Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Arkansas. I appreciate the deeply held commitment of my colleague to the issue of mining law reform. As I have told my colleague many times over the years, I agree with him that the 1872 mining law is in need of reform--our differences on this issue are one of degree. The Bumpers amendment simply goes too far. If enacted, this amendment would severely threaten the economic viability of the hardrock mining industry in my home state of Nevada and throughout the western United States. For the fifth year in a row, Nevada's mines have collectively topped the 6 million ounce mark in gold production. In 1996, there was a total of 7.08 million ounces of gold produced in Nevada. The state's rich landscape has made Nevada the largest gold producer in the nation with 66.5 percent of all production. In addition, it now accounts for 10 percent of all the gold in the world. The most recent information from the State of Nevada indicates that direct mining employment in Nevada exceeds 13,000 jobs. The average annual pay for these jobs, the highest of any sector in the state, is about $46,000, compared to the average salary in Nevada of about $26,000 per year. In addition to the direct employment in mining, there are an estimated 36,000 jobs in the state related to providing goods and services needed by the industry. The impression left by proponents of this amendment is that the mining industry has free reign to extract mineral resources from public land. Nothing is further from the truth. In my state, Nevada mining companies must pay taxes like any other business, and they also pay an additional Nevada tax called the ``Net Proceeds of Mines Tax.'' This tax must be paid by mining companies regardless of whether they operate on private or public land. The total Net Proceeds tax paid to the state in 1995 was approximately $33 million. With the addition of sales and property tax, the industry paid approximately $141 million in state and local taxes in 1995. In addition, the Nevada mining industry paid approximately $95 million in federal taxes in 1995. The additional taxes imposed by the Bumpers amendment would be extremely onerous for mining operators in Nevada. These new taxes would likely force many mining operations to shut down, thereby causing an overall reduction in federal and state tax revenues paid by the industry. The bottom line is that the mining industry pays taxes just like any other business, and in Nevada they pay an additional tax targeted specifically to their industry. The issue of reclamation is also central to the mining law reform debate. The State of Nevada has one of the toughest, if not the toughest, state reclamation programs in the country. Nevada mining companies are subject to a myriad of federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. Mining companies must secure literally dozens of environmental permits prior to commencing mining activities, including a reclamation permit, which must be obtained before a mineral exploration project or mining operation can be conducted. Companies must also file a surety or bond with the State or the federal land manager in an amount sufficient to ensure reclamation of the entire site prior to receiving a reclamation permit. It is in the context of promoting the economic viability of the mining industry and of encouraging strong environmental reclamation efforts administered by the states that I view the debate over the reform of the Mining Law of 1872. As I have stated many times over the years, I feel that certain aspects of the 1872 mining law are in need of reform. Specifically, I feel strongly that the patenting provision of the current law should be changed to provide for the payment of fair market value for the surface estate. All patents should also include a reverter clause, which would ensure that patented public lands would revert to federal ownership if no longer used for mining purposes. I believe that mining law reform legislation should ensure that any land used for mining purposes must be reclaimed pursuant to applicable federal and state statues. And finally, I believe that mining law reform legislation should impose a reasonable royalty on mineral production from Federal land. Mr. President, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997, of which I am a cosponsor, addresses each of the concerns I have just outlined. This legislation would impose a 5% net proceeds royalty on mineral production from Federal lands. It would make permanent the $100 maintenance fee for every claim held on federal land. It calls for the payment of fair market value for patented lands and includes a reverter provision to ensure that patented lands are used only for mining purposes. Finally, the legislation directs revenues from mineral production on Federal lands to a special fund to assist state abandoned mine clean-up programs. It is my hope that this legislation will serve as the starting point for the debate over mining law reform in the 105th Congress. I agree with the Senator from Arkansas that we have waited long enough for Congress to enact comprehensive mining law reform. The aura of uncertainty that the industry has been forced to operate under for the last decade is causing many companies to look overseas for their future operations. The number of U.S. and Canadian mining companies exploring or operating in Latin America continues to grow dramatically. I do not feel, however, that the legislation before us today provides the proper context to rewrite the general mining laws. I hope I will have the opportunity in the near future to work with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and other interested Members of this body to craft a piece of legislation that we can move to the floor and enact in this session of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to explain the purpose of my amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. When the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted in 1988, the year before I joined this body, a central concept was that class III gambling, such as casino and parimutuel gambling, could be conducted on Indian lands with a tribal-State compact approved by the Governors and tribes and then by the Secretary of the Interior. Today, there are hundreds of Indian gaming establishments across the Nation offering class III gambling. I might just add parenthetically that our experience in Nevada is that we currently have five such tribal agreements in which five tribes have entered into agreements with Nevada's Governor pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and those compacts have been approved. I want to make it very clear that I support the intent of the act, and I support the right of Indian tribal governments to enter into compacts with States and to pursue gaming activity at a class III level. Most of the tribal governments that have entered into these agreements are operating under the approval of these tribal-State compacts, as contemplated by the original law. However, almost from the beginning, there have been some tribes who have chosen to operate illegal class III gambling without an approved tribal-State compact. Over time, some of these gaming operations have become legal by negotiating compacts with the States in which they are located. Some gambling operators, including some who take in millions of dollars each year, have chosen to disregard, indeed, to flout the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by blatantly continuing to operate illegal class III games without an approved compact, as contemplated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Many of the Nation's Governors have appealed to Congress and to Justice to stop this; simply stated, to enforce the law. In the meantime, these tribes continue to operate illegal gambling, believing that the Justice Department would not move to shut them down. To date, they have largely been right. The Department of Justice and U.S. attorneys across the country have done an abysmal job of enforcing Indian gambling laws. During the year since enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, I have had several discussions with Justice about this problem, both the previous administration and the current administration. None of these conversations have been very satisfactory. It is time that illegal gambling is stopped. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is an important law, and it should be enforced. There is simply no excuse for Justice not to do that. There are widespread concerns about the lack of regulation in Indian-run gaming. Today, we should and must make it clear to Justice that this Congress expects its laws to be enforced. If Justice moved tomorrow to enforce the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, those who conduct legal Indian gaming under the provisions of the law would benefit. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this sense-of- the-Senate provision. It is very simple, very straightforward. It does nothing to impede legal Indian gambling. I repeat that I support legal Indian gambling. We have such in Nevada. By this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, we are simply telling Justice that they should enforce existing Federal laws against illegal gambling. Simply: Do your job, enforce the law. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. So that I understand the parliamentary situation, the amendment is modified in the manner in which the Senator from Wyoming originally proposed?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his thoughtful comments, because he is absolutely correct that the language that was originally selected would, indeed, preempt State law. I do not want to be a party to that. He, obviously, does not want to be a party to that as well. Amendment No. 1222 to Amendment No. 1221, As Modified (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning enforcement of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment, on behalf of Senator Reid and myself, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I assure my colleagues I will not take the full 6 minutes. But let me respond to the concern that the Senator from Wyoming has voiced with respect to the county schooling. We have crafted into the amendment a hold-harmless provision that recognizes that indeed this is an important revenue source for local governments. I can assure my colleagues that the purpose of this amendment, or its effect, will in no way affect that program. We specifically incorporated that in there. Let me just again return to the issue of the subsidy because I think that is central to the issue. I mean, if this is not a subsidy, why do we go through all of the incantation of calculating a separate purchaser credit, making that available? Why don't we simply just eliminate that and say, as do BLM harvesters, and in some State forest programs, the individual who is bidding on a tract of timber would factor into his or her, or its or their, costs what their road construction cost would be. That creates a competitive market, a level playing field. Why go through all of this incantation of developing the purchaser road credits? Mr. President, I think the answer is clear. This has conferred an enormous benefit to the timber harvester. For one, the GAO has indicated that the Forest Service itself, in calculating the purchaser road credit, factors in a profit--factors in a profit. That is not a wash. That is not a recovery of costs. That is cost plus a profit. If we are advocates of truth in budgeting, let us just eliminate that gimmick and simply say to all who harvest in the national forests, submit your bids, and included in your bid will be the cost that you will incur in accessing the tract of timber, or for those that involve new road constructions, you will factor that in. Second, with the exception of the Forest Service industry itself, virtually every outside analyst, the taxpayer groups, editorial writers across the country, those who have been commissioned to do independent surveys, have all concluded that, indeed, when one examines the cost of the credit that is provided to the timber harvester and examines the cost incurred by the timber harvester, in some instances the timber harvester's costs are 30 percent less than the credit that is provided to the timber harvester. Those are taxpayer resources. Those are taxpayer assets. That is clearly the definition of a subsidy. It goes far beyond what the cost incurred by the timber harvester is and provides him or her, it or them, with a costly subsidy at taxpayer expense. That is why from the west coast to the east coast, from north to south, editorial writers, commenters, and analysts have looked at this and said, ``This is a program that we cannot support.'' If we are talking about being fair and honest with the taxpayers' money, how can we support a program that is under a very convoluted, difficult-to- explain and, I am sure, difficult-to-understand purchaser credit program where in effect what we are doing, however we disguise it, is providing additional profits to a timber harvester? That simply is not right. I believe any responsible budgetary analysis reveals that that is in fact what has occurred. The Forest Service itself recognizes that practice. That is why they support the amendment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Bryan amendment. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as a cosponsor to the Bryan amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I want to tell you, first of all, what this amendment is not about. This amendment is not about timber harvesting in the national forests. It does not prevent it. And it does not prevent the construction of new roads in the national forests for purposes of timber access. What it does is to eliminate a costly taxpayer subsidy that is part of the Forest Service program, a subsidy that has been roundly denounced, and correctly so, by virtually every taxpayer group in America, such as Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense, because it cannot be justified. Second, this is an important environmental vote, perhaps our most important environmental vote to date because we reduce by $10 million an amount of money that is appropriated for new road construction in the national forests. The amendment does absolutely nothing to reduce or to impede the accounts that are provided for in the maintenance of roads in the National Park System. So Mr. President, I urge support of the Bryan amendment because it is truth in budgeting and makes sense from a fiscal point of view and because environmentally it is sound policy for the Nation. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time the Senator from Nevada has?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from New Jersey 10 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1205 (Purpose: To reduce funding for Forest Service road construction and eliminate the purchaser credit program)

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am always pleased, when I have the opportunity, as I do this afternoon, to support, and in this instance actually propose, legislation that benefits both the American taxpayer and the environment. The amendment I am offering today eliminates a subsidy used primarily by large timber companies that not only has negative consequences for the taxpayers but also a detrimental effect on the environment. Each year, American taxpayers spend millions of dollars to subsidize the construction of roads needed for logging on national forest lands. The appropriations bill before us today contains a $47.4 million appropriation for the Forest Service to assist in the construction and reconstruction of timber roads in our national forests. In addition, the bill, and accompanying report, provide affirmative direction to the Forest Service instructing them to continue the purchaser credit program without limitation. The purchaser credit program allows the Forest Service to subsidize the road construction costs of timber companies by granting credits to them equal to the estimated cost of the roads that they need in order to access their timber. The timber purchasers can then use the credits to pay for the timber being harvested. Last year these purchaser credits were valued at nearly $50 million. In the House-passed version of the Interior appropriations bill a limit of $25 billion was placed on the value of purchaser credits that may be offered by the Forest Service in fiscal year 1998. The bill before the Senate today eliminates this cap completely, and the report accompanying the bill makes it clear that ``The committee has not specified a ceiling for the amount of purchaser credits which can be offered'' to timber companies. The result of this language is an open- ended subsidy for the timber industry. My amendment stands for a very simple proposition. If a timber purchaser needs to build a road to harvest timber, the timber purchaser should have to pay for it. The amendment which I am offering eliminates the purchaser credit program and cuts $10 million from the Forest Service timber road construction and reconstruction account. In addition, my amendment provides that road construction costs incurred by timber purchasers are to be treated as timber revenues for the purpose of payment to States for use on roads and schools in the counties where national forests are located. The result of this latter provision is that counties will be held harmless as a result of the elimination of the purchaser credit program. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with this program, let me give a brief description of how the purchaser credit program operates. When the Forest Service wants to use purchaser credits to build the road to a planned timber sale, and parenthetically that is about 90 percent of the time, it must estimate the cost to build the road, the value of the timber in the sale area, and the road right-of- way. Prospective purchasers go through a similar process of estimating their roadbuilding costs and their estimated value of the timber they must pay for to the Forest Service. Considering all of these factors, the prospective purchasers submit their bids accordingly. When a purchaser is awarded the contract for the timber sale the Forest Service establishes the dollar value of the purchaser road credit attached to that sale and credits the account in that amount to the timber contract holder as the road is constructed. The contractor, therefore, has immediate access to the credits to be used in place of cash deposits and the agency, the purchaser, is also given discretion to use the credit on any timber sale contract that it holds in the forest. The Forest Service allows the transfer of purchaser credits between timber sales located within the same national forest. Now the ability to transfer credits aids a purchaser's ability to manage its timber sale portfolio cash flow. Since road construction often delays timber harvest, purchasers who can rapidly transfer road credits to another sale from their portfolio can attain lower portfolio management costs. The result is analogous to an interest-free loan for timber purchasers. The opponents of this amendment contend eliminating the purchaser road credit will devastate the timber industry. Their claim could not be further from the truth. The Bureau of Land Management in several States is successful at selling timber and getting the necessary roads constructed without the use of the purchaser road credit that is exclusive to the Forest Service. The effects on the Forest Service timber sale program of eliminating the purchaser credit program and requiring that roads be constructed pursuant to specified standards as the BLM and the States require would be environmentally and economically beneficial. Eliminating road credits will force purchasers to internalize the cost of road construction into their bid price for the timber. The result is a more balanced system that provides equal treatment for all purchasers of publicly owned timber, BLM and Forest Service lands. Without the purchaser credit program it is likely that fewer roads would be built and less habitat would be fragmented. Purchasers are less likely to want to build extensive road networks if they have to pay cash for them. Consequently, timber sales with high road building costs will be less attractive to purchasers than timber sales with low or no road building costs. Another important aspect of eliminating the purchaser credit program is that it will shift responsibility for estimating road costs from the Forest Service to purchasers. If markets are competitive, such a shift should provide a more accurate and an efficient road cost accounting system. An independent study of timber sales in the Pacific Northwest found that the Forest Service estimates for road construction costs can be as much as 30 percent higher than actual costs for the industry to build those roads. A recent report from the General Accounting Office discovered that Forest Service estimates of road costs include a profit margin for purchasers. It also found that the Forest Service lacked accountability for the accuracy of their road cost estimates because purchasers are not required to report actual costs of construction and reconstruction. So if actual road costs are overestimated, the extra purchaser credits awarded and subsequently traded for timber represent a windfall profit for the purchaser, a profit that comes at the public's expense. This inefficient situation would be eliminated if purchaser credits were abolished. Contrary to what you will hear from my opponents of this proposal, my amendment will not end logging in the national forests. Requiring timber purchasers to pay for road construction costs will likely reduce timber sales in roadless areas where the environmental and economic costs of logging are the greatest. I believe this is sound public policy. Roadless areas are not good places to produce commercial timber because they tend to be a high elevation, steep, and inaccessible. The timber sales in these areas are the ones that cause by far the most environmental problems and the ones which are the biggest money losers because of the high cost of road building. Let me invite my colleagues' attention to an excellent article entitled ``Quiet Roads Bring in Thundering Protests,'' an article that ran earlier this year in the New York Times that illustrated the environmental damage caused by road construction. A biologist with the Idaho Fish and Game Department, Chip Corsi, notes in the article that researchers have found that as little as 1.7 miles of road per square mile forest have the effect of reducing the complement of fish species in an area. Mr. Corsi added that in Idaho, in Coeur d'Alene National Forest we have from 4 to 10 to 15, up to 20 miles of road per square mile, so it is extreme. That is his direct quote. Many scientists have found that road building threatens wildlife because it causes erosions of soils, fragments intact forest ecosystems, encourages the spread of noxious weeds and invasive species and reduces habitat for many animals needing a refuge from man. It has been found that when the roads wash out they dump rocks and soil on lower slopes into stream beds and even when they remain intact, roads act as channels for water and contribute further to the erosion of lands and streams. Let me invite my colleagues' attention to one example of that. This is the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. At the top of the picture one can see a road cut through the forest. This is the erosion that has occurred as a result of a road having been logged and the runoff sedimentation that has occurred as a consequence of that. That is a major contributing problem to the environmental degradation that is occurring in our national forests. Scientists say the overall effect is that the streams and rivers fill with silt, and the shallower waters mean degraded fish habitat and more flooding. Many of my colleagues are aware that the declining water quality of lakes, rivers, and streams in our national forests is a serious problem. The USDA Undersecretary Jim Lyons has stated that our No. 1 water quality problem in the national forest system is roads. According to the Forest Service, 922 communities get their drinking waters from national forest streams that are frequently adversely affected by building logging roads. In Idaho, over 960 streams are rated as water- quality limited by the EPA because of contamination. Over half of these streams are degraded by logging and roadbuilding. In addition, after the winter storms of 1995 and 1996 in the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service found that in Idaho 70 percent of the 422 landslides were associated with logging. In my home State of Nevada, the road network through Lake Tahoe has been identified as a major contributor to the degradation of water quality and decline in the clarity of the lake. Mr. President, I know this firsthand, having spent a decade of my life as a resident of northern Nevada and having over the last 50 years visited the Lake Tahoe basin frequently. During the President and Vice President's recent visit to Lake Tahoe the President announced that the Forest Service would decommission or obliterate roughly 290 miles of old logging roads in the basin over the next 10 years. At Lake Tahoe, Mr. President, we have seen a rapid and radical decline in water clarity. One of the most pristine lakes in North America and the entire world, marveled at by Mark Twain and all of the early pioneers at one time, a little more than a decade ago, you could see 100 feet into the bottom of parts of that lake. In less than 30 years there has been an environmental degradation of more than a third. So today you can actually see, in terms of clarity of the water, less than 70 feet. A primary cause is the logging of that basin, initially during the Comstock Lode and the mining discoveries of the mid-to-late 19th century. I observed firsthand, not as a scientist but as a layman, looking at the roads and seeing the runoff that occurs. The siltation that occurs, that goes into the lake, has been a serious environmental problem. It has been estimated that it will require several hundred millions of dollars in order for this clarity and the environmental degradation that is occurring on an ongoing basis to be reversed. There are no guarantees, even at that. My point, Mr. President, is we may have been ignorant in the past as to what caused the problems. Those of our forebears a century ago were less knowledgeable than we are of the environmental consequences. But it certainly cannot be an excuse for our generation because we know what the costs are, and the costs are not just in the new road construction itself. The costs lasts for generations thereafter as we pay as American taxpayers to try to abate or minimize or mitigate the damage that will occur. Now, opponents of this amendment will claim that forest roads need money to be maintained and that the cuts contained in my amendment will allow roads to deteriorate, causing further environmental damage. I want to speak to this point. The amendment which I offer does not affect the Forest Service road maintenance budget. I want to repeat that: The amendment which is offered this afternoon does not affect the Forest Service road maintenance budget. This amendment only eliminates the subsidy of new timber roads. These are entirely separately funded accounts within the Forest System. As a matter of public policy, I would argue it makes more sense to maintain roads that we already have than spending a great deal of money building new roads. Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck has stated that there is a $440 million backlog of maintenance needed on 232,000 miles of national forest roads. Addressing this need would have considerable environmental benefits such as reducing erosion from roads and stormproofing existing culverts. It is important to remember that the timber industry's responsibility for maintaining logging roads ends with the sale of timber and its subsequent harvest, leaving all future maintenance costs to the American taxpayer. I want to emphasize once again, as I did a moment ago, the distinction between road reconstruction and road maintenance. Opponents of this amendment will seek to measure the distinction but road construction means starting with an abandoned road which may have trees growing in it and may be partly contoured and rebuilding it for the purpose of entering an area to conduct logging activities. Reconstruction is only undertaken for access to timber sales. Maintenance is keeping any forest road, timber, recreation, or general purpose, in good repair. The average cost of maintaining a mile of road is about $543. The average cost of reconstructing a mile of road is more than $12,000 a mile. Consequently, cutting funds for reconstruction will not hurt road maintenance. Now, another erroneous claim I want to address involves whether logging roads are needed for recreational activities in the national forest. The answer, Mr. President, is no. According to the Forest Service, logging roads are built at a lower standard and cost less than recreation and general purpose roads. Logging roads are usually unpaved dirt and are often usable only by high-clearance vehicles, while recreation and general purpose roads generally are either paved or gravel and are usable by all passenger cars. On average, purchaser credit logging roads cost $15,000 per mile in 1996, while recreation roads cost $63,000, and general purpose roads cost $65,000 per mile. The Forest Service plans to construct over 130 miles of recreation and general purpose roads in fiscal year 1998. My amendment would not reduce funding for either of these two accounts. Mr. President, let me be perfectly clear on what my amendment does not do. It does not--I repeat, it does not--prohibit logging or road construction in roadless areas. There is no provision in this amendment that even references roadless areas. Many interest groups opposed to this amendment have circulated erroneous information claiming that road construction would be prohibited in roadless areas. I can assure my colleagues that is not the case. In any event, roadless areas are only a small portion of the timber base in our national forests, and the national forests provide only 4 percent of the Nation's overall wood for paper products. Let me illustrate that point, if I may, Mr. President. One can see what has occurred in terms of the timber harvest in the country and on the national forests. This chart begins in 1950 and continues through 1995. We can see that the overall U.S. timber harvest, both national forests and otherwise, has by and large increased over the last 45 years. It would appear to be in the area of about 18 billion cubic feet a year. You can also see what happened with respect to the national forests. The amount that is harvested there has been declining in recent years, and I believe that is because there is a recognition that there are other important values that the National Forest Service provides to the American people: recreational opportunities, esthetic values, habitat protection, all of which seem to be reflected in this trend line. So my point is that the National Forest Service timber harvest represents about 4 percent of the Nation's overall harvest and, in my view, will not have an economic consequence that will, in any way, make it impossible for the United States to meet its harvest requirements. Now, my amendment does not eliminate all funding for timber road construction either. A similar amendment was offered in the House by Congressman Porter and Congressman Kennedy, which would have eliminated virtually all funding for timber road construction. That amendment, incidentally, was very, very narrowly defeated on a vote of 211 to 209. Let me make the point again. The Porter-Kennedy amendment would have eliminated virtually all funding for new timber road construction. My amendment would reduce the amount of the current appropriation, as proposed, by $10 million, reducing it from a $47.4 million budget. Opponents of this amendment are somewhat disingenuous when they claim that it will decimate the timber road construction program. Finally, Mr. President, I want to make my colleagues aware that this amendment has the strong support of the Clinton administration. I want to introduce into the Record a copy of the letter from the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Dan Glickman. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, Secretary Glickman's letter is in strong support of the amendment that I am offering this afternoon. I also add, Mr. President, that the amendment is also strongly supported by a broad coalition of environmental and taxpayer organizations, including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Friends of Earth, U.S. PERG, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste. In addition, more than 60 newspapers across the country have editorialized in support of the amendment. I simply close by making this observation, and I ask my colleagues to consider this one important point. If the purchaser credit program is not a subsidy for the timber purchasers, as the opponents of this amendment claim, then why are they fighting so hard to preserve it? Mr. President, I hope my colleagues can join with those advocates of the environment, those advocates of responsible governmental fiscal practices and support this amendment, because it is a win for the environment and a win for the American taxpayers. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire, does it require a unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for purposes of consideration of this proposed amendment?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. BRYAN. Fine. That will be acceptable.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I might inquire of the floor leader, the floor leader indicated that there would be time since we are going to have an intervening debate?

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada will do so. I think the Record will reflect that I have been generous beyond measure to accord to my opponents more time than the time agreement we entered into. But I will accord the Senator from Wyoming 2 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. I withhold.

Mr. BRYAN. If there is time remaining, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time that I might have. I was somewhat astounded by the debate because those who oppose the amendment try to frame an issue that is not part of our discussion or our amendment today. I think in so doing they are trying to obfuscate the issues we are dealing with. This amendment is not about eliminating all timber harvests on the national forests. That may be an appropriate subject for a debate on another day. But there is not one word in this amendment that would have that effect or seeks to accomplish that purpose. The other argument that has been made to obfuscate the issues is somehow a suggestion that there is an attempt here to eliminate all new road construction in the national forests. That is not true as well. Let me just respond to the comments that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania just made. We have crafted this amendment to protect and to hold the counties who receive revenue from this program to hold them harmless. We do so by saying, look, in the bid that is offered by the prospective timber harvest bidder, that we factor a separate amount that would be attributable to the construction component and use that, as well as the bid price, in the calculation to determine what moneys will go to the individual counties that will be affected. So we were sensitive to the needs of the individual counties that would be affected and this amendment holds them harmless. Let me talk about what the thrust of this amendment is. The thrust of this amendment is to eliminate a subsidy. It is to eliminate corporate welfare. It is to eliminate food stamps for the timber industry. That is not just an assertion the Senator from Nevada makes. That is why groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste, which have identified this as a costly subsidy to the American taxpayer, support the Bryan amendment. That is why Taxpayers for Common Sense, also a taxpayer watchdog group, has supported the Bryan amendment, because they recognize that this is a subsidy. That is why 60 leading newspapers across America from coast to coast--the only two notable exceptions that I am familiar with are the two that were referenced by the Senator from Oregon in his comments--all recognize this to be a subsidy and have urged its elimination. Why is it a subsidy? It is a subsidy because individuals who have analyzed it and see how the Purchaser Credit Program worked finds that a windfall tax break occurs in terms of the profits that are permitted under this. Let me describe that in more detail, if I may. The Forest Service makes a determination as to what they estimate the road costs are to be when a bidder bids on a tract of timber that requires road construction, and that is made available immediately to the successful bidder--immediately. That is a credit that is made available. Those who have looked at the way the Forest Service calculates that have indicated, No. 1, the Forest Service is calculating a profit into that estimate and, No. 2, those who have focused on it independently found that in some instances, the purchaser road credit exceeds by 30 percent the actual cost that the timber harvester incurs in building the roads. Because, Mr. President, there is no accounting or accountability, the amount of money that is saved by the timber harvester that would be substantially less cost to him than the purchaser credit makes available is retained by the timber bidder, and that becomes a windfall profit. That is what the various groups, the taxpayer groups, as well as the 60 or more editorial writers across the country, have focused on--that it is a subsidy and a subsidy that ought to be eliminated. Third, let me talk for a moment about the environmental consequences. We have 380,000 miles of roads in the National Forest System. That is about eight times the length of the interstate system. We have an enormous backlog of maintenance on existing roads. It is clear that new road construction, particularly in those environmentally sensitive areas that are steep, that have serious drainage and grading problems, cost the American taxpayer not just the initial cost for the road construction, but in some instances for generations thereafter. We deal with the problems of erosion, sedimentation and siltation into the rivers, streams, and lakes in the national forests. That is why the Assistant Secretary has commented that the greatest threat to the water resource in the national forest system is roads and new construction which is a major factor in that. Finally, let me set at rest the notion that somehow these forest roads that will be built for new timber harvests are somehow a great benefit to the outdoor recreationalists. There are different categories of roads. Typically, a road that is involved in a construction to access harvest timber is a dirt road. It is accessible only by all-terrain vehicles. It is not accessible by passenger vehicles. It is unpaved. It is ungraded. It doesn't have gravel on it. Whereas, recreational roads are roads of a higher quality that are accessible by passenger and general recreational vehicles. Let me say that one of the groups that is a watchguard for outdoor recreational users is the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, which is part of the Outdoor Products Council. Mr. President, here is what they have to say about this subsidy and the purchaser road credit and the Bryan amendment: Our national forests are a recreational attraction because of their wild unspoiled areas. We feel that taxpayer subsidies for logging road construction has led to an extensive logging road network that can actually place at risk the very resources upon which recreational users of our national forests depend. The recreational users and their interest groups support the Bryan amendment because they recognize that the Purchaser Credit Program is, in fact, a corporate subsidy, corporate welfare and they recognize the environmental consequences of senseless and unnecessary new road construction. Finally, if I may, to clarify the point that in the Forest Service accounts there is a separate category for maintenance of existing roads. The Bryan amendment, which could reduce by $10 million the amount of money appropriated for new road construction, does not--does not--in any way affect or reduce those moneys that are set aside for the maintenance accounts. So no one ought to be misled that in some way the reduction that we are talking about would in any way impact those ongoing activities of erosion control and maintenance of existing roads. To conclude, Mr. President, this is a win-win. It is a win for the American taxpayers because we eliminate a costly subsidy that simply cannot be justified and to provide windfall profits for some of the largest timber harvesters in America. Common sense suggests that, indeed, it must be a very powerful and a very substantial subsidy, or why else would we have the opposition to the Purchaser Road Credit Program if it did not provide such a subsidy? If it has been suggested by those who oppose the amendment it is a wash and an offset, I do not see why they would be raising the concerns and objections they have. Second, it is a great win for the environment, because we know one of the leading causes of environmental degradation is the kind of erosion and runoff that we have as a result of these roads that have been cut through our national forests, and we ought to be very, very careful and sensitive when we construct new roads. Mr. President, for the American taxpayer, for the American people, this is sound policy. Your vote will be appreciated. May I inquire of the Chair whether or not the amendment reflects the cosponsorship of John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Senator Bob Torricelli? If it does not, I ask unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.

Mr. BRYAN. I do not object to that, I suggest to the distinguished acting floor manager, if I can get an additional 5 minutes as well?

Mr. BRYAN

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