scandal- sheet shows, the Mc-News newspapers or hate-radio talk shows--I myself have been critical and remain critical of certain folks in the so- called news media. But Gene Fischer is a newsman like few in the journalism and news industry of today. He is solid. He is compassionate. And he understands that the picture he takes and the images he publishes are those of his neighbors, friends, and family. It is a tough job, and he does it fairly and professionally. When a Gene Fischer photograph publishes in the Helena Independent Record, Gene's name is very small--printed at the very bottom, almost unreadable. But in Montana journalism, Gene Fischer is a giant name. And I thank him for his years of dedication and service.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at a time when we hear so much about what is wrong with America, I want to take a moment to talk about a place where good things are happening. That place is Malta, Montana. Malta is a small community in Northern Montana, up along what we in Montana call the ``Hi-Line''. Like any small Montana town, it is a place where people work hard and don't think twice about helping out a neighbor or a friend in need. This past Christmas Eve, a fire destroyed Malta's high school and junior high school. But folks in Malta pitched right in to get a temporary school up and running. Students, teachers, and others from the community have spent the past month salvaging lost items and fixing up temporary school sites. Almost every Montana community has helped by sending items to start up the new schools. Also, Federal and State Agencies, Veterans groups, private as well as small businesses and many other organizations have contributed to this effort. And I was privileged to spend a day working as part of this effort. While the entire community deserves credit, I would like to recognize three individuals who have taken a leading role in this undertaking. First, I would like to acknowledge the Principal of Malta High, Marty Tyler, who quickly took control of the situation and led the students and the community in the effort to rebuild the schools. For example, Principal Tyler and members of the student council collected about 4,000 bricks to construct an entrance sign when the new school is built. During my work day at the Malta schools I participated in building windbreaks in front of doors and collecting bricks with Schoolboard Chairman Doug Ost and School Superintendent Bill Parker. Both of whom deserve a big thanks for the commitment and support they have given to the Malta School District. Finally, this fire also prompted the creation of PRIDE, People Rebuilding Investing and Developing Education, a local group to offer advice and manpower to the school district. I would like to extend my sincere thanks for their community involvement. Mr. President, it is an honor and a privilege for me to recognize the achievements of the students, teachers, administrators, and citizens of the Malta community and all others who have helped to get this project off to a great start.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish today to give tribute to one of eastern Montanan's treasures, Patty Callaghan. Patty recently retired after 20 years with Action for Eastern Montana. Patty retired as executive director to attend Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN. She hopes to return to eastern Montana as a lay leader with rural churches. Montana needs more leaders like Patty Callaghan. Rural Montana needs the love for and knowledge of our State that people like Patty have. Patty's work with Action actually led to her decision to choose the seminary. When funding cutbacks in the programs that she administers forced her to look to other resources, Patty found the churches responding generously. She found the needs of rural communities to be much the same as the need of rural congregations--energy, leadership for change, accountability, respect, and compassion. Patty has dealt with many family issues that will serve her will in her new life. She found the work at Action for Eastern Montana rewarding and the Glendive community generous when a need was identified. In a recent tribute to Patty, family members, coworkers, friends, and many others including Montana's Governor Marc Racicot expressed their respect and appreciation for her life's work. I would also like to express my profound respect and admiration for Patty Callaghan and what she has done for eastern Montana. Public service can bring out the best and worst in people. With Patty, her compassion and caring has only deepened. Eastern Montana desperately needs this commitment to its communities. Thank you, Patty. We wish you the best and look forward to seeing you again soon.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have heard some very interesting comments by the Senator from Mississippi, the Senator from Maryland, and the Senator from Massachusetts, debating what the provisions of the Federal budget should be. Each Senator has his own views. That is a very important debate. I personally fall on the side of the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Massachusetts, in saying this budget proposed by the Republican majority is unfair. It creates too much of a burden on middle-income people, on low-income people, and shifts the benefit to the most wealthy. It is just basically unfair. But, Mr. President, I stand here to address another issue. While we are here debating what the provisions of the Federal budget should be, many--tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of innocent Americans--are suffering because the Government is shut down and because innocent Americans, whether they are working for the Federal Government or not, are bearing the brunt of this shutdown. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. We should put people back to work. The burden of this debate should not fall on innocent Americans, and it is now falling on innocent Americans because the House majority and the Speaker of the House are in a willful band over there and are not letting American Federal employees go back to work. It is a very interesting debate we have heard from the Senator from Mississippi, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the Senator from Maryland. It is very interesting. Let us have this debate. Let us work on the budget. Let us work on the provisions. But, in the meantime, let us put Americans back to work, and let us take the burden off of innocent Americans. Today, once again, most of the employees of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the VA hospitals, the State Department, and many other parts of our Government will stay home and the rest will work without pay. Small businesses will go without Government contracts as their rent and utility bills are coming due. People on Indian reservations will have to go without heating assistance money as a blizzard now sweeps across the Great Plains during the coldest weeks of the year. Gas stations in rural areas that depend on their customers in the Forest Service will lose more of their business. Families will lose there housing deposits. Why? Because the VA cannot process home loans. I am here to say that it is an outrage. I spent last Monday walking down Route I-94 through Miles City, close to where you, Mr. President, reside. That is the State you represent. I heard from people who do not know how they will pay their heating bills, and others who had counted on a day snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park. I have heard the same outrage from people in our State who are unable to go snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park. Excuse my language, but they are mad as hell, and they are right to be mad as hell. Listen to a letter I got last week from a fellow who works in the park. I work here in Yellowstone National park in the fleet Maintenance Division as a mechanic. The job I currently hold has been the best one I've ever held. I've held this permanent position since the 25th of September, 1989. As you very well know, the National Park Service is currently in the middle of the budget crisis. This stalemate has got to stop now, due to the fact that the main concessionaire, TW Recreational Services, has been considering shutting the season down because they cannot maintain the number of employees to wait out this ``Mexican Standoff'' and may have to abandon the rest of the season. Not only that, the gateway communities of the Park are currently losing capital and are trying to survive the lost income all because you people decided to ``flex'' your muscle and keep the National Park Service shut down. Now hear an e-mail I received just this morning from a woman who works in Hamilton: As a non-tenured, furloughed staff scientist at the Rocky Mountain Labs, NIH, Hamilton Montana, I am feeling this quite acutely, both financially and professionally. Or listen to the folks at the Gardiner Chamber of Commerce: Gardiner is the north entrance to Yellowstone Park. The economy is almost entirely dependent on visitors to Yellowstone. With Yellowstone closed the last three weeks, the cost to our small community of 1,500 is not less than $1.5 million in private sector gross receipts. Mr. President, you heard that right. Since last December, Gardiner has lost $1,000 for every single resident--innocent people, while we here debate. It is wrong. Mr. President, it is an outrage. Whatever one's views on the budget, it is wrong and has to stop. It is wrong that innocent people suffer, whether they are furloughed Federal employees or other Americans who feel the brunt of it, while we in the Congress debate the budget. I want to commend our majority leader for doing what is right and getting the Senate to do its part by passing a bill to keep the Government open. That was a tough decision. He has been roundly criticized for it. But it was the right thing to do. Now it is up to Speaker Gingrich and the House. Up to now, they have flat-out refused to do what is right. They have flat-out refused to take the burden off of innocent Americans. They are the holdouts. Yesterday, they voted to keep hurting the small businesses outside Yellowstone, keep the people on the Fort Peck Reservation and our other reservations waiting for their heating assistance, keep people at home or working without pay. Why did they do it? Well, they have ideas that they want the President to accept on the budget. Maybe they believe they get some leverage over the President with this, or think they have some political advantage when all of this is ended. That might be so. I have ideas that I would like the President to accept on the budget, too. But I am not going to punish innocent people just because I want my views adopted. The fact is, you should not do things that you know are wrong. It is that simple. It is the very first moral lesson we learn as children. You should not do things you know are wrong. You should not make families on the Fort Peck Reservation go without heating in the coldest part of winter. You should not threaten the jobs of auto mechanics and scientific researchers. You should not threaten to make small businesses close their doors because they have no money to pay the rent. You should not hurt innocent, hard-working people. So I have come down here to the floor, Mr. President, just to say to the Speaker and to the folks in the House, do what you know is right. Pass the resolution. Put folks back to work. Take the burden off of them so that we in both Houses of Congress, along with the President, can do the Nation's work and pass the 7-year balanced budget resolution. Let us debate the provisions of it, but let us not in the meantime put the burden on innocent Americans. Mr. Speaker, and all of the Republicans in the House, I urge you to do what you know is right. Pass the resolution and put the people back to work. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, earlier this year, I joined an almost unanimous Senate in voting to support a broad resolution creating a special committee to investigate the Whitewater matter. I believe this investigation must be both vigorous and fair. First and foremost, it is our responsibility to find the facts and the truth. That is what people want. But, as we look for the truth, we must do everything possible to be fair and to respect the rights of everyone involved. So I believe there are two fundamental questions that must be answered in deciding whether to seek this subpoena: First, is the subject matter of this subpoena necessary to find the truth in the Whitewater matter? And, second, is this subpoena being sought with respect for the fundamental rights of those involved? Or is it being sought in order to carry on a political fishing expedition? The material sought by the special committee are the notes of Mr. William Kennedy from a meeting of the President's personal and official lawyers at a private law office on November 5, 1993. It is important to note that Mr. Kennedy, although an Associate White House Counsel at the time this meeting took place, had represented President Clinton before he was elected to the White House. The special committee has determined that Mr. Kennedy's notes of this meeting are a necessary part of their investigation; they are necessary to help get at the truth. I respect that. I believe Mr. Kennedy's notes should be made available to the special committee and to Mr. Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel investigating Whitewater. And I am pleased that the President has consented to the release of these notes. That should be the end of the story. This issue should be resolved. Mr. Kennedy's notes should be released without anybody having to go to court. That seems to be enough to satisfy the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, a Republican. That is enough to satisfy the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator D'Amato, also a Republican. But it does not seem to be enough to satisfy Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They appear to want more than Mr. Kennedy's notes. They also appear to want the President to surrender one of his fundamental rights, the right of attorney-client privilege. Whether a Republican or a Democrat occupies the White House, that President should enjoy the same rights as any other American. And that includes the right to communicate in confidence with his attorney, doctor, or minister. This is not, as some have said today, a question of hiding the facts. Instead, it is a question of protecting a fundamental right--the fundamental right to talk candidly with your lawyer, your doctor, or your minister without having your words used against you. I do not care if we are talking about the President of the United States or the most average of Americans, that is one of the things--one of the values, one of the liberties--that make this country special. To me, it is that simple. If the President is willing to authorize the release of Mr. Kennedy's notes--as he is--there is no reason to go to court. There is no reason to challenge the President's right to maintain the confidentiality of his communication with his legal counsel. For these reasons, I will oppose the resolution before us today. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I note an act of kindness and selflessness by Ashley Silvernell from Forsyth, MT. Ashley was walking down the street a few days ago when she spotted a $100 bill in front of Eagle Hardware store. Now, $100 means a lot to anybody, but to someone in middle school it's a pot of gold. Without hesitation, however, Ashley turned the $100 in to the store manager, Ken Allison. Ashley asked for no reward. It turns out that just a few days earlier, a family from Wyoming was shopping in the store that day and accidentally dropped the money. They didn't have credit cards. The family later called Mr. Allison from Wyoming, but never dreamed that the money would be found. When Ashley turned the $100 bill in, as you can imagine the family was thrilled. Ashley's act should recall for this U.S. Senate what the holidays are all about. As we are knotted here in gridlock, 5 days before Christmas, we must remember that honesty and good judgment are qualities to strive for everyday of our lives. Ashley's good will is an inspiration to us all and must not go unnoticed. And on behalf of myself and the thousands of Montanans who certainly will be inspired by her story, I would like to thank Ashley Silvernell for making a difference. Thank you. And I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish today to give tribute to one of Eastern Montanan's treasures, Patty Callaghan. Patty recently retired after 20 years with Action for Eastern Montana. Patty retired as executive director to attend Luther Seminary in St. Paul MN. She hopes to return to eastern Montana as a lay leader with rural churches. Montana needs more leaders like Patty Callaghan. Rural Montana needs the love for and knowledge of our state that people like Patty have. Patty's work with action actually led to here decision to choose the seminary. When funding cutbacks in the programs that she administers forced her to look to other resources, Patty found the churches responding generously. She found the needs of rural communities to be much the same as the congregations--energy, leadership for change, accountability, respect and compassion. Patty has dealt with many family issues that will serve her will in her new life. She found the work at Action for Eastern Montana rewarding and the Glendive community generous when a need was identified. In a recent tribute to Patty, family members, coworkers, friends and many others including Montana's Governor Marc Racicot expressed their respect and appreciation for her life's work. I would also like to express my profound respect and admiration for Patty Callaghan and what she has done for eastern Montana. Public service can bring out the best and worst in people. With Patty, her compassion and caring has only deepened. Eastern Montana desperately needs this commitment to its communities. Thank you, Patty. We wish you the best and look forward to seeing you again soon.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last night I voted in support of the Bosnia resolution offered by our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole. and President Clinton for putting their principles above politics. We have a great national tradition of bipartisanship in foreign policy. The world must know that, when it comes to America's role in the world, we stand together--Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike--as Americans. In that regard, Senator Dole and President Clinton have served us very well. While I have deep concerns about this country's Bosnia policy, I also believe it is our moral and patriotic duty to stand by our troops already on the ground in Bosnia. These brave men and women deserve a strong showing of support for their work and their mission. And that is exactly what an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of the Senate gave them last night. We owed them nothing less. Yet I remain deeply concerned about the wording of Senator Dole's resolution and our mission in the former Yugoslavia. First and foremost, our troops are being sent to Bosnia as peacekeepers. They are there to enforce the terms of the peace agreement negotiated in Dayton, OH. And I firmly believe--for their own safety and the success of this mission--they must remain neutral. They must not be perceived as taking sides in the regional and ethnic conflict that has torn the former Yugoslavia apart. Unfortunately, I fear the resolution we voted on last night sends a message that our troops will not be neutral; that they will be called upon to help train and rearm the Bosnian Moslems; that they will be engaged in enterprise of nation building that failed so badly in Somalia. And if that happens--if our troops are anything more than neutral peacekeepers--this mission is destined to failure. We must not let that happen. In closing, I urge the President and our military leaders to do everything possible to assure the safety, neutrality, and success of our troops and their mission in Bosnia. And I urge everyone to say a prayer that they make it home soon.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critically important resolution. It will restore the honor of our country, and my State of Montana in particular, in the face of an impudent affront leveled against us by the Governor of West Virginia. Let me begin with a question. What would possess as many as 5,000 Montanans to leave our beautiful State and travel to a small town in West Virginia--of all places--for the weekend? There is only one answer--and that is Grizzly fever. As I have proudly told many of my colleagues, the University of Montana Grizzlies are traveling to Huntington, WV, to take on the Thundering Herd of Marshall University in the NCAA, Division I-AA National Championship. And on Saturday night, they will come home to Missoula as the national champions. It takes a good football team to get that far. But the Grizzlies are not just a good football team--they are a great football team. How great are the Grizzlies, some may ask? Great enough to have trounced their playoff opponents. During the three playoff games, the Grizzlies scored a total of 156 points. Their three opponents managed to score a paltry 14 points; and two out of the three playoff games were Grizzly shutouts. And the Grizzlies are great enough to have what I believe is the finest quarterback in college football today. Dave Dickenson, from Great Falls, is a three-time first team academic all-American, a first team all-American quarterback, and Dave will probably receive the Walter Payton Award next week as the best Division I-AA player in America. Many West Virginians--including my friends Senator Byrd and Rockefeller--may take pride in Marshall's winning record up to this point. That is fine. I see nothing wrong with acknowledging the accomplishment of the second-best team. But Governor Caperton crossed the line when he signed a proclamation naming December 16--the day of the game--Marshall University Day. Now, normally, I am a strong supporter of States rights. But Governor Caperton has gone too far. His proclamation is a slap in the face to me and every other self-respecting Montanan. And it is an insult to the good sense of every American who follows college football. Mr. President, sometimes State governments make mistakes. And on occasions like this one, they are whoppers. The time has come for Congress to step in and set things right. That is why I am introducing my resolution today. It would recognize the Montana Grizzlies as the new national champions by proclaiming all of next week Montana Grizzlies Appreciation Week. It would also declare the unfortunate, unjust, and illegitimate proclamation by the Governor of West Virginia null and void. If you still doubt the need for this resolution, tune in on Saturday. The game starts at 10 Montana time--that's noon in Washington on ESPN. It will be a great game.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, H.R. 325 is a short, simple bill that seeks to maintain our clean air standards while giving States greater flexibility in how they achieve them. It does this by removing the requirement that the 14 cities in 11 States with severely polluted air devise a program to reduce work-related travel by employees. But the bill reaffirms that those cities must still meet the health-based air quality standards contained in the Clean Air Act. Thus, these cities can now develop alternative methods to achieve the goal of cleaner, healthier air. This is a narrow bill that responds to a particular problem by granting States greater flexibility while, at the same time, maintaining progress toward improving our Nation's air quality. I support both those efforts. Over the years we have learned that clean air will not be ours without careful vigilance. There are some in Congress who would turn back the clock on our efforts to protect air quality. Those same people say we have gone overboard. That the health-based standards contained in the Clean Air Act are too difficult to achieve. That the time has come when we must relax the laws and regulations that have been responsible for improving our air quality. Well, I disagree. And the American people disagree. The Clean Air Act has successfully delivered on its promises. Let me cite some examples. In the 5 years since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, over half of the cities that did not then meet the air quality standard for urban smog now meet that standard. Over three-quarters of the cities that did not meet the air quality standard for carbon monoxide in 1990 now meet that standard. Emissions of toxic air pollutants have been reduced by 1.6 billion pounds per year, more than six times the reductions achieved in the first 20 years under the original Clean Air Act. Sulphur dioxide emissions, the principal cause of acid rain, have been reduced by 2.6 million tons since 1990. And U.S. production of chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer has been reduced by over 90 percent since 1990. Despite these successes, we cannot rest on them. Nearly two-thirds of American sampled in a poll this past summer believed that our current air pollution control laws are not strict enough. So we must not weaken our resolve to achieve clean air. Nor can we put the special interests of some ahead of the public interest. Where we can work together to develop better, more efficient and more effective ways of achieving our environmental goals, we should. That is what this bill does, and it is why I support it. But where there are efforts to roll back our standards, to weaken the protection of human health and the environment, then we must stand firm against such changes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Burns in introducing legislation to ensure that the over 500 people who live near Fort Peck Reservoir have a safe, dependable domestic water supply. Currently those who live adjacent to one of the largest bodies of water ever developed by the Federal Government in the West, the Fort Peck Reservoir, are forced to travel many miles several times a week to fill tanks and barrels for their domestic water use. This bill will authorize the development of a rural municipal water system for the residents of the Fort Peck Rural Water District in northeastern Montana. The project will tap into Fort Peck Reservoir to construct a safe and reliable drinking system for both municipal and agricultural purposes. It will also enable this scenic area of Montana to attract economic development which has been stifled due to the lack of water. I propose that this project be a partnership between the Federal Government, the State of Montana, and local interests. The State and local groups will contribute 20 percent of the cost of the project's completion. A needs assessment and feasibility study conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation [BOR] has completed a needs assessment and feasibility study that estimates the total Federal expenditure will be less than $6 million. If we can afford to spend millions of dollars developing domestic water supplies in other nations around the world, we can and should be able to do the same for Montanans. I urge the committee to take prompt action on this critical measure and will work toward expeditious passage through the full Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Burns in introducing legislation to ensure that the over 500 people who live near Fort Peck Reservoir have a safe, dependable domestic water supply. Currently those who live adjacent to one of the largest bodies of water ever developed by the Federal Government in the West, the Fort Peck Reservoir, are forced to travel many miles several times a week to fill tanks and barrels for their domestic water use. This bill will authorize the development of a rural municipal water system for the residents of the Fort Peck Rural Water District in northeastern Montana. The project will tap into Fort Peck Reservoir to construct a safe and reliable drinking system for both municipal and agricultural purposes. It will also enable this scenic area of Montana to attract economic development which has been stifled due to the lack of water. I propose that this project be a partnership between the Federal Government, the State of Montana, and local interests. The State and local groups will contribute 20 percent of the cost of the project's completion. A needs assessment and feasibility study conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation [BOR] has completed a needs assessment and feasibility study that estimates the total Federal expenditure will be less than $6 million. If we can afford to spend millions of dollars developing domestic water supplies in other nations around the world, we can and should be able to do the same for Montanans. I urge the committee to take prompt action on this critical measure and will work toward expeditious passage through the full Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be added as a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, the Senate begins consideration of S. 1316, a bill to reauthorize and reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. We all understand the need to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. It contains a number of provisions that are too rigid and too costly. At the same time, we must protect public health. After all, this is not some theoretical exercise. We are talking about the water that we and our children drink. Two quarts a day, every day of our lives. To my mind, this bill strikes the right balance. It will reduce regulatory burdens. Unnecessary regulations, redtape. At the same time, it will not jeopardize public health. In fact, in several important ways, it will increase protection of public health. Before turning to details, I would like to take a few minutes to put this legislation in perspective. Mr. President, Americans expect to be able to turn on the tap, fill a glass, and drink the water--without getting sick. They expect safe drinking water in their homes and in their local communities. They expect safe drinking water when they move to a new community. They expect safe drinking water when they travel. When people from Conrad, MT visit Billings, Spokane, or Boston, or when people come to visit their nation's capital, they expect to be able to drink the water without getting sick or without the worrying about getting sick. Ever since 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has guided Federal, State and local efforts to assure that the water Americans drink is clean and pure. In the last several years, however, there has been growing concern that some provisions of the act misdirect Federal resources. There also has been concern that the act imposes regulatory burdens that local water systems simply cannot comply with, no matter how hard they try. More specifically, critics of the act point to several flaws: Local officials who operate drinking water systems, especially small systems, are buried under a mountain of redtape. The operators of these systems are trying to provide a basic public service to their neighbors. The job is difficult enough without monitoring requirements that cannot be met. There is another problem: Technology costs have skyrocketed. Again, this is particularly a burden on those who operate small systems in rural areas. These small systems have what the economists call limited economies of scale. They cannot spread their costs across a large number of ratepayers. Nevertheless, in many cases, it costs them just as much to comply with the law as it costs large urban systems who do spread their costs. On top of all of this, the standards-setting system in current law keeps rolling along, with 25 new contaminants regulated every 3 years, whether they are needed or not. And we have not provided federal funds to help communities meet their increased obligations. Because of all these problems, it seems that the Safe Drinking Water Act has become the very symbol of concern about unfunded mandates. But we have to get beyond symbolism, to solutions. That is exactly what this bill does. Senator Chafee, Senator Kemp-thorne, Senator Reid and I have been working closely, with Senators on both sides of the aisle, with the Administration, with the environmental community, and with State and local groups. As a result of this work, the bill before us today, S. 1316, makes significant improvements in the law. It creates a new State revolving loan fund for drinking water. It reforms the standards-setting process and the monitoring requirements. It lightens the burdens on small communities, while continuing to protect public health. It also addresses risk. We have had a lot of debates about risk assessment this year. Risk assessment is not a magic answer to all our problems. But it can be an important tool, applied to specific problems. This bill does that, by applying risk-based concepts to contaminant selection and standard-setting. Mr. President, our Chairman, Senator Chafee, has described the provisions of the bill ably and in detail. I would simply like to emphasize three features of the bill that I consider particularly important. First, the bill creates a new revolving loan fund. We all talk about unfunded mandates. With this bill, we put some money where our mouths are. The biggest problem facing drinking water systems, especially small systems, is the lack of funding to build adequate treatment facilities. They simply cannot afford to comply with the current requirements of the act. To address this, the bill establishes a State Revolving Loan Fund similar to the Clean Water Act revolving fund. The money can be used by all States to help communities comply with drinking water standards, restructure their operations, or find alternative sources of water. The fund is authorized at a level of $600 million in fiscal year 1994, and thereafter at $1 billion annually through fiscal year 2003. Initially, grants for the drinking water State revolving funds will be distributed according to the formula currently used to allocate Federal grants to States for drinking water oversight programs. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, funds will be distributed according to the results of an EPA survey of drinking water needs. Another thing about the SRF. It provides flexibility. States can respond to their own needs. They can provide grants to disadvantaged communities. They can offset a program shortfall. They can help local water systems develop customized monitoring programs and source water programs. And they can shift funds between their clean water or drinking water revolving loan funds, in order to meet their most pressing problems. So we provide both funding and flexibility. A second important feature is the bill's reform of the regulatory program. For example, one of the most troublesome requirements, in all of our environmental laws, is the requirement that EPA regulate 25 additional drinking water contaminants every 3 years, whether or not those contaminants really threaten public health. As a result, EPA is required to issue regulations that may impose high costs for little public health benefit. The bill replaces that requirement with a new provision requiring EPA to periodically review the need to regulate additional contaminants. That way, we can focus our limited resources on the most important problems. The bill also reforms monitoring requirements, the standard setting process, and other elements of the law. In each case, the objective is to focus our resources on the most important problems. The third important feature is special help for small community water systems. In the country as a whole, more than 85 percent of the drinking water systems in this country are small. In my home state of Montana, 688 of the 694 community water systems serve less than 10,000 people, and there is not one system serving more than 100,000 people. While small systems only serve about 10 percent of the people, they bear about 40 percent of the cost of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill provides special help to small systems that cannot afford to [[Page S 17726]] comply with the drinking water regulations and can benefit from technologies geared specifically to the needs of small systems. Here is how it would work. Any system serving 10,000 people or fewer may request a variance to install special small system technology identified by EPA. What this means is that if a small system cannot afford to comply with current regulations through conventional treatment, the system can comply with the act by installing affordable small system technology. Small systems that seek a variance will be protected from financial penalties while their application is being reviewed, and they would have 3 years to install the affordable technology. States approve the variance, but only if the technology provides adequate water quality and public health protection. So small systems are not forced to use big city treatment. But they must fully protect public health. Another way that this bill provides help to small systems is through technical assistance. Many small systems just need some advice on how to meet some of the requirements of the law or operate equipment. For example, the Rapelje water system in Yellowstone County, MT was advised through the technical assistance program in our State to install a pressure relief valve in its system, an action that will save the system a considerable amount in repairs. This bill recognizes the importance of the technical assistance program for small systems by increasing the authorization for the program and allowing the States to use up to 2 percent of their SRF money for small system technical assistance. Mr. President, putting all this together, the bill provides funding, reforms regulations, and recognizes the special problems of small rural systems. But in doing so, it does not relax existing standards or weaken provisions of the act that are necessary to protect public health. In fact, in addition to allowing EPA, States, and local communities to target resources to the greatest threats, the bill improves the act's enforcement and compliance provisions. And it improves the important provisions that require water system operators to alert people about drinking water problems in their communities, especially problems that create health threats. In summary, Mr. President, this bill is good news indeed. And not only because it improves the Safe Drinking Water Act. There is another reason. This bill shows that we can get something done around here. During this Congress, most debates about the environment have deteriorated into pitched partisan battles. Both sides have hardened. As a result, we have missed several opportunities to enact reasonable, balanced reforms that reduce regulatory burdens while improving environmental protection. The bill before us today is a refreshing exception. Republicans and Democrats have worked together, cooperatively. Sure, it has taken time. There have been painstaking negotiations. There has been compromise. But look at the result. We have been able to develop a bill that will result in meaningful reforms. A bill that will protect public health. And a bill that the public can, with confidence, support. I want to thank Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, and Reid for the work they have done to get this bill where it is today--unanimously reported from the Environment and Public Works Committee with more than 30 cosponsors. I also want to thank the Administration and others for their hard work and spirit of cooperation. And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and enact it into law. Mr. President, here we are passing a very complicated, very important bill which dramatically affects a lot of small communities, and certainly every American, and yet there are very few Senators on the floor. There does not seem to be a lot of interest by some Senators to be here on the floor for this bill. Why is that? Basically, Mr. President, it is because this legislation, in addressing a real need, is done the right way. What do I mean by the right way? I mean not demagoging the issue. Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked very, very hard, particularly with interest groups around the country that were very interested in addressing drinking water problems in our Nation--small communities, large communities, Governors, mayors, environmental groups. And these groups, in trying to find a solution to the tradeoff between, on the one hand, protection--making sure our water is safe and, on the other hand, regulation, that is, not requiring too much regulation, trying to find the balance. We have done just that; we have found a balance. They have worked very, very hard. They have rolled up their sleeves. They have worked together to get the job done. And we are here today basically ratifying, putting together, that mutual effort of a lot of compromise on the part of a lot of people. That is often what happens around here. Those who really work hard and get the job done are not praised as much as they should be. In this case, it is all the various groups and people. It is also the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, the present occupant of the Chair, Senator Kempthorne, who chairs the subcommittee, also Senator Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and many other Senators who worked very hard, and their staffs particularly worked very hard to get their job done. Now, what is the problem? What is the problem that this legislation addresses? Essentially, Mr. President, the problem is this. Over the years, Americans have become more and more demanding, as they should, that their water is safe. In 1986, they became quite concerned that the EPA, the administration at that time, was not quite doing the job that should have been done to make sure that our water in our country was safe. So the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act were passed. They were well-intended. They were amendments which directed the Environmental Protection Agency and directed States to significantly increase their standards, impose many more monitoring requirements. There were many more contaminants of concern identified than the EPA was setting standards for. Essentially, to help reassure Americans, because the job was not getting done, we passed the 1986 amendments. I think it is fair to say that the 1986 amendments that Congress passed went too far. They went too far in requiring the Environmental Protection Agency and the States to set too many standards, to regulate too much, to monitor too much and, basically, did not address the essential problem, that is, how to assure safer water at an affordable cost. For example, one of the provisions in the 1986 amendments was essentially to say, ``OK, EPA, we want you to set standards for at least 83 different contaminants.'' Up to that point, I think there were about 22 contaminants regulated. ``We want you to set standards for a total of 83, and beyond that, we want you, EPA, to set standards for 25 additional contaminants every 3 years.'' That is stupid. It is nuts. There is no way in the world any agency could begin to do that much, with a tremendous additional burden on the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, Mr. President, what was another consequence? Another consequence was the dramatic disproportionate cost for smaller communities. Let us just think a minute. If the EPA tells a water system in a community to monitor certain contaminants, and to set certain standards, and to essentially apply certain technology, regardless of the size of the system, it is very clear that the large cities are able to spread those costs out among many, many more people, so the cost per household is much lower. But if the very same monitoring requirements, the very same standards, and the very same requirements are imposed on smaller communities, it is clear there is no way in the world that a smaller community is going to be able to meet those very same standards, those very same requirements, without imposing a tremendous cost on individual households in that small system. That is particularly a problem, Mr. President, in my State of Montana. We [[Page S 17727]] have about 698--I think that is the figure--community water systems. Of those, I think about 660--I hope my figures are right--are communities of under 10,000 people. We are a small-system State, which means that the 1986 amendments imposed tremendous disproportionate requirements on small communities. These are communities that want safe water. Sure, they want clean water. They want to do their best to make sure the water in their communities is just as safe, if not safer, than in big cities. But, my gosh, they are required to monitor for contaminants that do not exist. I have to tell you, monitoring may not sound like much, but it is very, very expensive to monitor for an individual contaminant. You multiply that for additional contaminants that may not be there--the law requires you to monitor for them anyway, spend the money anyway. It does not make any sense. In addition, the technologies that have to be installed are that much more expensive. Another big problem that the 1986 amendments created is a problem that you heard many times from many people: unfunded mandates. That is Uncle Sam saying, ``OK, community, you do this, you are going to take these requirements, but we are not going to give you the money for it.'' It just was not fair. As the occupant of the chair knows, this Congress, quite correctly, over the months earlier this year passed legislation to prohibit unfunded mandates. If my memory serves me correctly, one of the chief proponents of that legislation is the Senator from Idaho, and I commend him for it. This bill tries to address that problem by setting up a State revolving loan fund. It is $600 million the first year, and then it gets to $1 billion. It basically says, ``OK, States, we are going to change some of the requirements we passed in 1986. In addition to that, we are going to provide funds in the State revolving loan funds so systems can pay for some of the costs to install these technologies.'' We are also saying to the States, ``Boy, you have lots of flexibility. You can pass money between the Safe Drinking Water Act revolving loan fund and the clean water revolving loan fund. You also can set up a technical assistance program to help smaller communities, even a grant program for smaller communities.'' There is a lot of flexibility here, as it should be. I will not take too much more time. Let me say, this is an example where Government is working. Government does not always work--we all know that--but sometimes Government does work. Here is a situation where Government can work. It may not be perfect. There are probably some areas where this legislation could be improved upon on the margin, but mainly, it is a very good, solid effort to find a commonsense, balanced solution to assure Americans that their water in their communities is safe and affordable. That is what this bill does. It accomplishes this result, because a lot of very good people have worked very, very hard, and they have not demagogued it and gone to the media. They just rolled up their sleeves and got the job done. I particularly commend the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee. He has been the captain of the ship. He is at the helm. He set the tone, the mood and the approach to all this. We are here because he has done that. I very much hope--and this is the point the Senator from Nevada made earlier--that we can take this as an example or a paradigm of how to deal with other problems around here. As the Senator from Nevada pointed out, we are now locked in budget negotiations, a pitched battle, Republicans and Democrats, the Congress and the White House. Basically, Americans just want us to get the job done. They want us to compromise. They want us to balance the budget within 7 years, but do it fairly, do it evenhandedly, so all Americans are participating together as we get the job done together, just as we have done in this bill. Mr. President, this bill is a basic, commonsense, balanced solution of compromises, give and take, on both sides. We are getting the job done. I very much hope that the White House, I hope that the Congress, and, to be totally candid about this, I particularly hope the other body, particularly the majority party of the other body, in good faith sits down in these budget negotiations and compromises to get the job done. In summary, Mr. President, I want to particularly thank some Montanans who have worked very hard on this legislation over the years. The first that comes to mind is Dan Kyle. Dan Kyle sat down with me at the Heritage Inn in Great Falls, MT, I guess 6, 7, 8 years ago, talking about how horrendously expensive it is, inappropriately expensive, for small systems to meet the Federal requirements. That was a long time ago. Dan Kyle has labored in the vineyards. He has worked very, very hard--I believe he is head of the Montana Rural Water Association-- along with Ray Wadsworth and the rest of the Montana crew, and Jim Melsted. I know these same people exist in other States. I only know those three in Montana, and they have been just terrific. I want to compliment them particularly for their hard work. They are pretty proud that finally we got the job done. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, these provisions under the managers' amendment are essentially technical and clarification amendments, which Senator Chafee, myself, Senator Reid, and the occupant of the chair I know has also looked at. I think they are good improvements to the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3069 (Purpose: To require additional research prior to the promulgation of a standard for sulfate)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have examined the amendment and think it is a good improvement. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Carl Mazza, a fellow with Senator Moynihan's office, be permitted to have floor privileges during consideration of this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from West Virginia is correct, however, in pointing out that the information these centers provide can also be national in scope. The access to this information, therefore, should not be limited to any particular State or region. In providing assistance on a national basis, these centers should coordinate their activities to minimize any duplication of effort and to maximize the utility of the information provided.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know, although the earlier agreement was 20 minutes on a side formally, we have agreed to 15 minutes. It may be presumptuous of me, but I ask unanimous consent that the earlier unanimous-consent agreement be modified so it is 15 minutes per side.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senator from California makes a very impassioned statement. It sounds very good. The facts are, very simply, if California or if any State wants to go far above and beyond what is required by Federal law, I think it makes sense for that State to do so if that State wants to do so. I do not think the Federal Government should make this additional requirement on all States just because California is doing it. If California wants to, fine. But the U.S. Congress should not make a judgment as to whether an additional requirement to each individual consumer, which has no bearing whatever to whether the systems in a State meet standards. If the State wants to, fine. I do not think the Federal Government should make that requirement on all States.