Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for responding. It is important to understand that one third of that fund still goes to stewardship. That is not just commercial activity. That is thinning and cleaning. Also, it is important for the Senate and the Record to show we increase road maintenance by $10 million this year over last year. There was a recommendation of $20 million; we increased it by $10 million. There has been an actual net increase of $11 million, and a fair amount goes to the Tahoe Basin. So the Forest Service is responding. We believe the committee and the appropriators were responsible, going in the right direction. What I think is important to say is that there were no cuts. We did not cut the program. We raised the program by $10 million. While some suggested it ought to go $20 million, it is a net increase over last year's funding level of $10 million.

Mr. CRAIG. Unemployment in rural timber-dependent communities is in double-digit figures despite rosy employment figures in the rest of America. The Senator from Oregon and I visited similar communities--he in his State, I in my State--over the August recess. I can go from my community of Boise where there is near zero unemployment--it is a growth community, it is a high-tech community, it is doing very well-- and I can drive 100 miles to a community that has 14 to 16-percent unemployment. Why? That community is right here. That community is right here. That is because they were dependent upon the public lands and our Government and the politics of the public lands said: Stay off the land. Don't cut a tree. The mills closed or the mill is closing or the mill is at risk. Those people are unemployed. They cannot identify with a job in the high-tech industry. Why? Each of them would have to move 100 miles and uproot their family and they would have to be retrained and educated. A 45-year-old man does not want to do that. He cannot understand, if we are growing five times more trees than we are cutting, why we cannot at least create a balance in a program that will afford him or his son, who is graduating from high school and does not want to go on to college, a job in the forest products industry. While the national average unemployment rate hovers at around 4 percent, more than 30 forest-dependent counties have three times that rate. Over a dozen forest-dependent counties have an unemployment rate of 16 percent. I believe the Bryan amendment will bring even further economic harm to the people of those rural areas. When I first got here in 1981, there was a mantra about the debate on the forest products industry and about forest management: Take away a few jobs and we will replace them. We will replace them with tourism and recreation. It was America wanting to go to the public lands to enjoy the environment of the public lands. To some extent that has happened but only to a minor degree compared to what was projected during the decade of the early 1980s. But remember, while some of it happened, the kind of jobs that were created were fundamentally different jobs from those $30,000, $40,000, $50,000- a-year jobs that I am talking about in the forest products industry. A maid or waitress or a gas station attendant or a tour guide does not make that kind of money. They work at slightly above minimum wage. They have no health benefits. They have no retirement program. Their work is seasonal. They are oftentimes out of work 4 or 5 months out of the year. And, yes, they are on welfare. And, yes, they qualify for food stamps. I must say these once were the proud men and women of the forest products industry that we politically destroyed. We politically destroyed it. We are here today for politics. We are politically trying to destroy what remains of a responsible way of managing our forests today, not because it is the right thing to do from a management point of view but because it is the right thing to do politically. I know of no other reason. I cannot understand why the Senator from Nevada, who comes from the great public land State that he does, would want to turn his back on one segment of the economy of a public land State such as Idaho or Nevada. He and I stand arm in arm together on mining issues. I was in Elko, NV, last week in a community that 15 years ago was 5,000 people; today, 25,000 people, not because of the high-tech industry but because of gold, gold in the Carlin Trend; mining, high-priced jobs being paid to thousands of men and women in the mining industry. So when we battle on that issue, the Senator from Nevada and I stand arm in arm. But when we try to work on a reasonable and responsible forest management plan that allows some tree cutting, I am tremendously frustrated the Senator from Nevada and I cannot stand arm in arm on that issue also. It is an issue of jobs. It is an issue of right and responsible ways of managing our forests. It is political. I am saddened that it is. The substitute amendment transfers $10 million of the reduction that I have talked about, $34 million in timber funds to pay for surveys on rare species. I do not think that is responsive to the problem of the unreasonable wildlife survey requirements in the President's Northwest Forest Plan, which we discussed in this body last week. First of all, the Forest Service timber sale budget is what pays for the surveys. Thus, rather than a $10 million increase for this purpose, the net effect of this proposal is a $24 million decrease. So we give them not even a half a loaf. We give them a quarter of a loaf. Second, the Clinton administration has agreed that many of these surveys should not be done; indeed, many cannot be done. That is precisely why the administration is writing an EIS in an attempt to change these requirements. Unfortunately, timber sales are enjoined until the EIS is completed. I happen to agree with the editorial statement this past Sunday in the Portland Oregonian, the largest and most respected newspaper in Oregon. The Oregonian correctly notes that: The surveys of rare species of animals and plants required in the Northwest Forest Plan are ``technically impossible'' and [they use the right word] ``preposterous. . . .'' The Senate didn't use the word ``preposterous,'' but last week the Senate said no to the judges; they are not going to let the judges in the Eleventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit write policy. That is our job. That is what we are elected to do. They are appointed to interpret the Constitution and not to write timber policy. The Oregonian calls it ``preposterous.'' The Oregonian further describes the requirements as: . . . a poison pill--a way to block all logging and prevent the plan from working as it was designed. Yet we want to put more money into that. It makes no sense to spend $10 million for a prescription for a poison pill or for preposterous survey procedures. This Congress should not spend 10 cents in what I believe is a most inappropriate fashion. That is the foundation of the debate as I see it. I believe that is a reasonable interpretation of why we are on the floor today. I know of no other. At a time when we have reduced the overall timber program in this country by 7 percent, we have reduced employment by almost 50 percent, and we have dramatically transformed the rural landscape to communities of unemployed people and empty homes. That is the policy of this Government at this time. And somehow we want to perpetuate that or increase it? I think not. The only explanation possible that I believe is reasonable and right is the politics of it. We are on the floor today because the National Sierra Club and others said we ought not be cutting trees on public lands at all, zero, end of statement, not to improve health, not for fire prevention, not to create vibrant and youthful stands just do not cut them at all; let Mother Nature be our manager. That is not good business. We know that is not good business, especially when man, for the last 40 or 50 years, has put out all the fires and not allowed Mother Nature to manage. Now when she has an opportunity to manage where there are 50 trees instead of 5--that would have been true 100 years ago--we create monstrous wildfires that not only destroy the stands but scald the land and make it sterile and nonproductive for decades to come. That is where man has to step back in as a good steward, a right and responsible steward, for all of the environmental reasons, the water quality reasons, and the wildlife habitat reasons for which we manage a forest. I yield such time as is required to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania on this most important amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as we debate the Interior appropriations bill--and now the amendment and the substitute amendment offered by Senators Bryan and Wyden--I guess I can say at the outset that the only thing I arrive at in trying to consider a $34 million cut in a very essential program to the U.S. Forest Service, especially when the advocacy of the cut comes from the two Senators from large public land Western States such as Nevada and Oregon, is ``frustration'' over the lack of understanding by a Senator from Nevada who is responsible for representing his State which is predominately a public lands State where grazing on public lands and mining the natural resources from those public lands are two of the primary economies of that State, that he would not be supportive of programs within the U.S. Forest Service that deal with public land resources in an appropriate and responsible way. I say that before I get to the specific issues of the amendment because I find it fascinating that in a publication called ``Public Lands Forests, What We Get, What We Pay For''--an interesting publication from the Political Economy Research Center which deals with the subject that the Senator from Nevada knows a great deal about, and in fact knows a great deal more about than I do as the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee. That the Tahoe Basin, a beautiful and unique area in his State that is being dramatically impacted at this moment by a lack of forest management in a responsible way as we begin to see a relatively affluent urban interface grow around Lake Tahoe and into a forest that is dramatically different than what it was 40, 50, or 100 years ago. Let me quote from this article. I am trying to set a tone for my frustration over why the Senator from Nevada is doing what he is doing and the Senator from Oregon would join with him. Let me quote from this publication, and the title to the article is called ``One Spark From Disaster.'' I quote: As the road dropped out of the Sierras into the Lake Tahoe basin below, the scenery made an abrupt change from healthy, green forests to dead and dying stands of timber. The congressmen on their way to the June 1997 Presidential Summit on the problems facing the lake and surrounding basin were taken aback by what they saw. Later, during a session on forest health, U.S. Senator Richard Bryan of Nevada exclaimed, ``This fores looks like hell!'' It appeared as if someone had drawn an imaginary line across the landscape and then nurtured the trees on one side, while destroying those on the other. What the Senator was experiencing was what many are now experiencing on a Forest Service landscape across our Nation where we have constantly put out fires over the last 75 to 100 years and have not gone in and done selective logging or fuel reduction on our forest floors. We have literally created jungles--jungles that some would like to portray as beautiful, sweeping landscaped timbered vistas when it is quite obvious they are jungles that in the right environment--and the Tahoe Basin gets that environment every so often--could explode into total disaster of the landscape by the kinds of fires California has experienced this year and as have other parts of the country. Those of us more to the North in the Pacific Northwest have been fortunate enough this year in that our relatively unmanaged forests--and mismanaged in some instances--have been wet enough that we haven't had the fire threat. The article goes on to say: Ironically, forest management practices on surrounding federal lands have put at risk the very qualities they were supposed to preserve: the integrity of the forest and the clarity of the lake below-- Talking about the beautiful Lake Tahoe-- Environmental regulations have delayed some management actions and restricted timber harvests for forest treatments. It has resulted, of course, in the situation that I described around the Tahoe Basin. Of course, the reason the Senators from Nevada are appropriately concerned about the Tahoe Basin is not timber production per se because I don't think you would view the Tahoe Basin as being an area where you would expect timber production, but it is the recent interfacing of resort homes--summer homes, many of them going in the millions of dollars--that use Lake Tahoe and find Lake Tahoe to be a marvelous place to live and, of course, coupled with the thousands of tourists who come there on an annual basis to see this tremendously beautiful high mountain alpine lake. Why, then, would a Senator from Nevada want to cut a program where the money is utilized to do the necessary surveys and the preparations for the kind of fuel unloading or fuel decreases that Tahoe Basin would need because most of our timber sales are no longer green sales, they are sales of dead and dying timber. They are sales that are a product of forest health and not an ongoing aggressive timber program of the kind that brought the environmental outcry of a decade or two ago. I must say the Senator from Oregon has a bit of a different circumstance. He and I joined ranks on the floor last week on a very critical issue. As you know, when this administration came to town a few years ago, they were faced with the situation of a timber industry imploding in the State of Oregon, imploding as a result of a spotted owl decision that took a tremendous amount of the timbered landscape of that State--both Forest Service and BLM timber--off the table, or at least had locked it all up in the courts. This President, with the right intention--with the right intention-- went out to try to solve the problem and basically said: Let me reduce your cut by 80 percent and for the other 20 percent remaining, or something near that, we will focus all of our intent there, all of our energy, and do the finest environmental assessment possible, and that you will be able to log. We know the court decisions have gone well beyond the intent of the Endangered Species Act--reasonable and right surveys--and basically even stopped all of that logging. I can understand why the Senator would want to try to divert money to solve his problem. But he also probably fails to recognize that, in that diversion, he is affecting timber sales or timber management programs everywhere else in the country because while he is supporting taking 34 million dollars out of that sales and preparation base and putting some of it over into surveys, he is denying the States of Arkansas, Idaho, and others the very resources they need to keep their people working and to keep an industry that is now staggering to stay alive on its feet. That is what brings Members to this point. Yes, we come to the floor now after having dramatically reduced these programs in the name of the environment--and in many instances appropriate reductions--and say we have to notch them down even more. For the next few moments I will talk about the adverse effects on rural communities and jobs that the Bryan-Wyden substitute will have. That substitute takes money away from the program that supports good family jobs. I am talking about good-paying jobs. The two Senators plan to redirect funds out of the timber program into wildlife surveys and road maintenance, which I think will be counterproductive because we are already putting millions of dollars into that program. For me to oppose their amendment does not mean we oppose the surveys. We know we have ramped up the amount of money that goes into those surveys and, of course, in ramping up the surveys, added costs to every timber sale. Then the Senator from Nevada can come to the floor and talk about these timber sales being too expensive and we ought to eliminate them. The reason they are expensive is that the court and some in the environmental community are demanding the money be transferred over to do the surveys. It is a Catch-22. We shove these costs off on to the price of a timber sale. We escalate it to the point it is not a cost-effective timber sale. Therefore, we give some Senators a basis to come to the floor and argue we ought to eliminate them because we can't make money at them when, in fact, the politics have pushed the cost of the surveys well beyond what would be reasonable, appropriate, and responsible, for the purpose of cutting those trees. That is the ultimate Catch-22 in forest management today that has nearly laid the State of Oregon low and has dramatically impacted the State of Idaho. Regarding the timber funding and the Forest Service that prepares the administrative forest activities, the committee already has an appropriate amount for wildlife and for road funding. Redirecting funds, as I have said, will harm the timber program. It will not be consequence free. It will cost jobs in Arkansas, in Idaho. It could cost jobs in other forested States across the Nation where there remains a struggling timber program. The President traveled this summer to several sections of the country suffering from poverty. I applaud him for dramatizing where poverty still exists in a country today that is nearly at full employment. It is almost ironic that in nearly the same breath it could be said that we are at full employment yet we have in certain areas high degrees of poverty. Most of that poverty exists in rural areas today. Most of that poverty exists in rural areas where those communities of working men and women are tied directly to the public lands and tied to the resources of those public lands. Nearly one-third of the counties adjacent to national forests suffer poverty levels that are at least one and a half times higher than the national average. Let me refer to a fascinating chart that comes from the U.S. Forest Service's TSPIRS employment figures. I refer to the solid bars on this chart showing employment from the harvesting and processing of national forest timber between 1989 and 1997--just over a few years--has dropped from 140,000 working men and women to 55,500. Let me repeat that. That is more dramatic than any other employment sector in our country, except in the making of buggies and buggy whips, and no young person on this floor even knows what I am talking about because that industry died a long time ago. In a decade we have lost from a 140,000 high down to 55,000 jobs for working men and women. The Senator from Nevada wants to take that down even further by the action he proposes today. I am not quite sure I understand why, but let me show the very real impact. I am tremendously familiar with this because not only in my lifetime but in my tenure in the Congress, from when I started serving in 1981 until today, what I speak of has happened. I have watched it happen. I have been to the locations. I went to Grangeville, ID. I watched grown men sit on stacks of lumber and cry, literally, tears rolling down their cheeks because there were no more trees to cut under the Federal forest plan and they had lost their job. The mill was going to be unbolted, placed in shipping containers, and sent to Brazil to cut the rain forests because the environmentalists decided that the Nez Perce Forest in Idaho was no longer producing trees--although it was growing 10 times more trees than it was cutting. What happened? Here are the very dramatic figures from a tremendously narrow period of time. The State of Washington, 1989 to today, 55 mills closed and the loss of 3,285 jobs; Oregon, 111 mills closed and the loss of 11,600 jobs; Montana, 13 mills closed and 1,083 jobs lost; Idaho, 17 mills and 707 jobs lost. Let me talk about Midvale, ID, my hometown. If I am a little sensitive today, I should be. I used to go to that mill and buy lumber. It employed 45 men. The attitude on the floor is: What is the big deal? It is only 45 jobs. But it was 45 jobs and 45 homes in a community of 300 people--not 30,000, not 50,000, not 100,000, but a community of 300 people. To lose 45 jobs is to lose a lot. That mill has closed. Why? Because on the Payette National Forest, argumentatively, at least by national forest standards, there were no more trees to cut. That is why I can responsibly and legitimately turn to the Senator from Nevada today and say: Senator, your bill destroys jobs. Your bill destroys high-paying jobs, $35,000, $45,000, $55,000-a-year jobs for men and women, important jobs in rural communities, in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alaska. In talking of mill closures--and I referred to the dramatic numbers-- let me also quote the Western Council of Industry Workers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. It is their people, in many instances, who are losing these jobs. They say: Legislative efforts to reduce funding for forest management programs seriously jeopardize the livelihoods of our members and tens of thousands of forest products workers nationwide. Job loss within our industry has been severe, as the timber sales program has been reduced by 70 percent since the early 90s. A 70-percent reduction in the timber program, a reduction in jobs from 140,000 to 55,000, and the Senator from Nevada wants to cut it even deeper. It is pretty hard to understand why, especially when you look at the new environmental standards of today and what the Forest Service is demanding of a timber sale as it relates to the survey and the kind of mitigation plan that comes because of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act and, of course, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act and all of those kinds of rules and regulations and processes and procedures that by law are required. I am not sure I understand why. I do know several years ago the National Sierra Club developed as one of their policies, zero cut on public lands. I know that is what they believe. I know that is what they advocate. I know they are champions of this kind of amendment because if you cannot stop logging altogether, you stop it a little bit at a time until it is all gone, even if the health of the forests are at the point of explosion from wildfires like those being experienced in California today, and even if the Tahoe Basin runs at a high risk, with the risk not just to the trees but the loss of hundreds of multimillion-dollar homes where the wealthy come to play and reside in the urban/rural interface. That is the issue at hand. I will go on to quote from those men and women who work in the industry. They say: More than 80,000 men and women have lost their jobs as that timber program has reduced by more than 70 percent since 1990. We know that is real. The Senator from Oregon knows it is real. The Senator from Idaho knows it is real. I have attended the mill closures. My guess is, so has the Senator from Oregon. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters from the Western Council of Industrial Workers and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, opposing reductions in the timber program.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator knows recommendations are recommendations. I believe his first words were the program has been cut. The program has been increased by $10 million over last year while some, including the President, suggested it ought to be increased by more.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I believe, if I understand Forest Service accounts accurately, the likelihood of increased stewardship activities in the Tahoe Basin by this amendment could be reduced because of the very character of spreading the money, as I think the Senator from Arkansas so clearly spoke to. Let me yield such time to the Senator from Montana as he should consume.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no objection, I would like to amend my immediate past unanimous consent request. It was from 9:30 to 10 a.m. tomorrow morning equally divided. I ask unanimous consent to amend that to be from 9:30 until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending amendment No. 1623 at 10 a.m., and the time between 9:30 and 10 a.m. on Tuesday be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon. We have worked closely together for the last number of months to try to resolve a variety of timber issues and conflicts that have brought some of our rural communities to their knees. Those are communities that not only in many instances have lost jobs in the sawmills that I have talked about in my opening comments, but these are communities that also lost their moneys to run their schools. My colleague from Oregon has communities that only go to school 4 days out of 5 days of a week because they have no more money to run their buses and to keep their schools open. I have communities in my State that are now debating over whether to put their money in the hot lunch program or athletics and ask all of their high school and grade school students to brown bag all the time. You say: What does this have to do with this debate? What does this have to do with cutting trees in the national forests? It has a great deal to do with these communities that are timber dependent because 25 percent of the stumpage fee that comes from a Federal timber sale goes to the local communities for their schools, their county roads, and their bridges. That is historically what we believe is a fair treatment of those communities that oftentimes house the loggers and the mill employees and the executives of the timber companies and the Forest Service but have no private land base because all of the land around them is public land, and they should share in the revenue flowing from that public land. Those are what we call timber-dependent communities. The Senator and I worked to try to resolve that issue. We are very close to what I think is some tremendously positive and creative thinking that results from, hopefully, minds coming together out of conflict to bring resolution. I am fearful this amendment does not do that. I say that because while the Senator suggests that he prescribes deadlines by which EISs ought to be done, this administration and this Forest Service isn't talking anywhere near that. They are suggesting the deadline for a draft EIS ought to be in February and that the final ought to be in June for the EISs we are talking about for these sales. Whether you could expedite that, I am not sure. The one thing we want to be very careful about in light of the environment in which we are doing these kinds of EIS's and studies is that the work be done right. As the Senator from Oregon and I know, the judges and the environmental communities will be like vultures hovering over each one of those efforts to fine pick every bone to make sure the work is done well. Accelerating some of those studies could put at risk--I am not saying ``will,'' but I think we need to be very cautious at this moment as we try to wrestle through this very difficult policy issue between whether the Eleventh Circuit is right or whether this Congress will finally get aggressive enough to lead in changing the law in a way that we will not have our judges administering forest policy through their own whim, be it law, or, in many instances, be it their politics as applied to the law that causes Eleventh Circuit or Ninth Circuit judges to do what they have done recently that the Senator from Oregon is so worried about, and that I, not only as the Senator from Idaho but as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, literally go into the tank because the Congress of the United States has been unwilling to lead in this area and establish well-based policy that we can effectively defend and are willing to defend. That is part of the problem we are dealing with, and I hope the work of the Senator from Oregon and me results in that. Let me make a final comment to the Senator from Nevada. It was not my intent to make an inaccurate statement. As chairman of the Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee, I have spent the last several years and 45 hearings looking at every aspect of the forest management of our country to try to understand it. I have examined, not in person and not on the ground, but all the studies of the Tahoe Basin problem. I recognize the basin problem is a combination of things, particular to forest density, that has resulted in dead and dying timber and drought environments of the kind discussed. This has created the negative habitat today that changes the character of the lake's water quality because of the runoff. I also understand that this creates phenomenal bug problems with dead and dying trees because the ground cannot support the base. As the Senator from Nevada and I know in looking at computer models, before European man came to this continent, many of the acreages we are talking about were sparsely timbered and were much more pastoral. That was partly because of fire moving through the habitat, creating a mosaic of young and old alike. The Tahoe Basin changed when we became the stewards of the land and put out the fires. The Senator from Nevada and I both agree on the condition of the Tahoe Basin. The point I am trying to make: What the Senator is doing is, in fact, taking money away from the ability of the Tahoe Basin to manage itself because the Tahoe Basin money is not a single-line item issue. Let me explain. The Senator is amending an account that is divided into three categories. I am looking now at Forest Service management program reports. In the timber revenues and expenses, there are three categories. There is the timber commodity program component, there is the forest stewardship program component, and the personal-use program component. Those are the three that make up the account the Senator has amended. The last report we have is 1997. In that year, in the first account, the timber commodity program account, the Senator is absolutely right, the Tahoe Basin had not one dollar of revenue or expenses because it is not a timber-producing area. In the stewardship area in revenues produced by actions, about $377,000 and $1,383,000 spent on stewardship programs--the very kind the Senator wants to see that begins to change the culture, the environment, of the basin area. There was approximately $39 million in revenues from the personal-use program and about $181 million in expenses. I believe I am right. It was not my intent to mislead or to distort the Record. The Senator and I should clarify this. This is the document from the Forest Service. The account the Senator amends and takes $34 million from is the account from which the stewardship programs from the Tahoe Basin are funded. There is not a line item specific to the Tahoe Basin that I know or that we can find in any research. If the Senator would clarify that--I think by accident he may well be cutting out the very moneys he has fought so hard to get to begin to ensure the forest health or the improved health of that basin area. In our stewardship analysis of the basins that are in trouble around the Intermountain West, and primarily the Great Basin environment of the West--because that is where fire is a critical tool--let me read again from the article ``One spark from a disaster.'' On adjacent lands just above the national forests the trees remain vigorous and healthy with a similar history of early forest clearing followed by fire suppression. These stands have escaped the bug infestation and the high mortality of the lower basin area [which is Federal land]. These privately owned timber lands were intensively managed to ensure vigor and high productivity. Unlike the Federal forest lands, private timberland managers responded to the bottom line and protected their forest assets over time. My point is, what the Senator has appropriately advocated in getting into the basin, to change the way it is managed, to bring stewardship programs to do the thinning and to do the selective burn, absolutely has to be done to restore the vigor, to create an ecosystem that is less dependent on moisture, so it can handle itself through the kinds of droughts that we in the West experience--especially those in Great Basin States. If the Senator could clarify that for me, I would appreciate that. It is my knowledge at this moment that the account his amendment pulls money from is the very account from which the stewardship program for the Tahoe Basin finds its funding. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the two cloture votes scheduled for 5 p.m. today, and regardless of the outcome of those cloture votes, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 210, the nomination of Maryanne Trump Barry to be the U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate. I finally ask consent that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for coming to the floor this morning and asking his colleagues to come with him to discuss what is one of the most fundamental arguments and debates this Senate has had, and that is the debate over taxes and how much our government should rightfully take from the American worker and the American family to fund and finance the services of government. When I first came to Congress in 1981, we were rapidly spending into deficit, and I said at that time my goal would be to balance the Federal budget. I well remember that some of the old-timers who had been in Congress then for 30 or 40 years laughingly said, ``Not in your lifetime, young man.'' ``Not in your lifetime.'' They also repeated that it really wasn't in the character of our Government or in the good of the Nation that we should ever balance the Federal budget and that deficit spending was appropriate and right for Government to stimulate the economy. I was of a different school of thought, as were many. In the early 1980s, I joined with Democrat and Republican who agreed with me to introduce balanced budget amendments and to begin to educate Americans that balancing the Federal budget--the annual operating budget and keeping it balanced--would reap this country great dividends. If you can flash back to the early 1980s, it was also at a time when our deficits were building in the Federal Reserve. At that time, Paul Volcker was saying to us: If you will get your fiscal house in order and I can get my monetary house in order, and we can keep them in balance, we can diminish inflation, lower our interest rates, and cause a tremendous economic growth in our economy. Congress in those early days chose not to listen. We continued to deficit spend. Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, basically took it on himself, as did the Federal Reserve, to kill inflation in this economy. It was a very costly task. It threw thousands and thousands of people out of work. It bankrupted small companies. It destroyed farming and ranching communities. It was a devastating thing to do. But it happened. Some of us have already forgotten 21 percent interest rates at one point and high levels of unemployment. Why? Because the fiscal and monetary policy of this Nation's Government was out of sync. We continued to deficit spend. We continued to mount those deficits until 1994. The American people said enough is enough, and we will listen to a conservative Republican Congress, and we want you to balance the budget. So they changed our country significantly by electing a more conservative Republican majority in Congress. The rest of the story is, while difficult at times, quite simple; that is, we balanced the budget. We did so by restricting the growth of spending at a time when new technologies in our economy were exploding on the scene. The economy and the fiscal policy and monetary policy began to go into balance. We have seen the most phenomenal economic renaissance literally in the history of this country, if not the history of the world. Our economy today drags the rest of the world's economies with it. Our workforce has never had more options, generally speaking, and opportunity for employment in the history of our country, except, as the Senator from Georgia knows, in rural agricultural communities and some of our resource-based communities where agricultural policy or Government policy is not in sync at this moment, and where we have a unique phenomena around the world such that our biotechnology has expanded around the world to the point of creating tremendous surplus because of the balanced budget. Because of the fiscally responsible Congress, we are now experiencing the politics of surplus--not deficit but surplus. The politics of that surplus is really quite simple. For those who like to spend, they lick their chops and rub their hands and say, look at all we can do more than we are doing for the American people. For those of us who really believe we are doing enough and that the American people best know, as the Senator from Georgia said, where and how to spend their money on their families, the politics of surplus is the opportunity to reward the American people for their wisdom in requiring their Government to balance its budget and to return to the American family the money that is rightfully theirs in the reality that we are, in fact, overtaxing the American workforce for the amount of money necessary to run Government. We knew coming to this session of Congress that what we wanted to do for the American workforce and the American taxpayer in returning to them their money would be a difficult task at best. The first sounding of the alarm came with the President's State of the Union Message when he not only proposed in a time of surplus 80-some new spending programs but even proposed a tax increase. I mean, my goodness, Bill. We are talking about potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus and the argument is that we are probably overtaxing the American people and you want more money and you want to tax more. That really was the beginning of the battle that we have engaged in for about 7 long months. It was also quite obvious from the very beginning this President would have an ally. That ally would be the liberal press that, from the very beginning, was always asking people such as me and the Senator from Georgia: Well, but what about the President's position? Don't you think that is the right position? In essence, they were saying: My goodness, you are surely not going to give back this money when you can spend it on all of these programs. Here is how all of that refines itself into headlines. I was fascinated by it. In February, I asked the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, who all of us respect greatly, to come to speak to the Republican policy luncheon. He said: What do you want me to speak about? Quite simply, I want to ask you one question: What do you do with surplus? Alan Greenspan came. And he said: Let me suggest that you reduce marginal rates, you pay down debt, ``but, most importantly, you don't spend it.'' ``Most importantly, you don't spend it.'' He said the reason is quite simple. Don't send a message to the economy of this country that you are going to lift the caps and start spending money. He said it will be a most negative message because the available resources of this country are now dedicated to growth and job creation in the private marketplace. And if you suggest that you are going to increasingly take more of it and spend it in Government, you will send a more negative signal. Don't do it. Before the August recess, after we had shaped a tax bill and we were in the final days of debating it and getting ready to send it to the President, the headlines in the papers were ``Alan Greenspan not in favor of tax cut.'' The reason I use that example is because it typifies what we knew very early on--that we have many enemies out there as did the taxpayers have in pushing this message. Enemy No. 1, Bill Clinton; No. 2, a collective press that would not fairly write to the American people the broad base of this argument. Let me tell you what Alan Greenspan said that extrapolated itself into headlines as ``not in favor of tax cut.'' He said, and I am not going to extrapolate; I am going to quote: My first priority, if I were given such a priority, is to let the surplus run. As I have said before, my second priority is if you find that as a consequence of those surpluses they tend to be spent-- In other words, Alan Greenspan is consistent with February and late July-- Then I would be more in the camp of cutting taxes because the least desirable is using those surpluses to expand outlays or to spend. Greenspan continued: I give great sympathy to those who wish to cut taxes now to preempt that process, and, indeed, if it turns out that they are right then I would say moving on the tax front makes a good deal of sense to me. Do you know that Alan Greenspan is right? Already the forces of the idea that the President will veto this package are at hand saying: Can we have another $10, $15, or $20 billion? Can we have all of the surplus that will be generated out of the general fund and spend it because the priorities are so important? If we send a signal to the American economy, and Bill Clinton helps it with a veto of this tax bill that will go to him next Tuesday, that we are turning on the spending machine, I am not so sure that a year or two from now we will see near zero unemployment in our country; we will see the vibrant economy; we will see the investment capital; we will see the job creation that has given the American people more reason for optimism than anything we have done or we could do as a government in the last good many decades. I am suggesting what the Republican Congress has done in proposing a very broad-based tax cut is responsible, consistent with our economy, fair, and it is intended to help people. It is intended to say to the American family: Taxpayers are entitled to more than 50 percent of what they earn, to save, to invest, to buy a new home or a car, to do what is truly a part of the American dream; and that is to not consistently have government take away more of it. That has always been the great energy of our society. After Alan Greenspan was at the policy committee, I asked him about this phenomenon in the stock market and this high-tech economy. I said: How do you read this one, Mr. Greenspan? He said: I am not sure I can, other than to say the genius of the American people turned loose in a private marketplace is beyond imagination. Today we have seen that genius simply because we have reduced the level of intensity of government upon that genius. And we want to reduce it a little more. Of all the surplus moneys that will come rolling into government over the next 10 years, we are saying, for every dollar, we only want to give one quarter of it back--not all of it, one quarter of every dollar. Three quarters of it stays in government to shore up Social Security, to reform Social Security, to protect new and future Social Security recipients, to spend a little in selected areas when we find it necessary. Yet one would think, from listening to folks on the other side of the aisle, that this tax cut would destroy government as we know it. I heard a Democrat Senator the other day say it will destroy all the environmental programs; it will destroy all the educational programs; it will destroy all of the welfare programs. After listening to that, my only thought was: Get a life. Where are you coming from? We are talking surplus moneys, not current moneys. We are talking surplus moneys. We are only talking about giving a quarter of it back out of every dollar and keeping three quarters of it to do much of what that Senator was talking about. The reason that Senator was in such an illogical, untruthful panic was that over the August recess Republicans, led by the Senator from Georgia, went home to hold town meetings and press conferences and to visit with our taxpayers and our voters and explain the package. All of a sudden, the numbers started shifting because the national media didn't have control of the message. All of a sudden, the tax bill moved up into the high fifties and sixties as something the American people thought was probably the right thing to do. Still frustrated, they want the debt paid down. But when they found out that over the course of the life of this tax bill we pay down about $2 trillion in debt, they said that is fair and reasonable. Of course, when agricultural America, where the Senator from Georgia and I were visiting with our farmers, saw what we had done for them in farming and in the tax package to help production agriculture, they said that makes sense, that gives us tools to survive and to be productive. I am absolutely amazed this President blindly, without listening, reading, or sensing the character of the American people, but only the politics of his party, says ``veto'' from day 1, ``veto'' from day 2, ``veto'' from day 3, instead of saying we have an opportunity to keep this economy growing to allow the private sector to thrive, to hold down the influence of government over the private sector, and, most importantly, allow the American family to pursue its dream. That is what this tax package is all about. It is all about the right things. It is about fairness, responsibility, helping people, and controlling government. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership in this area, for helping send the messages out unfettered, clear and simple, to the American people so they can make up their own minds. They are making up their minds. It is very clear to me where they come down. They come down on the ``no spending'' side, and they come down on the side of splitting the differences between a tax cut and paying down the debt. That is right and responsible. I hope the President will listen as that bill comes to him this coming week. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. I yield such time to myself as I may consume under the unanimous consent agreement. I sat through most of the debate on this very important amendment that the senior Senator from Illinois has proposed. If I could speak to the senior Senator from Illinois for just a moment, there is a very real difference but a similar responsibility between the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Illinois. When I went home during the August recess, I held meetings with the agricultural community. The Senator from Illinois has a good many farmers, but there was a different kind of person in my meetings than could possibly have been in any meeting he would have. That was a public land rancher. Because the Senator from Illinois knows he doesn't have ranchers and grazers on the public lands of the State of Illinois. But the Senators from Idaho and New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa do--thousands of them. Their livelihood depends on access to the public lands and a perpetuation and a continuation of that access, to keep their ranching operations alive. The Senator from Illinois understands that. He has already expressed that as it relates to financing and banking. What is important here--and I wish to express something that probably no one coming from a public land State would miss--is that there is a very different word, a single word in his amendment that does not exist in law today and should not be put in law. That is the word ``may.'' It has been the public policy of this country that, under certain conditions and in the right areas, grazing is a responsible use of our public lands and that we shall allow grazing as a right in responsible use of our public lands if the following conditions are met--the conditions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the conditions that are established by the regional advisory groups that were appointed by this Secretary of the Interior. That is the law that establishes the permanency and the relationship that the Senator from Illinois said he speaks to, but in fact he does not. Having said all of that, the law of this public land is the National Environmental Policy Act, and from that the rules and regulations by which ranchers graze that public land are established. We have said as a Congress, and as a part of public policy, that with the renewal of those permits there should be an analysis of the condition of the rangeland that the permit is tied to. The Senator from Illinois understands that. That is within the law. But, because of costs, because of personnel, because of the time involved, not all of these permits have been able to be analyzed and therefore gain their impact statement in time for that renewal. Is that a fault of the rancher? It is not. Is that a fault of BLM and the Federal Government? It is. Last year we extended for 1 year the right of renewal while the studies went on. But we also understand--and what Senator Domenici's addition to the Interior bill clearly states-- after the analysis is done and the terms and conditions of the permit are established, that permit will be allowed and shall exist under those conditions to be met--not ``may be'' but ``shall be.'' That is very important. If the Senator from Illinois were truly dedicated to the continuation of grazing on public lands under these environmental conditions, then the word ``may'' would not be there because that is the word the financial community looks toward to see whether they ought to lend money to this rancher to continue his or her ranching operation. They could not continue that ranching operation without access to the public grazing lands. The map the Senator from Wyoming displayed is the very simple reason why. Idaho's No. 1 agricultural commodity is cattle--not potatoes but cattle in total dollar volume sold. Mr. President, 80 percent of that amount, 80 percent of the cattle in Idaho, have to graze on public lands at some time during the year for them to exist in our State. Throwing that in jeopardy is like suggesting to the Senator from Illinois we are going to wipe Caterpillar out of Peoria or we are going to throw it in such jeopardy that the banks won't continue to finance it. But that will not happen to Caterpillar in Peoria because they are not dictated to by the Government and they are not operating under governmental regulations, except safety and all of that, but their very livelihood does not exist on a ``may'' or ``shall'' piece of language in a Federal bill. That is what is important here. We want the environmental analysis done. We want the public lands to retain a high quality of environmental values. The Senator from Illinois held up some pictures, one from Utah and one from Arizona. The reason he did not show Illinois is that the issue he is talking about doesn't exist in his State, so you will have to go elsewhere to find a problem, if a problem exists, if you want to debate this bill. Those problems do exist on public lands but much less than they ever have. I am extremely proud of the laws we have changed to improve the rangeland conditions in my State and in large, western public land grazing States in this Nation. We should not be throwing extraordinary roadblocks in the way. We ought to be facilitating the BLM in this area. The BLM will not take a position. But when the Director of BLM was in my office several months ago, prior to his confirmation, he said: If you keep the general language in the bill that you had last time, we can support it. That is because they need that flexibility to go ahead to do their analysis in a right and proper way. That is what is important. So when the Senator from Illinois says that none of these rules can apply, this locks in a standard and the BLM cannot come back and make the changes, I must say, in all due respect to my colleague from Illinois, that is not correct. The BLM does govern these lands. The BLM can make these changes. And the BLM has the right under the law to do it, even if the permit is issued. The BLM has the right to amend the permit if there is major environmental degradation going on. So what the Senator said, and I quote him, ``they could not achieve''--that was in the beginning of his statement, and at the end of his statement he said, ``it would be very difficult for the BLM to achieve changes in the environmental standards allowed under the permit.'' The truth is, the BLM can change these standards. They can rewrite the permits if there are major grazing changes. Another factor the Senator from Illinois would, I am sure, appreciate knowing is, when ranches are brought and sold, while I do not like what the BLM is doing at this moment, they are actually stepping in midway now and saying change some of the regulations. And right now, under this administration's regulations, anyone from the outside can step in and say: We don't like the character of the regulations because the regulations have failed to address certain needs of the land that are not consistent with the grazing permit. Those are the realities with which we are dealing. That is why the Senator from New Mexico thought it was extremely important to offer some degree of certainty to the process. That is exactly what BLM needs because they have not done their work well. They have a huge backlog. In fiscal year 1999 there were 5,360 grazing permits and leases expiring, and, according to the BLM's latest statistics, only 2,159 of these expiring leases--permits or leases--have been analyzed and renewed. So they have a giant task before them. We encourage them to do so. We finance them so they can. Because I am proud of the western legacy of public land grazing, I want it done right. I want it done to assure riparian quality. I do not want our cattlemen run off the public land, the people's land, where the Congress has consistently said it is a right and proper use to graze these grasslands. It is a way to return revenue to our Government while at the same time ensuring quality wildlife habitat, water quality, and all those natural things the Senator from Illinois talks about. Oh, yes, the Senator from Illinois has a right to talk on this issue. Absolutely he does, because these are public lands. But I have tried to discuss today the sensitivity I hope he understands is important, where these lands become a major factor in the economy of my State--not the economy of his State--where it is critically important that we maintain a high quality of grasslands to assure a high quality not only for the environment but for the very users of that environment, in this case the public land grazing in the West. So I hope my colleagues will join me and the Senator from New Mexico and other western legislators in tabling this amendment. We are not saying don't do the study. We are saying do it and do it right, do it properly, and make the amendments and make the changes where necessary, protect the riparian zones, make sure that all of that happens as it should. But do not put a black cloud over a third- generation ranching family who must have a relationship with that land to exist and to ensure their financing on an annualized basis. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have 9 seconds left, and I yield back all 9 seconds. I believe that will bring us to the vote, if the Senator from Illinois yields back his time.

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

Mr. CRAIG. I certainly need no more than 10 minutes.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we work to pass Interior appropriations, of course, because this is a piece of legislation that is key to so many important areas of our States, whether they be east or west, it is also an opportunity to attempt to change what is standard law or practice or belief in many of our States. The Torricelli amendment on trapping is just that kind of amendment. My guess is there are few Senators on the floor who have actually ever trapped. I grew up on a very rural ranch in southwestern Idaho, and at age 6 I began to run a trapline and I used legholding traps to catch coyote and bobcats. That was done largely for the purpose of raising money, but it was also to protect our domestic livestock herds in the springtime when our cows began to calve and would find themselves, oftentimes, having their baby calves harassed and killed by coyotes. I was taught how to trap, but I was also taught an important lesson in trapping. I will not dispute in any way what the Senator from New Jersey might try to suggest is an inhumane approach, but I will suggest it can be used in a right and responsible way. The thing I was taught by my father and by an elderly gentleman who lived on our ranch who taught me how to trap was that you check your trapline daily, so if an animal is caught, it will not suffer. Of course that is exactly what I did, and that is exactly what good trappers do throughout the West. The reason I was allowed to do that and the reason trappers around the country are allowed today to trap when and where necessary under the appropriate circumstances is that responsibility always rested with State governments--State fish and game departments and State agencies. And because I believe, as most Senators do, that State agencies are much closer to the people and can more quickly respond to the needs of a State or a given locale, that that is where that authority to determine policy ought to be--not with a Senator from New Jersey who would not understand Idaho or any other Western State where the abundance of wildlife sometimes is such that it needs to be managed. He would not understand the State of Idaho or Montana or Wyoming or Alaska works very closely with their fish and game department to make sure laws and regulations fit the need and the desire of the area under concern. Historically, this Government, our Government, the Federal Government, has said it is the responsibility of States to govern and manage wildlife populations. They have said it for the very reason I have just given, because a Congress and a Senate cannot really be in tune with what is necessary in Juneau, or out from Juneau in Alaska, or out from Jackson Hole in Wyoming, or out from Midvale in Idaho. They don't really understand the circumstance if there is an infestation or large buildup of coyote, a killing of domestic livestock herds, and a reason to moderate and manage that wildlife population. That is why we have allowed trapping and why States have consistently allowed it. We have constantly erred on the humane side, of being responsible in the management of our wildlife, as we should. We have the responsibility of good stewardship. That is my job, that is every citizen's job, to be a good steward of their public land resources. But it is not our job here to try to fine tune and micromanage because some interest group comes to us and suggests this is a good and right political thing to do, because it will sell well in suburbia New York. It has no impact in New York. It has no impact whatsoever in that State. But what might sell well and be a good, warm, touchy-feely, ``I care'' kind of vote in New York causes all sorts of problems in a rural Western State such as mine. That is why, again, we have tried to take the emotions out of these issues and say there are categories of responsibility on which we ought to err and on which we ought not. This is an amendment that really should not be debated on this floor. We have a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They make every effort to be responsible in the effective management of our wildlife. And they, while they have broad authority, work directly with State fish and game departments. Historically, they have always had a right and proper relationship, erring on the side of the State and on the side of the area or local fish and game management experts when making the kinds of decisions that I believe arbitrarily the Senator is attempting to make with his amendment. That is why it is interesting that after this amendment passed the House, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter to all of us saying they would not support the House amendment. It was only when the politics caught up with it that Bruce Babbitt, our Secretary of the Interior, came out and said that is not the position of the administration. The reason it has not become the position of the administration is because of a set of environmental groups that came forward and said this is our national cause and we need to make it a national cause, totally ignoring what is good policy or what is a reasonable relationship between a State government and a State agency and the Federal Government and a Federal agency. Interestingly enough, even with the position of the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not changed its position. It still believes the Torricelli amendment is the wrong amendment, and the right thing to do is what they have done historically with State fish and game agencies. What do I hear from my citizens? They want the right to trap. They accept the responsibility and they accept the regulations that the State fish and game agency would put upon them. But an outright ban is not the way to manage this, and I hope those of my colleagues who focus on this issue will cut away from the idea that this is an easy, free vote that somehow demonstrates their humaneness toward a population of wildlife. What they ought to err on the side of is allowing their State fish and game agencies to make those determinations and allow the State agencies and the Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that kind of a relationship. I hope they will err on the side of good government instead of warm, feely, and touchy politics because that is all this is. It is a feel-good vote that ends up being pretty bad government in the end. Sometimes, I suggest to my colleagues, it takes a little bit of strength and a little bit of backbone to stand up and say, no, this is the wrong thing to do and then be willing to go home and explain it, if you erred on the side of the State capital and the fish and game agency of that State in making the decision and you trust your State legislators because they are the closest to the people, to make sure fish and game regulations and fish and game management in their State is done in a fair and humane way. I believe it is today, and I believe it will continue to work well that way when we allow our national U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work closely with our State agencies, erring on the side of primacy, or primary responsibility, at the State and local level. It has worked well in the past. It will work well in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. There are four Senators, including the Presiding Officer, who came to the floor because the Senator from Virginia was on the floor with his amendment. We hoped to debate that within the next 35 to 40 minutes if the Senator will consider yielding the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to visit with my colleague from Virginia who has offered an amendment to strike section 329 of the Interior appropriations bill. I am pleased that he is on the floor. I am extremely pleased that he listened with great attention to the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Montana, and that he will listen to this Senator from Idaho whose State is 63 percent owned by the Federal Government and whose policy as to how those lands are managed is determined on the floor of the Senate by this Senator, the Senator from Virginia, and others. I listened to the Senator this afternoon as he offered his amendment to strike section 329. I must tell you that I listened with a degree of frustration, certainly in no disrespect to the Senator, but to what I sensed was a lack of understanding of what has brought us to this issue and why the Appropriations Committee found it necessary at this moment in time to speak out and to clarify public policy that the Senator from Virginia is trying to undo. The Senator from Montana, the Senator from Oregon, myself, and others from large public land and forest States have grown tremendously frustrated not by just this administration but by public policy that puts all of us at odds. That arguably does not provide the kind of environmental protection many of us would like and that would allow the balance between environmental protection and under that important umbrella the effective use or utilization of our resources like timber. So we had a judge in the Eleventh Circuit who probably really has never been West, nor does he understand the West, make a ruling on a ground-disturbing activity of the Forest Service on its lands and say that you haven't studied thoroughly enough how that activity contributes to the demise of a plant, a fungus, a slug, a snail, or an exotic animal. This judge went against decades of science, and even nine court decisions that had largely said the Forest Service was doing an adequate job in its overview of the endangered species responsibility under the Endangered Species Act through an environmental impact study. The Senator from Oregon was talking about the judge's decision in the Eleventh Circuit being picked up by the judge in the Ninth Circuit, and without any real consideration, just arbitrarily spreading across the pages of his decision: Well, if it is good enough in the Eleventh Circuit, it is good enough in the Ninth. Ironically, in the Ninth Circuit, what the Senator from Oregon was talking about was the most comprehensive, above the level of science that has been practiced, reviewed, and mandated under the President's own forest plan. There was a comprehensive effort between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries that all aspects of the disturbance would be studied before these timber sales or other activities would go on. As a result of that, I think it is tremendously important for the Senator from Virginia to understand--I serve on the Appropriations Committee--we did not attempt to do anything extraordinary. We just tried to say in public policy that what the judge in the Eleventh Circuit had done, what the judge in the Ninth Circuit was doing, and what a judge in Texas has already picked up on is really outside science. A committee of scientists empowered by this Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, just this last year reported back to the Department of Agriculture and to the U.S. Forest Service that the science they were using that the judge in the Eleventh Circuit knocked down was the right science--that you use indicator species, that you didn't need to get out on the ground and count every plant, or animal, or microorganism. It was unnecessary to do this to determine the kind of impact that a ``Ground disturbing activity'' would have on the ground. But it was very important for the state of the science involved to use the indicator species concept that had been used and upheld in nine different court decisions as the right approach. I guess what I am saying to the Senator from Virginia tonight is how long do we fight? How long do we see this kind of conflict that stops all kinds of activity before the Senator from Virginia is willing to stand up with the Senator from Idaho and do what is our responsibility, and that is crafting sound public policy that disallows the courts and the judges from being the public land managers of our States. Yet the Senator from Virginia tonight says: I want the judge to decide. But he didn't really quite say it that way, and it would be unfair. What he is saying is, let the process continue to go forward. I am extremely disappointed that the chief of the Forest Service is not in the gallery tonight saying to the Senator from Virginia: You shouldn't be doing this. What the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, put in this legislation allows the Forest Service to continue to do what the courts and a team of scientists said is the right thing to do: That is, when you are doing these surveys use the appropriate science, the indicator species, in making the determination as to how to mitigate for a surface- disturbing activity. However, the chief of the Forest Service isn't here tonight nor was he willing to stand up and speak out loudly. What this administration I think is saying, and I trust that it has to be as reasonably disturbing to the Senator from Virginia as it is to this Senator from Idaho, is continue to work through the court process. We think we can work this out. Ironically enough, their working it out means they have already lost 3 lawsuits, they have already lost 3 times. They are still saying: Trust us, we know how to work it out. Even the forest plan that the President himself staked his public land reputation on is in the tank out in Oregon, Washington and northern California. Thousands of people will be out of work this winter because this President wouldn't stand up and ask his chief of the Forest Service to fight for what he originally said he thought was right. He says: Let us work through the court process. How long will it take? We don't know. A year, until after the next election? Possibly. What is most important for the Senator from Virginia to understand is that what is in 329 is not outside the law. Let me read the language: The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service shall use the best available science and commercial data in amending and revising resource management plans for and offering sales, issue leases or otherwise authorizing or undertaking management activities on, land under their respective jurisdiction. Where does the language come from? Not out of the mind of the Senator from Washington who is the chairman of the Interior appropriations subcommittee. It comes out of endangered species law. It comes out of the act itself. It is the operative language that drives the Endangered Species Act. It is not new language. It is not new law. Then we go on to say, Provided that the Secretaries may at their discretion determine whether any additional information concerning wildlife resources shall be collected prior to approving any such plan, sales, lease or activities. Full discretion to the secretary, to the managing agency. Not new law. Empowering them to do the right thing with their scientists and their expertise. That is what we are doing. We are empowering Bill Clinton. We are empowering Mike Dombeck, the chief of the Forest Service. Yet they are saying, just work this out through the courts. What if they lose the fourth time and it is a year from now and nobody is in the mills and nobody is working and thousands of people are out of work in Oregon, Washington and northern California? Or should we talk for just a few moments about the activities on the George Washington and the Jefferson National Forests in the home State of the Senator from Virginia? Not much timbering in his home State, but there is a lot of ``people'' activity, a lot of trails, a lot of management and road building. Flood control in the Cascade National Recreation Area, a contract involved with repair and construction of four bridges and relocation of portions of the trail and stone structures and retaining walls. All of it is surface-disturbing activity; all of it because someone didn't like it, a lawsuit is filed, and a judge stops it because the Forest Service doesn't know how to do these kind of things. No, not at all. Because the Forest Service didn't examine whether repairing an old trail wall disturbs a lichen or a moss on the wall of stone that was originally put there by man himself. That doesn't make much sense, does it? But that is exactly what striking section 329 will do. I wish the Senator could stand up and say let's abide by science, let's not play this out in the courts anymore. Let's empower the chief of the Forest Service and the assistant secretary of agriculture and the President himself. I don't find myself on the floor of the United States very often defending this President. I don't think he has had good public land policy. But in one area where he really tried, now he himself will not even defend his effort. His chief of the Forest Service is trying to avoid the pressure by environmental groups who see this exactly the way the Senator from Oregon spoke to it this evening: A way to turn the forest off. They will not only stop logging, they will turn your forests off. They will attack any surface-disturbing activity, even if it is a trail, a trail head, or a campground that may facilitate the very citizens of the State of Virginia who enjoy their public lands and their two national forests. As the Senator from Virginia knows, in the mid-1970s we passed the National Forest Management Act. That was to direct the most comprehensive review of every forest in the United States. From that was to come a management plan and a way to execute that plan. The Senator from Virginia knows as do I that he and I and the taxpayers spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars developing those plans. It was the most comprehensive land-planning exercise in the history of the world. We developed computer models. We looked at every aspect, every watershed, all of the character and the nature of this public land. It was right that we did so. Our forests now operate under those plans. Every activity was viewed through a grid that determines whether they are endangering a species of any kind. That is what I spoke to a few moments ago. However, that whole effort cost a quarter of a billion dollars, or near that. What the amendment of the Senator would do, and if the courts were to win--not the policy makers that we were elected to be, but a judge, an appointed judge who does not know one thing about the forests in Oregon or Idaho because he is reviewing an activity in a forest in the State of Georgia, he is saying get out there on your hands and knees with as many scientists as you can muster and count and look at every little tidbit. The Senator from Oregon went through that litany of mosses, snails and critters tonight. It is estimated, just estimated, that to do that kind of an evaluation on an acre-by-acre basis across the landscape of the public forests of our country would cost 5, 8, or $9 billion dollars. The Senator from Virginia knows, as do I, we will not appropriate that money. That kind of money doesn't exist and that kind of money should never be spent on this kind of activity. The scientists who are good scientists--not judges, and not environmentalists who want to see the world shut down--are saying that the standards and the tests and the indicator species and the work that is being done today is thorough, adequate and responsible. Yet the amendment of the Senator denies that because that is the exact language that was put in this section of the appropriations bill. Why is it important we do it now? We heard from the Senator from Oregon. I have been to John Day and I have been to Roseburg. Those are mill towns. Those are little communities with millions of acres of public timber land around them. The people who live there make their livelihood from logging. It has changed some because logging has diminished dramatically in those areas. But what the action of the Senator from Virginia is doing, if he is successful, is it turns off those timber sales, nearly 500 million board feet of timber that would keep those mills operating through the winter and into the spring. Because no longer do we operate on a 3-year pipeline, they call it, where you have timber adequate in the pipeline for a 3-year period. That ended with the Clinton administration. Now we are on nearly a timber sale by timber sale basis. Yet, remember the reduction in timber sales that the Senator from Oregon talked about? We are not talking about cutting anywhere near previous levels. We have an 80 percent lower cut in 8 years. And even that which this President said was adequate, right, responsible and environmentally sound, a judge now arbitrarily has taken away. So that is why we are on the floor this evening. This is one of the most time sensitive amendments, directly relating to jobs and people's well- being, that is in this legislation. Let me close by one other analysis. I was in one of my communities, Grangeville, Idaho County, Idaho, a big county right in the heart of my State, with 70-plus percent, 80 percent public lands. In one of those communities they started their school year with no hot lunch program. Why? Because a huge portion of their budget came from timber sales, the Twenty-Five Percent Fund. The Senator may be familiar with it. For every tree that is cut, the counties and the schools got 25 percent of the stumpage fee. We are not cutting trees in that area anymore, even though there are millions of acres of trees there. As a result, the school had to decide whether to have an athletic program or hot lunch program for the kids. They are struggling, taking donations from the community to have hot lunches. I don't know whether that's happening anywhere in Virginia, taking donations to have a hot lunch program to feed kids. But the Senator's amendment has an impact on that kind of caring event. I wanted to personalize this because I don't think, when the amendment to strike came to the floor, there was an understanding of the immediacy of the impact of this kind of decision. It was just some neat environmental vote that we would have because that is what a lot of the environmental community wants. This is a test vote of some kind. It is not a test vote on anything other than a political idea. It does not bear out consistently good policy because we have good policy in this area. We have scientists from around the world saying we do it better than anyplace else. Yet a judge simply said no, you don't. You don't do it the way I think it should be done, and therefore I want you to do it differently. That is the crux of the debate. There are all kinds of opinions around it. But I must say, to an administration that has three times lost this battle in court, for them to step up now and say, trust us, let's work it out, without an alternative plan, with the idea we will work it out and get to the point and they lose another lawsuit and we are 12 months down the road and the people in Roseburg or John Day are not back to work? It is not impacting my State at this moment. But here is what happens in my State. It is like a West Virginia-Virginia relationship. If they are not cutting trees in Oregon, even under the President's plan, and these mills are deprived of trees and people are out of work, that mill operator comes into Idaho looking for timber sales. He bids up the price well beyond where it ought to be, takes a timber sale out of Idaho, puts those logs on a truck and heads them west over the Cascades into Oregon just to keep his people working. So my mill in Orofino, or a place like that, is with less timber at a time when we are hardly cutting any timber. And we have simply pitted one against another. That is not good policy either. But ultimately that is what can happen and that is what will happen in my State, even though this judge's decision at this moment does not impact us. But failing Congress' ability to establish and clarify this policy issue, some group will file a lawsuit and argue on the premise of the judge from the eleventh and the judge from the ninth circuit, that those kinds of effective studies were not done on a given disturbing activity in my State. Then it will apply further into my State. Those are the issues. I hope our colleagues are listening tonight. I understand we will debate this tomorrow some, but we will vote on it. To reiterate, I oppose the amendment by Senator Robb that would remove Section 329 of the Interior Appropriations bill. This effort is misguided and I strongly urge my colleagues to understand the need for this Section if our national forests are going to continue to function. The Section simply clarifies that despite recent circuit and district court decisions, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior maintain the discretion to implement current regulations as they have been doing for nearly 2 decades. During the past two decades, nine separate court decisions have backed the way the Forest Service has been conducting their surveying populations by inventorying habitat and analyzing existing population data. On February 18, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Forest Service must conduct forest-wide wildlife population surveys on all proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, and management indicator species in order to prepare or revise national forest plans and on all ``ground disturbing activity''--not just timber sales. Never before has such an extensive, and frankly impossible, standard been set by the courts. Another ruling on August 2, 1999, in Federal District Court in Seattle, on a similar case, jeopardizes the President's Northwest Forest Plan, and has already begun to stop most if not all ground disturbing activity in the Northwest. These rulings result in paralysis by analysis. It would require the Forest Service to examine every square inch of the project area and count every animal and plant--even every insect--before it approved any activity. The cost to carry out such extensive studies--studies which have never been required before--could be approximately 9 billion dollars. How do we do this? Because the Forest Service does contract for population inventorying on occasion. A population trend survey requires two studies. If we extrapolate from the $8,000 cost of one plant inventory, we reach $38.1 million for the 864,000 acres within the Chattahoochee National Forest where this decision originated. If applied to the 188-million acre national forest system, the cost reaches $8.3 billion. We appropriate roughly $70 million for forest inventory and monitoring. Are we prepared to shift the $9 billion necessary for this new standard? If not, this recent interpretation forces the Forest Service to shut down until the Agency can apply the new standard. The purpose of Section 329 is not to change the court decisions or set a new, lower standard. It is simply to clarify that the existing regulation gives the discretion to the Forest Service and the BLM when determining what kind of surveys are needed when management activities are being considered. Some of my colleagues would argue that this is an issue for the authorizing committees to deal with. I agree. This is an issue that absolutely should be dealt with by those committees. They need to determine whether the agencies have been correctly interpreting their regulation for the past 17 years. They need to determine whether it is sufficient to inventory habitat, rely on existing population, consult with state and federal agencies and conduct population inventories only for specific reasons. But I argue that the appropriations process should not be made to bear the burden while the authorizing committees study the question. All section 329 does is to preserve, for the next year, the status quo as it existed on April 8, 1999. Otherwise, our already limited resources will be further overwhelmed if we are required to fund this new standard. I urge you to oppose this amendment and support sensible management. We are appropriating roughly $70 million for forest inventory monitoring this year. There is only $70 million in the Federal budget. Yet it is now estimated that this will literally cost us billions of dollars if the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Idaho cannot stand up and look some of our radical friends in the eye and say: That is not good policy. You are not the policymaker and your lawsuits and your judges are not either. We are. We were elected to craft policy. The Senator from Virginia and I are responsible only if we take that kind of leadership position. That is the kind of leadership position that Senator Gorton took in the appropriations bill. He did not go outside the law and he did not go outside practice. He mandated and requested the Forest Service of the United States act responsibly, under the Endangered Species Act, and gave them the guidelines to do so. That is what section 329 does. That is leadership. Falling back into the arms of the judge and simply seeking the will of the courts is not. I hope my colleagues would join with me tomorrow and oppose a motion to strike. I yield the floor.