T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that the pending business be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I hope for only a very short period of time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be set aside.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment is constructed in a fashion that evades budget points of order. That is to say, no points of order would be appropriate. But it does take advantage of a quite conservative estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of the revenues that may accrue from the sale of Elk Hills. I also note that the amendment could result in the Department of Energy capturing several hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue that could otherwise go into the General Treasury. As a member of the Budget Committee, this is a precedent about which I have some real concern. On the other hand, as I said from the time that the House bill passed and we worked on our own, I am not completely comfortable with the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, including the sale in the bill that is in the President's budget request and House action. Having said all of that, balancing on both sides, I am willing to accept the amendment, as is my comanager from Nevada. We can deal with the issue in conference, and I hope that it is either acceptable or can be put into acceptable form.

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

Mr. GORTON. Two brief points. First, the Senator from New Hampshire describes what is an entirely reasonable point, it seems to me, if we are talking about land sold by the United States in the future. But in effect he is saying a policy we ought to adopt is one that would be analogous to something in my own State, where 20 years ago you sold shares of stock in Microsoft for $10 a share and they are now worth $100,000 a share today, and he says, ``Gee, I made a bad bargain. I ought to get some more of that back. I want a share of that profit.'' That goes to the equities of the position. The point before the Senate now is whether or not we can constitutionally deal with this. The Senator from Louisiana made the perfect argument on our side. She said we aren't getting enough taxes, we need to get more taxes out of these lands. That is exactly what the Senator proposes to do--tax these lands. Tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This does not originate in the House of Representatives. It is not something that this body constitutionally can deal with. That is the point on which we are going to vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will not at this point speak to the merits of the amendment. Both the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Alaska have done so, each of them repeating points that I can remember having heard almost verbatim in several previous sessions of Congress. My remarks will be much more narrow. Section (d)(1) of this amendment states: Any person producing hardrock minerals from a mine that was within a mining claim that has subsequently been patented under the general mining laws shall pay a reclamation fee to the Secretary under this subsection. The Senator from Arkansas quite properly described that fee as a severance tax, and a severance tax it is. It applies only to minerals coming out, presumably, in the future from certain classes of lands in the United States. It is not something directed at the restoration of those lands, but is to be used as a source of money for much broader purposes. The Senator's description of it as a tax is accurate. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States under which we operate states--and I quote-- All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. No such tax appears in the similar bill that the House of Representatives has passed. It is crystal clear to me that should this tax be added on to this bill it will be blue slipped in the House of Representatives, that is, it will not be considered on the grounds that that portion of the bill, that subject of the bill could only originate in the House. The House of Representatives is as jealous of its prerogatives to originate tax bills as the Senate is to ratifying treaties or to confirm Presidential appointments or to engage in any of the activities that are lodged by the Constitution in this body. Point of Order As a consequence, although there has been some time devoted to the merits of this amendment, and because I believe that it clearly violates article I, section 7 of the Constitution, I raise a constitutional point of order against the amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 17, 1997, at 10 a.m. on Pipeline One Call (S. 1115).

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1158, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Huna Totem Corp. public land exchange, and for other purposes, and S. 1159, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Kake Tribal Corp. public interest land exchange, and for other purposes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 17, 1997, at 2:15 p.m. on transition to digital TV.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, September 17, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I further ask consent that if an amendment is offered from the list as a first-degree amendment, it be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this clarifies conditions for oil and gas leasing of a national petroleum reserve in Alaska. Mr. President, I should make clear that this amendment is cleared on both sides and is acceptable to the administration.

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

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this should be charged to my own time on this amendment. Mr. President, I recommend to my colleagues the rejection of the Ashcroft amendment with a degree of sympathy and understanding of the purity and the sincerity of his motives. I don't intend to go into great detail on it. Personally, I think there has been too much detail spent on this amendment and this bill already. Fundamentally, however, there are large numbers of people in the United States who believe passionately in the mission of the National Endowment for the Arts. There are millions more who benefit from it directly or indirectly through the various institutions, musical and otherwise, that it supports and the outreach in educational benefits that they provide. At the same time, there is not the slightest doubt but that the National Endowment for the Arts frequently follows the most recent politically correct trends, that it has wasted some of the money that has been granted to it and has financed other exhibits under the broad definition of ``art'' that are fundamentally offensive to large numbers--often to a majority of the American people. I believe that the reforms of the last few years have to a significant degree corrected that shortcoming but that no set of reforms could correct them forever, simply because we have grants at two different levels. The first are the direct grants from the National Endowment itself over which we should exercise at least a degree of control that we already have and about which the National Endowment should be even more sensitive than it has been in the past. The second level, of course, are what grantees do with grants that they get from the National Endowment for the Arts. The process is more difficult for us to control and often presents some difficulty to the Endowment itself. I have little doubt that there are those at the extremes of the art community who deliberately go out of their way to use money to offend a majority of Americans. But I want them to control the ultimate outcome of this debate no more than I want it controlled by those who would remove all limits from the National Endowment and spend far more money on it than we are doing at the present time. I believe that on balance it is a healthy influence in American society and, therefore, I think agreeing with the House in abolishing it, as this amendment would do, is inappropriate. I have a somewhat greater degree of sympathy with those proposals that would decentralize it and give more to State art entities, although I must say I am not at all sure they are going to be less politically correct than is the National Endowment itself. My own opinion is that it is likely that we will come out of the conference committee with a somewhat more decentralized system than we have at the present time. But, for the purposes of this debate, I don't believe that the Senate is going to accept the Ashcroft amendment. There was no sentiment for it on the 15-member subcommittee that I headed that reported this bill, and I do believe this is a case in which we should strive for greater improvement and greater public acceptability rather than destroy the entity in its entirety. I yield the remainder of my time. I believe it is appropriate for the proponent of the amendment to have the last word.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the following request has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers Senator Bryan's amendment regarding forest roads, there be 90 minutes equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendment be in order to the Bryan amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of time, a vote occur on the amendment at a time to be determined by the two leaders.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.