Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if the recollection of the Senator from Nevada is correct, in the mid-1970s, the distinguished Senator from Washington was the attorney general of that State. As the attorney general, he was a leading advocate on behalf of consumer issues in his State. Perhaps the Senator will recall when the legislation, referred to as CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy standard, was offered on the floor of the Senate and in the other body. Those from the automobile industry said at the time: if these CAFE standards are imposed upon us, everybody in America will be driving an automobile smaller than a Pinto or a subsized Maverick. That was at a time when fuel economy for passenger vehicles averaged less than 14 miles per gallon. As a result of the Congress taking that action, fuel economy, from 1973 to 1989, doubled. Does the Senator recall the essence of the testimony offered by one of the automotive manufacturers? I wonder if he might want to comment on what actually occurred over those intervening 16 years when we were supposed to be driving around in Pintos and subsize Maverick automobiles.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire further of the distinguished Senator, my friend from Washington, with another question. Has the Senator had an opportunity to see this morning's issue of Congress Daily? On the back, there is an ad designed to uphold the thoughtful and well-considered resolution which the Senator from Washington, and our able colleague, the distinguished Senator from California, I, and others are going to be offering for consideration. But the text of the ad says: We work hard all year so our family can go fishing and camping together. We couldn't do it without our SUV-- Sport utility vehicle. It shows the man leaning on the hood of the SUV. I guess my questions to the Senator would be twofold: No. 1, before the automobile manufacturers developed the sport utility vehicles, was it not possible for families in America to enjoy fishing and camping? Perhaps the Senator might be able to respond to that question.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague from California for her thoughtful and well-considered statement. I associate myself with her observations and the conclusions she makes. This issue has been framed on a false premise, that somehow Members, including the able Senators from California and Washington who support this amendment, are interested in depriving the American public of their choice of automobiles. I know firsthand, having seen the vehicles of my colleague from California--she is the proud owner of a sport utility vehicle--she would defend as vigorously as would I her right to own such a vehicle. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the American public chooses to purchase a minivan, a light truck, or a sport utility vehicle. My son and his wife and our first grandchild are in the Nation's Capital today. As a family, they have chosen a sport utility vehicle. I defend his right as vigorously as I defend the right of my colleague from California. This is not what this debate is all about. That is a false premise. I think some Members are not only offended by the intellectual dishonesty of this kind of advertising that suggests the senior Senator from California and I somehow seek to deprive American families of their opportunity to go fishing and camping. That is just ludicrous. That defies any kind of rational argument.

Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BRYAN. It shows two angelic children sitting on the hood of a sport utility vehicle. Strapped to the top of that vehicle looks to be a canoe, a boat of some type. Now we see a gentleman, perhaps the father of these two children, leaning on the hood. He is saying to them, ``You know, we work hard all year as a family so our family can go fishing and camping together. We couldn't do it without our sport utility vehicle.'' Then the tag line is: ``Say yes to consumer choice. Say no to a CAFE increase.'' I was explaining before my colleague's thoughtful question, the implication is that those who advocate simply taking a look at the standards, simply allowing those within the Department of Transportation to take a look at the standards--and I will comment later in my remarks as to the criteria involved--that somehow we are opposed to this family's right to camp and to go fishing. That is outrageous. It is not true. This Senator is greatly offended by the text of that ad.

Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. She has the clarity of expression that sometimes escapes those who had the misfortune to go to law school. We get caught up with acronyms. CAFE means nothing to the average person. We are trying to get greater fuel efficiency. In my colloquy with our colleague from Washington State, it was pointed out that this is a win-win-win for the American public. The Senator from California and I represent two States that currently are experiencing enormous increases in the cost of gas. That takes money out of the pocket of America's families. That means less discretionary income. In the Senator's State as well as my own, an automobile is virtually a necessity to move from one place to another, to go to work, to enjoy the recreational opportunities we want to have with our family, to do the sort of thing that is part of our lifestyle in America. If we can improve the CAFE standards for jeeps, sport utilities, minivans, and light trucks, we put more dollars in that family's pocket; we clean up the air, as the Senator from California pointed out; we reduce our dependence on foreign oil--it currently is about 50 percent; it drives some of the geopolitical policy debates in which the good Senator from California has taken a lead--and we help to reduce the trade deficit. Our economy is performing magnificently, but one of the areas of concern to everyone is the mounting trade deficit. About $50 billion of that annual trade deficit is attributed to what we as Americans pay for oil that we import from around the world to fuel our economy, a good segment of which is transportation.

Mr. BRYAN. That is, as the Senator from California knows, an argument that has been raised. It is a specious argument. The Senator from California hails from a jurisdiction which has been on the cutting edge of so much of the technology of the post-World War II era. Because of the Senator's own interest in technology and moving her own economy forward in California, I know she is deeply committed to that. The Senator from California and many of our colleagues reflect that great confidence that the ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit of the American business community responds to challenges. But now there is a disconnect. The automobile industry didn't think they could ever do anything to improve economy. We couldn't suggest they look at that-- somehow that would deprive us of our choice. As the Senator from Washington responded to my question, these arguments were made back in 1974 when a representative at that time from the Ford Motor Company, testifying in opposition to the first fuel economy standards, said--without in any way belying the Senator's own youthful appearance, I think she may recall 1974, as the Senator from Nevada does. At that time, one of the leading automobiles that Ford produced was what I call a pint-sized Pinto. The Senator I am sure will recall that. This is what the auto industry was arguing in 1974, should the first CAFE standards be enacted: That the product line [referring to the product line for automobile manufacturers in America] would consist of either all sub Pinto sized vehicles or some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub sub compact to perhaps a Maverick. That statement was made in this century--in fact, the latter quarter of the 20th century. This is a tribute to the industry and its ingenuity. The Lincoln Town Car, if not the largest automobile produced by the Ford Motor Company, gets better fuel economy today than the Pinto did in 1974. That is technology. It does not deprive one of choice. It seems to me for some reason the industry has created this facade that they cannot do these sorts of things. We are saying--and I believe the Senator from California would agree--let's just take a look and see if we can't achieve these benefits we have just talked about.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the senior Senator from California for her very thoughtful comments and excellent presentation. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton-Feinstein-Bryan amendment that would permit the Department of Transportation to consider whether fuel efficiency for SUVs and light trucks should be improved. The vote on this amendment will be one of the key environmental votes of this Congress. I think it is helpful for our colleagues to understand the context in which this debate occurs. In 1995, the House of Representatives inserted an antienvironmental rider in the Department of Transportation appropriations bill that prohibited, that is precluded, the Department of Transportation from even considering whether an increase in automobile fuel efficiency made sense. That environmental rider has been added to each of the appropriations in years 1996, 1997, 1998, and currently we face the same situation. I think the important thing to emphasize is that those of us who support the resolution are not arguing for a specific numerical standard. We are simply saying shouldn't the people who have the ability to make these judgments, under very carefully considered circumstances, have the opportunity to even inquire? In effect, what the rider accomplishes is a technology gag rule. It precludes consideration. So our amendment is an effort to show there is substantial support in this body that we should not prejudge the issue and, instead, let the experts study the issue and decide what is in the Nation's best interests. A bit of history may be instructive. Fuel efficiency standards are known, in the jargon of the Congressional and Federal professional bureaucracy, as CAFE standards, the acronym standing for corporate average fuel economy. Those standards have been on the decline in recent years, as automakers build bigger and bigger gas guzzlers. This chart will be instructive. Prior to the enactment in 1974 of the fuel economy standards, the average fuel economy for a passenger vehicle in America was slightly less than 14 miles per gallon. As a result of the enactment of that legislation, over the intervening 15 years, fuel economy doubled to 27.5 miles per gallon. This chart reflects that. What has occurred, in the late 1980s and 1990s, is the vehicle mix has shifted dramatically. We have seen a decline in overall fuel economy. Not that the vehicles referred to as ``passenger vehicles'' are less fuel efficient, but the American public, by choice, has included in its purchase agenda light trucks, sport utility vehicles, and minivans. These were not terms that were familiar in America in 1974, and millions of families have chosen light trucks or sport utility vehicles and minivans. As I indicated in my colloquy with the distinguished Senator from California, my own son and his family have such a vehicle in Nevada. A daughter and a son-in-law have such a vehicle in upstate New York. So nothing in this debate is in any way about limiting choice. But we cannot ignore the reality that the fleet mix has changed. Today, nearly 50 percent of the vehicles sold in America for family use are sport utility, minivans, or light trucks. That reflects the percentage. If the chart went 1 more year, they would reflect basically about 50 percent of the vehicle mix. When the legislation was enacted in 1974, there was a different standard for light trucks, which included minivans and the sport utility vehicle. So what this debate is all about is simply permitting--it is permissive. It in no way mandates, dictates, directs, commands; it simply is permissive. I think it may be helpful to read the language of the resolution itself. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The resolved paragraph says: It is the sense of the Senate that, (1) the issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be examined by the Department of Transportation, so that consumers may benefit from any resulting increase in the standards as soon as possible. Let me repeat. The issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be examined by the Department of Transportation. . .. There is no attempt to fix a precise numerical standard. This simply would permit an inquiry by the Department of Transportation. The effect of this would be to override the technology gag rule that has been imposed by the House since 1995 that prohibits or precludes its consideration. Part 2 of the resolution simply says that: The Senate should not recede to section 320 of this bill, as passed by the House of Representatives. That is the technology gag rule. As fuel efficiency declines, oil consumption, trade deficits, and air pollution go up. Few actions have as many beneficial effects on our economy as improving fuel efficiency standards. As I said before, the amendment in no way seeks to restrict choice. For millions of Americans, that is their vehicle of choice and in some geographical climes it would be the only sensible choice. We recognize, fully respect, and endorse the concept of choice. Contrary to all the foreboding in the 1974 testimony before the Congress, in point of fact, as my colleague from Washington State pointed out, we had greater choice in America after the fuel economy legislation was enacted a quarter of a century ago by the Congress. So the real question is not whether Americans want and need a larger four-wheel-drive vehicle but whether these vehicles can be made more fuel efficient. That is what the amendment is attempting to find out. Many of us believe that answer will be yes. Others disagree. But all we are asking is to allow the experts to make that determination. The current law provides a strict criteria to the Department of Transportation in considering what process needs to be involved before a CAFE standard could be increased. It requires the DOT to consider four factors: First, the technical feasibility. My friend and colleague from Washington State mentioned an article in the Wall Street Journal and cited one of the automakers on the technology they currently have available. There are many of us who believe technology is there but that is not for us to determine. That is for the experts in the Department of Transportation, the technical feasibility. Second, the economic practicability. Third, the effect of other motor vehicle standards on fuel economy. Finally, the need of the Nation to conserve energy. These are four criteria, each of which must be found before the Department could be authorized to go forward with second fuel economy standards that build upon the 1974 legislation. The auto industry, for all of its achievements in recent years--and I applaud them for this--for some reason has this myopic view of the future. Whereas most Americans are confident about the future, we recognize that changes in technology that are sweeping across the country are more vast and more pervasive than anything in the history of civilization, and there is no reason to believe the auto industry itself would be immune from these current changes, and that new technology will make it possible to do things more efficiently than we have in the past. For some reason--and I do not understand the corporate mentality-- there is this knee-jerk reaction: We don't want anybody to take a look at it; we couldn't possibly do it. That was reflected in the debate the Congress had for a quarter of a century. Who would be the beneficiaries? What public policy would be served if, indeed, the Department took a look at the evidence and concluded that some increase was warranted? I can speak of my own State of Nevada, having spent 26 days in rural Nevada. If there was one question that came up in every townhall meeting, it was the price of gas. For reasons that are not altogether clear to me, and I have not been persuaded as to those that have been asserted to be the cause of it, gas prices in the West have skyrocketed. In central Nevada, gasoline prices are approaching $2 a gallon. I realize that is not the situation of my colleagues from the East and other parts of the country. Who would be an immediate beneficiary of improved fuel economy standards? Those individuals who currently own sport utility vehicles would be purchasing another vehicle that would be more fuel efficient. That would put dollars back in the pockets of America's families. America's families would benefit. What does the public think about this? In a recent poll conducted by the Mellman Group, nearly three out of four drivers who own minivans, pickup trucks, or sport utility vehicles think the automobile manufacturers should be required to make cleaner, less polluting vehicles, and more than two-thirds say they would be willing to pay a significant amount more for their next sport utility vehicle if it polluted less. Opponents of our amendment will cry wolf and say our amendment will cause people to drive around in tiny subcompacts. This is kind of deja vu. We have been there before. We have heard that, and an earlier Congress had the courage to go forward. As a result, we save 3 million barrels of oil each day that we otherwise would be consuming as a result of those fuel efficiency standards that were first enacted. To give perhaps the most graphic and encapsulated insight into the corporate culture that seems to pervade the automobile industry, the 1974 testimony before the Congress is the milestone. As my colleagues will recall, the Congress was being asked for the first time to consider these fuel economy standards, and the auto industry, as one, came forward with this dire projection of doom and gloom. As I was saying earlier in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from California, the Pinto was one of the smallest, if not the smallest, products the Ford Motor Company produced that year. The testimony offered by the representative from Ford concluded that the ``product line consisting of either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-subcompact to perhaps a Maverick'' would be the consequence of that action. That is absolutely unbelievable, but that was the testimony. Indeed, the refutation of that is today fuel economy has doubled as a result of this legislation, and the largest automobile the Ford Motor Company makes, the Lincoln Town Car, gets better mileage than the smallest car that Ford manufactured in 1974. That is efficiency. That is technology. Indeed, 86 percent of the increases in fuel efficiency came from improved technology. And why not? This is the country that believes in technology. It has fueled our economy. It has made us the most productive society in the history of civilization and has produced the highest standard of living known in the history of the world. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that using off-the-shelf technologies--that is, existing technology--that SUVs, or sport utility vehicles, could improve fuel efficiency by 50 percent to 28.5 miles per gallon. The authors of this resolution do not ask you to believe that. That is a responsible assessment. This group of scientists may be right and they may be wrong, so this debate is not about whether they are correct in their conclusion. This debate is about whether or not the Department of Transportation should be allowed to consider that testimony, that evidence, and any other evidence that bears on point in making a determination as to whether or not improved fuel efficiency standards can be achieved. This can be done without shrinking the vehicle size or sacrificing safety. I invite my colleagues' attention to this chart because safety does sometimes get into this debate. This chart depicts two trend lines: One is fuel economy, which has increased dramatically, as you see, from the 1970s, and the fatality rate. This is the rate of automobile deaths based on the vehicle miles traveled each year. We all know, without being a statistician or having a masters or Ph.D. in statistics, that there are more people in America today than in the 1970s, many more million automobiles and sport utilities and light trucks and minivans on the market, and today the average motorist travels further each year in his or her vehicle. But notwithstanding that enormous increase in traffic, vehicles, and further driving, the fatality rate has dropped precipitously, and that is a good news story. The bottom line of that story is it came about because of technology improvements, and the auto industry has always reluctantly, for some reason, done a marvelous job with respect to improved safety standards. Those over at NHTSA have done a wonderful job in making sure we have sidebar protection and rollover standards and a whole host of other things, including seatbelt technology and airbags that today make our cars the safest in the world and traveling by vehicle safer today than at any time in our history. And that comes a quarter of a century after these dire prophecies of the consequences of enacting a CAFE standard. What other benefits do we get? By raising the CAFE or the fuel efficiency standards for sport utility vehicles, we save up to 1 million barrels of oil a day, and that will save consumers money at the gas pump, as we just discussed, and reduce annually by 240 million tons the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced each year. Carbon dioxide is the main culprit involved in what many may believe to be global warming. One does not have to embrace the concept of global warming. I know not everybody agrees. But virtually everyone agrees we ought to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. I had the privilege a couple of years ago of being in London and meeting with some of my colleagues with British Petroleum, one of the large petroleum producers in the world. They have come around to recognize that the role of carbon dioxide and a potential impact on global warming is something that they as a company, as part of its corporate responsibilities, need to address. I know not all oil companies agree, but the vast majority of scientists would tell you that it is clearly in our best interest to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and going into the atmosphere. And most of them--not all--would draw that link between carbon dioxide and global warming and some of the implications it has for us in the future. But, again, you do not have to embrace the concept of global warming to agree with the vast majority, virtually all the scientific community, that it makes sense, as a matter of public policy, to reduce or to curtail the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. Finally, the good news on the economy continues: As inflation remains under control, the economy expands, unemployment is low. The stock market has been a little skiddy the last few days, but, by and large, the stock market has performed extraordinarily well. That is a good news story for the American people. The only cloud on the horizon, the only shadow that may be casting a darker light on the economic future for us in America, is the trade deficit. We are importing far more than we are exporting, and ultimately there reaches a point in time in which we have to atone for that enormous imbalance. Fuel economy standards play a part in that debate as well because part of that trade deficit--about $50 billion a year, a very substantial part--is attributed to what we in America pay those foreign countries that produce the oil we import into the United States. We would be reducing our dependency on that. That is why I conclude, as I said in my opening colloquy with the distinguished able Senator from the State of Washington, this legislation is a win-win-win for everyone. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It does not, as I have observed, require radical change. It simply permits the experts to look at what can be done and to make adjustments, if feasible, after engaging in a thorough and well considered rulemaking process in which all sides are able to be heard. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to end the technology gag rule that has ensnarled this piece of legislation since 1995. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan if he wants to make a response to my friend from Washington, and then I would like to ask the Senator from Washington after such time as the Senator from Michigan speaks that I might be reserved a little time.

Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire, if the Senator is not going to go forward, as I understand the unanimous consent agreement, when we are in a quorum call, all of the time is charged to our side. I certainly am not trying in any way to preempt the comments the Senator wants to make, but if we go back into the quorum call, it seems we will have it charged to our side.

Mr. BRYAN. Would the Senator not agree that before any increase could be effected by the Department, that the Department is, under the current law, required to consider four factors: the technical feasibility, the economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards on fuel economy, and the need of the Nation to conserve energy? Would not the Senator agree that that is part of the law as well?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I might inquire of the Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. BRYAN. If I might inquire of the Senator who controls the time-- we have approximately 11 minutes left--would the Senator from Washington be amenable to allowing the Senator from Nevada to use, say, 6 minutes?

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Washington. Mr. President, I understand that in the most famous debating institution in the world, and in the history of civilization, differences of opinion can arise on matters of public policy. That is what this place is all about. But I have to tell you, I find the amount of hysteria engendered by this issue to be absolutely astonishing. In a series of ads put out by the industry, we have one now that talks about: ``Farming's tough enough with healthy-size pickups. Imagine hauling feed barrels around in a subcompact.'' That implies that this amendment we are proposing will be antithetical to the best interests of America's farmers. We have an ad involving the soccer moms and dads: ``This picture is brought to you by a fantastic soccer team and a minivan just big enough to handle them.'' The clear inference is, if we allow the Department of Transportation to examine these standards, some soccer moms are not going to be able to take their kids to soccer games. Then we have an ad: ``As a small business owner, my truck and I are joined at the hip. An increase in CAFE would put both of us out of business.'' May I say, with great respect to our friends on the other side of the aisle, many of whom are good friends I greatly respect, this is utter nonsense. This is just plain nonsense. I will repeat, as I did earlier, the thrust of what this resolution does. It mandates no standard, no increase. The resolution simply says the issue of CAFE standards should be permitted to be examined by the Department of Transportation so that consumers may benefit from any resulting increase in the standards as soon as possible. It is permissive only; it mandates nothing. During the time 1989 to 1995, when this technology gag rule was not in effect, during those 6 years, there was no increase in CAFE standards for automobiles, and with respect to light trucks it was 1 percent. So I think that is a pretty clear indication that nobody is going to rush to judgment. The other thing that needs to be understood, it seems to me, is the Department of Transportation has some very comprehensive guidelines they must consider in any review. Among those factors are: Is it technically feasible? Is the technology there? The economic practicability, the effect of other Federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy, and the need of the Nation to conserve, all of which would be open to the rulemaking process in which the industry and their supporters would have an ample opportunity to respond. Let me try to respond briefly to the safety issue. And my friend from Michigan has indicated to me he would allow me to engage him in a colloquy for a couple questions. I appreciate his courtesy, as always. From 1970 through 1999, the highway fatality rate in America has gone down. At the same time, fuel economy is up. That is at the same time that many more vehicles are on the highway, with a great amount of additional traffic congestion. The average motorist is driving more each year. So the notion that somehow this is anathema to health and safety standards simply, in my judgment, does not bear out scrutiny. Indeed, an objective study by the General Accounting Office concluded that the unprecedented increase in the proportion of light cars on the roads since the 1970s has not increased the total highway fatality rate. I think the safety issue is somewhat of a red herring. We are all concerned about safety. Nobody on the floor is going to advocate that the industry make and sell a product which is unsafe, and one would have to assume that the industry itself would not put such a product on the market. Let me also point out that with respect to the fuel achievements we have had in terms of increased efficiency from 1974 to the 1989 timeframe, 86 percent of those improvements were as a result of new technology. This information comes to us from the Center for Auto Safety. It seems to me the clear and compelling evidence is that safety and fuel economy standards are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. All we are saying is that those who choose to purchase sport utility vehicles, my son and daughter-in-law being two, should have the same right as other motorists who select other passenger vehicles to derive the benefits of improved technology. I have great confidence in what the industry can do, notwithstanding the prophecy of doom they forecast in 1974 that everybody would be driving around in a sub-subcompact or a vehicle the size of a Maverick or a Pinto. Indeed, the industry did some astonishing things and doubled the fuel economy. Today's Lincoln Town Car gets better fuel economy than the smallest product that the Ford Motor Company manufactured in 1974. If I could engage my friend from Michigan in a couple of questions. He is a distinguished lawyer, a graduate of Harvard Law School. I ask him: Is there anything in this resolution, in the opinion of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, that in any way mandates an increase in these standards. We may disagree in terms of whether the technology is available.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator from Michigan yield a few minutes of his time so I may follow up with a question?

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator from Washington is agreeable, I think that is fair.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator for his answer. We obviously have reached a different conclusion. I point out to my friend and colleague from Michigan that we had precisely the situation in 1989 to 1995. The technology gag rule was not in effect and, indeed, no increase was made during that period of time with respect to automobile standards. And only a very modest increase was made with respect to the light truck standards. I hope that will give some comfort to him and to those who have raised some concerns that this is not a mandate but simply permissive in nature. Again, I thank the Senator from Michigan and yield the floor but reserve the remainder of the time that is allocated to our side. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, how much time remains for the proponents of the amendment?

Mr. BRYAN. I reserve 5 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me compliment the Senator from Oregon for his leadership in helping craft this very carefully balanced and I believe very modest amendment. Although the Senator from Illinois has left the floor, I want to compliment him for the clarity of his comments. I think he has put this debate in the proper context. The Senator from Idaho has framed the issue as being for or against harvesting timber for commercial sales on the national forests. That is not the issue before the Senate today. This amendment does not deal with that issue. This amendment reduces the amount of money allocated for the commercial timber sales program back to the amount the President recommended in his budget and the Forest Service, the professional managers, recommended, which was $196 million. That commercial timber program has been subject to much criticism over the years. It is, in my judgment, one of the vestiges of corporate welfare that still exists in the Congress of the United States. Courageously, on a bipartisan basis, both parties worked to reform the welfare system. We have already seen enormous benefits as a result of that bipartisan action. For reasons that are not altogether clear to me, we have had much less success in removing the vestiges of corporate welfare. It is for that reason that such responsible organizations as the Concord Coalition as well as the National Taxpayers Union are strongly in support of the Bryan-Wyden-Fitzgerald amendment. The commercial timber sales program has been widely criticized because it is a subsidy. The Forest Service itself has acknowledged that fact. In the most recent fiscal year in which data is available, they have acknowledged that it is an $88.6 million loss to the taxpayer. The General Accounting Office, reviewing the data from 1992 to 1997, concluded the American taxpayers have lost some $1.5 billion as a result of this program. The Bryan-Wyden-Fitzgerald amendment is an attempt to bring some balance to the program. My friend from Idaho has suggested that somehow this commercial sales program deals with forest management. We should be candid: It deals with commercial sales. We are subsidizing some of the largest logging companies in America. To do so, the appropriators, in changing the President's recommendation, have stripped money from some of the most important accounts in the Forest Service. Regarding the road maintenance account, we have in the neighborhood of 380,000 miles of roads in the national forests. That is more miles than we have on the National Interstate Highway System. Each one of those miles of new roads that are cut in requires a substantial amount of ongoing maintenance to prevent environmental damage. The Forest Service estimated it would require $431 million annually to begin to address the environmental consequences of some of these roads that have been cut through the national forest. The backlog is some $3.85 billion. Yet in the bill that the appropriators present to the floor, they have stripped about $11.3 million out of this road maintenance program. From firsthand experience, based upon our experience in Nevada and the Tahoe Basin, that is a major contributing factor to erosion and degradation of the ecosystem. Yet in terms of priorities, the appropriators would set as a priority increasing the timber sales program and reducing the amount of money available for the road maintenance program. In addition, they have cut substantial amounts of money out of the fish and wildlife accounts. Putting the National Forest System in some perspective, only 4 percent of the timber harvested in America comes from the National Forest System. However, it is not the only use that the national forest has. The national forest, as my colleague from Illinois noted in citing his own personal experience, provides an enormous recreational opportunity for millions of people. Yet the programs which they depend upon--the fish and wildlife accounts to make sure the habitat is there, that the fishery is not devastated as a consequence of some of these practices--those accounts have been substantially reduced. The funding that goes to those accounts is an investment in the Nation's 63 million wildlife watchers, 14 million hunters, and 35 million anglers who spend approximately 127.6 million activity days hunting, fishing, and observing fish and wildlife annually on the national forests. Those who oppose the amendment have cited some of the economic circumstances that have affected the logging industry. Let me suggest with great respect, those are consequences of changing technology. Those jobs, I regret to say, will never come back because we harvest differently. The technology is more efficient. It is less manpower intensive. On the other hand, the moneys that we invest in these programs that deal with fish and wildlife directly result in local community expenditures of billions of dollars, in over 230,000 full-time equivalent jobs. One out of every three anglers fishes the national forest waters nationally, and two out of three anglers in the West fish the national forest waters. So what my colleagues from Oregon and Illinois have put together is a carefully crafted balance: Maintain the timber harvest program at a $196 million level but do not increase it, because of the massive subsidy involved and the damage that has been done to the national forest system; put money back into the road maintenance account to help address that backlog, which is a major contributor to the environmental degradation that the ecosystem, according to the National Forest Service, is experiencing; restore money to the fish and wildlife accounts so we can help those who use the national forests for recreational purposes and address their needs. I think as evidence of how balanced this effort is, the editorial support is not confined to any particular region. The Chattanooga Times expresses its support for it, as does my own hometown newspaper, the Las Vegas Sun, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, and the San Francisco Chronicle. All who looked at this recognize this subsidy needs to be limited. What we have done is provide a carefully balanced response to that. I urge my colleagues to support the Bryan-Wyden-Fitzgerald amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of the time remaining on my side if my colleague from Idaho is prepared to do the same.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1588, which I believe is currently at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.