Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I am just perplexed, in all candor, because the provisions of section 628 with respect to risk assessment are actually quite different from current Superfund law. Let me point out some differences. One, under this bill cleanups would generally be required only if the benefits justify the costs. That is a different standard than current law. And second, under this bill only the least-cost cleanup option would be selected. That is now not the case under Superfund. So they are not the same. Thus, S. 343, including section 628, would, by definition, require EPA, for example, and the States to stop what they are now doing and go back all over again from scratch and start the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, which would add more cost, more delay, and more red tape. And because Federal facility sites will cost more than $10 million to clean up, the clean up of each of these sites would be further delayed under the provisions of this bill. Why does the Senator believe that those provisions would not necessarily stop the present cleanup program and cause more red tape, more delay?

Mr. BAUCUS. Another question. I am just curious of the Senator's view, what is the precise language in section 628 that will speed up cleanups, that will address the problems small businesses face, that will reduce regulatory red tape, that addresses the joint and several and strict liability problem that bedevils so many parties involving cleanup sites? I wonder what is the precise language in this amendment which addresses the real problems--I agree they exist--that so many people face when dealing with Superfund. Can the [[Page S 9851]] Senator point out some language in the amendment that he thinks will specifically help answer some of those problems?

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. If I might ask----

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I heard the Senator say that in the Senator's opinion that the provisions of S. 343, particularly section 628, are consistent with or conform with basically the Superfund cost-benefit or risk assessment provisions now, and because they are consistent and basically conform, there should be no opposition. My question is, if they are consistent, conform, then what is the purpose of this provision? That is, the Superfund already does contain, as the Senator already said, cost-benefit and risk assessment provisions in determining sites and remedy selection and plans for cleanup. I am just curious, what is the need for this provision?

Mr. BAUCUS. Section 628, the section I think should be deleted, clearly causes big problems for the State of Montana. But not just the State of Montana. In fact, my best estimate is the provision affects at least 650 Superfund sites across the country. That is virtually every State. Let me give the numbers. Today, studies are underway at 263 Superfund sites. Remedies costing more than $10 million have been selected at 285 sites. And cleanup is underway at 430 sites. We do not know how many of these 430 exceed the $10 million threshold, but the average cleanup cost is $30 million. So, obviously, most exceed the threshold. So a conservative estimate is that half of the 430 sites exceed the threshold. This chart at my left illustrates what would happen to these sites under this bill. Consider the 285 sites where a remedy has already been selected. At each site there has been extensive study, public involvement, and negotiation. After years, people have finally agreed about how to clean up the site. Let me refer to the chart more fully. Now, as I said, there are about 263 of the sites where study is underway, in red. The yellow shows there are 285 sites where the remedy has been selected. And the green shows there are 430 where there is ongoing cleanup. That is the current situation. If S. 343 passes, including the section which we want deleted, what will the result be? The result would be twice as many studies. And it will mean--as the chart shows, only half as many sites will be cleaned up. That is a conservative estimate of the consequences of this bill. These sites will get thrown back for further study, which could take years. Consider the 430 sites where there is an ongoing cleanup. Those sites also get thrown back into further study, unless we can prove the construction has commenced on a ``significant portion of the activity,'' whatever that means, and if other criteria are met. So putting all this together, the impact of section 628 is very simple. The number of studies will double and the number of Superfund cleanups will be cut in half. This chart shows it. The red is the number of studies which will double. The green shows cleanups which will be cut in half. I will say that once more. The number of studies will double and the number of cleanups are cut in half. A lot more redtape. A lot less cleanup. I do not I think that is what we want to do. All across America people will wake up and discover that the purported regulatory reform bill has a very surprising effect. They will discover that virtually with no notice whatsoever, Congress has stopped Superfund cleanups dead in their tracks, and the residents of frustrated and exhausted communities will discover to their amazement that Congress has decided that Superfund sites need more study, more analysis, and more talk before a single shovelful of dirt can be moved or a single thimbleful of groundwater could be pumped. Before concluding, I would like to repeat a point I made earlier. I am not defending the status quo. Superfund needs to be reformed. And some of the needed reforms may well relate to risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis. The Environmental and Public Works Committee reform efforts are well underway. But the issues are complex, they are controversial, and we cannot reform Superfund overnight. Ironically, the bill repeats the same mistakes that the original drafters of Superfund made in 1980; that is, it is a hasty overreaction. It is a quick fix. It will cause a lot more problems than it would solve. But it is likely to have a very harsh consequence as well for the people who want their neighborhoods cleaned up and have already suffered enough. H.L. Mencken must be smiling as he looks down on us from heaven today. We are addressing a complex, difficult issue and we are considering a simple, straightforward, easy solution that is dead wrong. It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and strike this provision from the bill. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in favor of the pending amendment. This amendment is a very simple amendment. Essentially, it is to delete section 628 of the bill, that section now currently in the bill that makes specific changes to Superfund and other hazardous waste cleanup. Simply put, changes to Superfund, I believe, do not belong in this bill. It is as simple as that. This regulatory reform bill was considered earlier in the House, and in earlier versions, this section was not in the bill. Somehow, somebody later added in this section, section 628. What does it do? Essentially, it says that all the Superfund provisions now also apply to regulatory reform. I do not think that makes sense. That is a substantive change to a regulatory reform law. Much worse, Mr. President, in doing so--that is, including Superfund in regulatory reform--the net result is we would have a present bad situation made much worse. Let me explain. If section 628 is enacted, that is, the provision in the bill which includes Superfund to the new cost-benefit and risk assessment provisions in regulatory reform, the Superfund program that currently exists in our country becomes much more complicated, not less. All across the country hundreds of hazardous waste cleanups would be disrupted. They would be delayed. In some cases, they would be halted. If we can believe it, section 628 would actually make the present very complicated, very unfortunate and very disrupted Superfund program even slower, even more complicated, and much more bureaucratic than it already is. I am reminded of the late sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken. He once said, for every complicated, complex problem there is a simple solution. It is easy. But it is usually wrong. I cannot think of a better example of that statement of his. That is, Superfund reforms are very complicated problems. What is the simplest solution presented in this bill? It includes Superfund reform in regulatory reform. Simple--and it is wrong. I do not want any person to misunderstand. Those that want to delete section 628 are not defending the status quo. We are not defending the present Superfund program. Far from it. The Superfund has plenty of problems. It must be corrected. Let me remind my colleagues that Superfund was a hastily drafted law back in 1979. It was an immediate response to Love Canal. Like most hastily drafted laws, it does not work very well. It was not thought through. Therefore, it is inefficient, ineffective, and many too few cleanups and too many lawsuits. There are currently 1,300 cleanup sites--roughly 40,000, but EPA says 1,300--down from 40,000 to 1,300. Mr. President, 15 years into the program, out of that 1,300 Superfund sites in our country--that is, cleanup of toxic waste--only 278 have been cleaned up. Mr. President, 15 years, out of 1,300, only 278 have been cleaned up. If we continue at this rate, we will finish the job by the year 2040. I might add, just in time for my 108th birthday. Unfortunately, the program is slowing down, the present Superfund program. It is not speeding up, it is slowing down. It now takes almost 10 years to clean up an average site, and the cost is roughly $30 million per site, and about 30 percent of the money is spent not in cleanup costs but rather on litigation. When as much as 30 cents to the dollar goes to lawyers, Mr. President, I think we all think something is wrong with the program. I bet that every Senator has his or her own frustrating personal experience with the Superfund--a site where studies have piled up for years, where delay has dragged on, where lawyers and accountants have made money hand over fist, and the local community is left holding the bag, and where people have become angry. They want, Mr. President, sites to be cleaned up so they can get on with their lives. There are several steps that we should take to improve Superfund. First, we should establish an allocation system to fairly distribute the cost of cleanups among responsible parties. Current law does not do that. We should reform the liability system so that small businesses and municipalities are not dragged into burdensome lawsuits. We should improve cleanup standards and take better account of science, economics, and future land use. And we should increase community involvement in the cleanup process. Right now, the communities are not involved enough in the early stage of Superfund. If they were, the program could work better because the local folks could say we want this site cleaned up to a higher standard for playground use but this other site cleaned up to a lower standard for industrial use. The communities, the local people, have a much better idea what that remedy selection should be. There are other changes we should make to the program. Each of the steps is a bit complex. Each requires tradeoffs. Each should be taken carefully. But each step is necessary. This is why Superfund reform is a top priority of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last year, the committee reported a bill that overhauled [[Page S 9845]] Superfund from top to bottom, and this year the committee has had seven hearings, and the subcommittee chairman, Senator Smith from New Hampshire, has proposed a sweeping set of reforms and plans to hold a markup very soon. So the difficult work of rolling up your sleeves and getting the job done of reforming Superfund is well underway and is being undertaken the right way. Unfortunately, section 628 does not advance the cause of reform. It sets it back. It takes us in the wrong direction. In a nutshell, section 628 subjects any Superfund cleanup or other so- called environmental management activity that costs $10 million or more to the risk assessment and cost-benefit provisions of the bill. That sounds pretty straightforward. But consider two points. First, this would apply a different standard for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis than exists under current law. So, all of the risk assessment, remedial investigations, feasibility studies and other analysis, and all that bureaucratic gobbledygook that has been done under current law is out the window. Go back to the beginning, this section says. Do it all over again. Second, the new standard applies to hundreds of sites, including many sites where cleanup decisions have already been made and even sites where construction work has already begun. Let me give an example. In my State of Montana we have the largest Superfund site in America, the Clark Fork River, the result of hundreds of years of large-scale copper mining. It stretches 120 miles from Butte, MT, to Missoula. It has 23 priority sites. Only two are cleaned up. We have been working for years to get EPA to stop studying and start cleaning up. The studies have cost more than $50 million and now, after years of talk, we have a plan that is finally ready to go. EPA, the State of Montana, the people of Butte, and the responsible company, have agreed on innovative, cost-effective solutions at several spots along the Clark Fork River. In Butte, for example, rather than remove lead contamination from the soil everywhere, it will only be removed at priority sites, where children live and play. And to make sure that children remain safe under the plan, they will be monitored. This solution makes sense. It is the most sensible way to do the job, and the citizens are anxious to get started. But this bill stops all that dead in its tracks. Montana's Governor, Marc Racicot, wrote me last Friday with this comment. If it was necessary to undertake the kind of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment called for in the bill for these response actions, given how long it would take to do this, the clean-up of these sites, if such clean-up occurred at all, would not occur until well into the 21st century. This is all the sillier when one considers that EPA routinely prepares risk assessments and undertakes a form of cost-benefit analysis when it makes a decision. So the cleanup at the Clark Fork will grind to a halt. The cleanup will stop until yet another study is completed. The families and children of Butte, Anaconda, Deer Lodge, Bonner, Lolo, Missoula, and all the other towns on the river that live with pollution, fish kills, and threats to drinking water for years longer will have to suffer. And if the cleanup standard established after these new studies is too low, the damage will be magnified. And all to no purpose, because the EPA has already done the work. Let me give another example: The streamside tailings along Silver Bow Creek. Here, the State has just completed a detailed study of seven different options for cleaning it up and the people in the community have thought it through. Among other things, they will turn part of the site into a ``greenway'' with bike trails and hiking trails and picnic areas. But only one of the seven options is less than $10 million, the threshold under the bill, and that is the option of doing absolutely nothing. So any decision to clean up the site, even minimally, will require new cost-benefit studies to be repeated. Once again, the community's plan gets delayed and maybe even gets thrown out the window. Jack Lynch, the chief executive of Butte-Silver Bow County, wrote me to express concern about another cleanup--Berkeley Pit. The pit is an open copper mine just outside of Butte, abandoned when the Anaconda Co. left town in the early 1980's. Mr. President, I wish you could see this abandoned pit. It is about a mile and a half wide. Every day it is filling up with about 6 million gallons of what you can loosely call water. In fact, it is a liquid so acidic it might burn your eyes out if you attempted to use it to wash your face. The water is so deep now, you can even see waves on a windy day, and if it is not stopped, it will threaten Butte's ground water. Despite these problems, the bill, the one pending before us, would force the people of Butte to endure more studies and more delay. I can tell you, the people of Butte are up to their necks in studies. They would rather have something done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters from Governor Racicot and Chief Executive Lynch be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in ``A River Runs Through It,'' Norman Maclean wrote, ``in our family, there was no clear line between religion and flyfishing.'' These words sum up the way we Montanans feel about our blue ribbon trout streams. Great flyfishermen--men like Bud Lily and Dan Bailey-- are legends in Montana. And Montana rivers--the Madison, Yellowstone, Missouri, Bighorn, and Bighole--are the heart and soul of our State. We mark our calendars and plan our weekends around caddis and stone fly hatches or peak grasshopper season. These outstanding trout streams are in large part what makes Montana ``the last best place.'' But these rivers hold more that recreational value for Montanans. Fishing is big business. It is the engine that drives the economies of many communities throughout Montana. In fact, the net economic value of fishing in Montana is estimated to be nearly $300 million a year. The discovery of whirling disease on the Madison River in late 1994 puts Montana's wild trout fishery at great risk. Whirling disease is a parasite that attacks the cartilage of young trout, particularly rainbow trout. Its impact has been devastating to rainbow trout populations on the Madison River, where whirling disease has caused a 90-percent decline in the last 3 years. Whirling disease has also been detected in four other Montana river drainages as well as in Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, California, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. [[Page S 9640]] Montana has taken the challenge of fighting whirling disease head on. Flyfishermen, scientists, State and Federal officials have joined together to learn more about this disease and find solutions. Today, I am introducing legislation that will better equip concerned Montanans to effectively deal with whirling disease and minimize its impacts to our world class wild trout fisheries. The Whirling Disease Response Act of 1995 focuses on three objectives: coordination, containment, and research. First, the Whirling Disease Response Act coordinates all existing data and research conducted to date on whirling disease. The act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to compile, within 180 days, a report that summarizes all efforts to date with respect to whirling disease, to identify gaps in the available scientific information, and to make recommendations as to how the Federal Government can be a more effective partner to States confronted with whirling disease. Second, the act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to modify the Ennis Fish Hatchery so that it is a complete containment facility. This hatchery is critically important to wild trout research as well as to maintaining healthy trout fisheries throughout the United States. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must make sure that this hatchery is not infected with whirling disease or any other water borne parasite. Third, and most important, this act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to significantly increase its role in whirling disease research. As debilitating as this disease is, relatively little is known about how to stop its spread. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must make the fight against whirling disease a top priority. They must work with affected States, universities, and sportsmen toward a solution on whirling disease. This act makes whirling disease research a priority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While Montana has a significant stake in fighting whirling disease, it is not alone--19 other States are impacted by whirling disease. It is in America's best interest that we work aggressively to minimize the impact whirling disease has on our trout fisheries. I look forward to working with my colleagues from other affected States to see that we make headway in minimizing the impact whirling disease has on America's blue ribbon trout streams.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Donna Sitz and her adult children--son Bob and his wife Jennipher, son Jim, and daughter Sherrie and her husband Mark Stokman were recognized for enhancing the natural resources and contributing to wildlife diversity on their ranch. Their registered Angus seedstock operation in the Madison Valley of southwestern Montana is nationally recognized for excellent cattle. And now they've been recognized for their stewardship as well. The Montana Stockgrowers just awarded the Sitz family their Montana Environmental Stewardship Award. Among the many projects they completed to enhance the Montana environment include: They planted thousands of trees along streambanks to help stabilize riparian areas. They obtained a grant from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to enhance spawning habitat for trout on their private land. The project has made significant improvements in three major spawning areas, increasing fish numbers and enhancing water quality. They have improved the vegetation of their grazing lands by using a rest rotation grazing system, intensive grazing, controlled burns, and weed spraying. It's always an honor for me to recognize Montanans who stand for everything we all should be doing, working hard and doing all you can to improve your local environment. One of the well known environmental slogans states ``we should think globally and act locally''. The Sitz family is doing exactly that, improving their local water quality and wildlife habitat, and by their actions they improve not only their ranch but the environment under Montana's big sky. What a wonderful example for all of our ranchers and farmers all across the Nation. Donna Sitz credited her late husband Bob Sitz, who was tragically killed in a tractor accident in 1989 for the family's commitment to stewardship. Donna said, ``Bob was a strong conservationist. I want the kids to be like their father, to run an honest outfit, and to leave things better than they found them.'' But let's also credit Donna for carrying on her husband's legacy, saving the ranch, and obviously raising an outstanding family to carry on. I congratulate Donna and her family, for being recognized for this stewardship award. And I thank them for the shinning example they set for all of us to follow.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sheila Bickle of [[Page S 9346]] Ismay, MT. Mrs. Bickle was recently honored as the myth buster of the year by the Research, Education, and Endowment Foundation of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. Mr. President you might ask, ``what is a myth buster?'' Well Mr. President, a myth buster is a person, a volunteer, who promotes the beef industry in Montana. During this time, a year in which Congress must write a new farm bill, thank goodness we have people out there who not only know and understand agriculture, but are willing to educate others about its importance. I should mention however, that this is Sheila's second job. Sheila and her husband Bill raise cattle near Ismay, MT. Mrs. Bickle was instrumental in getting a science video produced with beef checkoff dollars into the fall catalog of CTN educational TV network, used by 106 San Francisco Bay area schools. Mrs. Bickle also was the motivation behind a recent project by the Montana Cattle Women designed to educate third graders about beef nutrition. Every time we educate our urban citizens about agriculture, we have helped bring the country closer together. When a person volunteers to help educate our children, like Sheila, our country and society is better for it. Thank you Shelia, thank you for being a myth buster, for helping promote agriculture in our home State and in one of our largest urban areas. I wish we had some myth busters here in Washington to enlighten some of the press about what a great job our farmers and ranchers are doing for not only America but the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this conference report. When Senator Domenici's budget resolution passed the Senate, I said it was a good accountant's budget. That is, it had the right bottom line, and it made some tough choices by eliminating Cabinet Departments and reducing spending. But in the end, it failed the test of priorities and values. It cut Medicare service by $256 billion, which would reduce the essential Medicare health services for older Americans by nearly a quarter and place intense financial pressure on their children. And it weakened our future prospects by cutting education severely. At the same time, the Senate budget left in place wasteful Federal projects like courthouses, foreign spending like the so-called TV Marti, and luxury items like space telescopes. At the same time, it provided a large tax cut whose benefits went primarily to wealthy individuals and corporations rather than middle-income Americans. So I voted against it. But I hoped that with some changes in these priorities areas it could be made acceptable. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. Medicare will be cut by an additional $14 billion, threatening the well-being of Montana's 125,000 senior citizens and the survival of Montana's rural hospitals. Support for agriculture will decline by an additional $1.4 billion to a total of $13.3 billion over 7 years. Per farm, that means agricultural supports will fall by $1,000 every year for the next 7 years. And with 85 percent of American farms grossing under $100,000 per year, we will see a severe cut in income all over rural America. Education will be reduced by $10 billion, meaning our children will be less able to compete with our trade rivals abroad. And wealthy people will get $75 billion more in tax breaks, which comes directly from senior citizens, rural hospitals, agricultural producers, and investment in education. Finally, it is no longer a good accountant's budget. Senator Domenici's sober projections have been replaced by unrealistic rosy scenario assumptions about growth, interest rates, and so on. It is far less likely to lead to a balanced budget. So this budget is significantly worse than the version the Senate voted on last month. It is less disciplined. Less far-sighted. And more damaging to senior citizens, rural America, and our future. I oppose it, and I urge the conference committee to go back to the drawing board and start over.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the next few days, the Senate will begin to debate regulatory reform legislation to make regulations more sensible, less burdensome, and more efficient. This debate is long overdue. Because while passing laws is important, real people are affected not by congressional debates but by implementation of the law by agencies. And all too often, agencies implement laws with too much paperwork, too much harassment and too little common sense. It is time to set things straight, and I congratulate the leadership for bringing this issue to the floor. At the same time, however, we must remember that preventing pollution, ensuring food safety and keeping our rivers clean are critically important to a good life for Americans. Unfortunately, some special interest groups do not see it that way. All over Washington, they are trying to get loopholes and special relief that will let them get away with polluting the air and water. And they are calling their loopholes regulatory reform. They should not get away with it. So let us watch what is coming aboard pretty carefully. Let us reform Government rules and regulations to make them work better. But let us not use regulatory reform to weaken protection of public health and safety and to lower the quality of life. the need for reform Government has to treat people like adults. It has to understand that most people are good people. They don't need to fill out a lot of forms to do the right thing. As the debate unfolds, we will hear theories about so-called super mandates. About judicial review. About esoteric provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. About how many permissible statutory constructions can dance on the head of a pin. But when most Montanans think about Government regulations, they are more straightforward. Montanans want common sense. Montanans believe most Federal rules and regulations cost too much. They accomplish too little. They make responsible business owners fill out too many forms. And they just plain make people angry. osha logging regulations I will give you an example. Earlier this year, OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, proposed a rule that would make loggers wear steel-toed boots. Seems to make sense--unless you are actually out in the Montana woods in winter, on a steep slope and frozen ground. In that case, steel-toed boots can make the job more dangerous, not less. They make your feet go numb, so it is harder to hold your grip. And if you are holding a live chainsaw at the time, you are in a lot of trouble. So the people this regulation was meant to help knew it made no sense at all. And to add injury to insult, it threatened their jobs. OSHA told them to buy the boots in 2 weeks or take a furlough. Another example was the EPA's decision 2 years ago to ban some kinds of bear sprays--pepper sprays that help people avoid injury from bear attacks--because they might irritate the nasal tissues of an attacking grizzly. Yet another was the Forest Service's decision to bar loud speech and inappropriate noises in national forests. Most regulations are not as ridiculous or offensive as these. But even so, the sheer volume of regulation is a big problem. Small business owners often give up all of Friday afternoon to fill out OSHA forms and IRS withholding documents just to comply with existing regulations, let alone keep up with all the new ones. Today, we are only half-way through 1995. And the Federal Register, in which the government publishes its rules and regulations, is about to hit the 33,000-page mark. That is about 200 pages of rules, regulations, comments, revisions, and rerevisions every day. Key elements of reform So I congratulate the leadership for moving ahead with regulatory reform. The effort is only beginning, but at the end I believe a good bill will include five key elements. First, we should open up the regulatory process. It should be easier for people to comment on proposed rules. They should get more notice when a rule will affect their job or business. You simply cannot expect a hard-working gas station owner or restaurant manager to subscribe to the Federal Register and track all the changes and revisions in the OSHA code. And while they are at it, agencies should explain their rules in plain English. For example, look at a sentence from an EPA rule in the December 29, 1994, Federal Register. It means to say treated hazardous wastes are exempt from disposal regulations under two conditions. But what it actually says is this: Currently, hazardous wastes that are used in a manner constituting disposal (applied to or placed on land), including waste-derived products that are produced in whole or in part from hazardous wastes and used in a manner constituting disposal, are not subject to hazardous waste disposal regulations provided the products produced meet two conditions. Imagine handing that in to a high school English teacher. Second, we should use new statistical tools like risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis when appropriate. They can help agencies set priorities, so we spend our money wisely and solve the biggest problems first. And they can help make sure agencies think creatively and consider all the options before charging ahead. But we must also understand their limitations--because I do not believe we can place a dollar value on things like the survival of the bald eagle or brain damage in children from lead in drinking water. Third, Congress should conduct more oversight. Passing a law is only a small part of the job. It is implementation of the law that affects real people at home and in business. But too often, Congress passes a law and then walks away, leaving implementation entirely to bureaucrats who do not always have practical experience. The OSHA logging regulation is a good example. Congress should review major new regulations closely, so the mistakes are corrected before they start to threaten jobs and businesses. Fourth, we should strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This law requires agencies to pay special attention to the effects of their regulations on small business. A good goal--but one agencies sometimes ignore. Today, small businesses have no right to challenge an agency, in court, when it fails to comply with the Act. By establishing a streamlined process for judicial review, we can help small businesses protect themselves. And fifth, we must continue strong and effective protection of public health, public safety and our natural heritage. Clean air, clean water and clean neighborhoods are basic American values. They are essential to a high quality of life in our country. Regulatory reform should get them for us more efficiently. It must not run away from these goals, and allow more contamination of rivers and streams, [[Page S 9195]] more urban smog, or greater threats to the public health and safety. conclusion With these five steps, Mr. President, we will make federal rules and regulations more effective. And we will do something even more important. Americans will be more confident that their tax dollars are being spent wisely, and that we are guaranteeing public health and safety with the absolute minimum of bureaucracy and paperwork. So I look forward to the debate on this bill, and to working with my colleagues to meet these goals.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 963 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Rockefeller, the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 1995. They say that if you have your health, you have everything. Well, I must say that for the small communities all across Montana and America, access to health care is in danger. It is very tough to get good health care in rural parts of our country. What with cuts in Medicare reimbursement, 10 percent of the America's rural hospitals closed in the last decade. Ten percent of our rural hospitals have closed. The trend, unfortunately, shows no signs of improving. And the rural health care crisis goes beyond access. That is because insurance policies are going up faster for the people who can least afford to pay--that is self-insured people like farmers, ranchers, and small business owners all across our country. Rural areas also find it harder than cities and suburbs to attract doctors, to attract nurses, to attract people to provide health care. And health care providers in rural areas have less access to state-of- the-art medical technology than their colleagues do in the big cities and in the suburbs. Yet, the Federal Government's usual approach to rural health care issues is one of indifference. No top-level official has the task of keeping rural health care firmly in line. Renewing the tax credit for self-insured people was just a start. We need to preserve health care services in small towns. Rural doctors and nurses must be able to use the best available technology. And the Government must give permanent, top-level attention to rural health care issues. That is the comprehensive strategy that this bill provides. Let me review it in just brief detail. First, keeping hospitals and clinics in small rural towns open. It is critical that these clinics stay open. Our small rural hospitals have suffered for years with rigid and expensive Medicare regulations and Medicare reimbursements too low to let them stay open. So a few years ago I helped pass a bill giving some rural hospitals greater flexibility and Medicare reimbursements high enough to stay open. This project is called the Medical Assistance Facility, otherwise known as MAF. They operate in Culbertson, Jordan, Circle, Terry, and Ekalaka, serving over 20,000 people. That might not sound like very many people when you add the towns together, but let me tell you, when you are a town like Circle or Ekalaka, hundreds of miles away from the best of health care service in the world, these small clinics make a big, big difference. They are very important to them. The MAF maintains access to basic, acute, and emergency care services and provides inpatient care for up to 4 days. They have received glowing reviews from health experts, and other States have called in to ask how they can set up similar facilities. But most important, people in these towns believe it is irreplaceable. Walter Busch, the administrator of Roosevelt Medical Center in Culbertson, had this to say: The medical assistance facility has improved access to quality health care services in a cost-effective manner. It has restored health care services to four remote, rural communities and prevented loss of services in two others. It is a very flexible program and yet one that has provided consistently high quality care. Let me underline that point, Mr. President. Without MAF's, medical assistance facilities, or similar clinics, many small towns would have virtually no health care service. The MAF preserves health services and it saves money. A new GAO report will show that the MAF saved over $60,000 per 172 patients. So especially when the leadership's proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts will so drastically increase the pressure on rural hospitals, we must keep them open. Our legislation makes the MAF permanent and allows similar facilities to open up all over rural America. The second section offers grants for what is called telemedicine. These grants will let rural doctors and nurses upgrade their telecommunications and use modern computer networks to confer with specialists in other parts of our country. So a family practitioner, for example, with a tough case in Fergus County or on the Hi-line can have access to diagnostic files and also access to techniques at the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control. Just think of it. With the computer, a doctor or a nurse in a very small town in a small clinic can have access to files and techniques of the very best all around the Nation. They might not be able to use all the techniques, but at least he or she knows what is available and has a lot better access, a lot better information and can give better treatment for that patient. We also include another program of grants to encourage networking among rural health care providers. This would let them share information on equipment and also, again, share techniques specifically designed for rural areas and also help allow much more cooperation and also more effective cooperation than exists today. Third and last is a new permanent position of Assistant Secretary for Rural Health at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC. My State of Montana and a lot of States need more advocates within the Federal Government. People living in very rural, isolated areas need better advocates and more advocates in the Federal Government, more people who understand our unique problems and will push for solutions because, after all, there are a lot more people in the cities who push for city solutions. We need some way to kind of counterbalance, Mr. President, the advantage that the city folks have so that people in rural areas at least have someone to stand up for them and argue their case so that problems are not further exacerbated because they do not have someone. So when this bill passes, the Department of Health and Human Services, with its hundreds of thousands of employees, will have a top- level official whose job it is to remember small towns like Culbertson, MT. This will put a higher priority on rural health care and make sure that we have someone in the room when final decisions are made, for example, on Medicare or Medicaid and other health care programs. Mr. President, rural America deserves fairness just like urban, big city America needs fairness. We in rural America deserve the same access to top-quality doctors and nurses, to new medical technologies and to basic health care just as everybody else does in America. And through this bill, without much expense, rural America can get fairness. It is just that simple. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to include a copy of the bill in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Rockefeller, the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 1995. They say that if you have your health, you have everything. Well, I must say that for the small communities all across Montana and America, access to health care is in danger. It is very tough to get good health care in rural parts of our country. What with cuts in Medicare reimbursement, 10 percent of the America's rural hospitals closed in the last decade. Ten percent of our rural hospitals have closed. The trend, unfortunately, shows no signs of improving. And the rural health care crisis goes beyond access. That is because insurance policies are going up faster for the people who can least afford to pay--that is self-insured people like farmers, ranchers, and small business owners all across our country. Rural areas also find it harder than cities and suburbs to attract doctors, to attract nurses, to attract people to provide health care. And health care providers in rural areas have less access to state-of- the-art medical technology than their colleagues do in the big cities and in the suburbs. Yet, the Federal Government's usual approach to rural health care issues is one of indifference. No top-level official has the task of keeping rural health care firmly in line. Renewing the tax credit for self-insured people was just a start. We need to preserve health care services in small towns. Rural doctors and nurses must be able to use the best available technology. And the Government must give permanent, top-level attention to rural health care issues. That is the comprehensive strategy that this bill provides. Let me review it in just brief detail. First, keeping hospitals and clinics in small rural towns open. It is critical that these clinics stay open. Our small rural hospitals have suffered for years with rigid and expensive Medicare regulations and Medicare reimbursements too low to let them stay open. So a few years ago I helped pass a bill giving some rural hospitals greater flexibility and Medicare reimbursements high enough to stay open. This project is called the Medical Assistance Facility, otherwise known as MAF. They operate in Culbertson, Jordan, Circle, Terry, and Ekalaka, serving over 20,000 people. That might not sound like very many people when you add the towns together, but let me tell you, when you are a town like Circle or Ekalaka, hundreds of miles away from the best of health care service in the world, these small clinics make a big, big difference. They are very important to them. The MAF maintains access to basic, acute, and emergency care services and provides inpatient care for up to 4 days. They have received glowing reviews from health experts, and other States have called in to ask how they can set up similar facilities. But most important, people in these towns believe it is irreplaceable. Walter Busch, the administrator of Roosevelt Medical Center in Culbertson, had this to say: The medical assistance facility has improved access to quality health care services in a cost-effective manner. It has restored health care services to four remote, rural communities and prevented loss of services in two others. It is a very flexible program and yet one that has provided consistently high quality care. Let me underline that point, Mr. President. Without MAF's, medical assistance facilities, or similar clinics, many small towns would have virtually no health care service. The MAF preserves health services and it saves money. A new GAO report will show that the MAF saved over $60,000 per 172 patients. So especially when the leadership's proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts will so drastically increase the pressure on rural hospitals, we must keep them open. Our legislation makes the MAF permanent and allows similar facilities to open up all over rural America. The second section offers grants for what is called telemedicine. These grants will let rural doctors and nurses upgrade their telecommunications and use modern computer networks to confer with specialists in other parts of our country. So a family practitioner, for example, with a tough case in Fergus County or on the Hi-line can have access to diagnostic files and also access to techniques at the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control. Just think of it. With the computer, a doctor or a nurse in a very small town in a small clinic can have access to files and techniques of the very best all around the Nation. They might not be able to use all the techniques, but at least he or she knows what is available and has a lot better access, a lot better information and can give better treatment for that patient. We also include another program of grants to encourage networking among rural health care providers. This would let them share information on equipment and also, again, share techniques specifically designed for rural areas and also help allow much more cooperation and also more effective cooperation than exists today. Third and last is a new permanent position of Assistant Secretary for Rural Health at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC. My State of Montana and a lot of States need more advocates within the Federal Government. People living in very rural, isolated areas need better advocates and more advocates in the Federal Government, more people who understand our unique problems and will push for solutions because, after all, there are a lot more people in the cities who push for city solutions. We need some way to kind of counterbalance, Mr. President, the advantage that the city folks have so that people in rural areas at least have someone to stand up for them and argue their case so that problems are not further exacerbated because they do not have someone. So when this bill passes, the Department of Health and Human Services, with its hundreds of thousands of employees, will have a top- level official whose job it is to remember small towns like Culbertson, MT. This will put a higher priority on rural health care and make sure that we have someone in the room when final decisions are made, for example, on Medicare or Medicaid and other health care programs. Mr. President, rural America deserves fairness just like urban, big city America needs fairness. We in rural America deserve the same access to top-quality doctors and nurses, to new medical technologies and to basic health care just as everybody else does in America. And through this bill, without much expense, rural America can get fairness. It is just that simple. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to include a copy of the bill in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. It may be acceptable. We are still running the trap lines over on this side.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will again yield, it is my understanding Senator Bumpers has not yet personally seen the language and he does want to see it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. BAUCUS. Fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, it is my understanding that the amendment has been agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today the Senate is finally about to pass S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. I want to thank particularly the chairman, Senator Chafee, for his outstanding leadership, and also Senator Warner, the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done an excellent job shepherding this bill to this point. This is a critical bill for our States. Billions of dollars in highway funds are at stake. We need to enact this bill, and I remind my colleagues, by September 30; that is, passed by both Houses and signed into law. Otherwise, the State highway programs will be seriously disrupted. I hope the House will take this bill up soon so we can resolve our differences and get a bill to the President by that deadline. The National Highway System is the backbone of our transportation system today and the framework for its growth in the 21st century. The NHS is designed to have a seamless transportation network of roads that link all modes of transportation between airports, seaports, and rail yards with our population and economic centers. It will make our businesses more competitive in our global economy. And by choosing the most important roads, it will help States to determine the most appropriate transportation investments. That is particularly true in the rural West, like Montana, where highways are often the only mode of transportation. Whether it is in the transporting of goods and services, traveling for family vacations, business, or taking our kids to college, our highways always play a vital role in our lives and our jobs. We do not have the mass transit or water transportation systems like other States have. So highways are critical to the lifeblood of our State's economy, which increasingly depends on travel and tourism, and it is our way of life. The bill includes nearly 4,000 miles of roads in Montana. That is 23 percent or about 800 miles more than the Bush administration's original proposal. The additional routes include Highway 200 between Great Falls and Missoula, and from Lewistown going west to Winnett, Jordan, Circle, Sidney, and Fairview. Highway 12 from Helena to Garrison Junction; Highway 59 from Miles City to Broadus; Highway 87 between Billings, Roundup, and Grassrange; and Highway 212 from Crow Agency to Lame Deer and Alzada. That is good news for Montana. And the other roads in the bill mean just as much for the entire region across the Great Plains and down the Rocky Mountains. All these roads are included in the bill the Senate is considering today. Mr. President, this bill also makes major reforms by lessening the regulatory burdens on our States, giving [[Page S 8882]] them more flexibility. It allows States to set their own speed limits for passenger cars and also repeals Federal mandates on motorcycle helmets, management systems, use of the metrics on highway signs, and crumb rubber. These are all good changes. As I said before, this bill is not only in our State's interest, but in our national interest. It means jobs; it means growth. So I congratulate the chairmen of our committee and subcommittee for their leadership, for their diligence, and for their extreme patience in managing this bill. And I particularly want to thank the staffs on both sides, particularly on the minority side, Tom Sliter and Kathy Ruffalo, who have done a wonderful job; and on the majority side, Jean Lauver and Ann Loomis, who have done an equally good job. Particularly at this point, Mr. President, I want to thank the Federal Highway Administrator, Rodney Slater. He has been here. He has been in the wings helping advise us. There were technical problems we had as amendments came up. Jane Garvey, who is the Deputy Administrator, has been just very valuable, along with other FHA staff, and I must say that were it not for their expertise, this legislation would be in pretty rough shape. Again, I thank all concerned, and again particularly the chairman, and the subcommittee chairman, Senator Warner. They have done a great job.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the substance of this amendment is, frankly, not within the jurisdiction of this committee. Rather, it is in the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I have been in contact with Senator Sarbanes, who is the ranking member of the Banking Committee. I have been assured he agrees with this amendment and has no problem with it.