Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment with my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from Oregon that is a win-win for the American taxpayer and the environment. Our amendment reduces the subsidy for the below-cost timber program administered by the Forest Service and for the construction of logging roads in our national forests. In addition, our amendment reallocates needed monies to those Forest Service programs underfunded by the committee, such as road maintenance, wildlife and fish habitat management, and threatened and endangered species habitat management. Each year, the 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 over $37 million for the Forest Service to assist in the construction and reconstruction of timber roads in our national forests. This assistance is in the form of contract administration, construction oversight, and engineering, planning, and design work performed by the Forest Service for the logging companies which are merely left with the task of building the roads to extract the timber. Our amendment would reduce this subsidy by a modest amount, $1.6 million, which is the amount the program was increased above the administration's budget request. Similarly, this bill contains $228.9 million for the administration of the timber sale program, which is more than $32 million above the administration's budget request. These expenditures for a money losing timber program are an enormous drain on the Treasury. In their most recent Forest Management Program Annual Report, dated July 1998, the Forest Service acknowledges losing $88.6 million from their timber program in fiscal year 1997. This was the second consecutive year that the Forest Service reported a loss. In addition to the reported loss, the $88.6 million figure excludes a full accounting of all costs associated with logging. In past fiscal years, independent analyses estimate the loss from below-cost timber sales are far greater than those reported by the Forest Service. The General Accounting Office estimated that the timber program cost taxpayers at least $1.5 billion from 1992 to 1997. Our amendment would reduce funding for timber sale management by $32.015 million to the level requested by the administration. In spite of the fact that our National Forests supply a mere 4 percent of our nation's annual timber harvest, this bill continues to reflect the dominance of the timber program at the expense of other programs designed to improve forest health and enhance the public's enjoyment of our national forests. More than 380,000 miles of roads criss-cross the national forests. This is a more extensive road network than the National Interstate Highway System. The Forest Service estimates that over 80% of these roads are not maintained to public safety and environmental standards. As a matter of public policy, I would argue that it makes more sense to maintain the roads we already have than to spend money building new roads we don't need. Many scientists have found that road building threatens wildlife because it causes erosion of soils, fragments intact forest ecosystems, encourages the spread of noxious weeds and invasive species, and reduces habitat for many animals needing refuge from man. It has been found that when roads wash out they dump rocks and soil on lower slopes and into streambeds, and even when they remain intact, roads act as channels for water and contribute further to the erosion of lands and streams. Scientists say that the overall effect is that the streams and rivers fill with silt and the shallower waters mean degraded fish habitat and more flooding. In my home state of Nevada, the road network throughout the Lake Tahoe basin has been identified as a major contributor to the degradation of water quality and decline in clarity of Lake Tahoe. An important component of the Forest Service's road maintenance program involves the decommissioning of old logging roads. This program has been essential to efforts in the Lake Tahoe basin to improve erosion control and the overall water quality of the lake. The bill before us today cuts the administration's request for road maintenance by $11.3 million. The Forest Service has indicated that their annual road maintenance needs total $431 million per year, and that their backlog for deferred maintenance totals $3.85 billion. The bill before us today provides less than a quarter of the funding the Forest Service requires to address their annual road maintenance needs. Addressing this need would have considerable environmental benefits, such as reducing erosion from roads and storm proofing existing culverts. It is important to remember that the timber industry's responsibility for maintaining logging roads ends with the end of the timber sale, leaving all future maintenance costs to the taxpayer. Our amendment adds $5.3 million for important road maintenance projects throughout our national forests. The National Forests include nearly 200,000 miles of fishable streams and more than 2 million acres of lakes, ponds and reservoirs that support hundreds of inland fish species with important recreational, commercial, and ecological values. The inland fisheries habitat management program allows the Forest Service to protect and restore inland streams and lakes, along with the fish and aquatic life they support. The bill before us today cuts the administration's request for this program by $7 million. Our amendment proposes to restore $3.115 million in funding for this program. This additional funding would allow the Forest Service to enhance or restore several hundred miles of stream and over 400 additional acres of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. The National Forests also provide critical spawning and rearing habitat for Pacific, Great Lakes, and Atlantic stocks of anadromous fish, such as salmon, sturgeons, and lampreys. These stocks contribute significantly to the quality of life, recreational and commercial fishing, and the economy of local communities. The Interior bill cuts the administration's funding request for anadromous fisheries habitat management by $6.4 million. Our amendment proposes to restore $1.6 million for this program. This funding will enable the Forest Service to complete critical work on over 100 additional miles of anadromous streams and 1,000 acres of additional acres of anadromous lakes and reservoirs, complementing the efforts of our state, federal, and tribal partners. The wildlife habitat management program of the Forest Service for fiscal year 2000 will focus on prescribed burns to improve wildlife habitat. It will help to develop and protect wetlands and water sources in arid habitats for waterfowl, quail, and wild turkey, in addition to restoring riparian habitat that benefits big game. The subcommittee cut $5 million from the wildlife program. Our amendment would restore $1.6 million in funding for this program. This funding would provide for an additional 8,000 acres of important habitat improvement, which would benefit both game and nongame species, and result in enhanced opportunities for wildlife-related recreation. The activities of the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species program serve to achieve recovery goals for threatened and endangered animals and plants. The Forest Service has indicated that this program continues to be essential to the mission of their agency. The committee cut the endangered species program by $5 million. Our amendment would restore $2 million for this program, which would allow the Forest Service to pursue conservation strategies to prevent the need for listing, thereby avoiding the loss of management flexibility and increased operating costs once listing occurs. Mr. President, the $20 million our amendment adds to wildlife, fisheries, and rare plant habitat management programs would enable the Forest Service to increase Challenge Cost-Share partnerships with organizations throughout the country, enabling the agency to leverage funding, better serve the public, and improve vital habitats for fish and wildlife. This funding is an investment for 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 national forests. This result in local community expenditures of billions of dollars and over 230,000 full-time equivalent jobs. One out of every three anglers fish national forest waters nationally, and two out of three anglers in the West fish national forest waters. That is why our amendment is supported by groups like Trout Unlimited, the American Sportfishing Association, and Wildlife Forever. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to join a strong coalition of environmental, hunting, fishing, and taxpayer organizations in support of the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment. I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I note that my colleague, one of the prime sponsors of the amendment, has joined us on the floor. I yield the floor at this point. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, during the course of the debate, the Senator from Idaho propounded to the Senator from Nevada a query as to how I could be supportive of this amendment and then made reference to the fact of Lake Tahoe, with all the problems we have in Tahoe. My own previous statements on Tahoe indicated the extent of the devastation that has been caused with dying trees and timber. To suggest that somehow increasing the commercial harvesting of timber would in any way ameliorate the problems we face at Tahoe would be a totally spurious argument. The problems at Tahoe are compounded because we had a 7-year drought, the most protracted in recorded memory, and as a result, the forest became very vulnerable to infestation from beetles that ultimately killed vast amounts of trees in the Tahoe Basin. So adding to the commercial harvest would in no way help. Secondly, with respect to Tahoe, we are reaping a whirlwind of practices that involve the extensive cutting of road network to the Tahoe Basin. The clarity of the lake is declining rapidly. This is a lake that Mark Twain rhapsodized about. John C. Fremont, on Valentine's Day in 1844, was the first European to see Lake Tahoe, and perhaps that date has some significance because those of us who live in Nevada have had a love affair with Lake Tahoe ever since. The problem in Tahoe is exacerbated because of this road network that was built throughout the basin during a period of intense harvesting in the last century. The timber at Tahoe was used for the great mining activities of Virginia City. But it is instructive and helpful because the primary contributing factor to the erosion that is causing the deterioration of waters and clarity is the runoff from these old roads, and road maintenance is what we need so desperately. So I say that my friend from Idaho confuses the issue when he talks about the problems at Tahoe and the thrust of the Bryan-Wyden amendment, which is simply to take about $32 million from the commercial timber operations and reprogram those into some accounts that include road maintenance and fish and wildlife management. Let me make the point about road maintenance, if I may, again. The Bryan-Wyden amendment does not eliminate commercial timber sales in the national forests. My friend from Alaska referenced that we should allow professionals to make the determination as to how much harvesting should occur. That recommendation is included by the managers of the Forest Service, and they recommended a number of $196 million. That was in the President's recommendation. Now, what the appropriators did was, they stripped out $34 million from road maintenance and fish and wildlife accounts and added that back into the timber sales to bring that number up to about $228 million. My friend from Arkansas was talking about the need for forest health and to do a lot of things. Those are totally different accounts. We are talking, on the one hand, of reducing to the level of the President's recommended appropriation the commercial timber sale account of $196 million and to add $32 million to that account. What the appropriators did was to reduce by $11 million the road maintenance account. It is the road maintenance account that helps to alleviate the erosion and the other adverse environmental consequences that attach to the neglect of that maintenance. The testimony is that the Forest Service would need $431 million a year for road maintenance alone, that there is a total backlog of $3.85 billion in road maintenance. By rejecting the Bryan-Wyden amendment, you make that backlog even longer because the appropriators have stripped $11 million from that account. Now, every mile of new construction adds to that backlog because under the law, once the harvesting operation has been completed, the timber harvester has no responsibility for the maintenance of that road. That, then, is left to the Forest Service and the American taxpayer. We already have 380,000 miles in the National forests. As I commented in my opening statement, that is more mileage than we have on the interstate system in America. The things my friend from Idaho was talking about, in terms of fire burns and removing dead timber, have nothing to do--absolutely nothing--with the commercial timber sale account. Those activities are included in other accounts, such as the Wild Land Fire Management Act. So I think we have a confusion here as we debate these issues. The Bryan-Wyden amendment would simply reduce to the level of the professional managers' recommendation in the Forest Service the commercial timber sale account of $196 million and would restore, essentially, to the environmental accounts and road maintenance accounts much of that money that was taken out. That is where the management practices need to be addressed. That is the focus. That is where the environmental problems are --road maintenance and fish and wildlife habitat. In effect, what the appropriators did is to strip those accounts and reduce them substantially to add to the timber sale account. There is no benefit to the environment at Lake Tahoe by increasing the commercial timber sale accounts. That simply does absolutely nothing for us at all. So I wanted to clarify the Record where my friend from Idaho has confused it. The Senator from Nevada is being absolutely consistent. I might just say, in terms of the broad public policy, the General Accounting Office concluded that, from 1992 to 1997, the commercial sales in the national forests have cost the American taxpayer $1.5 billion. So there is another issue out here to be debated in terms of the public policy. The Bryan-Wyden amendment does not eliminate but simply reduces to the level of the Presidential recommendation in terms of the appropriation. If the Senator from Idaho were interested in seeing the problems more adequately addressed, he would favor reducing the amount of the commercial sales and restoring the $11 million that was stripped from that account. We need far more dollars in the road maintenance account, in which the backlog is over $3 billion. So every attempt to reduce the amount of the road maintenance account and add money to the new construction account makes the situation much worse. I argue that the more prudent and rational public policy is to deal with neglected road maintenance and provide additional money in that account rather than to add to the commercial sale account. I wanted to make that point for the record. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I thank the floor manager for an opportunity to respond. When one looks at the totality of problems, they are tall: Runoff, the erosion control, and the declining clarity. These are the primary, but not the exclusive, problems in the basin. The roads that were cut through many decades ago are in the road maintenance account. As the Senator understands, there is a new construction account; there is a road maintenance account. The appropriators removed $11.3 million from the road maintenance account. From our perspective, that is the most serious account reduction that would impact what we are talking about. The road maintenance money account has a backlog: $3.85 billion has been discussed by the Forest Service, or $431 million. I think it is a matter of priorities. Our priority is to get back the road maintenance account money. Indeed, with respect to some of the prescribed burn and other forest practices the Senator talks about, I think we are in agreement that clearly there are things that need to be done to thin out some of the underbrush. Those are taken care of in other accounts such as wildlife fire management and a forest land vegetation program. There are a host of programs that are line item. The two I just mentioned, the wildlife fire management account and the forest land vegetation management program, are where some of the controlled burns and thinning occur. Those are the programs, from our point of view, that have a priority over the Senator's priority which would lead to an increased commercial operation. That is where the Senator from Nevada comes from.

Mr. BRYAN. If I can respond briefly--I don't want to get into a semantic game--it is a reduction over what the President recommended, I think the Senator will agree. It is a reduction of $11.3 million over what the President proposed. It may very well be, as the Senator indicates, an increase over what was approved for the last program.

Mr. BRYAN. I think I did use the term ``cut.'' What I meant to say, and what I stand by, is the appropriators, in effect, cut this money from the original appropriation of the President. That represents a difference in priorities, the $431 million annual backlog, with a total backlog of $3.85 billion. It would be the priority of the Senator from Nevada that the President's recommendation not be reduced as the appropriators did, and I appreciate the chance to clarify that point.

Mr. BRYAN

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

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senators from Florida and Wyoming, Mr. Graham and Mr. Enzi. This is an amendment that prevents the Interior Department from implementing new regulations that seriously threaten the rights of States to regulate gaming activities within their borders. This amendment reinstates the prohibition on the Secretary of the Interior, which expired on March 31, from approving casino gaming on Indian land in the absence of a tribal-State compact. A similar provision was adopted unanimously by the Senate as part of the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill as well as the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act enacted in 1988 divides Indian gaming into three categories. The amendment offered for consideration on the Senate floor today addresses the conduct of class III gaming; that is, casino gaming, slot machines, video poker, and other casino-type games. Under IGRA, the Congress very clearly intended to authorize Indian tribes to enjoy and to participate in gaming activities within their respective States to the same extent as a matter of public policy that the State confers gaming opportunities generally to the State. There are two clear extremes. In one case, we have the States of Utah and Hawaii. Those are the only two of the 50 States that I am aware of that permit no form of Indian gaming. It is very clear that because those two States as a matter of public policy confer no gaming opportunities upon its citizenry, Indian tribes in Utah and Hawaii have no ability to conduct gaming activities within the class III description, the so-called casino-type games. Equally clear at the other end of the spectrum is my home State of Nevada. Nevada has embraced casino gaming since 1931. It is equally clear in Nevada law that the Indian tribes in my own State are entitled to a full range of casino gaming. Indeed, compacts have been introduced to accomplish that purpose. Under IGRA, the class III gaming activity is lawful on Indian lands only if three conditions are made: No. 1, there is an authorized ordinance adopted by the governing body of a tribe and approved by the Chairman of the National Gaming Indian Commission; No. 2, located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity--I want to return to that because that is the key here--located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity. No. 3, are conducted in conformance with a tribal-State compact. As I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair fully understands, the implementation of IGRA requires that compact be negotiated and entered into between the Governor of the State and the tribe within that State that is seeking to conduct class III activity. When IGRA was enacted in 1988, Congress was careful to create a balance between State and tribal interests. One of the fundamental precepts of IGRA is that States and tribes must negotiate agreements or compacts that delineate the scope of permissible gaming activities available to the tribes. Again, the intent of IGRA is clear and I support its concept. Very simply stated: To the extent that a State authorizes certain gaming activity as a matter of public policy within the boundaries of that State, Indian tribes located within that State should have the same opportunity. There is no fundamental disagreement about that. However, a situation has arisen in a number of States in which Indian tribes have tried to force Governors to negotiate extended gaming activities that are not authorized or permitted by law within that State; for example, a State that may authorize only a lottery might be pressed by a tribe to permit slot machines--clearly something that IGRA did not contemplate. It is in that area that we have had some very serious disagreements. The new Interior Department regulations destroy the compromise that is reflected in IGRA. It is in my view a blatant attempt by the Secretary to rewrite the law without congressional approval. The rule that has been promulgated allows the Secretary to prescribe ``procedures'' which the Interior Department characterizes as a legal substitute for a tribal-State compact, in the event a State asserts an 11th amendment sovereign immunity defense to a suit brought by a tribe claiming a State has not negotiated in good faith. The effect of this rule for all intents and purposes nullifies the State's constitutionally guaranteed sovereign immunity by allowing the Secretary of the Interior to become a substitute Federal court that can hear the dispute brought by the tribe against the State. Ironically, the new rule permits a tribe to sue based on any stalemate brought about by its own unreasonable demands on the State, such as insisting on gaming activities that violate that State's law. I support this amendment because I believe, as do the Governors and the States Attorney General, that the Secretary does not possess the legal authority he has sought to grant to himself under this rule, and that statutory modifications to IGRA are necessary in order to resolve a State's sovereign immunity claim. In a letter to the majority leader and the Democratic leader, the Nation's Governors stated they strongly believe that no statute or court decision provides the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior with the authority to intervene in disputes over compacts between Indian tribes and States about casino gambling on Indian lands. In light of this strongly held view, the States of Florida and Alabama have already filed suit against the Secretary to declare the new rule ultra vires. The most troubling aspect of the new rule is that the Secretary of the Interior grants himself the sole authority to provide for casino gaming on Indian lands in the absence of the tribal-State compact. As a former Governor, I appreciate the States' concern with the inherent conflict of interest of the Secretary in resolving a major public policy issue between a State and Indian tribe while also maintaining his overall trust responsibility to the tribe. I ask my colleagues to consider the Secretary of the Interior would in effect be the arbiter where a dispute arose between the tribe and the Governor in which the tribe was asserting a claim to have more gaming activity than is lawfully permitted in the State. The Secretary of the Interior, who holds a trust responsibility to the tribe, would in effect be making the determination in that State as to what kind of gaming activity would be permitted. I cannot imagine something that is a more flagrant violation of a State's sovereignty and its ability, as a matter of public policy, to circumscribe the type of gaming activity permitted. The States have asserted a wide variety of these. Some States, as I indicated earlier, provide for no gaming activity at all. Others provide for a full range of casino gaming, as does my own State. Other States permit lotteries. Still others authorize certain types of card games. Others permit a variation of horse or dogtrack racing, both on- and off-track. So a State faces the real possibility, under this rule, if it is not invalidated--and I believe legally it has no force and effect, but we want to make sure this amendment prohibits the attempt of the Secretary to implement it--in effect, the Secretary of the Interior would have the ability to set public policy among the respective States as to what type of gaming activities could occur on Indian reservations within those States. We are talking now about class III casino gaming. Even though a State Governor and the legislature and the people of that State may have determined, as a matter of public policy, that they want a very limited form of gaming--a lottery or racetrack betting at the track as opposed to off-track--the Secretary would have the ability, when a tribe asserted more than the State's law permitted, to, in effect, resolve that. I cannot think of anything that is more violative of a fundamental States rights issue in terms of its sovereignty and its ability as a matter of public policy to make that determination. I agree with many of my colleagues that statutory changes to IGRA are in order, in light of recent court decisions. I am hopeful that Congress will see fit to reassert its lawmaking authority in this area by reexamining IGRA, rather than sitting on the sidelines while the Secretary of the Interior performs that task. But, in the meantime, it is imperative that the Congress prohibit the Secretary from approving class III gaming procedures without State approval. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the carefully crafted amendment by my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and Senator Enzi from Wyoming--an amendment to preserve the role for States in the conduct of gaming on Indian lands. It is fair, it is balanced, and it is reasonable. It is consistent with the overall intent of IGRA, which was adopted in 1988 by the Congress, to permit class III gaming activities when the three conditions which I have enumerated are met, ultimately with a compact negotiated by the Governor and the tribe within that State. In the absence of such an agreement, the Secretary of the Interior must not be allowed to determine that State's public policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from New York and the Chair. Mr. President, I came to the Senate as a new Member in January 1989, at the end of the decade of the 1980s. The fiscal policies the Federal Government pursued during the 1980s resulted in a Federal budget that was awash in red ink. At the beginning of the 1980s, the entire national debt--from the time of the ratification of the Constitution up until 1980--was less than $1 trillion. That included the assumption of the Revolutionary War debt, financing a costly and devastating Civil War, two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the programs of the Great Depression. In less than a decade, the national debt tripled to $3 trillion. That is an indictment of the fiscal policies of the 1980s that we ought not to repeat. Mr. President, we have an opportunity here. One can debate as to who should take credit for the circumstances which none of us could have foreseen a decade ago. A decade ago it was my fondest hope that somehow we would be able to control the spiraling annual deficits which were hundreds of billions of dollars each year. When asked by my fellow Nevadans, how about the national debt, how are you going to pay that back, my response was: I did not see any realistic likelihood that that would occur in my lifetime, certainly not my lifetime as a Member of the Senate. So today we are in a fortuitous circumstance. As I said, who gets credit for that, that is an issue we can debate at some length. But we have an opportunity to do the responsible thing, and we have the opportunity to do the irresponsible thing. I think the responsible course of action is to save Social Security, ensure the solvency of Medicare, pay down the national debt, and then provide for a modest and realistic tax cut. That is the responsible thing to do. In my judgment, the irresponsible alternative is the Republican tax cut before us. There have been numbers bandied around, $3 trillion is the projected surplus. With respect to the Social Security surplus, that means the Social Security taxes that exceed the amount of the Social Security payments, it is projected over the next decade that that surplus will amount to $1.9 trillion. With respect to that surplus, there is no disagreement. That should be set aside to protect Social Security. The debate is about the $1 trillion projected surplus that is referred to as on-budget or non-Social Security surplus. Earlier this morning, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, we were privileged to have Alan Greenspan, the distinguished and able Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. There are many, Democrats and Republicans alike across the land, who give Alan Greenspan a substantial measure of credit for the reversals in our fortunes at the Federal level in terms of the situation we find ourselves in today, where we are talking about projected surpluses and not projected deficits. I was privileged to have an opportunity to ask him a question. I said: Mr. Chairman--directed to Mr. Greenspan--given our current economic circumstances, if we had three choices, what choice would you make: Choice No. 1, a substantial tax cut; Choice No. 2, additional spending; Choice No. 3, reducing the debt? His answer, unequivocal: Reduce the debt. That, he said, would be the most important thing this Congress could do in fiscal policy to continue the extension of the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history. That comes from Chairman Greenspan. Now, under the Republican proposal before us, $964 billion is the on- budget surplus. Their proposal would be to reduce taxes by $792 billion. I understand the instant gratification and I understand that if in a roomful of good and hard-working Americans you asked, would you like to pay less tax, all of us would say yes. Perhaps it is because my wife and I are entering a new period in our lives--we are blessed with three adult children, two of whom have blessed us with grandchildren and a third to bless us with a grandchild to be in a couple of weeks--that my thoughts are not with respect to instant gratification, not the kind of political rhetoric ``we want to return your money to you.'' What is the responsible thing to do for the country? What about my grandchildren and your grandchildren? Ought we not to think about them? Our generation doesn't have a particularly impressive track record running up a national debt that tripled in less than a decade. The Republican plan would reduce taxes by $792 billion, would cost $141 billion of additional interest, and would result in a surplus remaining over the 10-year period of $32 billion. This surplus that is projected over 10 years is on a very shaky foundation. I also was able to ask Mr. Greenspan to talk about projections. I said to him: Is it not true, Mr. Chairman, that not even the most able economists--distinguished graduates of the Wharton School of Finance, the Harvard Business School, the Stanford Business School, the most erudite institutions in America--isn't it true that no one can tell us what the economy is going to be like next year, much less what it is going to be like a decade from now? He opined that that was in fact the case. So this policy is built upon a house of cards. We are not sure these surpluses will, in fact, materialize. Yet we build in to our legislative actions a $792 billion tax cut. We have been there before, and we have done that before, in the 1980s. We were told in the 1980s that we could have substantial tax cuts and, at the end of the day, we would still be able to reduce the national debt. That did not occur. The national debt more than tripled. I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle would say that had nothing to do with tax cuts. That is because you all in Congress spent recklessly, foolishly, and irresponsibly. I was not a part of the Congress at that time. I will not defend all of the expenditures. But I will tell Senators this: If you add what President Reagan requested the Congress to spend in the 8 years he was President and you add up the appropriations that the Congress approved during those 8 years, some of those with a Republican majority in the Senate, the Congress approved $13 billion less, $13 billion less than President Reagan requested. So whether you went to school, as I did, with the old math or the new math, those kinds of tax cuts left us with deficits in the trillions of dollars. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished leader if he would extend me another 5 minutes; is that possible?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, there are several assumptions that our Republican colleagues make in reaching the conclusion of a $792 billion tax cut, $141 billion in interest, leaving a $32 billion surplus to take care of Medicare, other priorities, including reducing the debt. It is a very shaky assumption. Mr. Greenspan also told us this morning that history teaches us to be cautious. This surplus may never materialize. No one can predict with certainty whether it will occur or not. Implicit in this are some other assumptions that are totally unrealistic. One of those assumptions is we will be able to reduce discretionary spending by $700 billion over the next 10 years. Now, there are more people in America who believe there will be a sighting of Elvis than believe that we are going to reduce discretionary spending by $700 billion. We are talking about such programs as veterans' health, education, what we need to do for agriculture, and any kind of emergencies that might occur as a result of natural calamities or disasters. So the assumption that we can reduce spending by $700 billion in the discretionary accounts, also including national defense, is not realistic. Indeed, that is premised also upon the spending caps that are in place--next year and the year after it will be even tighter--that we will be able to adhere to them. The chairman of the Banking Committee, as part of his questioning to Mr. Greenspan, indicated that in the House already this year they are talking about emergency spending, which is a vehicle to avoid the spending caps and, in point of fact, is not emergency spending at all--$3.5 billion or $4.5 billion for the census, $3 billion for veterans' health, $30 billion this year alone. That wipes this out. The point I am trying to make is this is a highly reckless and irresponsible approach. What we ought to do is protect Social Security with the $1.9 trillion surplus, and there is agreement on that. Next, we need to shore up Social Security solvency, pay down that debt, reduce the amount of money we are paying on interest on the national debt, so that we can do some other things with the additional tax cuts or selective spending in terms of veterans' health, or education, or national defense, whatever we determine the priorities may be, and then a more modest tax cut. The Democratic alternative, I think, comes pretty close to hitting the mark: Tax cuts of $290 billion, Medicare cuts of $290 billion, domestic needs of $290 billion--that reduces spending in real terms over the next 10 years by about $300 billion--and interest, $126 billion. That is a more responsible approach. I hope we do not revisit the mistakes of the past. Chairman Greenspan, it seems to me, had a lot of wisdom to offer. History teaches us to be cautious. These surpluses may, indeed, never occur and, indeed, if we can pay down the national debt, would we not be doing something for our children and our grandchildren that is the responsible course of action, something we can all be proud of, and provide a reduction in the interest payments we make each year, which is about $230 billion? I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington State. I thank the Chair. There are a couple of points I would like to make. I know we are winding up this debate. No. 1, I think it is important for the public to understand that this industry faces a very dire financial situation. In Nevada, we have witnessed in the last decade the third renaissance of mining activity. It has employed thousands and thousands of people in my State with an average salary about $49,000 a year with a full range of benefits. These are good jobs. Because of the declining price of gold on the world market, we have lost more than 2,000 jobs in the last 6 months alone, and more are scheduled to be laid off. In part, this is because of some proposals by the British Government and the IMF gold sales. It is a separate issue for us. But we are facing a very difficult time. The second point I would like to make is that this has been framed as an environmental issue. It is not. The full panoply of all of the environmental laws enacted since the late 1960s applies to this industry. So they are not exempt from any of these provisions. Finally, the point needs to be made that with respect to the reclamation, or lack thereof, we are frequently invited to the specter of what happened decades ago. I don't defend that. This is a new era, and every mine application for a permit requires a reclamation process and the posting of the bond to make sure these kinds of problems do not develop. Why are we so upset about the Solicitor's opinion? For more than a century unchallenged, the interpretation given by the Solicitor's office was never viewed as the law. In this current administration, when the Clinton administration came into office, at no time during the early years was this kind of interpretation attached. All of those in this industry relying upon the law as it is--I agree with my colleagues who point out that the law of 1872 needs to be changed. I support those provisions. I think there should be a fair market value for the surface that is taken. There should be a royalty provision. There should be a reverter if the land is no longer used for mining purposes. I agree that there should be a reclamation process that is required. The devil has been in the details. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach an agreement on that. But those who have sought and applied for the permits have done so based upon the law as it is today, and the regulations and the manual passed along to us by the Bureau of Land Management say nothing about one mill site for every mining claim--not a word, not a jot, not a title. This is a new development. It is unfair. I urge my colleagues to reject the proposal.

Mr. BRYAN

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

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside momentarily for the purpose of considering an amendment that I propose to offer.

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to call your attention to a situation that I became aware of only a short time ago. An article that appeared in the June 28 issue of Newsweek caught my attention. It is entitled ``Nuclear Leaks of Another Kind.'' This was in the context of a discussion we have had about some of the espionage activity that has occurred in our labs and, particularly, the issue as it relates to Los Alamos in recent months. Let me share an excerpt so my colleagues will get the flavor of the article and understand the amendment I am offering and its underlying purpose. The article begins by saying: Nuclear secrets aren't the only kind of unauthorized leaks from U.S. weapons labs. According to a General Accounting Office draft report obtained by Newsweek, over the past three weeks, the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs were assessed fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars for safety violations, including exposing their employees to radiation levels that exceed the standards promulgated by the Department of Energy. Then it goes on to say that, under the law, in an anomaly--which the occupant of the Chair will readily appreciate because of his own extraordinary and impressive legal background--we make a distinction with respect to the contractor status of those who work in the DOE labs. If the contractor is a contractor who is a private entrepreneur-- that is to say, it is a profit-making contractor--these fines for safety violations--one in particular that caught my eye is the radiation standards to protect the employees according to the DOE promulgated standards. With respect to those fines that would be imposed upon a contractor who is a private sector contractor, the fines are assessed and collected. But under what I consider an extraordinary anomaly in the law, if you are a nonprofit contractor, the very violation--again, fundamental to the essence of protecting the health and safety of the employees; namely, the radiation standard they would be exposed to--for those kinds of violations, a fine is assessed but is never collected. So in effect we have a totally inconsistent policy. One says that if you are a private contractor and you are an entrepreneur and are in the business to make money or to profit from that--all of which is very legitimate--and you violate one of the DOE's safety regulations and you are fined, you are assessed initially, and the fine is collected. If you are a nonprofit, you are assessed for the identical violation, but it is never collected. Let me say that the General Accounting Office report that was referenced in this Newsweek article has now been made public in its final form. This is a document issued June 1999: General Accounting Office, Department of Energy Nuclear Safety, ``Enforcement Program Should Be Strengthened.'' This report gives additional persuasive force to what I propose in the amendment. This General Accounting Office report makes an important point that if the regulations were promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, no distinction is made between the private sector contractor and the public sector contractor. That is to say, if a violation occurs with respect to the nonprofit contractor, and it is a violation of health and safety standards, then the nonprofit is assessed and a fine may be collected. So we have an anomaly in the law that makes no public policy sense at all. Let me make it clear to my colleagues that it is not my intention to impose onerous fines on nonprofit entities that have a contract. But as the General Accounting Office makes very clear, the fact that a fine may be collected has a deterrent value. As this report further makes the point, there is no rational basis--none whatsoever--in making the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit contractors, and the further point that the purpose of imposing these civil penalties is not to collect fines but to encourage contractors to perform safely, that is the issue that I seek to address. I recognize the concern that the nonprofits raise that, my golly, if you change the law, somehow this may constitute an invasion of our endowment moneys; that all of this could be compromised. Let me assure my colleagues that nothing is further from the truth. That is not what I intend. So as a further effort to assuage those concerns in the amendment that is before this body, we would limit any fine that was assessed to the amount of the performance fee provided to the nonprofit contractor by the Department. Let me repeat that. In effect, we would put a ceiling, a limit, if you will, on any fine that would be assessed and would say that, in no event, notwithstanding the extent, severity, and the extended period of time in which the violation may have occurred, may the fine exceed the performance fee that you are provided. It strikes me that that addresses fairly and reasonably the concern that a nonprofit would have in terms of the potential invasion of the endowments. The point I seek to emphasize is that nonprofits have a track record of some very extensive fines. The assessments, according to the report, amount to several hundreds of thousands of dollars. So we are not talking about something that is theoretical, hypothetical, or highly speculative; it has occurred. And, remember, under current law, with respect to nonprofits, a fine can be assessed but never collected. So human nature tells us--and our entire legal system is structured on this premise--that for people who violate the rules, whether it is a speed limit or some other regulation, the fact that one can be fined or can be subject to some kind of a sanction, tends to influence our behavior in a positive way. That is, we don't do that sort of thing. No one is accusing the nonprofits of bad faith. But I must say we have not gotten their attention with respect to these violations. I conclude, as I began, by describing the nature of these violations. We are not talking about some highly technical extenuated rule or regulation that only a flyspeck--as we used to say--lawyer could pick up. We are talking about something fundamental to the public health and safety. That is the radiation standard--the exposure to which employees in these laboratories could be exposed. I can't think of anything that would be more significant or more important in terms of health and safety than to make sure the laboratory is adhering to a radiation standard which the Department of Energy has promulgated, which they say is to observe to protect health and safety. Let me say that I have had a little experience in this area, not as a technical person, but many years ago in my youth I worked as an employee at the Nevada Test Site. Every employee who entered the Nevada Test Site was given a badge. That badge had in it a gasometer. The reason for that is this was during the days of atmospheric testing programs. It was to periodically check to make sure no employee by inadvertence or accident was exposed to a higher radiation standard than had been determined necessary for the protection of the health and safety of that employee. In the same spirit, these standards have been imposed to protect the health and safety of those individuals who work in the lab. That is the kind of violation about which we are talking. I have attempted to work some type of an accommodation through the very able manager of the bill, and others, particularly the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who understandably have an interest in this measure. We have not been able to reach an agreement. I want to serve notice that this is not the last time this amendment will surface. This is a gross injustice to those employees who serve in the lab, and their families. Their health and safety can be endangered. And those who would do so face no penalty under the law. I will not ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment. I intend to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate time, after the distinguished chairman of the committee responds. But this is an issue which must be addressed. It will be addressed by this Senator. We will have a series of votes on this at a later point in time if we are not able to reach an accommodation. I will be happy to either yield the floor or to respond to any questions that the able managers of the bill have.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Nebraska, with whom I have the privilege of working closely in the Intelligence Committee. We need to address that. His comments have been very helpful and encouraging. We want to work through this and protect the employees in these critically important national security facilities. I am not sure of the parliamentary vehicle that I may need to employ. If I need to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment--I don't think I need that--if I do, I will ask for it. If the Chair will guide the gentleman from Nevada, I will ease us out of this parliamentary situation.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. Amendment No. 1258

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, for those Americans who have been harmed by the decisions of managed care plans, this public debate is long overdue. For those who yet face a decision about their health care made by their managed care plan, the end to the wait cannot come soon enough. The Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure those who depend on managed care plans for their health care will not be receiving a lesser standard of care than those who do not. Last week while I was in Nevada, people voiced concerns about who really makes their medical care decisions if they are in a managed care plan. They wanted to know what would happen, under the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights, when a patient is told by his or her physician they need a specific treatment, and the physician informs the patient that the plan must first approve or disapprove his decision. Would their physician be able to decide what treatments would be appropriate for their medical condition? Or, would they be at the mercy of a managed care plan bureaucrat far removed from the situation who would decide ``yea or nay'' on treatment determined necessary by their physician? We can all empathize with the stress involved in this situation--your doctor has determined what your medical condition requires for appropriate care, but you must wait to see if what you need is approved by the plan. If the answer is ``no'', then you must either forego the care, or pay for it out-of-pocket --not a very good choice. And what if you found yourself in the situation of a Nevada man, covered by an HMO plan, who came into an emergency room suffering from an upper gastrointestinal bleed. The emergency room physician called for a gastroenterologist to perform an emergency procedure to halt the bleeding. But the gastroenterologist would not treat this man without a prior authorization from the HMO plan. If he did the procedure without the authorization, he would not be paid. The doctor tried to contact the HMO for an hour to get the necessary authorization. During this time, the emergency room had to give the patient four units of blood, which would not otherwise have been required if the procedure had been done in a timely manner. Finally when it appeared the patient might not survive, the doctor contacted the HMO plan and said if he did not get authorization for the procedure, he would go to the media about this patient. The HMO then authorized the procedure. The Democrats' ``medical necessity'' amendment would prohibit all managed care plans from arbitrarily interfering with a doctor's decision that the needed health care be provided in a particular setting, or is medically necessary and appropriate. The amendment's definition uses a professional standard of ``medical necessity''. This is reasonable for both the patient and his or her treating physician, and the particular managed care plan. If a decision on whether or not to cover a particular treatment is made pursuant to a professional standard, it will be based on standards and case law interpretations historically used by insurance companies. If a managed care plan can use its own definition of ``medical necessity'', any external review of a plan's treatment decisions would be resolved using that definition. This very likely would not work to the benefit of the patient. The Democrats' approach would also maintain the important relationship between a doctor and the patient. It is a relationship that of necessity must be based on complete communication and trust between the two. The Democrats' proposal will also ensure patients have a right to an external appeal from the decisions made by their managed care plans. One of the key provisions of this amendment is its requirement the appeal process be timely--for both internal and external appeals. It also requires ``expedited'' reviews when a patient is facing a medical emergency. The Republican bill provides patients no guarantee of an expedited review for medical emergencies. Additionally, a managed care plan could simply delay sending the information needed for an appeal of one of its decisions. There is no deadline requirement for a plan to respond to a decision made by a reviewer. Without a timeliness requirement, patients are at the mercy of when, if ever, a plan wants to deal with an appealed case. The Republican bill would drastically limit the application of its proposed patient protections to only one type of health care insurance--the self-funded employer plans. Those types of managed care plans provide the medical insurance for many Nevadans who work in the gaming industry. Those employees should have protections. But, why should 113 million people with private insurance be left unprotected? That is what the Republican bill would do, and it is wrong. For those small businesses which provide health insurance for their employees, almost all must depend upon the private insurance market for their coverage. Why should small businesses' employees have less protection than those workers in larger businesses which can afford to self- insure? Why should Americans who have to purchase their health insurance themselves, because they do not have an employer's assistance, be left unprotected? The Republican bill will only cover 48 million Americans. The Democrats' bill will cover 161 million Americans--both those covered by self-insured employers, and those covered by private insurance. Why should 113 million Americans be without protection? Should we protect only 48 million, or protect 161 million? It is an easy decision. Women should be able to designate their OB/GYN as their primary physician, and to have direct access to OB/GYN services without first having to obtain a specialist referral. Women also should make a decision with their physicians about the length of their hospital stay when they have a mastectomy. I have long supported these efforts to level the field of health care services for women. The Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure those protections. For individuals who are chronically ill, or have medical problems requiring access to speciality care, the Patients' Bill of Rights will require plans to provide access to specialists. If plans do not have an appropriate specialist within their plans, then the patient will be allowed to go outside the plan network, at no additional cost. The Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure this access. Every American should be assured the quality of their health care and their access to health care options is not diminished, because they rely upon an HMO for their health care coverage. All of the 161 million Americans throughout this country who receive their health care through managed care plans deserve the protections included in the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights. The opportunity is before us to ensure those protections. But that opportunity is going to be lost today. And that is a tragedy for everyone who depends on managed health care.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the historic event that took place this past weekend in Paris when Las Vegas's own Andre Agassi captured the 1999 French Open Championship. Andre's completion of the career Grand Slam secures him a place in tennis history that only five other men can claim, and as a testament to his versality, he is the only person to accomplish this feat on three different surfaces--hardcourt, grass, and clay. He is the first American in 61 years to win all four majors--Wimbledom in 1992, the U.S. Open in 1994, the Australian Open in 1995, and now the French--and his victory will soon catapult him to No. 4 in the world rankings. As great as Andre's accomplishments have been on the court throughout his career, they are, in my opinion, overshadowed by the generosity and compassion he has shown off the court. Andre's commitment to at-risk and underprivileged youth has been a passion of his throughout his tennis career. His establishment of the Andre Agassi Foundation in 1994 to support and fund programs that serve underprivileged kids has provided much needed assistance to a variety of service organizations that work with children in the Las Vegas area, including the Boys & Girls Clubs in Las Vegas, the Assistance League of Las Vegas, and Child Haven. Since its inception, the Agassi Foundation has donated over $5 million to local youth charities. In today's world of professional sports, it is always refreshing to see an athlete who recognizes the blessings and opportunities he has received, and has chosen to give something back to his community. In spite of a tennis career that has had its ups and downs, Andre has always had a steady hand when it comes to helping underprivileged children. Andre Agassi is the epitome of what a professional athlete should be, and I ask my colleagues to join me in commending him for making tennis history and for all of his charitable endeavors that mean so much to the Las Vegas community.