Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Our concern is with the proposed sale of palladium and platinum in the stockpile. The national defense stockpile of palladium represents the equivalent of 20 percent of the annual demand for this metal, and the national defense stockpile of platinum represents 5 percent of the national demand. The price of both of these metals is quite volatile. There is already some indication that just the recommendation for sale has had a depressive impact on the market price. Did the committee, when it included palladium and platinum among the materials to be disposed, examine the implications of disposition of palladium and platinum?

Mr. BAUCUS. The problem from Montana's perspective is that the Stillwater Mine has only recently begun to recover its costs of production as the price of palladium has stabilized at a level sufficient to justify operation of the mine. Because of the improvements in price, Stillwater Mining Co. has announced an intention to double its production of palladium beginning in mid-1997. The doubling of production will increase the number of high-paid underground mining jobs by approximately 400. In Montana, these jobs are extremely important to our economic health.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to raise an issue with the manager regarding section 3402 of the bill. This section appears on page 587 and is entitled ``Disposal of Obsolete and Excess Materials Contained in the National Defense Stockpile.'' I understand that the purpose of this provision is to eliminate the strategic materials in the national defense stockpile with three exceptions. Is that correct?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will exempt custom gunsmiths who manufacture, produce or import fewer than 50 guns a year from the Federal excise tax on firearms. In 1982, this body passed legislation which was subsequently signed into law which was intended to relieve custom gunsmiths from the excise tax. Apparently we were not clear enough. Notwithstanding that legislation, the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms continue to attempt to collect the excise tax from custom gunsmiths. Mr. President, the custom gunsmith is a small operator. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, many of these small operators do not know that an excise tax is owed until they receive a visit from the IRS or the BATF. Because the number of custom gunsmiths is small and because they produce few guns, the revenue raised from the imposition of the excise tax is insubstantial. In fact, the BATF has indicated that the cost to the BATF of collecting the tax may well exceed the revenue raised from the tax. For all of these reasons, Congress attempted to relieve custom gunsmiths from the firearms excise tax in 1982. The bill I introduce today completes that job.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, while efforts to address the needs of our less-developed communities have often come up short, innovation from the private sector has been instrumental in locating problems and providing successful solutions. Past experience shows that successful community development can only be achieved through an equal partnership between the public and private sector. Each year, on behalf of the Federal Housing Finance Board [FHFB] and Federal Home Loan Bank System [FHLBS], 12 financial institutions from around the country are recognized for exemplary efforts in the revitalization of America's communities. I am pleased to announce that three financial institutions in Montana that are part of Glacier Bancorp, Inc. have been chosen by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle to receive the Community Partnership Award for 1995. They include Glacier Bank, F.S.B. of Kalispell, the First National Bank of Whitefish, and the First National Bank of Eureka. Glacier Bank and its two affiliates were recognized for developing innovative ways of using the Affordable Housing Program [AHP] and the Community Investment Program [CIP] funds to create homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income families, and for working with numerous nonprofit partners and local governments to help meet community needs. These institutions hold $84 million in regular advances and have used Federal Home Loan Bank funding programs to assemble a full range of single and multifamily loan products, many of which would not have been possible without FHLB funding. In addition, they also used advances to match fund their FHA/VA loans and developed a portfolio loan product called BOB that is also funded with advances. While using the Affordable Housing Program, Glacier Bancorp, Inc., and its institutions have sponsored three successful AHP projects receiving $301,000 in targeted grants. Glacier Bank and the city of Kalispell are responsible for devising an innovative financing package to preserve an apartment complex in downtown Kalispell for very low- income and homeless individuals. Under the same program, Glacier Bank was awarded AHP funds for a homeownership project to help low- and moderate-income households purchase homes in distressed neighborhoods. Without Glacier's commitment to relax their underwriting standards for these homes, the project would not have been possible. These projects will create affordable housing for 64 households. Under the Community Investment Program, the institutions have used $17 million in CIP funds for homeowner programs benefiting 3000 households. These examples of civic responsibility and the spirit of community are only a few of Glacier Bancorp, Inc. efforts to create affordable housing for less developed communities. This institutions' achievements should serve as a reminder of what is possible when the private sector acts locally in an innovative alliance with the Government.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the amendment being offered by Senators Dominici, Inouye, and McCain. The Interior appropriations bill as it is now written would single out native American programs for deep, deep budget cuts. While we must all do our fair share to bring down the budget deficit, these programs that are so important to our Indian people of my home State of Montana, are being singled out unfairly. For instance, as Senator Domenici pointed out last night, 47 percent of the savings in this bill come from the Indian programs. And, under the Senate bill in its present form, BIA programs would be slashed by about half a billion dollars--a reduction of over 30 percent from last year's appropriation. In a word, this is unfair. But it is also unwise. While the leadership of Montana's tribal nations have worked hard--and effectively--to improve conditions on our seven reservations, enormous needs remain. We need to do more to educate our Indian youth. But this legislation cuts Indian education. We have a trust responsibility to provide for the health and welfare of our Native Americans. But this legislation takes a meat axe to those programs. And, while we should be doing everything possible to encourage economic development on our Indian reservations--places with some of the highest unemployment in America--community development programs take a huge hit in this legislation. I believe our Indian people are willing to do their fair share to bring down the deficit. But it is wrong to single them out for such unfair treatment. For this reason, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, obviously, I will be brief with only 1 minute. Two very basic points here: One, I think it is important to remember the words of former Senator Barry Goldwater who essentially said, ``We should get Government off our backs, out of our wallets, and out of our bedroom.'' He truly saw the importance of Government not getting involved in individual, personal decisions such as this. It is a very complex, emotional subject. Essentially, I believe, and I think most Americans believe, when it comes to abortion, it is a matter of individual conscience, a matter that a woman must decide for herself, according to the dictates of her conscience, religion, her God. It is a very personal choice that the Government should not be making for her. Second, we should not allow women employees of the Federal Government to be treated as second-class citizens. That is what this amendment does. It says that if you are a woman and a Federal employee, you are treated in a second-class nature. That is wrong. On those two bases, I strongly urge the defeat of the Nickles amendment. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. President. Vietnam Moving Wall Opening Ceremony Mr. President, this morning, the Vietnam Moving Wall--the portable replica of the Vietnam War Memorial--came to Bozeman, MT. I would like to offer my thanks and congratulations to retired Col. Ron Glock and Jim Caird for their hard work in making it all happen, and say a few words in honor of this solemn occasion. Walls generally divide people. But this wall unites us. It unites us, as Montanans and Americans, in reverence and gratitude to the Americans who gave their lives in Vietnam. The Vietnam War Memorial allows people to touch the names of their friends and their relatives, and remember those individuals who touched our lives so deeply. And the Moving Wall, as it travels our country, allows each of us to honor their lives and their gifts, and remember the lessons of history. The young people who were born after the war--many of them now entering adulthood--have a chance to experience and understand the magnitude of a war where we lost over 50,000 Americans. The families and comrades in arms see their brothers, fathers, and friends given the honor which is their due. And we all learn again the lesson of the cost of war. So today we come together to honor and remember all those we lost in Vietnam, and in particular those who went off to war from Bozeman and Montana State and whose names we can read on the Wall today: David Jay Allison, Jack Herbert Anderson, Alan Frederick Ashall, Richard DeWyatt Clark, Air Force Capt. Charles Glendon Dudley, whose mother is present at the opening ceremony this morning, Glenn Charles Fish, James Francis Fuhrman, Raymond LeRoy Gallagher, Edward Joseph Hagl, Hal Kent Henderson, James D. Hunt, Lyle Albert Johnson, Ronald George Jordet, Patrick Joseph Magee, Ronald John Moe, Stephen Stanford Oviatt, Duane Kenneth Peterson, Jimmy Dee Pickle, Dean Andrew Pogreba, Alexander Pomeroy, Roger Paul Richardson, Anton John Schonbrich, Donald William Seidel, Larry Max Smith, Jerry Wayne Snyder, Arthur Lee Stockberger, Johnnie Bowen West- ervelt, Robert Vincent Willett, Jr., and Alvy Eugene Wood. May the Lord bless them and grant them eternal peace.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is not an easy matter for me. I am on the Finance Committee. Bob Packwood is my chairman. I have known Bob Packwood, I have served with Bob Packwood for many years. But I believe that we as Senators have a higher calling. It is not friendship--though friendship is very important--it is more important than friendship. It is fulfilling our responsibility of public service; living up to our obligation to the people we represent. When I first came to the Congress, there was a joint conference meeting on a tax bill, a major tax bill. I wanted to learn a little bit about the tax bill. I wanted to learn how Senators and House Members decide matters in a conference. But I had a hard time finding where the conferees were meeting. Finally, I asked myself, ``Who would know where the conferees were meeting?'' This is about 20 years ago, about 1975. Mike Mansfield, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, I thought ought to be able to tell me where the conferees are meeting. I went to his office. They told me. I went to the meeting. There was a policeman standing at the door. I said, ``I am a Member of Congress.'' He said, ``OK, go in.'' It was the House Ways and Means Committee hearing room: A sea of executive branch people. Secretary Bill Simon was there. Senator Russell Long, chairman of the conference, was talking about when he was a boy back years ago in Louisiana. Al Ullman, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was talking. Then Jimmy Burke of Massachusetts walked up to me and said I had to leave. ``Why,'' I asked. He said, ``Because of the rules.'' I said, ``What rules?'' He said, ``The Senate rules.'' I asked, ``What Senate rules?'' He said, ``Just the rules.'' He said, ``Nobody else can be in here; nobody else; no other Senator or Congressman. It is closed to everybody--closed to the public, closed to the press, closed to Members of the House, closed to the Senate.'' I said, ``That is wrong. And I am going to do something about it.'' That afternoon, I stood up on the floor of the House and I said it was time to change this rule. Ab Mikva, then a House Member, got up and agreed with me. And the next year we had the rules changed, so now all conferences are open to the public. I am very proud of that. And I am also very proud of my home State of Montana and a provision we have in our State constitution requiring that all public meetings be open. It causes a certain burden on our Governor, a burden on certain State officials who would rather, in some instances, not to have everything open, but it is open. And the public benefits from this openness. In Montana, we know what our State government is up to. This has helped tremendously to increase confidence in the people of the State of Montana in State government. It has made a big difference. I just stand here, Mr. President, basically to say that we have a much higher calling and honor to perform the public trust; that is openness. The U.S. Congress now is at one of its lowest ebbs in public popularity in modern history. Seventy-five percent of the public distrust the Congress. I say one way, albeit a small way, to help regain some trust that the American people have lost in this institution is to open up everything. Open up the Ethics Committee investigation. What is there to hide? Sure, there is going to be a little bit of embarrassment. It is going to be difficult for some people. Some people of the Senate will be a little bit put out, but in the long run, public confidence will increase. Again, this is a very difficult matter for me to address, because I am on the Finance Committee. But I feel very strongly that fair and open hearings are the right thing to do. I am bound to stand up and do what I think is right. I think we should vote for the resolution sponsored by the Senator from California.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. For several years, the United States and the United Nations have relied on a system of safe havens. These were protected towns: Gorazde, Srebrenica, and Zepa in eastern Bosnia; Sarajevo, the capital; and Bihac in the west. U.N. peacekeepers were to provide security for the people in these towns, while an overall arms embargo covered all participants in the war. failure of present policy Where do we now stand today? The Bosnian Serbs have ignored repeated efforts on the part of Americans, Europeans, and Russians to achieve peace. Instead, they have attacked all the safe havens. Srebrenica has been captured, and its women and children expelled. Nobody knows what has become of the men of the town. The Western countries had given all these people a guarantee of safety. Zepa fell yesterday. Bihac is under attack. Sarajevo is being bombed as heavily as ever. And the U.N. peacekeepers have been shot at, shelled, and taken hostage. Clearly, this policy has failed. The U.N. force has proven unable to prevent Bosnian Serb offensives, to protect civilians, or even to protect its own members. The time has come to admit it and move to something new. three choices No choice is a good one. But I believe we have essentially three options, and one is superior. First and foremost, we should not become involved as a combatant in the war. That would confront the American armed services with an impossible task--to impose a permanent political settlement. We would be likely to lose many men and women; we would certainly lose some; and ultimately it would be futile. Second, the strategy some propose of American air attacks against Bosnian Serb positions, is irredeemably flawed. It does not command the full support of our allies, and in any case history shows that air attacks without a coordinated ground campaign do not succeed. The only remaining choice is the third: to lift the arms embargo and let the Bosnian Government fight in defense of its country. This may not solve the problems of the former Yugoslavia--and I do not believe an outside power can solve those problems--but it has the virtue of justice. A country attacked by an outside aggressor, or by a rebellion against a legitimate government, has the right to defend itself as best it can. And its people, who have seen the West break its promise to keep them safe, should at least be able to fight for themselves. That is why I support this resolution. And I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. And how much time has he utilized?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield 1 more minute. I have used 1 minute of the Senator's time.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. [[Page S 9894]] Mr. President, I am rising to strongly support the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] who wants to strike the so-called TRI provisions from the bill. Under the TRI provisions, the toxics release inventory reporting provisions, currently today in the law, when a major chemical company emits toxic chemicals into the air or water which could cause acute, chronic, adverse health effects to the environment, that company just has to state to the public the amount of toxic chemicals that is released up into the environment. It does not say to the company you have to put on a scrubber; it does not say to the company you have to clean it up; it does not say to the company you have to do anything to stop what you are emitting, just that you have to disclose to Americans, disclose to the public the amount that is being emitted. That is all it is. I might say, Mr. President, that the consequences of this provision in the law enacted not too many years ago have been very beneficial. First, to the public so the public knows what is being emitted, and they can take whatever action they may want to take. It has also been beneficial to the companies. The Chemical Manufacturers Association has said, as a consequence of this act alone, there has been a 50 percent reduction in chemicals emitted by their members. Some major chemical manufacturing companies have said it has helped them because they did not know how much they were emitting in the past. This law requires them to disclose what they are emitting. Now they know and they are able to change their manufacturing process to emit less and to also make their processes much more efficient. It has helped them. It makes no sense, Mr. President, in this bill before us today, a regulatory reform bill designed to reform regulations and just make sure that regulations are considered more easily and more efficiently, to enact a substantive provision to delete the toxics release inventory law. That is a substantive provision. This is a regulatory reform bill. I might add there have been no hearings on this provision, none. In fact, this provision was not even in any bill. It was just suddenly jammed in in the Chamber. It has had no consideration. Just as we deleted, a couple of hours ago, another substantive provision regarding the Superfund, it makes eminent sense that we should also here tonight delete this substantive provision, the toxics release inventory provision, a provision which is very beneficial to Americans. Essentially, this provision that is now before us, I must say, disrupts the basic concept of right to know which simply says, OK, folks, you have a right to know what is emitted. That's all. It does not in any way tell companies to control what is being emitted. Mr. President, for those reasons we should adopt the Lautenberg amendment to delete this substantive provision. It is also very ironic; here we are today considering the regulatory reform bill to make the regulatory process more efficient with more information, with risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. If the Lautenberg amendment does not pass, we are saying less information is better. We are saying that the public does not have a right to know what toxic chemicals are being released. It makes no sense.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might also consume, say, 1 minute of the time controlled by Senator Lautenberg, a total of 4.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for those speakers who wish to speak in favor of the Lautenberg amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, again, just to say what this amendment does, currently a chemical is listed if it has acute, or chronic health or environmental effects. The bill before us says, in addition to knowing the toxic effects of the chemical, you have to show how much of the chemical is actually being released and if that release will result in harmful effects. And you have to show this before it is listed on the TRI. It is a catch-22. It cannot be done. Second, Mr. President, the standard by which a chemical would be listed, that is required to be listed or not, is so vague no one can explain what the standard is. I have read this standard many, many times, over and over again. I do not know what it says. It is a lawyer's paradise. This provision is going to be tremendously litigated. And I just again urge Senators to pass the Lautenberg amendment, which deletes a substantive provision which the public very much desires as the right to know which chemicals are being emitted into the atmosphere. And I thank the Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in favor of the TRI amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg. I might inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on that amendment, and I might inquire of the Senator from Delaware, if he is not going to use his time, perhaps I could use some of his time on the TRI amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Arizona. With all due respect, they are really not on target. That is for this reason. We all agree that Superfund has terrific problems. But the problems that it has are not solved by this amendment. This amendment does not even address--does not even begin to address--the problems of the Superfund. In some sense, they are irrelevant to the problems facing Superfund. I will explain that. One of the main problems of Superfund today is joint and several and strict liability. This amendment has nothing to do with that, despite what the Senator from Arizona would like us to believe. Under joint and several and strict liability standards today, all parties are subject to the same joint and several and strict liability standard. And what happens? Some company--maybe the primary perpetrator that caused most of the toxic waste and hazardous waste at a site and other companies may be partners, or another company may have bought the site later, or a company may have owned the site earlier. A bank might be involved. A bank might have made a certain loan to one of the parties. Under the current law, they are all lumped in together. They are all jointly and severally liable and subject to strict liability. That is the current law. Here is what happens. Everybody sues everybody else claiming that he is the principal problem--not me but him. Well, everybody that is subject to liability, of course, is jointly and severally liable. That is why there are a lot of lawsuits today. It is the standard which creates the lawsuits. All of the people that are involved are suing each other. This amendment has nothing to do with that--nothing to do with that. So to stand up here on the floor of the Senate and say this amendment, section 628, is going to solve the problems of the red tape and delay, is a nonstatement, it is not accurate. It is not accurate because the problems facing people that cause all of the problems of the Superfund are caused by the underlying statute, substantive law not addressed by this amendment. Here is another example. Let us take a small businessman, somebody who has fewer than 50 barrels of hazardous waste at a site, who is a de minimis contributor. Under the provisions of the Superfund reform which we tried to enact last year, small businesses would be either exempt if they are particularly small; or if they are somewhat small, they would be entitled to a very expeditious standard and their liability limited to their ability to pay. That is a problem that the Environment and Public Works Committee tried to solve last year. But section 628 of this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with these real problems-- nothing. All section 628 says is cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment must be prepared. It has nothing to do with the problems of small business, Mr. President--nothing. Last year, we tried to enact Superfund reform--and as the Senator from New Jersey a few minutes ago very ably stated, it was stopped. We came up with a provision that eliminated joint and several liability to those who settled their liability through a new voluntary allocation system and not through court. Under this new allocation system companies would have an allocator decide which company is proportionately responsible for which portion of the waste. And if the company agrees and settles, they could not be sued; they would be immune from a lawsuit. Good idea. Everybody thought it was a good idea. Big business loved it. Small business was ecstatic. Environmentalists thought it was great. All the groups came together and agreed that this is a good, major reform to the Superfund. There are lots of other reforms in Superfund that we tried to pass last year. Some just did not want it passed. It was a disservice to the country. So here we are all over again trying to reform Superfund. This amendment has nothing to do with any of that. Nothing. N-o-t-h-i-n-g. The way to solve Superfund, Mr. President, frankly, is not to pass this amendment. What does this amendment do? It says you take the current lousy, botched up, unworkable Superfund program and add to all of the problems--more problems. It says start over again [[Page S 9852]] and add a new kind of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. That is what this amendment does. It says, take the current lousy law and delay it further, add more redtape, start all over again. It means fewer cleanups. There are lots of sites in this country, Mr. President, where cleanups are finally agreed to and are in progress. It has taken 10, 12, 15 years in some cases. This amendment says go back and start over again. That is exactly what it does, despite what anybody else says. So the answer, I think--and I have given a lot of thoughtful consideration to this, not rhetoric or a lot of stuff, not playing to the cameras--a thoughtful solution to this, frankly, is to delete this provision from the bill. It is not going to solve the Superfund problems. Somebody might like to say that it does for the people back home. In fact, it makes it worse. Rather, let us solve this the only way these problems can be solved; that is, to lower the rhetoric, quit the demagoguery, sit down and work with all of the people involved. You roll up your sleeves and cross the t's and dot the i's and find a solution, which is what happened over a year ago. Many outside groups who know the subject came together, worked hard, and reached an agreement. Most of the insurance industry also agreed. Some of the insurance industry did not agree, but most did. Let me read some of the supporters of it: Aetna Life Insurance, Allied Signal, American Automobile Manufacturers--this list goes on and on, and I will not bore the Senate. I am glancing here, and these are big, well-recognized organizations and companies. There must be over 100 on this list. One of the greatest disservices this Congress has performed, in my judgment, in the last several years is the failure to pass Superfund legislation a year ago because it was a solid reform that would have helped people, provided a public service, which is what we are all elected to do. This amendment in this bill, section 628, not only does not do that, it makes a bad problem worse. I just ask every Senator and every staff person listening to forget the rhetoric, read the provisions of this bill, section 628, read Superfund, and just think. All you have to do is think. If you think, you are going to reach, I submit, roughly the same conclusion and therefore realize that, maybe we should not be including Superfund in this regulatory reform bill after all. And if we are going to do right by our people back home, let us take it out and reform Superfund in the right way, through the committee process, something along the lines that we enacted a year ago.

Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.

Mr. BAUCUS. If I could just----

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I recently wrote a letter to the principal author of the Livestock Grazing Act outlining my concerns over this bill. I ask that this letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 13, 1995. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Pete: The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I have added my name as a cosponsor of S. 852, the ``Livestock Grazing Act.'' Livestock operators are a vital part of Montana's economic base. It is my belief that S. 852, as originally drafted, offers the security that ranchers need to remain viable during these uncertain economic times. The men and women who make their living off the land form the backbone of Montana. Without the rancher, many small communities would simply cease to exist. Absent ranching, the wide open spaces that provide elk winter range, wildlife corridors and critical wildlife habitat would be jeopardized by subdivision and development. In short, ranching is fundamental to preserving much of what makes Montana, ``the last, best place.'' As you move to Energy Committee markup of S. 852, I ask that you satisfy three specific concerns that are critical to my support of this legislation. These concerns are as follows: 1. public participation While the federal public lands are essential to many livestock operators, they are also deeply valued by the general public. Clean streams and healthy wildlife populations are just as important to Montana's sportsmen as predictability and security in the federal grazing rules are to the rancher. S. 852 must ensure that the public is granted full participation in the decision-making process affecting the use and management of these lands. If it does not, I will work to see that comprehensive public participation is assured before this legislation reaches a final vote on the Senate floor. We must not lose sight of the fact that these are public lands; they belong to all of us. Ranchers, hunters, fishermen, birdwatchers, motorized recreationists and every other segment of the user public must be granted an equal seat at the table. Montana has already worked with the BLM to identify and select individuals interested in working together to improve our public range lands. Just last week, the BLM and the Governor of Montana jointly appointed 45 individuals to three advisory councils to begin this important work. S. 852 cannot deprive these Montanans of their fundamental democratic right of participation. 2. more on-the-ground work, less paperwork With over 30 percent of our land base in federal ownership, many Montanans interact on a daily basis with federal land managers. Perhaps our biggest criticism with all federal land management agencies is the ever-increasing allocation of limited resources to paperwork and bureaucracy rather than actual work in the field. The men and women who work for these agencies share this sentiment, and are frustrated by it. Having spent a rainy day working with ranchers, conservationists and government personnel to rehabilitate a stream in the Blackfoot Valley, I have seen firsthand how much good can be done with a little start-up money and a few strong backs. As the budgets of our land management agencies continue to shrink, their resources must be directed to the field, rather than to increased bureaucracy and paperwork. S. 852 must deemphasize paperwork and get the money to the allotment level where we can see tangible benefits come from our tax dollars. 3. Stewardship Over 70 percent of BLM grazing lands in Montana are rated good to excellent, while less than 5 percent is in poor condition. These numbers demonstrate that our public lands grazers are largely good stewards of the land. Still, there is room for improvement. S. 852 must include a mechanism that gives permittees increased responsibility for bringing the public range into good to excellent condition. Such solutions cannot be rigidly imposed by those who are removed from the land and the unique challenges that exist on each allotment. We will see improvement only if these solutions come from the permittee. S. 852 should encourage innovative local stewardship. In closing, I look forward to working with you on this very important issue to our states. It is my belief that the fundamental thrust of S. 852, coupled with these recommendations, will serve to promote responsible public lands stewardship while providing the necessary security that our ranchers need to remain viable in Montana and throughout the West. With best personal regards, I am Sincerely, Max Baucus.