T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to make a unanimous-consent request that I think will inform Members of where we are going in the next few minutes. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers the following amendments regarding the National Endowment for the Arts--that will be next--they be considered under a 30-minute time limit, equally divided in the usual form: the Abraham amendment No. 1206; the Hutchinson of Arkansas amendment No. 1187; the Hutchison amendment No. 1186. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I do have a letter by the National Association of Counties that I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. That concludes debate on the Bryan amendment. Amendment No. 1188

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we now have 145 minutes on the Ashcroft amendment. I think I can announce, on behalf of the majority leader, that there will be a vote on the Ashcroft amendment at the end of that 145 minutes or whenever time has been yielded back. We will also plan to have a vote on the Bryan amendment immediately after the Ashcroft amendment, probably with the usual 1 minute per side for summary. But that has not been shopped to all Members to the point at which it can be the subject of a unanimous-consent request yet.

Mr. GORTON. Has all time expired? I assume that the Senator from Missouri wishes a rollcall?

Mr. GORTON. I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the Abraham and the Hutchinson of Arkansas amendments, the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on or in relation to amendment No. 1206, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to amendment No. 1187.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada has been indeed generous.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Wyoming has been waiting patiently and wanted 2 minutes. I do not have quite 2 minutes. Would the Senator from Nevada mind yielding his opponent that 2 minutes?

Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator withhold that?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada states that it is not the purpose of this amendment to terminate harvesting in our national forests. He also states that it is the intent of the amendment to reduce harvesting in our national forests. He recognizes that the impact of the amendment will be to lower the gross income of the Forest Service from timber sales because, obviously, bids will reflect the cost of constructing roads. He says that the amendment will not terminate the construction of roads in roadless areas, but that the construction of roads in roadless areas is wrong. Now, I guess the question that one must ask of the Senator from Nevada, and the outside organizations that back his amendment, is, what is their view toward the harvesting of forest products in our national forests? The Senator from Nevada has graced us with a set of graphs and a chart that indicates increasing harvests on private lands and rapidly decreasing harvests on public lands. In the 1980's, nearly 12 billion board feet a year were harvested from Forest Service lands--a harvest smaller in board feet than the regeneration of those lands. Today, that level is below 4 million board feet. In other words, harvests on those lands have been reduced by more than two-thirds. How much more reduction does the Senator from Nevada propose? The organizations that he proudly announced are supporting his amendment, by and large, have as their articulated policy that there should be no harvest on public lands anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. And while this amendment, standing alone, will not have that effect, it is clearly designed as a part of a campaign to end all such harvests. At the present time, again, as indicated by the chart that the Senator from Nevada has there, only about 5 percent of the Nation's softwood comes from Forest Service lands, but 50 percent of the volume is located on those lands. Since the policies that have resulted in that dramatic decrease have taken place, the average price of an 1,800- square-foot new home has gone up about $2,000. Almost $3 billion from the pockets of American home purchasers is the result of those efforts to save the spotted owl and to meet other of the priorities so eloquently set out by the Senator from Nevada. Interestingly enough, when an outside organization--Price Waterhouse--filed a report entitled ``Financing Roads on the National Forests,'' it reached this conclusion: The forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers. It provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road construction and reconstruction. Interestingly enough, the administration, at least as recently as January and February, agreed totally with that position, and it indicates no savings associated with the elimination of the forest roads program. Moreover, the appropriation for forest roads that we are defending here today is the administration's own proposal. This is not a budget that increases that appropriation; it is a budget that reflects that appropriation. Is the Senator from Nevada seriously presenting to us the proposition that this Clinton administration is engaged in irresponsible forest harvest contracting, that it is ignoring environmental and fiscal concerns and causing our forests to be harvested at an unsustainable or environmentally harmful rate? He must be making that proposition. He wants the two-thirds reduction that has taken place over the course of the last decade to be a more-than-two- thirds reduction. He wants this administration to stop what he considers irresponsible contracting for forest harvesting in our national forests. Mr. President, no one who is concerned with any kind of balance in the management of our national forests can possibly reach the conclusion that the Clinton administration's Forest Service management and supervision is recklessly and irresponsibly harvesting our national forests. Almost all of the criticism is on the other side, except for the organizations that are backing this amendment, whose position is that the only good harvest is no harvest at all. Now, if the Senator from Nevada believes that, I think it would be more forthright simply to propose that and see whether or not the Members of the Senate agree. But this forest roads program, the way in which it was set up, is designed to see to it that the roads are built efficiently and well, according to Forest Service standards, and appropriately paid for. Simply to take money out of one pocket and put it into another will not, in any way, enhance the Federal Treasury. Bids will be lower--probably considerably lower--as the risk of costs have shifted from one side to another and the quality of roads will be lower. But let's look at the entire program that we are talking about here. In fact, of this entire appropriation for 1996, only a very modest amount is for the construction of roads; the great bulk is for reconstruction. From the credit system, from the appropriation, practically none is for construction, and a modest amount is for reconstruction. But three-quarters of the amount is for the obliteration of roads, about which the Senator from Nevada spoke so eloquently. Eighty percent of all of the reconstruction that is so important is paid for by purchaser credit, not by appropriations on the part of this body. In fact, Mr. President, the net result of passing this amendment will not only be a further reduction in harvest, it will be a dramatic reduction in the availability of our forests from a wide range of recreational activity. It will be the de facto creation of more tens of billions of acres that cannot effectively be enjoyed by the vast majority of the people of the United States. I want to emphasize that in this case we are defending the recommendations in the budget of the President and of the Forest Service--a Forest Service that has designed the reduction and harvest as far as it has gone. And I believe that the most appropriate points for the proponents of this amendment to make are having reduced our Forest Service harvest by two-thirds, having shifted almost 95 percent of all of the harvesting of forest products onto private lands that contain 50 percent of the resource. How much further do they wish to go? Their supporters say no harvest at all. This amendment is one dramatic step toward that goal. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Idaho may wish to take.

Mr. GORTON. The design of this request is that the votes on the first two be stacked, and there would be an hour between the end of the next rollcall and those two. The proponent of the third amendment does not want to stack her amendment with them. But there will be more than an hour for the committee to meet.

Mr. GORTON. Yes. The usual way is 1 minute for each side.

Mr. GORTON. When we clear it, we will ask for it. That will be the plan. After that, Mr. President, there are three other amendments that have been debated on the National Endowment for the Arts--Abraham, Sessions- Hutchinson of Arkansas, Hutchison of Texas. We are going to attempt to get 30 minutes equally divided additional debate on those amendments, as Members have been able to speak to them previously, and, of course, Members during this period of time can speak to them. That is not in concrete yet, but from the perspective of planning for the afternoon and early evening, this would be the intention of the managers.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator withhold that?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe the senior Senator from North Carolina wishes to speak. I understand that the senior Senator from Illinois would like to speak and doesn't have any time left on her side. I ask, how long does she wish to speak?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this suspends, for the period of this next fiscal year, the implementation of fees for recreational use for cabins in a national forest in Idaho, while Senator Craig and the appropriate committee discusses the method by which those fees were arrived at. It is cleared by both sides.

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

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on the bill, I ask unanimous consent to make a technical clarification to the committee report on page 32 of the report, which indicates that a report on the Natchez National Historic Park as being due on January 30, 1997. The actual due date, obviously, would be January 30, 1998.

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

Mr. GORTON. This amendment will modify the boundaries of the Arkansas Post Memorial.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Bryan is on his way to the floor to begin that debate. I believe that the principal opponents of the amendment have also been notified. In any event, they should proceed immediately to the floor to engage in the debate, which is on a seriously contested amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. today, the Senate resume consideration of the Ashcroft amendment No. 1188, and that the time be divided in the following fashion: 70 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, or his designee; 70 minutes under the control of Senator Ashcroft, or his designee; 5 minutes under my control. I further ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on, or in relation to, the Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware has used this time very much to good effect with thoughtful analyses of two questions, and he certainly did not interfere with debate on the Interior appropriations bill, as no one was here to present an amendment on the subject. I do have a unanimous consent request that has been agreed to by both sides, Mr. President, and I will present it now. Unanimous-Consent Agreement