Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great respect and admiration that I rise today to congratulate a friend, Montana businessman Ian Davidson. As company president and CEO of D.A. Davidson & Co. [DADCO], a financial services company, Ian has ridden a wave of success in a field where he has dared to be different. Recently, the Billings Gazette honored Ian in a tribute to his tragedy and success. I would like to do the same. It has been almost a year since the D.A. Davidson corporate plane crashed, killing three of the company's top executives. On November, 8, 1994, Eugene Lewis, Robert Braggs, and Donald Knutson died along with pilot Harold Graf in what Ian described as ``the worst tragedy of his life.'' But the Great Falls based company has made great leaps in the past year. New leaders have been assigned to the vacated positions, and despite the obvious grief experienced by the company and community, 1995 has been a tremendous year for DADCO. In addition to adding between 65 and 70 new employees since the beginning of the year, DADCO boasts more than 100,000 accounts in the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest. Based on record earnings in the last 2 years and total capital of more than $31.5 million, DADCO is ranked among the top 60 firms operating outside New York City. Recognition that solidifies its corporate slogan--where ``Wall Street Meets the Rockies.'' Beyond this, while Ian would be the first to tell you that Montana has been good to him, he has also been very good to Montana. He runs a business that gives a lot back to our State and our Montana communities. Ian and his wife, Nancy, have been especially generous to the University of Montana. Again, I want to recognize Ian Davidson for his contribution to Montanas' communities. If we could all live our lives as fully and productively as Ian Davidson, the world would be a better place.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, October 22, which is just around the corner, is a pretty important day in Montana, and I will tell my colleagues why in just a minute. But I will say it is one of the reasons why I am dead set against S. 1031, a bill to transfer the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the States. Let me say a word about multiple use. When Congress passed the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, it defined multiple use as ``the management of the public lands so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.'' That is what the statute says. Let me tell you about what it means to Montanans--citizens of a State with nearly 30 million acres of Federal public lands. To many Montanans, it means jobs, jobs from the timber that we harvest, minerals that we mine, oil and gas that we extract, livestock that we graze and city slickers that pay for a week under the big sky with our outfitters and our guides. And to all Montanans, folks who earn their living off the land and the majority who live and work in towns, these lands represent what we love most about our State. These lands provide recreation, an escape from work, a reminder that we live in the last best place. It means teaching your kids to hunt like your dad taught you. It means being able to take your family out for a weekend and hike and camp and explore in the most beautiful, pristine places known to man. Montanans head to the Pryor Mountains hoping to catch a glimpse of the wild horse herds; they float the historical Whitecliffs of the Missouri River; and they fish the blue-ribbon Madison River. This weekend in particular reminds Montanans of just how lucky we all are to have so much Federal lands available to us. It is the start of the big game hunting season. Montanans head to the Missouri Breaks in search of trophy mulies, set up their elk camps in the Centennial Mountains, or take a trip to their favorite spot to go antelope hunting, shoot upland game birds, pheasant, or ducks. Montanans are lucky because these Federal lands are near our homes. Within an hour's drive from any town in Montana, these lands provide full access and outstanding opportunities for a successful hunt. In fact, there were more than 375,000 hunting trips on Montana's BLM lands in 1994. Just think of that, 375,000 hunting trips on Montana's BLM lands in 1994. There is, however, a bill pending in the Senate which takes this away from Montanans. It is S. 1031. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to give all the BLM lands to the States who, in turn, may deal with them as they see fit. Montana may choose to manage these 8.8 million acres of BLM lands much the same way they are currently managed. Of course, that would mean coming up with the $34 million in funding that the U.S. Government currently spends each year to manage BLM lands in Montana. Finding an additional $34 million a year is a real stretch to our State when our total State budget is under $2 billion a year. Of course, Montana has other options, as do other States, under this legislation. The State could simply not pay for range improvements, weed control, recreation, and wildlife projects that are currently being paid for and carried out by the BLM. Montana can also choose to raise some quick revenue by putting these lands on the auction block and selling them to the highest bidder. Sleeping Giant, the Terry Badlands, the Missouri Breaks, Beartrap Canyon, the Pryor Range, the Centennial Mountains sold. Once public lands and streams, then fenced off; ``no trespassing'' signs put out. This bill takes away what Montanans love most about our State: Open, easy access to public lands to hunt, fish, hike, birdwatch, snowmobile, four-wheel drive. I want to put my colleagues on notice that S. 1031 is a bad deal. It is bad for Montana. It is bad for the West. It is bad for the Nation. Our public lands are the key to perpetuating our outdoor heritage. As Teddy Roosevelt said, ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, not impaired, in value.'' That is what Teddy Roosevelt said. S. 1031 ignores future generations and yanks their inheritance out from under them. Marion and Rose Coleman of Laurel, MT, recently wrote me and said this: Please stop S. 1031 for the benefit of the 22 members of our family who love to hunt, fish, and camp on public lands. I am here today to let Marion and Rose Coleman, and all Montanans, know that I intend to fight this bill every step of the way. It is anti-hunting, anti-Montana. If it ever reaches the floor in anything close to its present form, it is dead on arrival. That is something I will guarantee my colleagues, and, more importantly, that is something I will guarantee the people of Montana. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a solid bill. It builds on the work that was done, during the last Congress, to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. It will reduce regulatory burdens while fully protecting public health. And it reflects a careful, bipartisan approach that puts the public interest ahead of partisan politics. background 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 can't comply with, no matter how hard they try. More specifically, critics of the act point to several flaws: Unlike the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not provide federal financial assistance to help local water systems meet environmental mandates. Small drinking water systems, including many small systems in my home State of Montana, have faced the greatest challenges in complying with the act's numerous and complex mandates. The limited economies of scale of small systems have caused household water rates to skyrocket in recent years as communities financed drinking water projects. Contaminant monitoring requirements have been overly prescriptive, and the requirement to regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years is unrealistic and unnecessary. The enforcement and public notification provisions are inadequate. During the last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously reported legislation to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act, and [[Page S 15127]] the Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 95 to 3. Unfortunately, the bill was not enacted into law. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995 The bill that we are introducing today builds on the solid foundation created by last year's bill. The bill addresses each of the concerns with Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill expands funding, reduces regulatory burdens, and provides greater flexibility to those trying to provide safe drinking for all Americans--while not only maintaining but increasing public health protection. To begin with, the bill provides substantial and sustained funding for drinking water projects. The bill authorizes new drinking water loan funds. Moreover, the bill allows a State to use its existing Clean Water Act loan fund to meet drinking water needs and, if appropriate, to use the drinking water loan funds to meet Clean Water Act needs. And, in some cases, the bill allows States to give a public water system a grant rather than a loan. That way, a State can provide special assistance to small, disadvantaged communities that have a particularly hard time providing safe drinking water at an affordable cost. The bill reduces regulatory burdens, especially for small communities. It does so in several ways. Most significantly, the bill eliminates the requirement that EPA regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years, whether or not there is a public health need to do so. Instead, EPA will review the health effects of currently unregulated contaminants in drinking water and determine whether, based on sound science, those contaminants pose public health threats and should be regulated. In other words, the bill reforms the act by allowing EPA to target resources to the greatest threats to drinking water. The bill increases State flexibility. It authorizes a State to establish its own program for monitoring drinking water quality, and to reduce some monitoring requirements for small drinking water systems that have good compliance records. And it allows a State to take other steps to address the special needs of small communities. In Montana and elsewhere, the operators of small drinking water systems want to comply with the act, but cannot afford the cost of complying with many of the regulations. The bill's variance provision will allow small systems to provide safe, affordable water to their customers. So the bill reduces regulatory burdens, and increases flexibility, in many ways. 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. Putting all this together, the bill significantly reduces regulatory burdens and otherwise improves the operation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. At the same time, it not only maintains but increases public health protection.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a solid bill. It builds on the work that was done, during the last Congress, to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. It will reduce regulatory burdens while fully protecting public health. And it reflects a careful, bipartisan approach that puts the public interest ahead of partisan politics. background 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 can't comply with, no matter how hard they try. More specifically, critics of the act point to several flaws: Unlike the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not provide federal financial assistance to help local water systems meet environmental mandates. Small drinking water systems, including many small systems in my home State of Montana, have faced the greatest challenges in complying with the act's numerous and complex mandates. The limited economies of scale of small systems have caused household water rates to skyrocket in recent years as communities financed drinking water projects. Contaminant monitoring requirements have been overly prescriptive, and the requirement to regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years is unrealistic and unnecessary. The enforcement and public notification provisions are inadequate. During the last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously reported legislation to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act, and [[Page S 15127]] the Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 95 to 3. Unfortunately, the bill was not enacted into law. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995 The bill that we are introducing today builds on the solid foundation created by last year's bill. The bill addresses each of the concerns with Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill expands funding, reduces regulatory burdens, and provides greater flexibility to those trying to provide safe drinking for all Americans--while not only maintaining but increasing public health protection. To begin with, the bill provides substantial and sustained funding for drinking water projects. The bill authorizes new drinking water loan funds. Moreover, the bill allows a State to use its existing Clean Water Act loan fund to meet drinking water needs and, if appropriate, to use the drinking water loan funds to meet Clean Water Act needs. And, in some cases, the bill allows States to give a public water system a grant rather than a loan. That way, a State can provide special assistance to small, disadvantaged communities that have a particularly hard time providing safe drinking water at an affordable cost. The bill reduces regulatory burdens, especially for small communities. It does so in several ways. Most significantly, the bill eliminates the requirement that EPA regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years, whether or not there is a public health need to do so. Instead, EPA will review the health effects of currently unregulated contaminants in drinking water and determine whether, based on sound science, those contaminants pose public health threats and should be regulated. In other words, the bill reforms the act by allowing EPA to target resources to the greatest threats to drinking water. The bill increases State flexibility. It authorizes a State to establish its own program for monitoring drinking water quality, and to reduce some monitoring requirements for small drinking water systems that have good compliance records. And it allows a State to take other steps to address the special needs of small communities. In Montana and elsewhere, the operators of small drinking water systems want to comply with the act, but cannot afford the cost of complying with many of the regulations. The bill's variance provision will allow small systems to provide safe, affordable water to their customers. So the bill reduces regulatory burdens, and increases flexibility, in many ways. 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. Putting all this together, the bill significantly reduces regulatory burdens and otherwise improves the operation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. At the same time, it not only maintains but increases public health protection.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, while we all have different people we admire and want to emulate, there are a few individuals that everyone can agree is a true hero and model citizen. Loren Torkelson was one such individual. Loren, a Billings, MT, native, passed away on September 17 in Lexington, KY. He was 54. In 1966, after graduating from the University of North Dakota, he joined the Air Force and became a pilot. During his second combat tour, he was shot down and taken prisoner. He spent 6 years in the infamous ``Hanoi Hilton'' suffering constant abuse until his release in 1973. He was a highly decorated officer, receiving two Silver Stars, three flying crosses, 16 Air Medals, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star for Valor, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. Yet for all the hardship he experienced, he acted like a hero in his private life as well. After the war, he earned a law degree from the University of North Dakota. After serving as a judge advocate, he joined and later became a partner in the law firm of Richter and Associates. He spent his legal career as a trial lawyer fighting for individual rights. His foremost passion was his family. It always came first. He lived a private life, never seeking gratification for his numerous accomplishments. There are few individuals who can lead such an exemplary professional and personal life. The way in which he lived his life will always be a model for others. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Burns, I wish to bring to the Senate's attention a serious law enforcement problem facing too many Montana communities. We both received a letter from Ron Efta from Wibaux, MT. Mr. Efta is president of the Montana County Attorneys Association. The association points to a serious problem with a lack of prosecution resources necessary to [[Page S 14688]] deal with cases caused by anti-government criminal activity in our State. The increased demands that these prosecutions create for local prosecutors and law enforcement is well documented in court and law enforcement records and by a letter I received from Montana Attorney General Joe Mazurek. Fortunately, part of the legislation before us today can help our local law enforcement and Attorney General Mazurek keep pace with these demands. As page 40 of the Committee Report states, the Edward Byrne Memorial State Law Enforcement Assistance Program includes $50 million in funding for discretionary grants to ``public and private agencies and nonprofit organizations for educational and training programs, technical assistance, improvement of state criminal justice systems, and demonstration projects of a multijurisdictional nature.'' I believe a modest investment of these funds, approximately $100,000, should be allocated to the Office of County Prosecution Services of the Attorney General of Montana. And I respectfully ask the support of the distinguished managers of this bill in making this request of the Justice Department.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It provides that no rider to this appropriations bill would take effect if it would weaken protection of human health and the environment. It is designed to send a strong message, particularly to the House, that we should not use appropriations bills for a back-door attack on environmental protection. Last night, Senator Bond argued that the bill gives unfettered discretion to EPA and might even be unconstitutional. I might say to my colleagues, I checked with the Justice Department. The Justice Department has reviewed the amendment and concluded that the amendment is constitutional. So that is not a problem. It is also aimed only at a set of specific rifle-shot riders, and if the administrator, under the amendment, invalidates a particular rider, the administrator would be fully bound by all of the terms and conditions of the underlying law. Let me remind everyone why this amendment is necessary. We need to reform our environmental laws, to make them not only strong but smart. But the appropriations bill, and particularly the House, is not environmental reform. It contains riders that roll back, eliminate environmental laws. For example, it eliminates the [[Page S 14342]] Great Lakes initiative; it eliminates rules for toxic air emissions from hazardous waste incinerators and refineries; it eliminates enforcement of the wetlands program. In the Environment & Public Works Committee, we are dealing with the wetlands program, working to reform it. This rider eliminates it. It eliminates rules that control discharge of raw sewage into public waters. The list of riders goes on. The Senate bill takes a much more moderate approach, and I compliment the Senator from Missouri for doing so. But we have to send a strong message to the conferees: We should not load up this bill with riders that would threaten the health and quality of American families. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I oppose the motion to table. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murray and Wellstone be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. We do not have much remaining time anyway. The Senator from Missouri made two points. The first is, gee, why are we doing this? Because of the onerous, objectionable, heinous riders that he by implication agreed are objectionable, heinous, bad provisions in the House bill, not the Senate bill. That point is irrelevant because what we are saying here is the Administrator would have the discretion to not follow a rider whether it is in the House bill or Senate bill, if it is enacted into law, because obviously when the conference is completed probably in the spirit of compromise the Senate is going to agree to a few of these objectionable, heinous dastardly riders. So we are just saying that in the event the conference, in a spirit of compromise with the Senate, agrees to a certain rider, this provision is available to give the Administrator the authority to protect the public health by not implementing it. So the basic point that the Senator from Missouri made, the first point, is irrelevant. The second point I think is really misconstrued. He said, gee, there is a supermandate. Mr. President, when we were dealing with the supermandate issue in regulatory reform, the question was whether an administrator of an agency could override law as a general principle, override law in drafting regulations as a general principle. That is very broad. This is much different, totally different. We are dealing here with approximately 17 specifically crafted House riders and a few specifically crafted Senate riders. Most of them would meet the test, but a few of them very specifically crafted would not. In addition, if the Administrator found that this rider would cause harm to the environment or public health, she then would simply have to just follow current law. She would say she would not follow the rider but she would follow current law. If someone did not like her decision, that is reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act and ultimately reviewable in the Federal courts. It seems to me that our main goal, the main objective is to be sure that we do not pass laws, particularly riders in this case, which have the effect of causing more harm to public health. So I urge my colleagues to do something pretty reasonable, that is, adopt this amendment because it will better protect human health and the environment. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I might say to the Senator I know of no other Senators who wish to speak.

Mr. BAUCUS. I do.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It provides that no environmental rider in the appropriations bill will take effect if the rider would weaken protection of public health or the environment. The amendment sends a strong message: We should not use appropriations bills for back door attacks on environmental protection or the quality of life in America. To explain why we need this amendment let me put it in perspective. During this Congress there has been a lot of debate about environmental laws. Some of the debate has been pretty heated. But when you strip away the rhetoric, two points become clear. First, the American people want a clean environment. I do not think there is much dispute about that. We [[Page S 14296]] want a clean environment because we want to protect the public health. We know that bad environment tends to degrade public health. Because we want the high quality of life that comes with clean air and clean water and clean neighborhoods, we feel we need environmental protection laws. And because we feel a responsibility to hand America the beautiful down to our children, we also need environmental protection laws. To have a clean environment we need strong, fair environmental laws. Second, we want environmental laws that are smart. Not only laws that are strong but that are smart, that make sense; laws that are less burdensome for landowners and for business, more capable of addressing the complex and subtle environmental problems we face today than are the laws America passed 25 years ago. It is not easy to get such laws. If we want to do a good job, strike the right balance, we need to put in the time and the effort to get it right--roll up our sleeves, do the work, find the right balance between laws that on the one hand protect the environment and on the other hand are not too burdensome, do not require too much paperwork. It takes work, a lot of hard work. And that is precisely what the House has failed to do. The House version of this bill contains 17 environmental riders designed to weaken environmental laws all across the country. These riders would jeopardize public health. They would jeopardize the quality of life for American families. In most cases, they respond to the demands of special interests rather than to the national interests of strong, efficient environmental protection. And they do the opposite of what the public wants. The riders would make our air and our water dirtier--not cleaner, dirtier. And the riders would make our air and water smellier, worsen threats to public health, and degrade the quality of life. A few of them are relatively innocuous. For example, the House prevents EPA from implementing the centralized vehicle inspection maintenance program, a program which EPA has pretty much decided not to implement anyway. But most of the riders are anything but innocuous. For example, one would block--entirely block--implementation of the Great Lakes water quality initiative, stop it dead in its tracks. That would halt efforts to take a coordinated approach to pollution from dioxin, mercury, PCB's and other bioaccumulative pollutants in the Great Lakes. Another House rider would block new rules regulating toxic air emissions from hazardous waste incinerators or from oil refineries. That means more, not less but more, cancer-causing chemicals in the air. And, for Americans who live near refineries, it means further years of living in a place that just, simply, smells bad. Another one--these are the House riders--would block EPA enforcement of the wetlands program under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Though we all know that we need to reform the wetlands program. I do not think there is a Senator here who has not heard of the need to reform the wetlands program. In Montana, for example, my State, farmers are fed up with the confusion and paperwork over the 404 program. But the House rider is not reform. It is a complete rollback. It stops the wetlands program dead in its tracks, period. Stops it. We lose thousands of acres of wetlands. Another would prohibit the implementation of the Clean Water Act limitations on industrial and municipal stormwater runoff. Other riders would stop the implementation of rules for combined sewer overflows. And the list goes on and on. In each case, Mr. President--this is an important point--there may be a legitimate underlying issue. There probably is a legitimate underlying issue in each case. Take combined sewer overflows, for example. What are combined sewer overflows? First of all, it is a pretty unpleasant situation. They are sewer systems that overflow during heavy rains, thereby pouring raw sewage directly into rivers and harbors and sometimes onto the shore. That is what combined sewer overflows are. There are a lot of them in our country. Over 1,000 communities have combined sewer overflows. They are a very significant cause of pollution and can cause serious public health problems. It is a major problem in many cities in our country. However, they are difficult and they are expensive to control. So the old command-and-control approach may not work best in dealing with the problem of combined sewer overflows. A few years ago, cities and environmental groups negotiated a more flexible approach. That is, both sides, on opposite sides of the problem, got together and negotiated a solution. The Environment and Public Works Committee endorsed this approach in the clean water bill that it reported last year, and the full House did the same in the clean water bill that it reported earlier this year. What does the House appropriations rider do about this? It is very simple. It prevents the EPA from doing anything to control these sewer overflows. It cannot even enforce the negotiated approach that everyone agreed to. Think of that. It cannot even enforce the negotiated approach that everyone agreed to. As a result, all across the country we will be doing less to reduce the overflow of raw sewage into public beaches. Clearly, this is the wrong approach to reform. What is the right approach? The Environment and Public Works Committee is working to reauthorize several of the major environmental laws. We are taking fresh approaches. For example, the new version of the Safe Drinking Water Act will dramatically reduce the cost of rules and regulations without weakening the protection of our drinking water. We are doing that. We are reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act in a good, solid, and balanced way. With some compromises by big business and insurers, we can also get a consensus reform of Superfund, a reform that cuts litigation costs for industry and speeds up cleanup of hazardous wastesites for local families. Other efforts--some of them even more ambitious--are underway. For example, under the leadership of Senators Mikulski and Bond, Congress commissioned a study of EPA by the National Academy of Public Administration. What did that study say? It said essentially that EPA should develop a long-term mission. It said that EPA should delegate more authority to States. And it said we should replace our hodgepodge of environmental laws with an overarching, uniform environmental law. If we can find consensus on turning these recommendations into law, EPA would be able to focus its efforts on the highest priority threats to public health and the quality of life rather than pursuing this hodgepodge of statutes which currently exists and which, I must say, these riders do not in the remote sense even begin to address. In fact, they go the opposite direction. We could make the environmental protection much more effective if we could adopt these recommendations. Businesses, farmers, and landowners would see paperwork dramatically cut back and compliance with laws made much more simple. The public would see the elimination of needless layers of bureaucracy. The House riders do none of this. They will simply mean a less healthy, less pleasant life for Americans. It is that simple. I am pleased to say that this Senate bill takes a much more moderate approach. It does not pursue the draconian riders to the same degree the House does. The Senate bill does contain some restrictions that, to my mind, do not belong. But there are fewer riders in the Senate bill, and several of those reflect previous Senate action and will not undermine environmental protection. For this reason, it is important for the Senate to make a strong statement against loading this bill up with riders that will gut our environmental laws, degrade the air and water, threaten public health, and worsen the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Montanans and millions of Americans. My amendment makes just such a statement. It is very simple. Here is what it says. . . . any prohibition or limitation in this Act on the implementation or enforcement, or any law administered by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall not apply if the Administrator [[Page S 14297]] determines that the application of the prohibition or limitation would diminish protection of human health and the environment otherwise provided by law. The amendment would act as kind of a circuit breaker. If the final version of the bill contains environmental riders, the amendment authorizes the EPA Administrator to review the implication of those riders. If the Administrator finds that the rider threatens public health or the environment, she would invalidate the restriction. In that case, she would continue to apply current law. As a result, the American people would know that their health, their air, and their rivers and streams are safe. I ask the Senate to support this amendment, to support the thoughtful environmental reform and to stand up for the quality of life, the public health, and our responsibility to the next generation of Americans. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent Senator Mikulski, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Boxer and Senator Reid be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not going to take my full 5 minutes. We are presented with a problem here. On the one hand, those of us who know Under Secretary Lyons, who have dealt with him, at the very least, question his policies and question the advisability of him staying in office. On the other hand, I think we all agree that it probably is not wise, and it is not good policy to fire somebody by legislation. The better route would be for us to change policy when we disagree with what an administration is doing, and work to try to get the person involved to change the views he has taken. I, frankly, am disappointed with Under Secretary Lyons for many reasons. I supported his confirmation, voted for the confirmation. Unfortunately, due to a whole host of things that have occurred, some of which have been referred to tonight, I must say the time has come, in my judgment, for Under Secretary Lyons to gracefully tender his resignation. I do not support the amendment before us, only because I think this is just not good policy. It is not good policy for us by legislation to fire somebody in the executive branch. There are better ways of doing this. I urge Senators to not support the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska. But I also urge Under Secretary Lyons to not only listen to the words, but listen to the music and realize that he should probably leave. We have a saying in the West that when someone has crossed the line and gone too far ``he's broken his pick.'' Regrettably, Under Secretary Lyons has broken his pick in the West. The time has come to make some changes, not by legislation, but by urging Secretary Lyons and the administration to find some graceful way for him to no longer hold the position that he now has. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I strongly urge not only Under Secretary Lyons but others involved to take appropriate action and put this matter to rest.

Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator not move to table for maybe 5, 6 minutes? I think the Senator from Idaho would like to make a brief statement, and certainly I would like to make a brief statement. I would urge the Senator to withhold.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I introduce the Forest Ecosystem Stewardship Demonstration Act of 1995. On May 18, 1995, my colleague from Montana, Congressman Pat Williams introduced this bill which would allow the experimental use by the U.S. Forest Service of a variety of stewardship contracts on private land. About a month ago I held a meeting in Kalispell about the Forest Stewardship Demonstration Act of 1995. The meeting was attended by loggers, environmentalists, and timber landowners. I received input from many individuals, businesses and organizations, including the Montana Wilderness Association, the Montana Logging Association, Flathead Audubon Society, the Montana Wilderness Association and the Flathead Economic Policy Center. I was pleased to see people from all walks of life joining together to find common ground on what is usually a divisive issue and reach a consensus on a sound land-management program for a section of private property near Columbia Falls. The stewardship plan, created by the Flathead Forestry Project, emphasizes forest management strategies that will allow contracts to be written with enough flexibility and diversity to accommodate each system's needs. This bill does not add red tape; does not reduce competition; and does not eliminate any existing public participation processes or environmental laws. Instead, this bill allows public forest owners and resource managers to directly selected qualified forest contractors. This new contract format allows landowners to custom design their own specific plans. Contractors will work directly for the public. In turn, this will increase the pool of contractors who can bid on public forest projects. We all know that it is in the best interest of our forests to manage our public lands in a manner that maintains their overall health. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these are public lands and citizens should be fully involved in participating in the decisions that affect our national forests. The Forest Ecosystem Stewardship Demonstration Act of 1995 proposes a unique plan to protect the health of our forests while also protecting the economic well-being of those who utilize the natural resources that our forests have to offer us. This bill will give the Flathead Forestry Project the opportunity to test this proposal on a section of private property in Montana. If successful, this plan can be used as a model for similar land management programs on public lands. I want to recognize the hard work of some of the men and women in Montana who are personally responsible for this unique legislation; Floyd Quiram, Jack Jay, Rem Koht, Bob Stone, Carol Daly, Lex Blood, Keith Olson and Steve Thompson. I am proud to introduce this legislation on their behalf, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I introduce the Forest Ecosystem Stewardship Demonstration Act of 1995. On May 18, 1995, my colleague from Montana, Congressman Pat Williams introduced this bill which would allow the experimental use by the U.S. Forest Service of a variety of stewardship contracts on private land. About a month ago I held a meeting in Kalispell about the Forest Stewardship Demonstration Act of 1995. The meeting was attended by loggers, environmentalists, and timber landowners. I received input from many individuals, businesses and organizations, including the Montana Wilderness Association, the Montana Logging Association, Flathead Audubon Society, the Montana Wilderness Association and the Flathead Economic Policy Center. I was pleased to see people from all walks of life joining together to find common ground on what is usually a divisive issue and reach a consensus on a sound land-management program for a section of private property near Columbia Falls. The stewardship plan, created by the Flathead Forestry Project, emphasizes forest management strategies that will allow contracts to be written with enough flexibility and diversity to accommodate each system's needs. This bill does not add red tape; does not reduce competition; and does not eliminate any existing public participation processes or environmental laws. Instead, this bill allows public forest owners and resource managers to directly selected qualified forest contractors. This new contract format allows landowners to custom design their own specific plans. Contractors will work directly for the public. In turn, this will increase the pool of contractors who can bid on public forest projects. We all know that it is in the best interest of our forests to manage our public lands in a manner that maintains their overall health. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these are public lands and citizens should be fully involved in participating in the decisions that affect our national forests. The Forest Ecosystem Stewardship Demonstration Act of 1995 proposes a unique plan to protect the health of our forests while also protecting the economic well-being of those who utilize the natural resources that our forests have to offer us. This bill will give the Flathead Forestry Project the opportunity to test this proposal on a section of private property in Montana. If successful, this plan can be used as a model for similar land management programs on public lands. I want to recognize the hard work of some of the men and women in Montana who are personally responsible for this unique legislation; Floyd Quiram, Jack Jay, Rem Koht, Bob Stone, Carol Daly, Lex Blood, Keith Olson and Steve Thompson. I am proud to introduce this legislation on their behalf, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues from Nevada and Arkansas--the amendment to eliminate the funding for the Market Promotion Program. I think this effort is a misguided attack on a program which is successful in its accomplishments. In fact I believe funding for this program should be increased, not eliminated. Mr. President, American agriculture is an example of successful export growth. This year our exports will be in the neighborhood of $50 billion. And our trade surplus in agricultural goods is around $20 billion. And one big reason is the MPP. This program promotes American agricultural commodities in foreign markets. This program allows foreign businesses to advertise American products in their operations. The MPP helps put American beef in Chinese Big Macs--rather than less expensive, locally produced foods. And the benefits of such a program are well-recognized by our competitors in the global marketplace. The European Union, our largest and most tenacious agricultural export adversary, outspends us nearly 3 to 1 in programs of this type. They spend as much to export wine as we do for all our commodities through the MPP. I think that speaks volumes about these programs. This year we have seen significant advances in our ability to enter foreign markets. We've moved apples and broccoli in Japan, and negotiated an agreement to ship more meat into Korea. These exports mean jobs and revenue in America. And I am confident this trend will continue. But it makes no sense to eliminate the tools which have facilitated this progress. The MPP is one such tool. Mr. President, I strongly endorse the Market Promotion Program and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment to end the funding for this valuable program.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a made in Montana business. Corporate Air of Billings, MT is a modern day success story. Founded in 1981 by Mike and Linda Overstreet, Corporate Air has grown to employ over 300 people and serve a national and international market. Mike has been an ambassador for Montana and America. And Corporate Air has created new jobs both here and abroad. Today, they are leaders in an overseas market that appears limitless. [[Page S 13136]] That is what teamwork and Corporate Air is all about. This company was years ahead of the industry in recognizing that freight hauling was a viable growth industry for the future. And they were also far ahead in recognizing and seizing the opportunity for expansion in Asia. Mike Overstreet accompanied me on two trade missions to Asia in order to look at exciting business opportunities. That is why I was not surprised when Corporate Air was recently recognized with the Regional Airlines Teamwork Award by the Professional Pilots Association. This award is testament to teamwork and a can-do attitude that describes Montanans in general and the Overstreets in particular. Corporate Air and Montana understand that teamwork can solve almost any problem, no matter how difficult. When founded in 1981, the economy in America and Montana was weak. Naysayers discounted the chances of a little Montana air service that did not carry passengers. Well, they were wrong. Through organization, vision, and hard work, the Overstreets and Corporate Air not only made it but are national and international leaders. Finally, Corporate Air is as committed to the Billings community as to success in business. They organized a successful Big Sky International Air Show, with an attendance of over 12,000 people, with the proceeds going to local charities. That is just one example of how Corporate Air and the Overstreet family strive daily to give back to the community that helped them grow. Their children, Luke and Sara, and their three wonderful grandchildren represent generations of hardworking Montanans who will continue Mike and Linda's work. To conclude, Mr. President, we in Montana are justifiably proud of this important award and Corporate Air's many contributions. The rest of America would do well to follow the example set by these innovative Montanans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very important subject, welfare reform. I have approached the debate myself by trying to go back to the basics. I think all of us have attempted that. That is by asking why we have a welfare system at all, what should it do, and, just as important, what should it not do? The answers to those questions, I think, are simple. We now do not have a welfare system just in order to give money to poor people. That is not the point of welfare. It is not the point of welfare simply to give money to poor people. Neither do we have a welfare system to punish and humiliate people, especially children, for being poor. The reason we have a welfare system is to help people in a tough spot get back on their feet and back to work; to promote with compassion the values of work, personal responsibility and self- sufficiency we all share as Americans. The failure of our present system to meet these goals is a national tragedy. It is a top concern of Montanans and of all Americans, and rightly so. It seems to me very sad that Congress is approaching welfare reform in a polarized, partisan way. After spending several weeks at home listening, talking to people, I know the American people expect better. They expect a serious effort to solve a serious problem. And they are right. That is why I have reached out to work with Republicans on welfare reform, and it is why I am disappointed to see how little effort the majority has made to work with Democrats and how little cooperation there is between the administration and the Congress. If we continue on this course, the country will not get welfare reform. It will get a partisan bill, maybe a veto, and ultimately an embarrassing failure. So, while we still have time, today I would like to urge us all to try a bit harder to work better together, to do what we know is right, listen to the people, and get the job done. In the past month, I have listened to Montanans I meet along the highway. I am walking across my State. I talk to people on welfare and people who have fought their way off welfare and into jobs, to teachers from Head Start and professionals from State government, county human service officers, to advocates for poor people, and to middle-class taxpayers who pay for our system. As heated as the welfare reform debate can be, I have learned that most of us have some basic principles in common. We agree that America needs [[Page S 12783]] a welfare system, but one which encourages personal responsibility, encourages work and self-sufficiency, lets States like Montana create systems that make sense for our own unique problems, is fair to taxpayers, protects children, and helps keep families together. We agree the present system does not achieve these goals. It is broken and it needs dramatic change. The Federal Government has administered our major welfare program, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, or AFDC, since the 1930's. I think it is fair to say that AFDC has failed to live up to these principles, and there is no reason to reinforce failure. The best thing to do now is not to tinker with the AFDC, or come up with a substitute to it; it is to get the Federal Government out of AFDC, turn it into a block grant, let the States design different plans, come up with their own ideas and try to learn from one another. Therefore, it is with some reluctance I will vote against the alternative proposal by the Democratic leader. It has some good points: a time limit, work requirements, a child care program, and protection for children. Those are very important. But the proposal has a fundamental flaw. Under the proposal, the Federal Government will continue to administer welfare reform. I believe that will continue to cause a problem. It will continue to write requirements for States, and I believe it will perpetuate a system that has failed. That is why, on balance, I prefer the welfare reform bill offered by Senator Dole. The Dole proposal makes a clean break with the past. It converts the welfare program into a block grant, eliminating red tape and giving States the flexibility they need to run their own program. And it does some other essential things. It is fair to taxpayers. It does not require States to adopt the more punitive approaches of the House bill, such as making States deny benefits to families when they have more children, or to unwed teenage mothers. And by placing a time limit on benefits and requiring work, it moves away from a program which is based on benefit checks toward one which is based on responsibility and self-help. Thus, I hope I will ultimately be able to vote for Senator Dole's proposal. But at this point I believe it has some very serious problems. They can be fixed, but we cannot evade them. These problems fall into three main areas: First, failure to provide for child care. First, women and children, the people who receive the big majority of AFDC benefits, can only go to work if they have a safe, dependable provider of child care, and child care is expensive. When a mother comes off AFDC, she is likely to start with a pretty low-paying job. So, if we expect welfare recipients to work, we must offer some help with child care. But, at present, the Dole bill offers no real help with child care. It merely gives States the option of exempting families with children before their first birthday from the work participation requirements. We have to do much better. Second, the safety net for families with children. While we must tell people they have to go back to work in a reasonable time, we have also to protect them when times are really tough: when a father suddenly leaves a family, when a wage-earner is killed or disabled in an accident, when a business closes, and when a young, single mother suddenly loses her job. We cannot and we must not simply cut away the whole social safety net. So, if the Federal Government is going to turn the welfare system over to the States, we need a guarantee that the States will continue to provide their part of that safety net. We need a guarantee that, under budget pressures as most of them are, they will not simply take the money and eliminate most or all benefits for people who truly need help. The Dole bill does not provide that guarantee. Instead, it merely says that for 2 years, States must reach 75 percent or more of their present level of spending. After that, all bets are off. That is not good enough. Third, the Dole bill contains provisions which should not be in a welfare bill at all. All these should be removed. For example, it turns the Food Stamp Program into an optional block grant that was not in the committee bill. It is in the Dole bill. This is unnecessary, because the Food Stamp Program on the whole works. No doubt it can be improved in some ways, but it provides our families and children with the food they need. And turning food stamps into a block grant is also dangerous, because it threatens the nutrition of poor children. States could eliminate nutrition services completely, which would threaten kids' health. Or they could turn them into cash grants, which would encourage fraud and abuse by recipients. In addition, the Dole bill contains a large and controversial job training program. This is a very important issue which should be considered on its own merits, not simply lumped into the welfare bill without debate. america needs a bipartisan reform Finally, and once again, my most important criticism applies to the whole approach Congress has taken to welfare reform. That is, I believe Congress is treating this as a political issue rather than a real issue. That is wrong. The failure of the welfare system is a serious social problem. It is a top concern of the public, and rightly so. It deserves to be more than a political hockey puck. But today, we have a Democratic bill and a Republican bill. Slogans and press releases. All the things that have made so many Americans fed up with politics. If nothing changes, we will get a partisan bill pushed through with a very narrow margin of votes. We will get a veto. It will be sustained. And at the end of the year, we will have no welfare reform. That does not have to happen. We still have time for serious work on a serious problem. We can improve this bill, and ultimately get a good, tough, fair reform. I hope my colleagues here will join me. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I yield myself such time as I may consume.