[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10420-S10425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
   ASSISTANCE, FOR ANTI-TERRORISM INITIATIVES, FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE 
     RECOVERY FROM THE TRAGEDY THAT OCCURRED AT OKLAHOMA CITY, AND 
                         RESCISSIONS ACT, 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1944) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance, for anti- 
     terrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from 
     the tragedy that occurred at Oklahoma City, and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1883

   (Purpose: To strike certain rescissions, and to provide an offset)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Moseley-Braun and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 1833.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
       On page 38, strike lines 24 and 25 and insert the 
     following: ``under this heading in Public Law 103-333, 
     $204,000 are rescinded: Provided, That section 2007(b) 
     (relating to the administrative and travel expenses of the 
     Department of Defense) is amended by striking ``rescinded'' 
     the last place the term appears and inserting ``rescinded, 
     and an additional amount of $319,000,000 is rescinded'': 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available''.
       Beginning on page 34, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through page 35, line 10, and insert the following: ``Public 
     Law 103-333, $1,125,254,000 are rescinded, including 
     $10,000,000 for necessary expenses of construction, 
     rehabilitation, and acquisition of new Job Corps centers, 
     $2,500,000 for the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, 
     $4,293,000 for section 401 of the Job Training Partnership 
     Act, $5,743,000 for section 402 of such Act, $3,861,000 for 
     service delivery areas under section 101(a)(4)(A)(iii) of 
     such Act, $100,010,000 for carrying out title II, part C of 
     such Act, $2,223,000 for the National Commission for 
     Employment Policy and $500,000 for the National Occupational 
     Information Coordinating Committee: Provided, That of such 
     $1,125,254,000, not more than $43,000,000 may be rescinded 
     from amounts made available to carry out part A of title II 
     of the Job Training Partnership Act, not more than 
     $35,600,000 may be rescinded from amounts made available to 
     carry out title III of the Job Training Partnership Act, and 
     no portion may be rescinded from funds made available to 
     carry out section 738 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act: Provided further, That service delivery areas 
     may''.
       On page 41, strike lines 6 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
     ``Public Law 103-333, $91,959,000 are rescinded as follows: 
     From the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, title II-B, 
     $29,000,000, title V-C, $16,000,000, title IX-B, $3,000,000, 
     title X-D, $1,500,000, title X-G, $1,185,000, section 10602, 
     $1,399,000, and title XIII-A,''.
       Beginning on page 43, strike line 25 and all that follows 
     through page 44, line 2, and insert the following: ``Public 
     Law 103-333, $13,425,000 are rescinded as follows: From the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act, title III-B, 
     $5,000,000, title''.
       On page 107, line 21, (relating to the administrative and 
     travel expenses of the Department of Defense) strike 
     $50,000,000'' and insert ``$382,342,000''.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wellstone for 
starting this ball and getting this issue and debate going.
  Frankly, in spite of the fact that I know there are a number of 
people who are concerned about this particular legislation and where it 
is going, I think it is absolutely regrettable that we are just taking 
up as important an issue as this at 10:55 p.m. on a Thursday night 
following a major debate around the legislative appropriations bill. 

[[Page S10421]]

  The rescission issue has been held somewhat in limbo for the last 
couple of weeks, in large part because Senator Wellstone and I both 
argued and agreed and suggested to our colleagues that the issues 
raised, the substantive issues raised in the rescissions action was too 
important to be let go in what Senator Wellstone called in a stealth 
manner.
  Forgive me, Mr. President, it is late, and I think we are all a 
little bleary-eyed, but the fact is we are now taking up, in fact, in 
stealth fashion, and limiting debate, on what I think is a very vitally 
important issue that should have had the kind of debate around 
priorities and around the import and the significance of the 
rescissions legislation in the context of where we are going with the 
budget.
  I was actually kind of delighted to hear Senator Hatfield's 
description of the seal test, because if anything, in terms of a seal 
test, this rescission legislation, I think, indicated the first step 
that we are taking as a legislative body in responding to the desperate 
need--and I think it is a desperate need--to get our fiscal house in 
order.
  Last year, Mr. President, I cosponsored the balanced budget 
amendment, because I believed that if we were serious about our future, 
if we were serious about not handing to the next generation a legacy of 
debt, if we were serious about reducing Federal deficits and taking the 
steps necessary to achieve balance, to get on the glidepath to a 
balanced budget and not bankrupting the country by the turn of the 
century, if we were going to do that, we ought to move in the direction 
of trying to achieve budget balance.
  The good news, Mr. President, is that this time the Senate, in the 
budget that has been adopted, did achieve budget balance, or headed in 
the direction of budget balance, or put us on the glidepath in that 
direction. The bad news, in my opinion, it did it in a way that speaks 
very poorly of priorities and speaks very poorly of the allocation of 
contribution by various sectors of our population.
  If anything, the problem with the rescissions bill, and I point out 
to those night owls who are listening and who get sometimes turned off 
by the more technical language that we use, a rescissions bill is 
taking back. It is a take-back.
  It is the first step. It takes back money that was appropriated last 
year and says OK, we are not going to do that after all. We are going 
to rescind, we are going to turn that around, and then we are going to 
go forward. So in that regard the take-back bill from last year's 
appropriations effort in the context of this session is the seal test, 
in some ways, that the Senator from Oregon referred to. It is the first 
step that we take on the glidepath toward a balanced budget.
  Unfortunately, the seal test and the first step that is taken by this 
rescissions bill, I believe, calls for more sacrifice from the most 
vulnerable populations in our country than ought to be the case in any 
rescission package or, frankly, in this budget.
  In fact, by one analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, it was found after analyzing the numbers and how the cuts 
weigh in, the center found that some 62 percent of the cuts in this 
rescissions bill would come from discretionary programs to serve low- 
and moderate-income individuals, even though that group of Americans 
represent only 12 percent of discretionary spending overall.
  That sounds kind of technical, 62 percent for low- and moderate-
income individuals. But the cuts that this bill would have us undertake 
come in areas that, frankly, again, I just, for one, not only 
personally cannot accept, but that I believe would be inappropriate for 
us to accept as our first step on this glidepath. If anything, our 
priorities ought to reflect shared sacrifice. We are going to have to 
all step up to the plate as Americans and make some sacrifice in order 
to get our fiscal house in order. We are all going to have to make a 
contribution to resolving budget deficits and to getting us on a 
glidepath, if you will, to budget balance, at least a glidepath that is 
opposite to the trends that we have taken, that we are taking right 
now.
  I served as a member of the President's Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlements and Tax Reform. There was no question, if there is one 
message out of the entire hearings and the information that we looked 
at in terms of the budget, it was that current trends, budget trends 
are unsustainable and that we had to change the way that we do 
business. That is one of the reasons why this rescissions bill is so 
important and that is why I believed, and still believe, that it was so 
critically necessary to have the debate in the sunshine, to have the 
debate in the daytime, to allow people to know what it was that we were 
talking about, what was at stake and what were the issues.
  In the first instance, among the cuts in this bill that are sought to 
be restored by the Wellstone/Moseley-Braun division, and it is a 
division because the amendment is in two parts, among the restorations 
are a program that I have worked on, education infrastructure, to help 
rebuild some of the dilapidated schools around this country, schools 
that are falling apart. I do not think it is a secret, at this point, 
given the discussion about the condition of American schools, our 
schools are falling apart. They are not equipped to prepare our 
youngsters for the 21st century. We do not have the infrastructure in 
them even to make them computer ready, if you will. In many instances, 
the electricity is not there.
   So we are really, I think, missing the boat and really shortchanging 
our children by refusing to even take some small steps toward getting 
our schools in better shape. But that was cut. That program was 
terminated altogether in this legislation.
  Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities--that was cut by $15 
million. Again, youngsters who have difficulty going to school for fear 
of being shot by the drug dealers, that kind of a cut is a major 
impediment to their education.
  Education technology, another $17 million cut. You talk education 
technology, it is clear what that is; the whole idea we are going into 
this information age without allowing our youngsters to get adequately 
prepared.
  Eisenhower Professional Development, to help teachers be better 
teachers. Again, another set of cuts. This one, Eisenhower Professional 
Development, was cut by $69 million. Again, I think that is 
inappropriate.
  Then we get to the really difficult cuts. I say really difficult only 
because it hits people who are probably more in need than just about 
any other group: Homeless veterans jobs training. The homeless veterans 
job training program was cut by $5 million. How we can cut something 
for homeless veterans, in terms of job training, is a mystery to me. 
Yet that was a decision that was made as part of this rescissions 
compromise.
  Displaced worker training. With all the base closings and all the 
dislocations in our economy with job downsizing and the like, again, to 
cut displaced worker training by $67 million seemed to me to be 
inappropriate.
  Adult job training was cut, JTPA adult job training, cut by $58 
million. JTPA youth training cut by $272 million. Again, in communities 
particularly where there is less than--and there are communities in 
this country, Mr. President, and I am sure you are aware of them--in 
which there is about 1 percent--in fact I will be specific. In a 
community in the city of Chicago, in my State of Illinois, 1 percent 
private employment, 1 percent. That is economic meltdown. If we do not 
undertake some steps to provide for job training and job readiness for 
people who live in communities with 1 percent private employment in 
them we are setting ourselves up for a black hole to develop in our 
social fabric from which we may never recover. Again, those cuts, it 
seems to me, are inappropriate. And as the seal test, as that first 
step on the glidepath, seems to me to be the absolute wrong place for 
us to go.
  Interestingly, this amendment calls for an offset. Because we are all 
talking about, ``Can we pay for these things?'' The offset which would 
pay for these restorations, which the Wellstone/Moseley-Braun amendment 
suggests, comes from the administration and travel budget of the 
Department of Defense. According to the General Accounting Office, the 
DOD has that money and money to spare when it comes to administration 
and travel. Certainly, the absorption of these costs would not be 
something that would 

[[Page S10422]]
cripple the ability of our military to travel around the world.
  So it would seem, starting from the notion that there ought to be 
shared sacrifice, the amendment that Senator Wellstone and I put 
together--again I hope he will be able to talk about in the sunshine--
would have gone a long way to restoring our capacity to respond to some 
of the most vulnerable populations and respond to people who are least 
able to take the impact of the cuts of this rescission legislation.
  The second part, the second division of the amendment has to do with 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistant Program, LIHEAP. Mr. President, I 
know you probably noticed in the newspapers, in the city of Chicago in 
this last couple of weeks we had a heat wave that left almost 300 
people dead. Mr. President, 300 people died because they could not 
physically tolerate the heat that came into the city. Chicago, IL, does 
not have a cooling assistance program under LIHEAP, although those 
things are allowed. It does not have a cooling assistance program but 
it does have heating assistance. It is one thing about the city of 
Chicago, and the State really, but as beautiful as it is, it is known 
for some extremes of temperature. It can go from having 300 people die 
because there is no assistance and they are too poor to move to the 
nearby hotel into an air-conditioned room, but at the same time, come 
winter, when the temperatures fall to below zero, it is just as likely 
that in the absence of LIHEAP, in the absence of heating assistance for 
poor people, we will see the same kind of loss of life and the same 
kind of attendant tragedy.
  That is a preventable tragedy and it has been prevented over time by 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It is a program that 
provided energy assistance for heating and cooling to economically 
disadvantaged individuals, particularly senior citizens, particularly 
the elderly, in all 50 States. The LIHEAP program was cut by $319 
million in this rescissions package and I daresay, given the need for 
the assistance, particularly for senior citizens, given the 
vulnerability of these populations to die when the temperature gets 
over 100 degrees or die when it gets under 32, it was inappropriate for 
us to take that kind of cut, inappropriate for us to head on this 
glidepath, calling on them to make a sacrifice that, unfortunately, in 
all too many instances, could well be the supreme sacrifice.
  So that is what this amendment is about. I know we have 30 minutes 
tomorrow to debate this issue. I know, also, there are other things 
about this legislation that encourage my colleagues to want to move it 
quickly.
   As I stated from the beginning of this debate, I was never 
interested, no one was interested in holding up relief for California 
or relief for Oklahoma City, and those are parts of this rescissions 
legislation. So no one has been interested in doing that. But at the 
same time, for us to respond to those emergencies and at the same time 
trample over the emergency that is faced by the low-income individuals 
who have faced 62 percent of the cuts in this bill seems to me to take 
a wrong step, in the wrong direction, in the wrong way.
  So we thought it appropriate and believe it appropriate to have a 
chance to talk at length about these issues. While we will get to talk 
about it for half an hour tomorrow morning, and we will be able to pass 
the issue, there are other parts of this legislation of the rescissions 
bill that are problematic. There are some environmental issues that are 
problematic.
  But, again, we all know that part of the legislative process is that 
things that you do not like often get wrapped up in things that you do 
like. In fact, one of my colleagues a few moments ago used an 
expression that I have liked to use over the years. The expression is 
that those who love the law and who love sausages should not watch 
either of them being made. Quite frankly, this legislation, I think, 
fits into that category very well because it has a combination of some 
palatable initiatives such as California and Oklahoma City, and then an 
awful lot that would just make you, in my opinion, gag on what has 
happened here.
  Quite frankly, I think that the issue that is on fire is the one that 
we really do need to engage, an entire legislative body with everybody 
participating and talking about--the direction that our country will 
take as we try to achieve budget balance and integrity in the way we 
handle these fiscal year issues.
  Quite frankly, one of the things people ask me very often is, ``What 
do you like about being in the Senate?'' And I tell them that I cannot 
imagine--I am sure the Presiding Officer will relate to this--I cannot 
imagine a more exciting time to serve in the U.S. Senate or to serve in 
policymaking, the policy of a legislative body of our Government, 
precisely because so many of the issues that have been around for a 
long time, as well as issues that are new to our time, are now facing 
us four square and calling on us for resolution, calling on us to 
express an opinion; issues that 5 years ago did not get talked about. I 
mean, when they were building up huge budget deficits nobody really 
talked about it. What should be our foreign policy? You had a Soviet 
Union. It was pretty clear-cut. Now we have to construct something.
  What is going to be the direction in terms of diversity? We just had 
the vote on affirmative action. What kind of economy are we going to 
have in the future? All of these issues and a host more that I know I 
could stand here probably the rest of the night to talk about, all of 
these issues are before us now.
  So when it comes to specifically the issue of budget priorities, now 
is the time for us to take up that debate and not to handle it willy-
nilly. Let us get it done, kind of make those sausages faster, but in a 
way to allow us to really have a comprehensive and coherent debate and 
input from every Member of this U.S. Senate. That is what we were sent 
here to do.
  Again, to the extent that my colleagues had concern that the holding 
up of this legislation would have untold effects, I am optimistic that 
those effects will not be untold and that we will be able to go 
forward, and hopefully we will pass the Wellstone/Moseley-Braun 
amendment. I am not unrealistic about that. But I would encourage my 
colleagues to take a look at the amendment, a serious look at the 
amendment, recognizing that we have to have deep and painful cuts in 
some regards.
  But the question I put to every Member as you take up the issue of 
how to vote on this amendment to the rescissions bill is whether or not 
low-income individuals should have to suffer 62 percent of that pain. I 
do not think they do. And I hope that is not the signal and the message 
that gets sent by this body tomorrow when we take this issue up to 
vote.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
                       Substitute Salvage Program

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my serious concerns 
about H.R. 1944, the fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill. I'll get right 
to the point: this is a bad bill. Its relevance to the budget process 
in Washington, DC, is minimal, and its relevance to the American people 
is marginal.
  This bill cuts $16 billion from the Federal budget. We recently 
passed a resolution that cut over $1 trillion; what's the logic in even 
debating this bill? We have only a few days left in the fiscal year, 
and yet we are proposing to go back and cut already-appropriated funds 
for virtually no good policy reason. This bill cuts commitments and 
goes back on promises made by this Senate less than 1 year ago.
  This bill has another problem. I believe the language about timber 
salvage included in the bill by my colleague, the senior Senator from 
Washington, will backfire. I believe it will hurt--not help--timber 
communities and workers in the Northwest.
  Mr. President, this timber salvage authorizing language is designed 
to accomplish three things: respond to a timber salvage problem 
resulting from last year's forest fires and recent insect infestations; 
speed the rate of timber sales under the President's forest plan, 
option 9; and release a few timber sales remaining from legislation 
passed by Congress 4 years ago.
  These are goals with which I agree. My problem is with the method. I 
believe the language contained in this bill will cause a blizzard of 
lawsuits, cause political turmoil within the Northwest, and take us 
right back to where we were 4 years ago.

[[Page S10423]]

  Our region has been at the center of a war over trees fought in the 
courtrooms and Congress for almost a decade. We have a history of 
waiving environmental laws to try and solve timber problems; that 
strategy has not worked.
  In fact, that strategy has made the situation worse. Until 1993, the 
Forest Service was paralyzed by lawsuits, the courts were managing the 
forests, and public discourse in the region was dominated by acrimony. 
The language in this bill will reopen those old wounds. Mr. President, 
I strongly
 believe that would not be in the best interest of the region.

  During floor consideration of this bill last spring, I offered an 
amendment that would have taken a more moderate approach to salvage 
operations. My amendment was narrowly defeated 46-48. I respect the 
will of the Senate in that regard. However, when the rescissions bill 
reached the President's desk, he vetoed it, citing among other things 
problems with the timber language.
  Mr. President, I learned before the July recess that a deal was being 
worked out on this issue. Despite my obvious interest in and concern 
about the salvage issue, I was not involved in the negotiations. I was 
not consulted during the process. Had I been, I would have been more 
than willing to work out a compromise in good faith. Unfortunately, 
that did not happen. I have reviewed the language, and frankly, I still 
have very serious concerns.
  The language in the bill before us is almost exactly the same as was 
contained in the conference report vetoed by the President, with three 
minor changes. While these changes may add flexibility, the fundamental 
problems in the bill remain: it rolls over current laws governing land 
management, and it cuts the public completely out of the process. 
Therefore, I cannot support it.
  Mr. President, there is a legitimate salvage issue right now 
throughout the West. Last year's fire season was one of the worst ever. 
There are hundreds of thousands of acres with burned trees rotting 
where they burned. I believe that many of these trees can and should be 
salvaged and put to good public use.
  I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to salvage damaged 
timber on Federal lands. The wrong way is to short-cut environmental 
checks and balances. The wrong way is to cut people out of the process. 
The wrong way is to invite a mountain of lawsuits.
  The right way is to expedite compliance with the law. The right way 
is to ensure that agencies work together and make correct decisions 
quickly. The right way is to let people participate in the process--so 
they don't clog up the courts later. My amendment, and my approach to 
the negotiations,
 would have focused on these points.

  Mr. President, there is a reasonable, responsible approach to 
ensuring salvage operations move forward. Unfortunately, the bill 
before us doesn't take it. Instead, it recklessly goes too far, too 
fast.
  Attaching a major harvesting amendment to an appropriations bill like 
this--worked out at the last minute, behind closed doors--is no way to 
make good public policy. Instead, the timber language should be 
developed through the normal authorizing process. The Senator from 
Idaho [Mr. Craig], has a bill pending in his committee that would 
establish a forest health program. There have been some hearings on 
that bill, and I have already stated my interest in working with him on 
his bill.
  Mr. President, there have been numerous editorials and articles 
written about this provision, most of which have urged the President 
and the Congress to reject these sweeping changes. In addition, recent 
statistics on employment and growth rates within the timber industry 
indicate the picture of the industry is not as bleak as some have 
predicted. I ask unanimous consent to insert some of these materials in 
the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. In summary, I believe this is the wrong bill at the 
wrong time. The Senate has passed its own balanced budget resolution, 
and recently passed the conference report. The cuts in this rescissions 
bill are paltry by comparison. And the timber salvage provisions go too 
far without adequate safeguards and public participation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary, harmful bill.
                               Exhibit 1

  WESTERN STATES GAIN 14,251 IN TIMBER JOBS--JANUARY 1993--SPRING 1995  
                             [In thousands]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Timber related jobs      
                                        --------------------------------
                 States                   January    December  April/May
                                            1993       1994       1995  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah...................................      3,863      5.131  .........
Washington.............................     51,700  .........     54,700
Oregon.................................     61,200  .........     61,600
New Mexico.............................      2,100      2,100  .........
Colorado...............................     10,400  .........     12,100
Arizona................................      6,400  .........      8,500
Idaho..................................     16,017  .........     16,500
California.............................     84,400  .........     90,600
Montana................................      8,000  .........      7,100
                                        --------------------------------
    Totals.............................    244,080      7,231    251,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       These figures are based on the most current data available 
     from state economists. The numbers represent job losses or 
     gains in the lumber, wood manufacturing, paper and allied 
     industries.
       The net gain in timber jobs since the 1992 elections for 
     these eight western states is 14,251 jobs. There is no need 
     for salvage sufficiency language.
                                                                    ____


            [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 1995]

                    Clinton's Veto the Right Action

       President Clinton has done the right thing in vetoing a 
     bill that made the wrong cuts in the budget and left too much 
     leeway for cheating in salvage timber sales in the Northwest.
       The president said it's wrong to cut education programs but 
     to fund members of Congress' pet pork-barrel projects such as 
     roads. The bill cut $16.4 billion from previously approved 
     social programs.
       ``We must recognize that the only deficit in this country 
     is not the budget deficit. There's a deficit in this country 
     in the number of drug-free children. There's a deficit . . . 
     in the number of safe schools. There's an education 
     deficit,'' he said in wielding the pen for his first veto.
       It took perhaps even more courage for the president to set 
     himself up for cheap-shot charges by Northwest Republican 
     lawmakers that he is anti-job because he insists that the 
     nation's forests be harvested under rule of law. But there 
     are sure to be further attempts to circumvent proper 
     practices, and Clinton should stand tall against them.
       The bill, using poorly defined criteria, would have given 
     the timber industry three penalty-free years to remove 
     ``damaged'' trees that pose a fire threat. The trees would 
     have been removed without the benefit of the standard 
     environmental safeguards that are meant to protect salmon 
     streams and watersheds, and citizens would have been legally 
     barred from filing suit to object to any violation of 
     environmentally sound harvesting no matter how gross.
       The salvage program must get under way, and Congress is 
     perfectly capable of passing legislation that provides for 
     responsible removal of trees that pose a fire hazard without 
     abandong environmental safeguards.
       But by sending the White House an irresponsible proposal 
     for timber salvage, Congress has thrown away valuable time 
     and risked further fire losses in the Northwest woods.
       Members of this state's delegation should have insisted on 
     using their time to prepare an acceptable plan for this 
     summer's fire season rather than in devising a political 
     booby-trap for the president.
                                                                    ____

                          Logging Bill Flawed

       A case can be made for salvage logging of some federal 
     forest lands that have a dangerous accumulation of dead or 
     diseased trees that pose a fire hazard.
       But a case cannot be made for the sweeping salvage-logging 
     proposal now under consideration in Congress that sets aside 
     environmental safeguards and promises to raid the treasury 
     for the benefit of private timber companies.
       The overly broad language of the bill renders it 
     unacceptable; more important, existing law makes it 
     unnecessary.
       The bill arbitrarily mandates a doubling of the amount of 
     timber to be felled over the next two years from federal 
     lands, whether or not that much timber needs to be salvaged, 
     and thus opens the door for a giveaway of public property.
       That's because it cleverly stipulates that no so-called 
     ``health management activities'' directed by the legislation 
     shall be precluded simply because they cost more than the 
     revenues derived from sale of the salvaged timber.
       And the bill says that any environmental review, however 
     cursory it may be, ``shall be deemed to have satisfied the 
     law.''
       Sponsors wrongly imply that the bill is needed to permit 
     the Forest Service to conduct salvage logging. But Sierra 
     Club attorney Todd True notes, ``Existing law already gives 
     the agency authority'' for whatever salvage logging it deems 
     necessary due to threat of fire and insect infestations.
       Last summer's huge, costly fires in Eastern Washington 
     forests provided clear evidence of the folly of the Forest 
     Service's past policy of suppressing natural wildfires. It 

[[Page S10424]]
     bears noting that the agency followed that practice partly to protect 
     adjoining commercial timberlands.
       If Congress doesn't gut the Forest Service's budget for 
     environmental impact studies, those important reviews can be 
     done in a timely manner and permit defensible salvage-logging 
     operations.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1995]

   The Logger's Ax: No Wild Swings--Clinton Should Hold Firm Against 
                    Amendment That Threatens Forests

       In the early days of his presidency, Bill Clinton 
     productively approached the volatile issue of forest 
     management by breaking with the tired ``jobs versus owls'' 
     rhetoric of past years. Through his 1993 Forest Summit he 
     showed he understood both the need to preserve dwindling 
     federal forests and the painful dislocations that new limits 
     on logging would cause. He led by talking with all sides and 
     instituting programs to retrain displaced workers. But now, 
     locked in battle with congressional Republicans, Clinton 
     seems to be in danger of abandoning that principled approach.
       Last month he rightly vetoed a congressional recisions bill 
     that was loaded with special-interest riders. One of them, 
     the deceptive ``Emergency Two-Year Salvage Timber Sale 
     Program,'' in essence would have ordered the U.S. Forest 
     Service to sell as much as 3.2 billion board feet of 
     ``salvage'' timber from national forests. It would have 
     allowed logging of trees killed by windstorms, fire, insects 
     or disease and permitted selective thinning of forests to 
     control forest fires. The legislation, pushed hard by timber 
     companies, also would have forced the Forest Service to sell 
     twice as many trees as it felt appropriate. Further, these 
     sales would have been exempt from environmental review and 
     public comment. Worst of all, the language was so vague that 
     virtually any tree, living or dead, standing or fallen, could 
     have been defined as ``salvage,'' even the dwindling stands 
     of old-growth redwoods in California's national forests. For 
     these reasons Clinton should stick to his guns as Republicans 
     seek to include this nasty amendment in a compromise 
     recisions package. The President reportedly is considering 
     accepting it.
       Even the staid Sunset Magazine highlights a special report 
     entitled ``The Crisis in Our Forests'' in its current issue. 
     Sunset doubts that stepped-up salvage operations would 
     markedly improve forest health or prevent the spread of 
     wildfires.
       The salvage amendment has nothing to do with cutting 
     wasteful government spending but everything to do with 
     wasteful cutting. The President must hold firm--the amendment 
     must go.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Washington Post, May 3, 1995]

                             Chopping Block

       It isn't just spending that would be cut by the bills the 
     House and Senate passed a month ago rescinding appropriations 
     for the current fiscal year. A fair amount of timber would 
     likely be cut, too--cut down, that is. Each version of the 
     bill includes a rider aimed at sharply increasing the timber 
     harvest this year and next in the federal forests.
       If the riders did no more than urge an increase in the 
     harvest or order that the harvest be as large as possible 
     under the law, that would be fair enough. There's always a 
     great dispute about the amount of timber that can best be 
     taken from the national forests and other public lands. The 
     total the past few years has been well below the level to 
     which the industry became accustomed in the 1970s and 1980s. 
     The timber lobby says the cut should be increased--it argues 
     among much else that there is currently an enormous amount of 
     dead and dying timber in the forest that will otherwise go to 
     waste--and the new majority in Congress agrees.
       But the riders don't stop there. To make sure that no 
     obstacles in the form of conservation laws, environmental 
     groups and courts can stand in the way, they also take the 
     extraordinary step of suspending for the purpose of this 
     ``salvage timber sale'' the entire array of federal forest 
     management and environmental statutes that might otherwise 
     apply. Timbering undertaken under terms of the riders ``shall 
     be deemed to satisfy'' such laws no matter what their 
     requirements, the riders say. The House version also seeks to 
     overcome any existing court orders that might interfere with 
     the sale; it says the sale can be conducted despite them.
       The industry says the reason for all this is not just that 
     it wants to increase the cut and has a receptive Congress but 
     that an emergency exists in the forests. Because they are so 
     overgrown, there's a greatly increased danger of fire, and 
     their health has declined in other ways that a stepped-up 
     salvage operation will help to cure--so say the supporters. 
     They add that without suspension of the laws, environmental 
     groups will go to court and block the necessary actions.
       Opponents of the riders, including the administration, say 
     the necessary salvage cutting can go on without suspension of 
     the laws--a lot of salvage cutting occurs every year 
     already--and that suspension would only be a license to log 
     where otherwise the companies could not, in ways that would 
     leave the forests less healthy, not more.
       The opponents make the more plausible case. This is grabby 
     legislation. If there is a genuine need to increase salvage 
     and other such operations in the forests, even to increase 
     them rapidly, surely that can be done without abandoning the 
     entire framework of supporting law. Likewise, if Congress 
     wants to change the law with regard to management of the 
     forests, it ought to do so in the normal way, not tack a 
     decision of such importance on the back of a supplemental 
     appropriations bill. The measure is shortly to go to 
     conference; the conferees should cut the budget, not the 
     trees.
                                                                    ____

                  [From the Denver Post, May 8, 1995]

                    Clinton Should Veto Timber Bill

       President Bill Clinton should veto a timber measure because 
     the proposal is bad environmental policy and a shoddy way to 
     make federal law.
       The timber proposal is buried in a larger measure that 
     deals with trimming federal spending. Clinton compromised 
     with Senate Republicans to make the rescissions bill, as the 
     main measure is called, less draconian than the first version 
     adopted by the U.S. House.
       However, the larger bill has been burdened with a bunch of 
     special-interests, anti-environmental provisions. The worst 
     would let logging companies cut an enormous amount of extra 
     timber from the national forests. Gluing such harvesting 
     proposals onto an already complex and controversial measure 
     is a deceitful way to mold federal law, so they all should be 
     removed from the bill.
       Actually, the Senate would have stripped the timbering 
     portions from the measure weeks ago, except Ben Nighthorse 
     Campbell, Colorado's junior U.S. senator, deserted his 
     moderate environmental leanings and voted to keep the logging 
     provisions in the main bill. Coloradans who had hoped 
     Campbell would remain an independent voice even after he 
     changed from a Democrat into a Republican were sorely 
     disappointed by his partisan performance on this matter.
       There are ways to cut timber, including methods to salvage 
     lumber from dead or dying trees, without severely damaging 
     the forests. But this measure is especially troubling because 
     it tosses aside most environmental considerations the Forest 
     Service usually weighs before deciding how much logging to 
     allow.
       When the rescissions bill lands on Clinton's desk, the 
     President should veto it because of the timber and other 
     environmental provisions. When Congress votes whether to 
     override the veto, Campbell this time should side with common 
     sense instead of letting his new partisan allies dictate his 
     behavior.
                                                                    ____

 Shift in U.S. Timber Policy Puts Forests, Fish and Wildlife at Risk--
            Congress moves too fast, with too little thought

       The pendulum in the nation's timber policy is swinging too 
     fast and too wide.
       The public has become accustomed--dazed may be the correct 
     term--to the daily headlines of sharply revised public policy 
     on welfare, immigration, food programs and more.
       But the sudden shift in federal timber policy is more than 
     even the most blase citizen may be able to accept.
       The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee has followed the 
     House's lead in opening big areas of our national forests to 
     harvesting without the normal regulations to protect fish, 
     wildlife and the environment and without allowing the public 
     to bring legal challenges.
       The committee-passed proposal directs the forest service to 
     set aside existing environmental laws. Although the original 
     intent of the legislation was to speed up the salvage of dead 
     and dying timber, this measure may go beyond that. It gives 
     sole discretion to the Forest Service to harvest wherever it 
     wants. Only designated wilderness areas are off-limits.
       No one can be sure what forests and what areas might be 
     subject to harvesting--or how carefully it would be done.
       The public will not stand by and watch the years of 
     protecting our forests against environmental damage be wiped 
     out in a spurt of action by a Congress that has so many pro-
     harvest allies in its midst.
       Our forests can be harvested without damage to our 
     environment. But doing so requires more scientific and 
     technical thought than Congress appears willing to devote. 
     The final protection against abuse is the legal system. If 
     that access also is prohibited, then all of us should worry.
       Citizens should demand that Congress slow down and remember 
     its stewardship duties to the public land.
       Narrowly focused salvage harvesting is acceptable. 
     Abandoning our traditions of environmental protection and 
     legal accountability is not.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1944, the 
revised emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill for 
fiscal year 1995.
  It is time for Congress to complete this bill and provide the 
emergency disaster assistance that is needed in at least 40 States to 
respond to natural disasters.
  It is time to complete action on the rescissions in the bill so that 
agencies can close out the fiscal year, and Congress can address the 
funding issues for the new fiscal year. The Senate will be turning to 
the fiscal year 1996 funding bills this week.
  I am pleased that the President will support this bill. It provides 
funding 

[[Page S10425]]
the administration requested to respond to the tragic bombing in 
Oklahoma City and to carry out a proposed counterterrorism initiative.
  Mr. President, the bill before us will save $15.3 billion in budget 
authority and $0.6 billion in outlays from the current fiscal year 
through the rescissions in the bill. As chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
relationship of the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee's 
budget allocation be placed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                H.R. 1944, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSIONS                               
                             [Fiscal year 1995, in millions of dollars, CBO scoring]                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Current                    Subcommittee    Senate 602(b)                   Total comp to
     Subcommittee      status\1\   H.R. 1994\2\        total        allocation                      allocation  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture--RD......  BA                 58,117             -82          58,035          58,118             -83
                       OT                 50,330             -30          50,300          50,330             -30
Commerce--Justice\3\.  BA                 26,693            -290          26,403          26,903            -500
                       OT                 25,387             -99          25,288          25,429            -141
Defense..............  BA                241,008             -50         240,958         243,630          -2,672
                       OT                249,560             -38         249,522         250,713          -1,191
District of Columbia.  BA                    712               -             712             720              -8
                       OT                    714               -             714             722              -8
Energy--Water........  BA                 20,293            -234          20,059          20,493            -434
                       OT                 20,784             -52          20,732          20,749             -17
Foreign Operations...  BA                 13,537            -117          13,654          13,830            -176
                       OT                 13,762            -241          14,003          14,005              -2
Interior.............  BA                 13,577            -282          13,295          13,582            -287
                       OT                 13,968             -79          13,889          13,970             -81
Labor--HHS\4\........  BA                265,870          -2,520         263,350         266,170          -2,820
                       OT                265,718            -212         265,506         265,731            -225
Legislative Branch...  BA                  2,459             -17           2,443           2,460             -17
                       OT                  2,472             -12           2,459           2,472             -13
Military Construction  BA                  8,735               -           8,735           8,837            -102
                       OT                  8,519               -           8,519           8,519              -0
Transportation.......  BA                 14,193          -2,624          11,568          14,275          -2,707
                       OT                 37,085             -22          37,063          37,072              -9
Treasury--Postal\5\..  BA                 23,589            -639          22,950          23,757            -807
                       OT                 24,221             -40          24,181          24,225             -44
VA--HUD..............  BA                 89,891          -8,354          81,537          90,257          -8,720
                       OT                 92,438            -126          92,312          92,439            -127
Reserve..............  BA         ..............            -325            -325           2,311          -2,636
                       OT         ..............            -130            -130               1            -131
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total            BA                778,674         -15,300         763,374         785,343         -21,969
       appropriations                                                                                           
       \6\.                                                                                                     
                       OT                804,957            -600         804,358         806,377         -2,019 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,905 million in budget authority
  and $7,442 million in outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President   
  and the Congress, and $841 million in budget authority and $917 million in outlays for emergencies that would 
  be available only upon an official budget request from the President designating the entire amount as an      
  emergency requirement.                                                                                        
\2\In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, these totals do not include $3,455 million in budget authority
  and $443 million in outlays in funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and/
  or the Congress.                                                                                              
\3\Of the amounts remaining under the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $17.1 million in budget
  authority and $1.2 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
\4\Of the amounts remaining under the Labor-HHS Subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, $27.0 million in budget       
  authority and $5.8 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund                                                                                                    
\5\Of the amounts remaining under the Treasury -Postal Subcommittees 602(b) allocation, $1.3 million in budget  
  authority and $0.1 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
\6\Of the amounts remaining under the Appropriations Committee's 602(a) allocation, $68.8 million in budget     
  authority and $9.9 million in outlays is available only for appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction   
  Trust Fund.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
 Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                          

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has another 11 
minutes 33 seconds left.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 11 minutes 32 seconds available.

                          ____________________