[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9450-S9485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, there 
will be 90 minutes, equally divided, on the pending business before the 
Senate. In addition, there are no second-degree amendments to be in 
order.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire, does it require a unanimous 
consent to set aside the pending amendment for purposes of 
consideration of this proposed amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1205

       (Purpose: To reduce funding for Forest Service road 
     construction and eliminate the purchaser credit program)

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and submit it for 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1205.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 65, line 18, strike ``$160,269,000'' and insert 
     ``$150,269,000''.
       On page 65, line 23, after ``205'' insert ``, none of which 
     amount shall be available for purchaser credits in connection 
     with timber sales advertised after September 30, 1997, unless 
     the credits were earned in connection with sales advertised 
     on or before that date (and no purchaser credits shall be 
     earned for the construction or reconstruction of roads on the 
     National Forest transportation system in connection with 
     timber sales advertised after that date (but the foregoing 
     disallowance of purchaser credits shall not affect the 
     availability of the purchaser election under section 14(i) of 
     the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     472a(i)))''.
       On page 127, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC.  . TREATMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS ESTIMATED FOR 
                   TIMBER SALES AS MONEY RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE 
                   OF PAYMENTS TO THE STATES FOR SCHOOLS AND 
                   ROADS.

       During fiscal year 1998, the term ``money received'', for 
     the purposes of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
     fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and 
     nine'', approved May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, chapter 192; 16 
     U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the act of March 1, 1911 (36 
     Stat. 963, chapter 186; 16 U.S.C. 500), shall include--
       (1) the amount of purchaser credits earned in connection 
     with timber sales advertised on or before September 30, 1997; 
     and
       (2) the amount of specified road construction costs 
     estimated in the agency appraisal process in connection with 
     timber sales advertised after that date.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am always pleased, when I have the 
opportunity, as I do this afternoon, to support, and in this instance 
actually propose, legislation that benefits both the American taxpayer 
and the environment.
  The amendment I am offering today eliminates a subsidy used primarily 
by large timber companies that not only has negative consequences for 
the taxpayers but also a detrimental effect on the environment.
  Each year, American taxpayers spend millions of dollars to subsidize 
the construction of roads needed for logging on national forest lands.

[[Page S9451]]

  The appropriations bill before us today contains a $47.4 million 
appropriation for the Forest Service to assist in the construction and 
reconstruction of timber roads in our national forests. In addition, 
the bill, and accompanying report, provide affirmative direction to the 
Forest Service instructing them to continue the purchaser credit 
program without limitation.
  The purchaser credit program allows the Forest Service to subsidize 
the road construction costs of timber companies by granting credits to 
them equal to the estimated cost of the roads that they need in order 
to access their timber. The timber purchasers can then use the credits 
to pay for the timber being harvested. Last year these purchaser 
credits were valued at nearly $50 million.
  In the House-passed version of the Interior appropriations bill a 
limit of $25 billion was placed on the value of purchaser credits that 
may be offered by the Forest Service in fiscal year 1998. The bill 
before the Senate today eliminates this cap completely, and the report 
accompanying the bill makes it clear that ``The committee has not 
specified a ceiling for the amount of purchaser credits which can be 
offered'' to timber companies. The result of this language is an open-
ended subsidy for the timber industry.
  My amendment stands for a very simple proposition. If a timber 
purchaser needs to build a road to harvest timber, the timber purchaser 
should have to pay for it. The amendment which I am offering eliminates 
the purchaser credit program and cuts $10 million from the Forest 
Service timber road construction and reconstruction account.
  In addition, my amendment provides that road construction costs 
incurred by timber purchasers are to be treated as timber revenues for 
the purpose of payment to States for use on roads and schools in the 
counties where national forests are located. The result of this latter 
provision is that counties will be held harmless as a result of the 
elimination of the purchaser credit program.
  For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with this program, 
let me give a brief description of how the purchaser credit program 
operates. When the Forest Service wants to use purchaser credits to 
build the road to a planned timber sale, and parenthetically that is 
about 90 percent of the time, it must estimate the cost to build the 
road, the value of the timber in the sale area, and the road right-of-
way. Prospective purchasers go through a similar process of estimating 
their roadbuilding costs and their estimated value of the timber they 
must pay for to the Forest Service.
  Considering all of these factors, the prospective purchasers submit 
their bids accordingly. When a purchaser is awarded the contract for 
the timber sale the Forest Service establishes the dollar value of the 
purchaser road credit attached to that sale and credits the account in 
that amount to the timber contract holder as the road is constructed. 
The contractor, therefore, has immediate access to the credits to be 
used in place of cash deposits and the agency, the purchaser, is also 
given discretion to use the credit on any timber sale contract that it 
holds in the forest. The Forest Service allows the transfer of 
purchaser credits between timber sales located within the same national 
forest.
  Now the ability to transfer credits aids a purchaser's ability to 
manage its timber sale portfolio cash flow. Since road construction 
often delays timber harvest, purchasers who can rapidly transfer road 
credits to another sale from their portfolio can attain lower portfolio 
management costs. The result is analogous to an interest-free loan for 
timber purchasers.
  The opponents of this amendment contend eliminating the purchaser 
road credit will devastate the timber industry. Their claim could not 
be further from the truth. The Bureau of Land Management in several 
States is successful at selling timber and getting the necessary roads 
constructed without the use of the purchaser road credit that is 
exclusive to the Forest Service. The effects on the Forest Service 
timber sale program of eliminating the purchaser credit program and 
requiring that roads be constructed pursuant to specified standards as 
the BLM and the States require would be environmentally and 
economically beneficial.
  Eliminating road credits will force purchasers to internalize the 
cost of road construction into their bid price for the timber. The 
result is a more balanced system that provides equal treatment for all 
purchasers of publicly owned timber, BLM and Forest Service lands. 
Without the purchaser credit program it is likely that fewer roads 
would be built and less habitat would be fragmented. Purchasers are 
less likely to want to build extensive road networks if they have to 
pay cash for them.
  Consequently, timber sales with high road building costs will be less 
attractive to purchasers than timber sales with low or no road building 
costs.
  Another important aspect of eliminating the purchaser credit program 
is that it will shift responsibility for estimating road costs from the 
Forest Service to purchasers. If markets are competitive, such a shift 
should provide a more accurate and an efficient road cost accounting 
system.
  An independent study of timber sales in the Pacific Northwest found 
that the Forest Service estimates for road construction costs can be as 
much as 30 percent higher than actual costs for the industry to build 
those roads. A recent report from the General Accounting Office 
discovered that Forest Service estimates of road costs include a profit 
margin for purchasers. It also found that the Forest Service lacked 
accountability for the accuracy of their road cost estimates because 
purchasers are not required to report actual costs of construction and 
reconstruction. So if actual road costs are overestimated, the extra 
purchaser credits awarded and subsequently traded for timber represent 
a windfall profit for the purchaser, a profit that comes at the 
public's expense. This inefficient situation would be eliminated if 
purchaser credits were abolished.

  Contrary to what you will hear from my opponents of this proposal, my 
amendment will not end logging in the national forests. Requiring 
timber purchasers to pay for road construction costs will likely reduce 
timber sales in roadless areas where the environmental and economic 
costs of logging are the greatest. I believe this is sound public 
policy. Roadless areas are not good places to produce commercial timber 
because they tend to be a high elevation, steep, and inaccessible. The 
timber sales in these areas are the ones that cause by far the most 
environmental problems and the ones which are the biggest money losers 
because of the high cost of road building.
  Let me invite my colleagues' attention to an excellent article 
entitled ``Quiet Roads Bring in Thundering Protests,'' an article that 
ran earlier this year in the New York Times that illustrated the 
environmental damage caused by road construction. A biologist with the 
Idaho Fish and Game Department, Chip Corsi, notes in the article that 
researchers have found that as little as 1.7 miles of road per square 
mile forest have the effect of reducing the complement of fish species 
in an area. Mr. Corsi added that in Idaho, in Coeur d'Alene National 
Forest we have from 4 to 10 to 15, up to 20 miles of road per square 
mile, so it is extreme. That is his direct quote.
  Many scientists have found that road building threatens wildlife 
because it causes erosions of soils, fragments intact forest 
ecosystems, encourages the spread of noxious weeds and invasive species 
and reduces habitat for many animals needing a refuge from man.
  It has been found that when the roads wash out they dump rocks and 
soil on lower slopes into stream beds and even when they remain intact, 
roads act as channels for water and contribute further to the erosion 
of lands and streams.
  Let me invite my colleagues' attention to one example of that. This 
is the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. At the top of the picture 
one can see a road cut through the forest. This is the erosion that has 
occurred as a result of a road having been logged and the runoff 
sedimentation that has occurred as a consequence of that. That is a 
major contributing problem to the environmental degradation that is 
occurring in our national forests.
  Scientists say the overall effect is that the streams and rivers fill 
with silt, and the shallower waters mean degraded fish habitat and more 
flooding. Many of my colleagues are aware that

[[Page S9452]]

the declining water quality of lakes, rivers, and streams in our 
national forests is a serious problem.
  The USDA Undersecretary Jim Lyons has stated that our No. 1 water 
quality problem in the national forest system is roads. According to 
the Forest Service, 922 communities get their drinking waters from 
national forest streams that are frequently adversely affected by 
building logging roads. In Idaho, over 960 streams are rated as water-
quality limited by the EPA because of contamination. Over half of these 
streams are degraded by logging and roadbuilding. In addition, after 
the winter storms of 1995 and 1996 in the Pacific Northwest, the Forest 
Service found that in Idaho 70 percent of the 422 landslides were 
associated with logging.
  In my home State of Nevada, the road network through Lake Tahoe has 
been identified as a major contributor to the degradation of water 
quality and decline in the clarity of the lake. Mr. President, I know 
this firsthand, having spent a decade of my life as a resident of 
northern Nevada and having over the last 50 years visited the Lake 
Tahoe basin frequently.
  During the President and Vice President's recent visit to Lake Tahoe 
the President announced that the Forest Service would decommission or 
obliterate roughly 290 miles of old logging roads in the basin over the 
next 10 years.
  At Lake Tahoe, Mr. President, we have seen a rapid and radical 
decline in water clarity. One of the most pristine lakes in North 
America and the entire world, marveled at by Mark Twain and all of the 
early pioneers at one time, a little more than a decade ago, you could 
see 100 feet into the bottom of parts of that lake. In less than 30 
years there has been an environmental degradation of more than a third. 
So today you can actually see, in terms of clarity of the water, less 
than 70 feet. A primary cause is the logging of that basin, initially 
during the Comstock Lode and the mining discoveries of the mid-to-late 
19th century.
  I observed firsthand, not as a scientist but as a layman, looking at 
the roads and seeing the runoff that occurs. The siltation that occurs, 
that goes into the lake, has been a serious environmental problem. It 
has been estimated that it will require several hundred millions of 
dollars in order for this clarity and the environmental degradation 
that is occurring on an ongoing basis to be reversed. There are no 
guarantees, even at that.

  My point, Mr. President, is we may have been ignorant in the past as 
to what caused the problems. Those of our forebears a century ago were 
less knowledgeable than we are of the environmental consequences. But 
it certainly cannot be an excuse for our generation because we know 
what the costs are, and the costs are not just in the new road 
construction itself. The costs lasts for generations thereafter as we 
pay as American taxpayers to try to abate or minimize or mitigate the 
damage that will occur.
  Now, opponents of this amendment will claim that forest roads need 
money to be maintained and that the cuts contained in my amendment will 
allow roads to deteriorate, causing further environmental damage. I 
want to speak to this point. The amendment which I offer does not 
affect the Forest Service road maintenance budget. I want to repeat 
that: The amendment which is offered this afternoon does not affect the 
Forest Service road maintenance budget. This amendment only eliminates 
the subsidy of new timber roads. These are entirely separately funded 
accounts within the Forest System.
  As a matter of public policy, I would argue it makes more sense to 
maintain roads that we already have than spending a great deal of money 
building new roads. Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck has stated 
that there is a $440 million backlog of maintenance needed on 232,000 
miles of national forest roads. Addressing this need would have 
considerable environmental benefits such as reducing erosion from roads 
and stormproofing existing culverts. It is important to remember that 
the timber industry's responsibility for maintaining logging roads ends 
with the sale of timber and its subsequent harvest, leaving all future 
maintenance costs to the American taxpayer.
  I want to emphasize once again, as I did a moment ago, the 
distinction between road reconstruction and road maintenance. Opponents 
of this amendment will seek to measure the distinction but road 
construction means starting with an abandoned road which may have trees 
growing in it and may be partly contoured and rebuilding it for the 
purpose of entering an area to conduct logging activities.
  Reconstruction is only undertaken for access to timber sales. 
Maintenance is keeping any forest road, timber, recreation, or general 
purpose, in good repair. The average cost of maintaining a mile of road 
is about $543. The average cost of reconstructing a mile of road is 
more than $12,000 a mile. Consequently, cutting funds for 
reconstruction will not hurt road maintenance.
  Now, another erroneous claim I want to address involves whether 
logging roads are needed for recreational activities in the national 
forest. The answer, Mr. President, is no. According to the Forest 
Service, logging roads are built at a lower standard and cost less than 
recreation and general purpose roads. Logging roads are usually unpaved 
dirt and are often usable only by high-clearance vehicles, while 
recreation and general purpose roads generally are either paved or 
gravel and are usable by all passenger cars.
  On average, purchaser credit logging roads cost $15,000 per mile in 
1996, while recreation roads cost $63,000, and general purpose roads 
cost $65,000 per mile. The Forest Service plans to construct over 130 
miles of recreation and general purpose roads in fiscal year 1998. My 
amendment would not reduce funding for either of these two accounts.
  Mr. President, let me be perfectly clear on what my amendment does 
not do. It does not--I repeat, it does not--prohibit logging or road 
construction in roadless areas. There is no provision in this amendment 
that even references roadless areas. Many interest groups opposed to 
this amendment have circulated erroneous information claiming that road 
construction would be prohibited in roadless areas. I can assure my 
colleagues that is not the case. In any event, roadless areas are only 
a small portion of the timber base in our national forests, and the 
national forests provide only 4 percent of the Nation's overall wood 
for paper products.
  Let me illustrate that point, if I may, Mr. President. One can see 
what has occurred in terms of the timber harvest in the country and on 
the national forests. This chart begins in 1950 and continues through 
1995. We can see that the overall U.S. timber harvest, both national 
forests and otherwise, has by and large increased over the last 45 
years. It would appear to be in the area of about 18 billion cubic feet 
a year. You can also see what happened with respect to the national 
forests. The amount that is harvested there has been declining in 
recent years, and I believe that is because there is a recognition that 
there are other important values that the National Forest Service 
provides to the American people: recreational opportunities, esthetic 
values, habitat protection, all of which seem to be reflected in this 
trend line.
  So my point is that the National Forest Service timber harvest 
represents about 4 percent of the Nation's overall harvest and, in my 
view, will not have an economic consequence that will, in any way, make 
it impossible for the United States to meet its harvest requirements.
  Now, my amendment does not eliminate all funding for timber road 
construction either. A similar amendment was offered in the House by 
Congressman Porter and Congressman Kennedy, which would have eliminated 
virtually all funding for timber road construction. That amendment, 
incidentally, was very, very narrowly defeated on a vote of 211 to 209. 
Let me make the point again. The Porter-Kennedy amendment would have 
eliminated virtually all funding for new timber road construction.
  My amendment would reduce the amount of the current appropriation, as 
proposed, by $10 million, reducing it from a $47.4 million budget. 
Opponents of this amendment are somewhat disingenuous when they claim 
that it will decimate the timber road construction program.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to make my colleagues aware that this

[[Page S9453]]

amendment has the strong support of the Clinton administration. I want 
to introduce into the Record a copy of the letter from the Secretary of 
the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Dan Glickman.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     Hon. Richard H. Bryan,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dick: As we discussed on the phone last night, the 
     Administration strongly supports the amendment you plan to 
     offer to the fiscal year (FY) 1998 Interior appropriations 
     bill to eliminate the Forest Service's purchaser road credit 
     program and reduce funding for road construction in the 
     national forests.
       There are nearly 380,000 miles of roads on the national 
     forests. Roads represent one of the greatest environmental 
     problems on the forests because of the extensive damage they 
     cause to soils, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. 
     A recent Forest Service study indicated that forest roads 
     increase the likelihood of landslides, thus creating a public 
     safety problem in urbanizing areas in the West. For these 
     reasons, rather than building new roads, the Administration 
     is refocusing its efforts on repairing damage from the 
     existing road network, eliminating thousands of miles of 
     unneeded roads, and proposing the policies reflected in your 
     amendment.
       The President's FY 1998 budget proposed elimination of the 
     purchaser credit program because it reflects an outdated 
     policy that permits timber purchasers to exchange national 
     forest timber for road construction costs, providing them an 
     unwarranted subsidy, thus facilitating entry into roadless 
     areas and causing the environmental problems noted above.
       Consistent with the Administration's policy, we support the 
     provisions in your amendment to protect payments to counties 
     and small businesses. Purchaser road credits are now included 
     in the calculation of payments to counties associated with 
     timber sales. Your amendment ensures that there is no net 
     loss of payments to counties despite elimination of purchaser 
     credits. In addition, through protection of the purchaser 
     elect program, your amendment ensures that small businesses 
     which may not have the capital to pay for road construction 
     can continue to compete with larger companies for Forest 
     Service timber sales.
       Although the $10 million reduction in road construction 
     funding proposed in your amendment is below the 
     Administration's budget request, through efficiencies and the 
     expanded use of existing road infrastructure the Forest 
     Service can still achieve the fundamental objectives of its 
     management plans. Recent Administration budgets have 
     reflected this trend in reducing road construction funding, 
     and your amendment is consistent with this trend.
       Thank you for your leadership in seeking to reduce 
     unnecessary road building on the national forests and your 
     support for eliminating the purchaser credit program. I look 
     forward to working with you to achieve passage of the 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dan Glickman,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, Secretary Glickman's letter is in strong 
support of the amendment that I am offering this afternoon. I also add, 
Mr. President, that the amendment is also strongly supported by a broad 
coalition of environmental and taxpayer organizations, including the 
Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Friends of Earth, U.S. PERG, Taxpayers 
for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste. In addition, 
more than 60 newspapers across the country have editorialized in 
support of the amendment.
  I simply close by making this observation, and I ask my colleagues to 
consider this one important point. If the purchaser credit program is 
not a subsidy for the timber purchasers, as the opponents of this 
amendment claim, then why are they fighting so hard to preserve it?
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues can join with those advocates of 
the environment, those advocates of responsible governmental fiscal 
practices and support this amendment, because it is a win for the 
environment and a win for the American taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  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

[[Page S9454]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my chairman for yielding. Let 
me also congratulate him for the clarity with which he spoke to this 
issue.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition today to the amendment of the 
Senator from Nevada. I hope that in the course of what I have to say, 
Mr. President, that my opposition is clear. This comes to the issue the 
chairman and the Senator from Washington put so clearly.
  The Sierra Club some months ago, the Inland Empire Public Lands 
Council from the inner Pacific Northwest some weeks ago, and other 
organizations have come out with a policy for zero cut of timber on 
public lands. This is a national position that is well articulated by 
some of the more extreme environmental groups.
  I think the Senator from Washington is absolutely correct. I believe 
this is step 1 in a 5- or 6-year plan. This amendment cuts about one-
fifth of the resource for road building. If this is accomplished, then 
next year they will try for a little more, and the next year even more, 
and the incremental game that has been played over the last several 
decades that has significantly changed the character of public land use 
is accomplished--in this instance, the elimination of timber harvest on 
public lands.
  The Senator from Nevada spoke of subsidies. Let me say as loudly and 
as clearly as I can that there are no subsidies. He is wrong. He talks 
about saving the taxpayers' money. He is wrong. The Price Waterhouse 
study that I have in my hand says so. Many others who have analyzed the 
program of purchaser credit also agree. The rhetoric of purchaser 
credits being subsidies may sound good when you suggest larger timber 
companies get money--taxpayer money. If this were the case, then that 
is subsidy, and that is wrong. It has no intent, and it doesn't improve 
in this instance the environment, or the ability of our forested lands 
to be ongoing and productive in their production of fiber for the 
citizens of our country.
  So let me say very clearly that Senator Bryan's amendment does not 
speak to subsidy because it does not exist. And it does not speak to 
saving money because it would not happen.
  In addition, the amendment would eliminate beyond an actual cut of 20 
percent of the $47 million that is in this budget for proposed new 
timber roads. It would cut, of course, the purchaser credit. And that 
is where the argument on subsidies rests. This program was crafted by a 
Democrat Congress in 1964. It doesn't mean they were right. It doesn't 
mean they were wrong. At the time using the best analysis they could 
and an appropriate decision as it relates to how stumpage fees could 
best be utilized for the benefit of the taxpayer, they came up with 
this method. It was thoughtful legislating at that time, and I think it 
remains so today. It is a good policy. Let me try to explain why it is 
good policy and not a subsidy. Let me also explain why I challenge the 
Senator from Nevada on his arguments, because if I make a challenge I 
ought to be able to prove it. It is only fair and right that I do so.

  The purchaser road credit system has been utilized for more than 20 
years. It allows purchasers to earn credits equal to the estimated cost 
of constructing roads specified in a timber sale contract. The 
purchaser can then use the credit to pay for the timber harvest. As 
with the regular forest road program which utilizes appropriated funds, 
the purchaser road credit program primarily supports the reconstruction 
of existing roads. The Senator from Washington has already very clearly 
spoken to that diagram effectively in the chart that he has before us. 
Of the total number of miles of timber sales roads built nationwide in 
fiscal 1995, about 90 percent were done with purchaser road credits. 
Approximately 80 percent of the purchaser road credits were used for 
the purpose of reconstructing.
  I thought it was important to mention this because the Senator from 
Nevada spoke passionately about the Tahoe Basin, an area which I am 
very familiar with the way it has been harvested or rather not 
harvested. This lack of harvest has attributed to the fuel buildup that 
goes on in that region, affected the wellness of the trees, and most 
importantly created a potential catastrophic environment that could 
exist in a drought situation causing massive fire. He speaks of roads, 
road conditions, and road maintenance. Purchaser credits have gone 
toward maintaining and improving, through reconstruction, more roads 
than hard dollars do. Every one of those roads is built to 
environmental standards which actually improves the environmental 
situation.
  In my State of Idaho last year--an exceptionally wet year--we had 
road blowouts; land and hillside blowouts in our national forests where 
man had never been. But the biggest problem occurred in areas where 
roads had not been reconstructed or effectively maintained.
  So, if the Senator from Nevada wants to talk about maintaining roads 
and improving road environments that create less sedimentation and a 
better water quality in Lake Tahoe, then he ought to be coming with 
more money. Because money does not exist in the budget, money does not 
exist to improve road conditions. Therefore, environmental conditions 
is the very thing that he is trying to eliminate.
  But back to the issue of subsidy. I brought this chart along to 
demonstrate the point. The point is really quite simple. If you are 
going to log the trees off the land, you have to get to the trees. 
There are Federal trees on Federal land. Who ought to build the road? 
The Senator and I come from large ranching States. You have cattle out 
in the corral in the back of the ranch, and you want to sell them to a 
cattle buyer. He has to get the trucks to the corral. You say, ``Build 
the roads to the corral, cattle buyer, and you can have the cattle.''
  He will say, ``OK. And I will bid you $5 less a head because I have 
to spend money to build the road.''
  Or, you can say, ``No. I will get the road built. I will pay for the 
road. Therefore, bid me the market price on my cattle.''
  That is the same scenario that goes on with public timberlands 
because, as the Senator from Nevada said, the timber company leaves and 
the road is still there. Yes, it is. It is a Federal road paid for by 
Federal money, owned by the Forest Service, utilized by the citizens 
once it is used for logging.
  Here is a good example. If the market value of the timber on a timber 
sale is $100, and you use the purchaser credit, it costs you $40 to 
build the road. You have a purchaser credit of $40. So you bid the 
market price for the timber. You bid $100. The net receipts are $60 
because the purchaser road credit was

[[Page S9455]]

constructed. If you do not have purchaser road credits it is still 
going to cost $40 to build the road. The logging contractor bid to the 
Forest Service less money because he is going to sell the trees to pay 
for the road he will build. So the purchaser credit is zero. He bids 
$60. He doesn't bid $100. He bids $60, and the net receipt is $60.

  Is that a subsidy, or is that a method of building roads that in 1964 
this Congress and this Senate decided was appropriate? Call it a 
subsidy? I don't think you can. Try it, if you might. Price Waterhouse 
says no. Economists say no. The reason they say no is because of this 
exact chart.
  The Senator from Nevada says, ``Well, BLM does it differently. They 
just sell the timber, and the logger builds the road.'' Yes. They do. 
Price Waterhouse would analyze that, and every economist would analyze 
that and say on the ONC--Oregon and California--lands in Oregon, where 
the BLM has the bulk of the timber from all of their landholding across 
the country, they do as the Senator from Nevada suggests. But the 
economists would say the quality of that timber value is depressed in 
stumpage because the logger takes the price of the road out of the 
sale.
  Why is that important for Idaho, then? Why am I standing here 
concerned? Well, the Senator knows why. The Senator knows that in 
current law a share of the stumpage value is returned to local counties 
for schools and for roads. In his State of Nevada, down on the Toiyabe, 
it looks like they get a few dollars. They do not get anywhere the 
amount of money that Idaho, Oregon, Washington, or northern California 
gets. Why? If you are from Nevada, you know why. It isn't a timbered 
State, in large part. It is a high desert State--not a lot of trees, 
except in very few areas; primarily in the north, where the Senator is 
from, and down on the tip in the south.
  The bottom line is when you bid a timber sale you and bid $60 rather 
than $100 because you are taking $40 out for the road. The Federal 
Treasury receives the same amount of money but payments to counties 
decrease.
  What the Senator knows is that by this action, he is dramatically 
cutting the money that flows to counties for schools and for road 
construction--their own road construction, not this road construction, 
not Federal road construction. Why have we payed the counties over the 
years? I tell you why we have done it--because my State is 63 percent 
federally owned, and those are landlocked communities. They have no tax 
base from which to fund their schools and their local roads.
  The Senator from Nevada knows from which I speak. His State is much 
more owned by the Federal Government than is my State. Nevada is 84 
percent.
  It is interesting that the Senator from Nevada hasn't mentioned a 
thing about the annual net proceeds tax that his State gets from 
Federal mineral resources. Last year, the State of Nevada got $613 
million in severance tax from Federal mineral resources.
  I say to the Senator from Nevada. Why does he work so intently to 
destroy the money that my schools, the schools in Montana, Washington, 
and Oregon get, and speaks nothing about that intent in his State, 
masked in the name of the environment? Let me suggest to you that it is 
not so masked. It is open. It is direct, and the impact would be 
dramatic. In many of my counties, school funding is 60 to 70 percent 
funded by this base, and he would take, in many instances, 25 or 30 
percent of it away immediately. If the plan of national environmental 
radical groups, the kind that advocate zero logging on timber forested 
lands, had their way the remaining funds would soon be wiped out 
altogether.
  I guess another thing that clearly is worth discussing, and it is 
terribly frustrating to me, the Senator mentioned that he had letters 
from Secretary Glickman as it relates to the position of this 
administration when it comes to their support of his amendment. The 
Secretary before the House of Representatives said, interestingly 
enough, not very long ago that the elimination of purchaser road 
credits would hurt mostly small timber purchasers who have less access 
to credit.
  Now, the Senator from Nevada talked about sticking it to the big 
boys. I think in reverse, if he studied it with some intent, he would 
find that this is not quite the case.
  I have another chart here that speaks to what Secretary Glickman was 
talking about--purchaser credit use: ``Who buys the Federal timber?'' 
The dark blue represents small business, the red represents large 
business by definition. As we can see by the chart itself, in almost 
every instance, they are buying better than 50 to 60 percent of the 
timber.
  Small business timber purchasers would be adversely affected because 
the potential financing problem they would encounter if they had to 
operate by doing exactly what the Senator said, going out up front and 
getting the money to construct the roads before they could harvest the 
trees, take them to market and get their return. The alternative is the 
purchaser-elect program which does not protect the small business that 
are have the most threat. According to Price Waterhouse, a small 
business still has to pay cash for the full amount of the timber. This 
would explain why the purchaser-elect program has been rarely used by 
small business timber purchasers. Of course, that is what the Senator 
is advocating.
  Mr. President, I recently noticed that the administration is having a 
bit of difficulty with what they tell us here in the Congress, and that 
is why I wonder about the letter the Senator has that he put in the 
Record. I have a copy of that letter. I say that because last year I 
asked about potential legal and financial liabilities associated with 
canceled timber sale contracts. The Forest Service provided a response, 
and the Department rescinded that response within just a few days. 
Earlier this year the Department properly rejected a position for a new 
policy on qualifications for timber purchasers, and 2 days later the 
Under Secretary claimed that an unauthorized individual had used an 
autosigning machine and the letter should never have been sent.
  Well, it seems as if the Secretary had tried to place himself 
squarely on both sides of this issue. I suggest that he put greater 
control on his autosigning pen. Maybe we would more clearly understand 
what the Department of Agriculture is all about here--whiplashed by an 
environmental interest that does not serve this program well, does not 
serve the rural forested communities of our States well and, most 
importantly, does not address this issue in a fair and balanced way.
  During the summer of 1966, there were several incidents where 
impassable roads resulting from washouts and wind-thrown trees hampered 
firefighters' ability to respond to fire emergencies, requiring fire 
crews to turn around and find other access to fires.
  Why do I just instantly bring fires into this argument? Because the 
affected responsive maintenance of roads that is done through this 
program is what allows the Forest Service to manage our forests and 
fight fires. There are also roads that are used by off-road-vehicle 
people of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Idaho. There are 
our hunters, our fishermen, our berry pickers, our recreationists, our 
tourists. Those are the roads that were initially built to harvest 
timber. I would suggest to the chief of the Forest Service that if he 
has $440 million worth of road maintenance and backlog, he is achieving 
most of it today through the program that the Senator from Nevada is 
trying to eliminate.
  So I hope that my colleagues this afternoon, recognizing the 
importance of this program, the way it is used effectively--it is not a 
subsidy. It benefits the taxpayer. It certainly benefits the small 
community that is the recipient of stumpage fees that fund schools and 
roads. It is a program well balanced and considered by the Congress 
over these years, and I hope they will reject the amendment of the 
Senator from Nevada. I do believe it is not well thought out. It 
certainly does not meet the arguments that he himself made as it 
results to the need for effective road maintenance to provide 
environmental quality, water quality and the kinds of things that we 
appreciate from our public land.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my 
distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Bryan, in identifying 
another egregious expenditure which is a perennial waste of the 
taxpayer's money: the

[[Page S9456]]

timber road subsidy. Several years ago, my able friend and I joined 
forces to eliminate the wool and mohair subsidies. And in the last 
Congress, together we jettisoned the subsidies for the mink industry in 
the market access program. In fact, Mr. President, I think our 
opposition to the entire market access program has become quite well 
known in this body.
  Mr. President, the amendment we introduce today calls for the most 
modest reduction of a flagrantly wasteful subsidy which is helping 
denude our national forests and providing an outrageous taxpayer-funded 
give-away to the private sector. The Senator from Nevada and I are 
asking for the Senate to reduce this timber subsidy by $10 million. 
This money would come from the $47 million budget of the U.S. Forest 
Service's logging and construction program. Our amendment also prevents 
the Forest Service from using ``purchaser road credits'' to trade 
valuable Federal forest resources for environmentally destructive and 
costly timber roads. In essence, Mr. President, this amendment will put 
an end to the practice of awarding free trees in exchange for the 
industry paying its own road construction costs. This amendment also 
holds harmless counties that receive Federal payments from the sale 
value of federally owned timber, so it contains a mechanism to maintain 
a neutral fiscal impact on those counties. There is clearly much to 
complain about when it comes to timber sales--which routinely cost the 
Treasury and the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollar each year--
but the issue before us is much narrower.
  Under current U.S. Forest Service management, logging access roads 
are built in national forests using either taxpayer funds or assets to 
subsidize logging companies harvesting timber. The taxpayer subsidizes 
the construction and reconstruction of logging access roads by the 
Government either paying directly for the building of the roads or by 
trading trees when the timber company builds the road. The system known 
as the Purchaser Credit Program essentially gives timber purchasers 
``free trees'' and, according to the GAO, includes a profit margin for 
purchasers. In both instances, timber companies receive subsidies at 
the expense of taxpayers for activities that should be incorporated as 
a cost of doing business.
  Mr. President, this amendment does not reduce funding for road 
maintenance and it does not affect the construction or maintenance of 
recreation and general purpose roads. This amendment does not alter the 
infrastructure management budget or the reconstruction and construction 
budget of the Forest Service. This amendment contains no rider or any 
other language dealing with roadless areas of our national forests. 
This amendment does not prohibit timber companies from building their 
own roads in the national forests where that is permissible under 
existing laws and regulations, nor does it deter timber sales and 
harvesting. It merely eliminates taxpayer-funded logging road 
construction which should be the responsibility of the timber 
companies. It is a specific, concise amendment which will not only 
allow us to reduce our deficit but also prevent pollution of municipal 
water supplies and save fish and wildlife habitats.
  Originally, Mr. President, road building was subsidized by the U.S. 
Forest Service to encourage economic and community development. There 
was a time, especially after World War II, when the nation was rapidly 
expanding, that the government help for the Northwest timber industry 
made sense. But those days are over. We have learned that once areas 
are logged and logging companies move to new areas, communities cannot 
survive. Indeed they become ghost towns. There are no long term 
economic and community benefits to the public--only to private 
industry. If economic development is still the justification for this 
program, it flies in the face of some basic economic data. Mr. 
President, between 1950 and 1994, timber harvests increased by 64 
percent, while employment in the wood and paper industry fell 4 
percent. Other factors are at play in this subsidy. The fact is, Mr. 
President, the road-building subsidy--like the mink subsidy and the 
wool and mohair subsidy--is an anachronism.
  The degradation of forests over the last few decades has led to a 
wide variety of environmental and health problems, including dramatic 
increases in species extinctions, global warming--due in part to 
deforestation in both tropical and temperate zones--and the 
deterioration of water quality. Jim Lyons, Undersecretary of 
Agriculture, admits as much. He has told us, Mr. President, ``Our 
number one water-quality problem in the National Forest System is 
roads.'' In northern California, road building creates silt which clogs 
our State reservoirs and lessens water quality. Logging roads in 
national forests increase environmental degradation by contributing to 
the destruction and fragmentation of species, habitat, water pollution 
and landslides. In addition, Mr. President, since the 1940's, studies 
by the Forest Service and other fire scientists have found that more 
than 90 percent of all wildfires in the United States are human-caused, 
and 75 percent of these start within 265 feet of a road.
  We have a tremendous backlog of unmaintained forest logging roads 
that are now unsafe. Maintenance of these roads is expensive--if there 
is no money to maintain existing roads, how will we take care of new 
roads? The Forest Service reported in March 1997 that there is a $440 
million backlog of road maintenance needs for its existing roads. Where 
is the fiscal sense in constructing new roads?
  Mr. President, there are currently 378,000 miles of roads throughout 
the national forest system, which is eight times the mileage of the 
U.S. interstate highway system. That's enough to circle the earth 
nearly 15 times. In some parts of our Pacific Northwest, one square 
mile is laced with up to 20 miles of road. Supporters say these roads 
open the forest to recreation. But, Mr. President, I can assure you 
many of these roads are not passable--I have seen studies on this issue 
which show that these roads are built for truck use with little concern 
for passenger vehicles or travel comfort. These are not recreation 
roads. In any case, Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has 
found that 70 percent of the Nation's subsidized logging roads are used 
almost exclusively by private timber companies and their contractors.
  Mr. President, while the environment suffers and the timber industry 
enriches itself, the taxpayer picks up the tab. In fact, the taxpayer 
pays toward the costs of each road three times: first to build the 
road, second to maintain it, and third to fix the environmental damage 
caused by road-induced fires and flood.
  This proposal to reduce the account by $10 million and eliminate the 
purchaser road credit is modest, rational common sense by any measure. 
I urge our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
Bryan amendment. I rise because this program has proven very successful 
over the years that it has been in existence. This is a positive 
program that promotes cooperation between public and private 
enterprises, which are the types of agreements we should be supporting 
on the Senate floor and not opposing.
  In addition, this program has been found that it costs the government 
no money. Price-Waterhouse did an economic analysis and determined that 
``the Forest Roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber 
purchasers.'' This program is an efficient and effective mechanism for 
financing forest road construction. And, since net payments to the 
Treasury will remain the same, Price-Waterhouse concluded there is no 
subsidy to the timber purchaser.
  Finally, I want to stress a point that I feel is of utmost 
importance. Many do not realize that 25 percent of the proceeds from 
timber sales go directly to the counties to be used for roads and 
schools. In Arkansas, where the per capita expenditures on students 
rank 46 out of 51 states and the District of Columbia, our children 
cannot afford to lose this vital source of funding.
  Mr. President, I want to reiterate my strong opposition to this 
amendment to strike funding for the Forest Roads Program.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will oppose the Bryan amendment to reduce 
funding for Forest Service road construction, reconstruction and 
obliteration, and to eliminate the purchaser

[[Page S9457]]

credit program, because the amendment will make two activities more 
difficult to accomplish in the pursuit of the goal of ending new road 
construction in inappropriate areas. These two activities are 
obliteration of improperly placed, environmentally damaging or unused 
roads and reconstruction of those roads that serve regenerated stands. 
The administration has indicated that this amendment would cause the 
Forest Service to construct fewer new roads, yet the administration 
already has the power to construct fewer new roads without this 
amendment.
  Eliminating the purchaser credit program may make sense. Certainly, 
the public lands management agencies of the Federal Government should 
have consistent policies on appropriately allocating the costs of 
building roads for timber access and other uses. But, the program's 
elimination will not necessarily save taxpayers' money. There are many 
policy and budget issues that should be sorted out at a Committee 
hearing on the matter before Congress acts on this.
  Mr. President, I could support an amendment written to limit the 
number of miles of new roads in environmentally sensitive areas, 
however, the flaws in the Bryan amendment make its impact on this 
objection uncertain.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address my 
views on the Bryan amendment regarding timber road construction in our 
National Forests. I am very concerned about environmental protection 
and safeguarding our Nation's forests, providing there is an 
appropriate balance for economic development and job opportunities.
  On Senate floor votes in 1986 and 1989, I supported reductions in the 
direct Federal spending no road construction by the Forest Service. If 
this amendment had been limited to road construction, I would have 
voted for it.
  However, I am concerned about the impact of the elimination of all 
funding for the purchaser road credit program. From what I have seen 
and heard, during my August visits to the Allegheny National Forest in 
Elk, Forest, McKean and Warren counties, elimination of the purchaser 
road credits would constitute a significant hardship.
  Accordingly, that provision of the amendment causes me to vote 
against it.
  I do so on the assurances which I have received that the 
administration is currently reviewing the timber road construction 
program and may make substantial revisions which would provide for 
appropriate environmental safeguards.
  This vote, for me, is a close call. If there is not adequate 
environmental protection from changes in the purchaser road credit 
program in the administrations continuing review, I would be prepared 
to reconsider my vote on this issue on next year's Interior 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate resume the debate on the Ashcroft amendment following the 
expiration of the debate on the pending amendment offered by Senator 
Bryan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I make that request because we are going to go over the 
time when we are supposed to be back on that amendment.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the amendment from the 
junior senator from Nevada. I urge my colleagues to oppose a 
drastically reduced forest road budget, an end of purchaser road 
credits, and a change in the county payments formula. This amendment is 
unworkable and unnecessary in the face of a road construction budget 
that is already declining.
  The amendment offered by Senator Bryan would reduce the proposed 
budget for new timber road construction by $10 million. This amendment 
does nothing more than carry out the extreme agenda of certain radical 
environmental groups. As they have acknowledged, their objective is to 
shut down the Forest Service Timber Program.
  Mr. President, Forest Service timber sales are sold using an open, 
competitive auction system process. All sales are sold at fair market 
value, with costs associated with the timber sales, including road 
work, apportioned and built into a minimum bid price, which sets the 
floor. There is no subsidy associated with timber sales or road 
construction.
  According to a recent economic analysis released by the Price 
Waterhouse accounting firm, ``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.''
  Owners of private lands often provide access to their lands to 
purchasers of their timber. They can either construct the roads 
themselves and then charge more for the timber, or they can require the 
timber purchaser to construct roads and thereby receive less money for 
their timber. Landowners who require the timber purchaser to construct 
roads have developed many systems to compensate the purchaser for road 
construction activities.
  Purchaser road credits are a fairly common method for building roads. 
Many private landowners, as well as the State forestry agencies of 
Idaho and Oregon, have similar systems to build roads on their lands. 
No matter which system is chosen, the value of the timber sold will be 
reduced by the cost incurred by the purchasing party.
  The Bryan amendment, however, calls for the elimination of the Forest 
Service purchaser road credits program. Eliminating purchaser road 
credits would have serious implications.
  Under the purchaser credit program, timber sale contracts require the 
purchaser to reconstruct or construct roads and bridges. Purchaser 
credit is an off-budget means for the Forest Service to rebuild and 
repair existing roads and occasionally to build new roads at a 
significant savings to the taxpayer when compared with appropriated 
funds.

  There are many costs associated with the purchase and harvest of a 
timber sale, including bonding, road construction, road maintenance, 
logging, and trucking. When a company analyzes what it can bid for a 
particular timber sale, it considers all the costs and values 
associated with manufacturing forest products from the trees to be 
purchased. If the company is given credits for the road work, the bids 
will be higher because it is not a cost.
  As with the regular forest road program which uses appropriated 
funds, the purchaser road credit program primarily supports the 
reconstruction of existing roads. Of the total number of miles of the 
timber sales roads built or rebuilt nationwide in fiscal year 1995, 
about 90 percent were done with purchaser road credits.
  As funds for road construction have been reduced in recent years, 
purchaser credit has become a vital tool to accomplish road work in all 
regions of the country, especially reconstruction. About 80 percent of 
the program used each year for reconstruction on roads, especially for 
safety and environmental improvements. Congress and the administration 
must reject all efforts to eliminate or reduce purchaser road credits.
  Mr. President, Federal timber sales have declined precipitously, 
primarily from limitations placed on the Forest Service by 
environmental considerations and species protection efforts for spotted 
owls, marbled murrelets, and various species of salmon. In 1987, the 
timber sales program provided nearly 12 billion board feet of timber. 
Ten years later, less than 4 billion board feet were sold.
  It does not take rocket science to understand the dangerous 
consequences the Bryan amendment has for local communities. Small 
businesses account for two-thirds of all timber harvested in national 
forests. Those small operations are located in the rural areas, 
providing jobs and stability to their communities.
  The Bryan amendment would dramatically limit the forest road program, 
putting additional pressures on the timber sale program. Most 
supporters of the Bryan amendment are unaware that the Forest Service 
will spend many times more on reconstruction and repair of existing 
roads as they will on the construction of new forest roads.
  Most of the roads in the national forests are single-lane, dirt roads 
which

[[Page S9458]]

are open to all forest users. Each year these roads allow millions of 
Americans to visit the national forests. Access is provided to wild and 
scenic rivers, national scenic byways, wilderness areas, 
and recreational facilities, including campgrounds, boat ramps, and 
picnic areas. These roads provide access for cutting firewood and 
Christmas trees, berry picking, hunting, fishing, and camping.

  The primary use of the national forest road system is recreation. All 
told, about 97 percent of the road system in any given national forest 
is open to recreational use. Ten years ago, recreation use on the 
national forests was less than 250 million visits. Today, recreation 
use is approaching 350 million visits, an increase of 40 percent.
  The Bryan amendment would also reduce the construction of roads in 
roadless areas. Road construction in roadless areas of the national 
forests is for the most part limited to emergency situations. Indeed, 
few if any miles of roads have been built in roadless areas of the 
national forests in recent years. However, building some roads in 
roadless areas is necessary on occasion to allow access to treat insect 
and disease outbreaks, to monitor forest health, or for wildfire 
management.
  Mr. President, the Bryan amendment would have a debilitating effect 
on the management of the national forest. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat this effort to further limit logging in roadless areas, to 
terminate the purchaser credit program, and to cut an already reduced 
forest road budget. This amendment is simply bad forest policy.
  The environmental groups who have drafted this amendment have only 
one purpose. It is to shut down the Forest Service Timber Program. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Before I yield to my friend from Oregon--we are running down on time 
here--I just want to put my little plug in here.
  Mr. President, we have set records on recycling in this Senate. This 
old debate has been recycled every year since I have been here. We tend 
to forget in this country that we are dealing with a renewable 
resource. It is just like corn flakes on your table or the shirt on 
your back. All of these come from renewable resources.
  There has been one group of persons who have been left out of this 
debate, and it is the consumers of America. Has anybody priced any 
lumber lately, what it costs to build a house? Does anybody deal with 
the homeless in their States on how do we find housing and what it 
costs for affordable housing?
  There are people in this country who are in charge of producing not 
only food and fiber but also the shelter for America. That is what we 
are talking about here. You can mask it any way you want, but the way 
that we make a sale is pretty much time tested. It has worked, and it 
works every day, not only for the harvesting or the growing of a 
renewable resource. We see that great miracle of renewal every spring 
and every year.
  However, we also see the economic backbone of the economy of rural 
America being eroded by people who have forgotten what it takes to 
produce food, fiber and shelter. I tell you, you can go out there and 
look at that mountain all you want and, if it is a religious experience 
and you do not want it touched, that is fine and dandy. But at the end 
of the day you are going to go get a hamburger because you are hungry. 
It is the basic of life in this country. That is the first thing, or 
the second thing, we do every day when we get up.
  So I ask my colleagues just one question. In promoting what some 
think of as a ``green world,'' is that going to feed us and sustain us? 
Probably for a lot of us around here it fed us a little too good. Maybe 
we are caring a little too much. But I ask those who are not hands-on 
natural resource providers to just pay heed to what you are doing here, 
because everything we enjoy --our standard of living, our quality of 
life--starts with a little seed in the ground. That is where it starts. 
Every one of us goes about our way every day in feeding and in 
clothing--every one of us without exception. Yet we want to make that 
tougher because we do not think it is important. So after housing and 
shelter, I think we are talking about a bona fide serious problem here, 
and it is not fair to change the rules. It is not even right to those 
who grow and those who are in charge of the harvest. It is not fair to 
those who have to take a raw product and add value to it so that it 
serves all of us in this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  The Chair advises the Senator from Montana that there remains 10 
minutes on his time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair.
  I thank my colleague from Montana and my colleagues from Washington 
and Idaho who have joined me in resisting the Bryan amendment. The 
Senator from Nevada is my friend, but I believe on this issue he is 
very wrong. If he were to prevail, this would force great injury on my 
State.
  Mr. President, I would like to take just a couple of minutes to speak 
against the amendment from the junior Senator from Nevada. This 
amendment calls for a $10 million reduction in funds for new road 
building, the elimination of the purchaser credit program, and a 
further reduction on logging in roadless areas. I strongly oppose these 
provisions.
  Timber sales are vital to the long-term viability of local 
communities throughout the West. Under existing law, 25 percent of the 
gross receipts from Federal timber sales go to local communities. These 
funds are used for local schools and roads programs. Without a viable 
forest road maintenance, repair, and construction program, the timber 
sale program would be significantly limited. The big losers will be 
local communities.
  Shared receipts are an integral part of local government revenues in 
the West. There is no practical way to separate these payments from the 
other payment programs without having dramatic negative consequences on 
local communities. The necessary dollars to offset the loss of revenue 
caused from the reduction in timber sales would not be forthcoming.
  Mr. President, Federal timber sales have declined precipitously, 
primarily from limitations placed on the Forest Service by 
environmental considerations and species protection efforts for spotted 
owls, marbled murrelets, and various species of salmon. In 1987, the 
timber sale program provided more than 12 billion board feet of timber; 
10 years later, less than 4 billion board feet were sold.
  It does not take an accountant to determine the serious implications 
this has had for the budgets of rural communities. Two-thirds of all 
timber harvested in national forests come from small businesses. Those 
small operations are generally headquartered in the rural areas, 
providing jobs and stability to their communities, not to mention 
needed revenues to sustain local programs and services.
  The Bryan amendment would dramatically limit forest 
road construction, putting additional pressures on the timber sale 
program. Since 1991, total new road construction built by the Forest 
Service or by timber purchasers has declined by two-thirds. Spending on 
both new road construction and reconstruction has been cut in half over 
this same period.

  Most supporters of the Bryan amendment are unaware that the Forest 
Service will spend many times more on reconstruction and repair of 
existing roads than they will on the construction of new forest roads. 
Indeed, most of the funding appropriated by Congress each year goes 
toward the reconstruction of existing roads. In 1996, more than 2,800 
miles of roads were reconstructed, while only about 450 miles of new 
roads were constructed.
  Reconstruction activities protect watersheds through improved road 
design, road placement, and sediment control. Road construction funds 
are being used for watershed protection as part of the President's 
forest plan for the Pacific Northwest. According to the Forest Service, 
forest roads allow critical access needed for the suppression of up to 
10,000 wildfires per year and reforestation of the burned-over lands.
  The Bryan amendment will quite simply prevent the President from 
keeping the environmental and economic commitments made in the 
Northwest forest plan.
  The Forest Service has invested significantly in technology transfer 
applications for road building. Examples

[[Page S9459]]

cited in this year's Forest Service budget proposal are: wetland 
development and riparian restoration through modification of culverts 
and other drainage structures, retaining soil through innovative design 
of gravity walls, and lower water crossings for roads to minimize 
disturbance, provide fish passage, and avoid damming and channeling 
during peak flows.
  Mr. President, the Forest Service is continuing its efforts to reduce 
the number of roads. In recent years, the Forest Service has annually 
reduced more than three times as much road mileage as compared to new 
construction. In 1996, the Forest Service reduced 1,400 miles of roads. 
For the past 6 years combined, the Forest Service has reduced over 
18,000 miles of roads.

  The Bryan amendment also calls for the elimination of purchaser road 
credits program. Eliminating purchaser road credits would have serious 
implications for local communities.
  Under the purchaser credit program, timber sale contracts require the 
purchaser to reconstruct or construct roads and bridges. Purchaser 
credit is an off-budget means for the Forest Service to rebuild and 
repair existing roads and occasionally to build new roads at a 
significant savings to the taxpayer when compared appropriated funds.
  Timber companies receive credits equal to the value of the road work 
required under a timber contract. The credit can be applied against the 
price paid to the Government for the timber harvested. These companies 
reflect the cost of building roads in their submitted bids.
  As funds for road construction have been reduced in recent years, 
purchaser credit has become a vital tool to accomplish road work in all 
regions of the country, especially reconstruction. About 80 percent of 
the program is used each year for reconstruction on roads, especially 
for safety and environmental improvements.
  Proponents of this amendment project positive Federal budget effects 
from the elimination of purchaser road credits. Elementary economics 
tells us that purchasers will simply bid less for the timber than they 
would of the credit were in place in order to offset their increased 
costs, while the Federal Government will net virtually the same amount.
  The Bryan amendment would further restrict the construction of roads 
in roadless areas. Road construction in roadless areas of the national 
forests are, for the most part, limited to emergency situations. 
Indeed, few if any miles of roads have been built in roadless areas of 
the national forests in recent years. However, building some roads in 
roadless areas is necessary on occasion to allow access to treat insect 
and disease outbreaks, to monitor forest health, or for wildfire 
management.

  Finally, Mr. President, there is no subsidy associated with timber 
sales or road construction. For new road construction and 
reconstruction associated with timber sales, costs are fairly 
apportioned. These costs are fully offset by timber revenues, resulting 
in net profits averaging more than $400 million per year over the last 
6 years.
  According to a recent economic analysis released by the Price 
Waterhouse accounting firm, ``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.''
  Forest Service timber sales are sold using an open, competitive 
auction system process. All sales are sold at fair market value, with 
costs associated with the timber sales, including road work, 
apportioned and built into a minimum bid price, which sets the floor on 
the value of the timber sale.
  Mr. President, I would like to close by quoting from a September 9 
editorial in Oregonian which addresses the merit of Senator Byran's 
amendment.

       We think timber sales should be based on good plans and 
     sound scientific analysis of their effects. This amendment, 
     however, more closely fits the agenda of those 
     environmentalists opposing all commercial timber sales in the 
     national forests than it does the interest of good planning.

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Byran 
amendment.
  In the interest of time, I will summarize so we will leave to Senator 
Kempthorne some time. I am reminded of the statement I heard from one 
Senator--everything that can be said has been said but not everyone has 
said it. So I guess it is my turn. I would like to let Senator 
Kempthorne have a chance to be on record also.
  I could focus on the many points Senator Craig laid out very well as 
to why this is not a subsidy, why this all nets out in the end for the 
advantage of the forest, for the advantage of the taxpayer and for the 
advantage of local communities in the rural Northwest. I suggest to you 
that President Clinton came to my State, held a big timber conference, 
made some promises as to the level of historic timber harvest that 
would occur, along with a whole lot of environmental protection.
  Part of that promise was that inclusion of these purchaser road 
credits would continue, that roads would be maintained so that there 
are not big blowouts, that there would be the ability to suppress 
fires, that there would be the ability to continue to harvest where it 
is economically and environmentally responsible to do so.
  I was very heartened the other day to find two of my State's leading 
newspapers--these are not conservative newspapers; these are liberal 
voices in my State, the Oregonian and the Register-Guard out of 
Eugene--said the Senate should maintain the funds on these roads.
  Well, let me quote from the Oregonian. They said Forest Service road 
funding, ``which consists of road resurfacing, culvert replacement and 
other environmentally vital drainage improvements, these 
environmentally responsible activities are badly underfunded. It would 
be perverse to cut these budgets in the name of stopping new roads.''
  I agree. If you just focus on the economics, this washes out to the 
taxpayer. If you focus on the environment, we are not talking about 
much new road building. We are talking about maintenance of roads for 
people to use, for forest health to be provided, for the environment to 
be protected against washouts of these roads. We are talking about 
people who want to hunt in our national forests. All of these things 
are critical to this debate.
  But, in the end I want to emphasize what the Senator from Montana 
said. There is a human element here, for crying out loud. There are 
people who breathe air and have blood in their veins and have children 
and have dreams and who want a future, who love to live in the country, 
who understand what it means to be stewards of the land and who also 
understand that this is a chain saw at their way of life. This is a 
chain saw aimed at the heart of Northwestern rural communities. It has 
to be stopped.
  I care about protecting the environment. I just happen to believe 
that people like wood products, too. I happen to believe there can be a 
balance between the environment and our economy; between providing for 
animal and human needs. This goes at the heart of stopping that kind of 
balance.
  I plead with my colleagues. You have interests in your States where I 
need to learn. I want to know what it is that helps your people, your 
human element. But if you want to know what affects mine, this does.
  Even the leading liberal papers of my State agree with me. The New 
York Times doesn't understand the issue. They are on the other side. 
Today I stand with the people of Oregon, who understand the balance of 
the environment and our economy.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from New Jersey 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized to 
speak for 10 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bryan for yielding 
this time. I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from 
Nevada.
  There is not a Member of the Senate who has not shared with our 
colleagues, or their constituents, the extraordinary need to end both 
waste in this Government and corporate welfare in particular. This is 
the moment for those Members to give meaning to all those speeches, all 
those comments, and all those interviews, because the Bryan amendment 
is to corporate welfare what welfare reform in the last Congress was to 
social welfare. This is the moment.

[[Page S9460]]

  The scale of corporate welfare in the Federal budget is 
extraordinary. The Cato Institute estimates some $86 billion in 
expenditures. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates the number at 
$265 billion. This new age of fiscal discipline in which we live, when 
the Federal budget is being balanced, requires some sacrifice from 
everybody. In the last Congress it was people and families on welfare. 
In this Congress, at long last, it is time to have corporate welfare 
make its own contribution.
  The Bryan amendment deals with one specific part of this network of 
corporate welfare, the construction of timber roads. The Green Scissors 
Coalition estimates that, over a 5-year period, the Federal Government 
will spend $36 billion, not only on these expensive and potentially 
wasteful construction projects, but projects which at the same time 
have an extraordinary cost in environmental terms. The simple truth is, 
even if we could afford this construction, which we cannot, the 
environmental costs are enormous.
  These roads through our Nation's forests remove ground cover, create 
a channel for water to flow through--a cause of major soil erosion. 
Hillsides are weakened, streams are fouled, destroying the foundation 
of our recreational fishing industry--extraordinary--and some of the 
most important vistas and recreational properties in our Nation. It is 
believed that many of the channels created by these roads and the 
runoff are a major nonpoint source of pollution. According to the 
National Forest Service, 922 different communities in our country rely 
for their drinking water directly on streams that are impacted by the 
runoff of these roads in our national forests.

  The Bryan amendment is a chance to end this corporate welfare, 
preserve the quality of the water, and end the damage to these forests. 
It is a subsidy that may be $100 million to individual corporations, 
but that underestimates the true scale of the problem. Over the last 15 
years, direct Government expenditures for construction and 
reconstruction of forest roads may total $3.2 billion. It is estimated 
that for the national forest road system alone, over the years, this 
has resulted in the construction of 380,000 miles in forest roads. For 
any citizens of America who have marveled at our Interstate Highway 
System, they can only understand the scale of this construction by 
recognizing there is enough mileage through our national forests to 
circle the globe 15 times. Indeed, we have built 8 miles of road 
through pristine national forests for every 1 mile that has been 
constructed in the National Interstate Highway System.
  The result of all these years of construction is that now we face 
$440 million worth of backlog of road maintenance. So we are continuing 
in the construction of millions of dollars' worth of new highways 
through new forests while the old highways are not maintained. They 
fall into disrepair with further erosion, damaging more streams, more 
drinking water--erosion of more forest.
  For those who are serious about the deficit, corporate welfare, and 
environmental protection, in a single vote for the Bryan amendment you 
are given a chance to make a statement about each. This is not a 
question of ending the foresting of trees. It is not a question of not 
making our resources available. It is a question about industry, like 
every other American, paying their own way. If these roads make sense, 
then they make sense for corporations to pay for them themselves. If 
they are to be built, then they should be built properly and maintained 
by the companies who want access to the resources. If companies want 
access to the resources, and it makes economic sense, then it should be 
reflected in the product, not by the taxpayers. It is that simple. The 
logic and the economics is no different than when we face individual 
spending programs for citizens, students, or senior citizens. At some 
point these programs need to be evaluated on their own merits, on their 
own economics. That is what Senator Bryan challenges us to do today.
  I enthusiastically support his amendment on budgetary grounds, 
because of the economic logic of his argument and, finally, and in my 
own judgment most compellingly, on environmental grounds. We preserve 
these lands for a reason. We should open them up, provide access to 
them for their destruction, judiciously and carefully. We failed to do 
so in the past. Senator Bryan gives us a last chance to make a proper 
judgment once again.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Bryan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Idaho, Senator 
Kempthorne.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognize for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, has it become politically incorrect to 
cut a tree, or even to walk in the woods? I don't think we want to go 
down that path. But then, if this amendment passes, we may not have a 
path to go down at all. My State of Idaho is 63 percent Federal land, 
and the majority of that is Forest Service. Not surprisingly, timber is 
a major industry in the State, and outdoor recreation is growing. Both 
depend on access to these Federal lands.
  Mr. President, 97 percent of the roads on Federal forest land are 
open for recreational use. That includes camping, hiking, hunting, 
fishing--activities which a recent study by the administration found 
make up three-fourths of all the use of Federal land. Take away the 
roads and you take away the public's ability to access their Federal 
lands, and the economic diversity that recreation provides to rural 
western communities.
  Besides recreation, those roads provide access for environmental 
management--to, among other things, monitor wildlife, and bring 
wildlife under control. Without the budget to construct or reconstruct 
these roads, managers will lose vital access. There is also the danger 
that these roads will become unstable, and pose an environmental threat 
to watersheds.
  Do we have too many roads on Federal land? That is a good question--
how many is too many? Compared to other road systems, the Forest 
Service does not even come close, with a mile and a half of road per 
square mile, compared to 8 miles per square mile on private timber 
land.
  This is the crux of the point: there are many demands placed on 
Federal forest land, only one of which is to provide the solitude that 
true wilderness offers. No one will dispute the importance of 
wilderness, and that is why so many States have passed wilderness 
bills.
  We have designated wilderness for a reason--so that some areas meet 
the public's expectation of a solitude experience, and allow the rest 
of Federal timber land to serve the public's other needs: to provide 
timber to build our homes, and to allow for other types of recreation 
that include access on some type of vehicle.
  My State of Idaho is already home to the largest continuous 
wilderness area in the continental U.S.--the Frank Church-River of No 
Return Wilderness.
  The administration's own study of the Interior Columbia Basin found 
that the majority of Americans using Federal land in the Pacific 
Northwest like to be able to access it using a car or some other type 
of vehicle. My colleagues, we need a safe, accessible road system.
  This amendment would undermine that goal. And because it would also 
increase the cost of timber activities, and decrease revenue to rural 
counties, the amendment would pull the rug out from struggling, 
resource dependent communities. These rural communities are the base 
for the values that we hold dear--where the work ethic is taught as a 
part of daily life to kids who learn to respect the world around them. 
We can't afford to force these communities into oblivion, because we 
will lose what is best about ourselves.
  These cuts will hurt the very people we are working for back here. I 
am talking about the small business owner, the laborer and even the 
firefighter. Groups such as the International Association of Fire 
Fighters, the Pulp & Paper Workers Resource Council, the United Paper 
Workers International Union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & 
Joiners of America, and many others have all come out against this 
amendment.
  The Forest Service designed the purchaser credit program to be an 
off-

[[Page S9461]]

budget means to provide the access Americans expect. It does so at a 
significant savings to the taxpayer when compared to how much it would 
cost to use appropriated funds. In return for providing a public 
service, the bidder on timber contracts receives a credit applied to 
that or another sale.
  Seventy-five percent of these bidders are small businesses. I fail to 
see a subsidy for big business--what I see is the Forest Service 
finding a way to do its job and save taxpayer dollars, an advantage for 
small companies, and jobs in small communities. Is this what we want to 
eliminate?
  I urge colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is not about 
wise management of our Federal lands--it is about making those lands 
available for only one use, and that is unacceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if I could be 
granted 5 more minutes in order to accommodate the chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resource Committee.
  Mr. BRYAN. I do not object to that, I suggest to the distinguished 
acting floor manager, if I can get an additional 5 minutes as well?
  Mr. BURNS. That's perfectly all right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield Senator Murkowski from Alaska 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to speak for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think there has been a little 
misunderstanding on the concept of road purchaser credits and the 
allegation that somehow this is corporate welfare. Logic will dictate 
that if we don't have purchaser credits for the construction of roads, 
those who are going to log in the forests, the Federal forests of this 
country, are simply going to bid less for the timber because they have 
to offset the costs of getting the timber out. They basically have to 
build the roads themselves.
  When the Government in this case builds the roads, as it has through 
the purchaser credit program, the Government has been benefiting by 
getting higher bids for its timber. Take this away and the Government 
will simply get less. That is the reality. That is the economics. It is 
not a matter of corporate welfare. It's a matter that the Federal 
Government owns the forest and has traditionally dictated the terms and 
conditions that the roads will be built on, so they are built to their 
standards. And the benefit of those roads to the States, for 
recreational purposes, is obvious.
  I rise to speak against the amendment of the junior Senator from 
Nevada. Not only does the amendment eliminate the purchaser road credit 
program, but it transfers $10 million out of road construction. I must 
strongly oppose the provisions. I think the amendment is bad policy. It 
would have a catastrophic impact on the management of the national 
forests. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  The Forest Service in my State has finally completed a land 
management plan for the Tongass. It took 10 years and $13 million to do 
it. I am, frankly, less than enthusiastic about the plan, and most of 
my colleagues are aware of my distress.
  It reduces timber sales by half. The two largest manufacturing 
employers in the pulp business in my State have closed their doors in 
the last 2 years. They have gone out of business. We have closed their 
doors. We have lost thousands of jobs in the last 2 years, and these 
have had a dramatic effect on our small communities in the southeast. 
Nevertheless, I have decided to set my lack of enthusiasm aside and 
focus my oversight responsibilities on implementation.
  At the September 10 hearing, I asked the Forest Service if it could 
achieve even the severely reduced allowable timber sale quantity in the 
Tongass if the Bryan plan were adopted. The answer was:

       If we don't have the money to support the roads program, we 
     will not be able to deliver the economic sale program.

  They further stated that the Tongass depends heavily on the 
construction of new roads to deliver timber to the communities in 
southeastern Alaska. One might say, ``Why don't you go to the private 
sector?'' We don't have private timber. The Federal Government and the 
Forest Service own southeastern Alaska. There are cities and people 
there: Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Skagway, on and on and 
on.
  The theory was, through multiple use, those interests would be 
protected with a balanced timber industry. Therefore, according to the 
Forest Service, the Bryan amendment would render null and void the 
goals of the Tongass plan.
  It is kind of interesting, in a letter sent to the Senate only one 
day before the testimony, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman 
supported the Bryan amendment because roads pose the ``greatest 
environmental problems on the forests.'' You can't have it two ways. 
The roads provide recreation in the forest, they provide environmental 
benefits by providing access to stop fires, and I could go on and on 
and on. It is fairly inconsistent with the administration support for 
implementation of the Forest Service's final Tongass land management 
plan, but I have grown accustomed to the flip-flops of the 
administration on these issues. But Secretary Glickman isn't holding a 
position long enough to make it warm.
  Finally, the Bryan amendment is nothing more than an attempt to 
eliminate sales on the national forests. At least we have seen some of 
the groups like the Sierra Club come out in opposition to any 
harvesting of the national forest. That is basically what this 
administration is attempting to do, and this is how they are attempting 
to do it.
  The amendment isn't about subsidies, the amendment isn't about saving 
money, the amendment does nothing more than carry out the agenda of the 
extremists.
  I will conclude by pointing to this chart, Mr. President, which 
simply shows where the money has gone and the decline in road miles. In 
1985, we had 8,000; in 1998, 2,652. It shows reconstruction taking up 
the major portions. We maintain the roads that we have previously 
built. There is very little for new construction, roughly 18 percent.
  So there is the picture, Mr. President. It says it better than I 
could relative to what is happening with this program with the 
necessity of maintaining it and maintaining the forest products 
industry as we know it today and the appropriate role of the national 
forest in providing a renewable resource in the timber that grows so 
profusely, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the floor managers. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Washington 
that there is 1 minute 46 seconds time remaining on this watch.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bryan 
amendment for a lot of reasons. But the one I want to focus on is what 
I believe is the fiscally irresponsible nature of this amendment.
  This is being put out as a budget-cutting measure. But the fact of 
the matter is, by having a fund that says we are going to hold the 
counties harmless--and I appreciate being held harmless. We have a 
national forest in Pennsylvania and our counties rely upon that money. 
That is going to cost money in the sense that by reducing the amount of 
roads built, you are going to reduce the revenues in the fund. That 
money is no longer going to be there to fund those counties in the 
money that they traditionally have received, and the Federal Government 
is going to have to come up with that money in exchange to fund the 
counties.
  That is, in a sense, almost a welfare payment from the Federal 
Government because we have eliminated the funding source of timber 
harvesting from those counties and those communities. So not only have 
we hurt them economically, hurt their counties economically, but we are 
now creating welfare for those counties by giving Federal dollars to 
them in place of the

[[Page S9462]]

jobs they have. This is not only bad, I think, from a policy 
perspective, but also bad from a fiscal perspective.
  Despite the assertions of the amendment's sponsors, the timber sales 
program and the purchaser credit program are not subsidies. Since 1964, 
roads needed for timber harvest have been built by timber purchasers 
and the U.S. Forest Service has permitted the use of purchaser credit 
for road building. In fact, this program is entirely off-budget and 
this appropriations bill contains no funding for it. In President 
Clinton's budget request to Congress, elimination of the program 
results is no savings to the Federal government. Rather, the costs of 
the credits are explicitly absorbed by timber purchasers in the 
contracting and bidding process. According to a report by Price 
Waterhouse, ``Economic analysis shows that 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.''
  Second, eliminating the Purchaser Credit Program would harm local 
communities near national forests--including Warren, Forest, McKean, 
and Elk Counties in Pennsylvania. Counties containing forest lands 
receive 25 percent of gross Forest Service receipts. In 1996, these 
counties received a total of $6.2 million, three quarters of which went 
directly to local school districts.
  Finally, the amendment would effectively cripple efforts to meet the 
stewardship needs of our national forest land by cutting the funding by 
which we maintain its infrastructure. Eliminating this program would 
not only cut funding for road construction, it would cut funding for 
road reconstruction and maintenance to fix environmental and safety 
problems remaining from an era when construction standards were far 
less rigorous. A well-developed road system is indispensable to forest 
plan implementation, fire suppression and forest health.
  As many of my colleagues know, the General Accounting Office has just 
released a report which identifies questionable policies and practices 
that nearly caused the Forest Service to default on revenue sharing 
payments to rural counties in fiscal year 1996. The report raises 
fundamental accountability issues for both Congress and the Forest 
Service, and I believe that these issues will be exacerbated by the 
Bryan amendment.
  Specifically, the GAO found that reductions in Federal timber sale 
receipts, coupled with increased obligations to spotted owl counties, 
and an apparent lack of sound financial controls over the National 
Forest Fund resulted in a shortfall in revenue-sharing funds available 
to rural counties.
  Receipts from the resource sales are deposited in the National Forest 
Fund, which is a receipts-holding account from which the Forest Service 
obligations are distributed. After normal county payments were paid, 
the Forest Service used the National Forest Fund in fiscal years 1994 
and 1995 to make additional spotted owl guarantee payments in certain 
counties in California, Oregon, and Washington. This caused two 
problems. First, there were insufficient moneys in the fund to pay 
counties because of the dramatic drop in timber sales receipts. Then, 
the Forest Service was forced to borrow from other funds and the 
Treasury to pay the obligations to the counties in a fashion that GAO 
found ``was an unauthorized use of the funds.''

  It is my understanding that Congressman Bob Smith, chairman of the 
House Agriculture Committee, has written Secretary of Agriculture Dan 
Glickman requesting a full accounting of the specific steps he will 
take to ensure that the Forest Service advises Congress when such 
shortfalls occur and properly manages these funds in the future.
  Mr. President, the amendment before us will only make this dire 
financial situation worse for the Forest Service. Senator Bryan's 
amendment will again modify the formula for sharing Forest Service 
receipts with the counties. I understand that it is the sponsors' 
intent to protect counties from fiscal harm as the result of this 
amendment. Included in the amendment is a provision to make up for the 
inevitable shortfall in payments to counties that will occur as the 
direct result of a $10 million reduction in spending for new forest 
road construction and the elimination of the purchaser road credits. 
Since Pennsylvania has four counties that benefit from timber sale 
receipts, I commend Senator Bryan for his concern about the effects of 
his amendment. But I must point out, Mr. President, that the concern of 
the Senator from Nevada betrays the folly of this amendment. You see, 
should this amendment be enacted into law, timber sale receipts will go 
down sharply at the same time that our payments to counties will be 
held constant or even increase. This is the very same tortured 
accounting formula that helped to lead the Forest Service to brink of 
default recently over the spotted owl payments.
  In fact, let me point out for the benefit of my colleagues that the 
GAO found the Forest Service had shifted money originally intended for 
trust funds for reforestation and forest health in order to cover the 
deficit in the National Forest Fund. While I hope the Forest Service 
will be successful in addressing the serious accounting shortcoming 
that led to the crisis, I must caution my colleagues that passage of 
the Bryan amendment makes it more likely that the National Forest Fund 
check will bounce again during fiscal year 1998.
  The amendment directs the Forest Service to compute the costs 
associated with road construction by timber purchasers and give the 
counties an equivalent of 25 percent of these costs from the National 
Forest Fund. This is ludicrously impractical. First, we do not have 
enough money in the National Forest Fund to meet our current 
obligations to the counties. Second, the task of calculating private 
sector costs is a complex accounting task for an agency. Further, the 
amendment directs the Forest Service to collect private sector costs, 
that in many cases, are proprietary.
  In view of the GAO's very critical report, this is not the time to 
add to our obligations to the counties. Nor is it appropriate to burden 
the Forest Service with additional financial responsibilities. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat this fiscally irresponsible amendment. It is 
imperative that we maintain funding for Forest Service road 
construction and maintenance and the Forest Service's Purchaser Credit 
Program. It remains the most efficient and cost-effective method we 
have to help maintain our national forests and serve the needs of the 
surrounding populations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time that I might have. 
I was somewhat astounded by the debate because those who oppose the 
amendment try to frame an issue that is not part of our discussion or 
our amendment today. I think in so doing they are trying to obfuscate 
the issues we are dealing with. This amendment is not about eliminating 
all timber harvests on the national forests. That may be an appropriate 
subject for a debate on another day. But there is not one word in this 
amendment that would have that effect or seeks to accomplish that 
purpose.
  The other argument that has been made to obfuscate the issues is 
somehow a suggestion that there is an attempt here to eliminate all new 
road construction in the national forests. That is not true as well.
  Let me just respond to the comments that the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania just made. We have crafted this amendment to protect 
and to hold the counties who receive revenue from this program to hold 
them harmless. We do so by saying, look, in the bid that is offered by 
the prospective timber harvest bidder, that we factor a separate amount 
that would be attributable to the construction component and use that, 
as well as the bid price, in the calculation to determine what moneys 
will go to the individual counties that will be affected. So we were 
sensitive to the needs of the individual counties that would be 
affected and this amendment holds them harmless.
  Let me talk about what the thrust of this amendment is. The thrust of 
this amendment is to eliminate a subsidy. It is to eliminate corporate 
welfare. It is to eliminate food stamps for the timber industry. That 
is not just an assertion the Senator from Nevada makes.

[[Page S9463]]

 That is why groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste, which 
have identified this as a costly subsidy to the American taxpayer, 
support the Bryan amendment. That is why Taxpayers for Common Sense, 
also a taxpayer watchdog group, has supported the Bryan amendment, 
because they recognize that this is a subsidy. That is why 60 leading 
newspapers across America from coast to coast--the only two notable 
exceptions that I am familiar with are the two that were referenced by 
the Senator from Oregon in his comments--all recognize this to be a 
subsidy and have urged its elimination.
  Why is it a subsidy? It is a subsidy because individuals who have 
analyzed it and see how the Purchaser Credit Program worked finds that 
a windfall tax break occurs in terms of the profits that are permitted 
under this. Let me describe that in more detail, if I may.
  The Forest Service makes a determination as to what they estimate the 
road costs are to be when a bidder bids on a tract of timber that 
requires road construction, and that is made available immediately to 
the successful bidder--immediately. That is a credit that is made 
available.
  Those who have looked at the way the Forest Service calculates that 
have indicated, No. 1, the Forest Service is calculating a profit into 
that estimate and, No. 2, those who have focused on it independently 
found that in some instances, the purchaser road credit exceeds by 30 
percent the actual cost that the timber harvester incurs in building 
the roads. Because, Mr. President, there is no accounting or 
accountability, the amount of money that is saved by the timber 
harvester that would be substantially less cost to him than the 
purchaser credit makes available is retained by the timber bidder, and 
that becomes a windfall profit. That is what the various groups, the 
taxpayer groups, as well as the 60 or more editorial writers across the 
country, have focused on--that it is a subsidy and a subsidy that ought 
to be eliminated.
  Third, let me talk for a moment about the environmental consequences. 
We have 380,000 miles of roads in the National Forest System. That is 
about eight times the length of the interstate system. We have an 
enormous backlog of maintenance on existing roads. It is clear that new 
road construction, particularly in those environmentally sensitive 
areas that are steep, that have serious drainage and grading problems, 
cost the American taxpayer not just the initial cost for the road 
construction, but in some instances for generations thereafter. We deal 
with the problems of erosion, sedimentation and siltation into the 
rivers, streams, and lakes in the national forests. That is why the 
Assistant Secretary has commented that the greatest threat to the water 
resource in the national forest system is roads and new construction 
which is a major factor in that.

  Finally, let me set at rest the notion that somehow these forest 
roads that will be built for new timber harvests are somehow a great 
benefit to the outdoor recreationalists. There are different categories 
of roads.
  Typically, a road that is involved in a construction to access 
harvest timber is a dirt road. It is accessible only by all-terrain 
vehicles. It is not accessible by passenger vehicles. It is unpaved. It 
is ungraded. It doesn't have gravel on it. Whereas, recreational roads 
are roads of a higher quality that are accessible by passenger and 
general recreational vehicles.
  Let me say that one of the groups that is a watchguard for outdoor 
recreational users is the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 
which is part of the Outdoor Products Council. Mr. President, here is 
what they have to say about this subsidy and the purchaser road credit 
and the Bryan amendment:

       Our national forests are a recreational attraction because 
     of their wild unspoiled areas. We feel that taxpayer 
     subsidies for logging road construction has led to an 
     extensive logging road network that can actually place at 
     risk the very resources upon which recreational users of our 
     national forests depend.

  The recreational users and their interest groups support the Bryan 
amendment because they recognize that the Purchaser Credit Program is, 
in fact, a corporate subsidy, corporate welfare and they recognize the 
environmental consequences of senseless and unnecessary new road 
construction.
  Finally, if I may, to clarify the point that in the Forest Service 
accounts there is a separate category for maintenance of existing 
roads. The Bryan amendment, which could reduce by $10 million the 
amount of money appropriated for new road construction, does not--does 
not--in any way affect or reduce those moneys that are set aside for 
the maintenance accounts. So no one ought to be misled that in some way 
the reduction that we are talking about would in any way impact those 
ongoing activities of erosion control and maintenance of existing 
roads.
  To conclude, Mr. President, this is a win-win. It is a win for the 
American taxpayers because we eliminate a costly subsidy that simply 
cannot be justified and to provide windfall profits for some of the 
largest timber harvesters in America. Common sense suggests that, 
indeed, it must be a very powerful and a very substantial subsidy, or 
why else would we have the opposition to the Purchaser Road Credit 
Program if it did not provide such a subsidy? If it has been suggested 
by those who oppose the amendment it is a wash and an offset, I do not 
see why they would be raising the concerns and objections they have.
  Second, it is a great win for the environment, because we know one of 
the leading causes of environmental degradation is the kind of erosion 
and runoff that we have as a result of these roads that have been cut 
through our national forests, and we ought to be very, very careful and 
sensitive when we construct new roads.
  Mr. President, for the American taxpayer, for the American people, 
this is sound policy. Your vote will be appreciated.
  May I inquire of the Chair whether or not the amendment reflects the 
cosponsorship of John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Senator Bob Torricelli? 
If it does not, I ask unanimous consent that they be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I commend Senator Bryan for introducing 
this important amendment. This amendment does three critical things: 
helps to protect our environment, eliminates an unnecessary Government 
subsidy, and reduces our Federal deficit.
  The Bryan amendment will reduce road construction funding by $10 
million, eliminate the Purchaser Credit Program which gives timber 
companies trees in payment for road construction costs.
  The amendment will not affect recreation and general purpose roads, 
and it will not reduce the money for maintenance and road obliteration. 
Under this amendment, if timber companies want to build logging roads 
with their own money, they can continue to do so. They simply won't be 
paid by the American taxpayers.
  Year after year, American taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to 
subsidize the construction of roads needed for logging in our national 
forests. This is millions of dollars that could have been spent on 
cleaning our air and water.
  Road building wreaks havoc on our national forests. Currently, there 
are nearly 380,000 miles of roads dissecting our national forests--
that's eight times the length of the Interstate Highway System. My 
State of California has 44,000 miles of logging roads in its national 
forests. Each mile of road can have a devastating impact on water 
quality, stream ecosystems, fish habitat, and wildlife. Roads lead to 
sediment loading in streams and destroy habitat for fish and other 
aquatic species. Furthermore, the Forest Service has determined that 
922 communities get drinking water from National Forests streams that 
are adversely affected by logging roads.
  I would like to raise an additional point. Earlier this year, the 
Forest Service began the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project. Under 
this Congressionally mandated pilot project, the Forest Service is now 
charging recreational visitors a fee to enter national forests. Now I 
ask my colleagues, how can we continue to any timber companies to enter 
and harm our national forests, while at the same time we require 
recreational visitors--who come to hike, picnic and enjoy our national 
forests--how can we require them to pay for their visit? Does that seem 
like a wise-use of taxpayer money--I think not.

[[Page S9464]]

  Under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program there is no charge for 
those individuals and companies who come to harvest timber. Quite the 
opposit--we pay them to do so. In California, there is now a $5-per-day 
fee for recreational use of the Angeles, Cleveland, or Los Padres 
National Forests. These forests used to be open and free to 
recreational visitors. The Forest Service estimates that this new Fee 
Program will raise between $8 to $10 million this year, and somewhere 
between $15 to $20 million in future years. This is $10 to $20 million 
from the American public to visit their own national forests while the 
Federal Government pays over $47 million for timber companies to 
construct roads which are destroying those very locations the public 
comes to enjoy.
  As U.S. Senators we have the responsibility of priortizing--making 
decisions about how best to spend our taxpayer dollars in a way that 
will maximize benefits to the American people. We all know that there 
are times when that can be a very difficult task--choosing between many 
projects and activities that all seem equally worthy. This is not one 
of those times.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Bryan's amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. If there is time remaining, I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator withhold that?
  Mr. BRYAN. I withhold.
  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. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada will do so. I think the Record 
will reflect that I have been generous beyond measure to accord to my 
opponents more time than the time agreement we entered into. But I will 
accord the Senator from Wyoming 2 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada has been indeed generous.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
  The business of timber and timber harvest is very important to my 
State. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Nevada. I think the amendment is not about subsidies; it is about 
the elimination of the timber program in our national forests.
  The timber program is part of a healthy forest. Somehow there has to 
be some changes made in a forest that either burns or is harvested or 
is eaten by insects. This would terminate that kind of thing.
  Furthermore, this is a policy issue that I believe ought to be talked 
about in our committee of jurisdiction, ought to be talked about in the 
forest plan, not one that ought to be talked about here in terms of 
doing it on an appropriations bill.
  Let me just say, the Senator has suggested there are winners and 
winners. There are losers. Those losers happen to be schools, school 
districts, counties, small family businesses, and recreationists.
  This, I think, has been called a subsidy. It is actually not a 
subsidy. Purchaser credits are an accounting method used by the Forest 
Service. If the cost of the road was not in there, the bid, of course, 
for the timber would be less. If the cost that they have appropriated 
and allocated to it is more than it should be, that ought to be fixed 
by the Forest Service.
  But, Mr. President, let me just say finally, because I know there is 
not much time, that this amendment really does not have anything to do 
with the critical issues facing the Forest Service. It is just the 
opposite, by depleting desperately needed road funding while reducing 
essential money to county road programs and school districts, as well 
as thousands of jobs and recreational opportunities for all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.
  I thank you very much for your time.
  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.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         NACo, September 12, 1997.
       The Bryan Amendment Hurts Timber Counties and their 
     economies!!
       The National Association of Counties opposes the Bryan 
     Amendment on forest roads to the Interior Appropriations bill 
     (H.R. 2107). Eliminating the purchaser road credit system, 
     and reducing funding for the forest roads program can have 
     only one purpose--weaken the viability of the Forest 
     Service's timber sale program. A viable timber sale program 
     is vital to America's timber counties and the forest road 
     program is an important part of such a program. Reducing the 
     ability to access timber not only hurts counties, but the 
     thousands of families that rely upon the income from their 
     timber jobs. In FY 1995 a total of $257 million was returned 
     to local communities adjacent to national forests throughout 
     the United States. Two-thirds of all timber harvested in 
     national forests come from small businesses--those small 
     operations are generally headquartered in the rural counties, 
     providing jobs and stability to their communities, not to 
     mention needed revenues to sustain county programs and 
     services for the citizens. It does not take an accountant to 
     determine the serious implications this has for the economies 
     of rural timber counties.
       Proposed provisions to lessen the impact of these cuts on 
     these rural communities and counties do not meet their stated 
     objective. Attempting to hold county governments harmless 
     from these cuts, discounts the other significant economic 
     impacts on the people in the counties' communities. A 
     significantly better way to address the needs of natural 
     resource dependent counties is to support increases to the 
     Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. This program in 
     combination with timber revenues, help public land counties 
     provide such vital services as law enforcement, solid waste 
     disposal, search and rescue and fire fighting on public 
     lands. This is considered a major ``underfunded mandate'' and 
     it is extremely important to the 1,789 public land counties 
     in 49 states that rely upon the PILT program to provide some 
     equity for the services they provide.
       Please oppose efforts to eliminate the purchaser road 
     credit program and reduce the forest roads program by 
     attempting to hold counties harmless. It does not achieve its 
     goal. Instead, support efforts that really help public land 
     counties--support the PILT program.
       Thank you for your attention.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Randy Johnson,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time the Senator from 
Nevada has?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BRYAN. I assure my colleagues I will not take the full 6 minutes. 
But let me respond to the concern that the Senator from Wyoming has 
voiced with respect to the county schooling.
  We have crafted into the amendment a hold-harmless provision that 
recognizes that indeed this is an important revenue source for local 
governments. I can assure my colleagues that the purpose of this 
amendment, or its effect, will in no way affect that program. We 
specifically incorporated that in there.
  Let me just again return to the issue of the subsidy because I think 
that is central to the issue. I mean, if this is not a subsidy, why do 
we go through all of the incantation of calculating a separate 
purchaser credit, making that available? Why don't we simply just 
eliminate that and say, as do BLM harvesters, and in some State forest 
programs, the individual who is bidding on a tract of timber would 
factor into his or her, or its or their, costs what their road 
construction cost would be. That creates a competitive market, a level 
playing field. Why go through all of this incantation of developing the 
purchaser road credits?
  Mr. President, I think the answer is clear. This has conferred an 
enormous benefit to the timber harvester. For one, the GAO has 
indicated that the Forest Service itself, in calculating the purchaser 
road credit, factors in a profit--factors in a profit. That is not a 
wash. That is not a recovery of costs. That is cost plus a profit.
  If we are advocates of truth in budgeting, let us just eliminate that 
gimmick and simply say to all who harvest in the national forests, 
submit your bids, and included in your bid will be the cost that you 
will incur in accessing the tract of timber, or for those that involve 
new road constructions, you will factor that in.
  Second, with the exception of the Forest Service industry itself, 
virtually every outside analyst, the taxpayer groups, editorial writers 
across the country, those who have been commissioned to do independent 
surveys, have all concluded that, indeed, when one examines the cost of 
the credit

[[Page S9465]]

that is provided to the timber harvester and examines the cost incurred 
by the timber harvester, in some instances the timber harvester's costs 
are 30 percent less than the credit that is provided to the timber 
harvester.
  Those are taxpayer resources. Those are taxpayer assets. That is 
clearly the definition of a subsidy. It goes far beyond what the cost 
incurred by the timber harvester is and provides him or her, it or 
them, with a costly subsidy at taxpayer expense.
  That is why from the west coast to the east coast, from north to 
south, editorial writers, commenters, and analysts have looked at this 
and said, ``This is a program that we cannot support.'' If we are 
talking about being fair and honest with the taxpayers' money, how can 
we support a program that is under a very convoluted, difficult-to-
explain and, I am sure, difficult-to-understand purchaser credit 
program where in effect what we are doing, however we disguise it, is 
providing additional profits to a timber harvester?
  That simply is not right. I believe any responsible budgetary 
analysis reveals that that is in fact what has occurred. The Forest 
Service itself recognizes that practice. That is why they support the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Bryan amendment. I 
yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  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. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I might inquire of the floor leader, the 
floor leader indicated that there would be time since we are going to 
have an intervening debate?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. The usual way is 1 minute for each side.
  Mr. BRYAN. Fine. That will be acceptable.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator 
Ashcroft completes at least the first part of his presentation, that I 
be immediately recognized to use the time on our side up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection. Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address an 
important issue before the American people.
  It is an issue about the nature of Government, the purpose for 
Government, what we have Government for and alternative uses of 
resources of the taxpayers in this country.
  Data this year announced, not by Government itself but by independent 
studies including the best of the business journals, that the American 
people this year are paying more in taxes than any other year in the 
history of this Republic. The gross tax load is gross.
  As a matter of fact, the Second World War, First World War, the 
Korean war, and the war in Vietnam did not cause us to have to pay the 
kind of elevated tax rates that we pay today, nor did previous wars of 
previous centuries.
  The average U.S. citizen now pays the highest tax load, the biggest 
portion of his or her income that we have ever paid.
  One of the questions that we must face, and which we must answer, is 
the question of whether or not we should take the hard-earned resources 
of American citizens, people who get up early, work hard all day, go 
home late seeking to help their families, whether we should take that 
resource to spend it on what the Government identifies as art or calls 
art or wants to encourage as art.
  There will be some who say that this will be a debate about whether 
or not we support art or do not support art. I think it is important to 
note that art as an aspect of our culture has flourished since the very 
beginning of the United States as a nation and prior to that time.
  Since the time we began our culture, from Plymouth Rock forward, we 
have had an expression of art in the United States--great literature, 
we have had great paintings, we have had tremendous capacity on the 
part of the American people to express themselves and to communicate 
noble ideas and high aspirations through our artistic devices.

  But the debate which we are about to embark upon is a debate about 
whether the Federal Government should subsidize art and should identify 
in the art community some things for subsidy and some things for 
special treatment and some things to be singled out for approval while 
other things have to survive or fall based on their quality in the 
marketplace.
  So it is with that in mind that I rise to say, in regard to the 
appropriations bill that is now before the Senate, that we should not 
spend the resources earned by taxpayers to encourage one artist over 
another artist, to say that some art is good and other art is bad, and 
particularly given the record of the National Endowment for the Arts. 
For the National Endowment for the Arts has a questionable record of 
fostering artistic expression which has countered the expression of 
values that most Americans cherish and the values which have provided 
the basis for the greatness and character of these United States of 
America.
  The first point that I make is that the arts have plenty of money 
without the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Let me just point to a set of statistics reflected in this particular 
chart. This compares NEA spending to private, State, and local arts 
funding.
  Here you have private funding, the orange portion of the chart; local 
contributions, the green portion; the State contributions is the purple 
portion; and the NEA as proposed is the yellow portion.
  It is pretty clear that that withdrawal of this very small portion of 
funding, 1 percent of the funding, is not going to cause a collapse in 
the arts. As a matter of fact, there are many individuals who are part 
of the arts community who feel this is an incentive to the wrong things 
in art.
  So, first of all, we need to understand that the arts will survive. 
This is not a death knell for the arts. It is, in some respects, a 
contaminant to the arts to the extent that we continue to fund artistic 
endeavors of specific kinds, especially those things which are 
concededly politically correct or drive the agenda of the National 
Endowment. That is where the small yellow wedge comes in.
  Just take a look again. Private giving to the arts and cultures and 
humanities is up. We have had some reduction. We have moved in the 
right direction. We used to give more to the arts through the National 
Endowment for the Arts than we do now. As we have had a reduction in 
the dollars that are spent by Government for art, we have had this 
substantial increase, especially recently, in private giving to the 
arts so that the private sector is totally capable of sustaining the 
arts.
  I just add at this point that the kind of art that sometimes gets 
funded here is not the art of the great masses.
  I tend not to be an individual who has invested a great deal of my 
life in the opera.
  Now, the opera gets a subsidy from the National Endowment for the 
Arts,

[[Page S9466]]

but by and large, Willie Nelson and Garth Brooks don't. Those of us 
that drive our pickups to those concerts don't get a subsidy; but the 
people who drive their Mercedes to the opera get a subsidy.
  Now, it seems to me what is clear here is that the folks who 
patronize the opera don't deserve a subsidy any more than those of us 
who enjoy the Ozark opera instead of the other kind of opera--although 
I don't purport to say I couldn't enjoy both kinds.
  The first point I am making here is that the arts are not in trouble. 
Second, the arts funding from the Federal Government is 1 percent or 
so. Third, the private share of contribution to the arts is up 
dramatically. State and local governments dominate giving to the arts. 
The Federal Government contributes a low portion of that.
  Employment in the arts in the 1990's is up. So we have a vigorous 
arts community and it is an arts community which continues to grow. 
This has been an upward trend at a time when we had a decline in the 
amount of Federal funding for the arts. If people are interested in 
more people coming into the arts, they could say that as we have 
decreased the funding, we have had more people going in. We are not 
threatening the arts.
  Median household income for artists is up. It exceeds the income for 
the rest of the labor force. It seems to me we are not threatening the 
art community or questioning whether the United States is going to have 
art.
  Art attendance is up in every category, from jazz, classical music, 
opera, musicals, plays, ballet, art museums. We had more people 
participating in the arts in 1992 than in 1982. I don't believe that is 
a trend that will be reversed. These things are a function of the fact 
that people have leisure time and the people have disposable net income 
and are not dependent on whether or not we have a National Endowment 
for the Arts. Artists are increasingly college educated as well.
  Total receipts for performance arts events are up and are approaching 
the receipts for spectator sports. This gap is narrowing. The arts, 
indeed, are flourishing in the United States. They are getting closer 
and closer to matching the same kind of receipts as for spectator 
sports.
  The point I make is that the arts have an abundance of funding. They 
don't need to take the resources from families that the families need 
to spend on themselves. We are now taxed at the highest rate since the 
onset of this Republic, since we have been in existence. We frequently 
have both parents in the work force, one to pay for Government, the 
other to support the family. We have governmental programming that is 
taking resources, saying we can spend this money better on your family 
than you can spend it on yourself. My own view is that is not something 
that we need to support. The arts do not require it, and I believe 
people are entitled to additional tax relief.
  The second point is whether the arts and the NEA need the money. 
According to the sponsors, this kind of an appropriation is not an 
issue. The arts do not need the money. They say what is needed here is 
sort of--the Federal Government telling people what is good and what is 
not good in the arts community. They call this the Good Housekeeping 
Seal of Approval argument. On several occasions individuals have come 
to the floor of the U.S. Senate here and said whenever the NEA comes in 
and puts its so-called stamp of approval on items that it somehow makes 
it possible for those artists to survive because people need the NEA to 
develop a way of helping people understand what is good art and what is 
bad art.
  I don't think the NEA has been very good at developing good art. They 
have some good art, they have some art that is atrocious. It is clear 
to me that whether it has the NEA stamp of approval on it does not make 
a difference.

  I go back to an earlier example. This is an item of art which the NEA 
has paid for in the past. It is a poem, or so we are told it is a poem. 
It was part of an anthology. This was an anthology for which money was 
paid, hundreds of dollars paid, to support this ``L-I-G-H-G-H-T'' as a 
poem in the anthology. Now I suppose you might say most people would 
not recognize this as great art just looking at these letters. I was 
not extremely well educated. I went to the public schools, and, 
frankly, I have to confess I did not see that this was great art when I 
first saw this. As a matter of fact, I thought it was a misspelling--
but it could be great art.
  The argument is if you put the seal of approval on it by the NEA, 
somehow it will make it possible for everyone to agree it is great art, 
so if you somehow tack the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on it--it 
has Good Housekeeping and here is the National Endowment for the Arts, 
a combination of what proponents of this legislation say--the National 
Endowment symbol becomes the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for 
this, I suppose folks around the country will now recognize this word 
as great art, that this is great poetry. I hardly think so.
  The truth of the matter is you do not convert art into great art by 
putting some governmental seal of approval on it. It doesn't change the 
character of it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't help us at all in many 
respects.
  One of the individuals that I talked to earlier pointed out to me 
that in regard to this poem a Congressman called the author of the 
anthology, the one who had developed the book that included this and 
for which the Government paid, and asked the developer of the anthology 
to explain it. The author of the anthology said, ``You are from the 
Midwest. You are culturally deprived, so you would not understand it, 
anyway,'' no use to explain to you why this misspelled word or 
apparently misspelled word is great art.
  Well, I suppose people could say that we need the NEA so this sort of 
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval could convert misspellings into 
great art and people would know how to invest their money. I hardly 
think so. I have to make that argument with my tongue in my cheek. I 
wonder how those who made the argument kept their tongue out of their 
cheek in that respect?
  The mere fact that something has the National Endowment for the Arts 
on it--and this particular stamp of approval is there--doesn't make it 
good art or doesn't make it bad art. The American people are still left 
to make their own judgments. The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval 
doesn't really tell us much, although it does tell us something about 
the theory of Government that people have.
  Some people think that the American people can't make good judgments 
about value themselves and they need Government to identify those 
things which are worthy of their support, and our Government's absence 
of an identifying seal would be something that is not worthy of your 
support. I think they have inverted what is important to understand 
about democracy in that the genius of democracy is not that the 
Government would identify the great values of the world and impose them 
on the people. That is the idea of the monarchy, where somebody up high 
in some remote place would tell everybody what to think and do. The 
genius of a democracy is just the opposite of that. It is not that 
someone up high in some remote place tells everybody what to do. It is 
that the people, together, have a set of values, and instead of having 
values imposed on them by the Government, the people impose their 
values on the system. That is the genius of a democracy. The idea that 
somehow we need the National Endowment for the Arts to impose values on 
this culture is a bankrupt idea, in my judgment.
  Of course part of the argument that says we need the National 
Endowment for the Arts is that it identifies where people should invest 
in the arts. You don't have to tell people what they should like and 
not like, but this helps artists who are fledgling going around and 
saying you should invest in me as an artist because I have the seal of 
approval from the National Endowment for the Arts--sort of the idea you 
could have a central planning agency for the allocation of artistic 
resources.

  Now, central planning for the allocation of resources is not a novel 
idea. As a matter of fact, some countries tried it, not just for art. 
Some countries have tried it for all of their economic endeavors. That 
is really the definition of communism or socialism, that you have some 
head of planning in the economy that tells you what is good, bad, where 
you should invest and where you shouldn't invest as a culture. So you 
decide to grow this many acres of

[[Page S9467]]

potatoes, this many acres of corn, and you make this much steel, and it 
is all planned at the center of things. It is supposed to be a good 
system, in theory.
  It took about 80 years around the world to figure out what the theory 
was, but it was a theory of collapse. We only have two fully confessed 
Communist regimes left in the world now, North Korea--and most of the 
rest of the world is trying to send them aid so their children don't 
starve to death--and Cuba, which is teetering on the edge of its own 
demise. The truth of the matter is central government planning to 
allocate the resources in the arts community isn't any more effective 
or any more to be desired than central governmental planning and 
allocation of resources in the industrial communities, the 
manufacturing community or the agricultural communities.
  The genius of the marketplace is that it rewards those things which 
are valuable in the absence of planning in Government, not that it gets 
signals from Government or some planning agency or some guru in some 
bureaucracy that says, ``This is my beloved artist in whom I am well 
pleased, put all your money here.'' As a matter of fact, some of the 
things that have been designated as those things to be supported like 
this poem--this is not the title for the poem, Mr. President, this is 
the poem. This is it, the whole nine yards. This is it.
  There is a dispute about whether the actual payment was $1,500 or 
$750. You can do the quick math. It is $107 a letter if it was $750, 
and $214 a letter if it was $1,500. I make this copy as a bargain to 
you, and just give you the $107 rate if you think your marketplace 
would sustain it. Of course, I am not sure whether this is the French 
version of the poem, the English or the German version of the poem, 
because I have looked in the dictionaries and I don't find it in the 
English dictionary, the French dictionary or the German dictionary, but 
who knows. I know one thing, putting the seal of approval on this would 
not increase its value to me, and I don't think it does for the 
culture.
  The truth of the matter is there are other reasons why we shouldn't 
be wanting to subsidize speech. Those reasons include the fact that the 
subsidization of speech results in the corruption of the arts. Jan 
Breslauer of the Los Angeles Times wrote eloquently that the National 
Endowment for the Arts results in the corrosive effect on the arts, 
that as a matter of fact that effect on the arts was prompted by the 
fact that National Endowment rewards politically correct art and art 
expression. She says, ``The Endowment has quietly pursued policies 
rooted in identity politics.'' The National Endowment for the Arts is 
conducting a political effort, ``a kind of separatism that emphasizes 
racial, sexual and cultural differences above all else.''
  This is art subsidized by Government and specifically designed to 
separate us one from another based on racial differences, sexual 
differences and cultural differences. She says these policies have not 
``excited much controversy, but they have had a profoundly corrosive 
effect on the American arts.'' Here is a clear indication by an art 
critic that the subsidy of arts, based on political preference, based 
on subject matter that is designed to divide the American people based 
on sexual, cultural and racial lines, pulls us apart rather than 
unifies us, has a corrosive effect on the arts. Not only a corrosive 
effect on the arts, it has a corrosive effect on the culture.
  I wonder if we ought to spend our resources on something which 
produces that kind of an impact on the culture?
  Mr. President, there are a number of other reasons and things I would 
like to say about this. We will have debate on both sides. I know the 
Senator from California is eager to speak. I want to give her an 
opportunity. So I sum up by saying there is no crisis in funding for 
the arts. People of America are taxed at their highest rates in 
history.
  There is no reason to require that there be a Good Housekeeping Seal 
of Approval from the Government to try to dignify art that is not art, 
or to make decent those things which are indecent and unacceptable. 
Good art will be good art whether or not you label it with an NEA seal. 
An artistic statement, as a matter of fact, that came before the onset 
of the NEA, and will survive long after it, is that ``A rose is nothing 
but a rose no matter what you call it, and by any other name, it is 
still a rose.''
  With that in mind, I think it is time for us to say we have spent 
more than enough in subsidizing politically correct activities under 
the guise of promoting the arts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. President. Now, I have heard the 
Senator from Ohio very eloquently express his views. I think it is time 
that we hear from the other side.
  I am very pleased to be a member of this Subcommittee on Interior 
Appropriations, and I was very pleased that we were able to resolve the 
question of the native Americans. I felt very strongly that had we not 
done that, we were going to do a grave injustice to native Americans 
and turn our backs on history, justice, fairness, and the Constitution. 
So I was very pleased to support Senators McCain, Campbell, and the 
others. They convinced the chairman of our subcommittee to put that 
fight off until another time.
  I thought we were going to be OK on the National Endowment for the 
Arts. It comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate funded at about the same 
level as last year, and here we are faced with an array of amendments 
to wipe out the National Endowment for the Arts. Now, this is the most 
extreme one. It would totally do away with the National Endowment for 
the Arts. I think it is a very radical and very serious step for us to 
take.
  I want to comment, because I think it is important to correct the 
Record, or at least straighten it out a little bit, on the poem that 
the Senator from Ohio continues to hold up in this debate. It is a one-
word poem. I agree, it doesn't make much sense to me either. And, yes, 
the NEA has made some mistakes. I'm sorry, I mean the Senator from 
Missouri, not Ohio. What the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, 
does not tell us in his eloquent debate is that the one-word poem he 
holds up was funded 30 years ago; it was funded in 1968. He holds it up 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate as if these are the kinds of grants 
that are being made today.
  Now, if we are going to have an honest debate, why don't we be honest 
with each other? I saw that poem and I said, ``That doesn't make much 
sense.'' Then I found out it was funded 30 years ago. Now, there are 
many reforms that have been put into place in the National Endowment 
for the Arts. Does it mean there might not be a mistake or two in the 
future? No. There may be some out of the thousands and thousands of 
grants. But to hold up a poem funded 30 years ago, when I was just a 
kid--as a matter of fact, 30 years ago, I became a mother for the first 
time, and now my kids are having kids. So, yes, there was a mistake 
made, I agree. You know, there are mistakes made in life, but we don't 
just take a meat ax to the problem. And we didn't; we have made 
reforms.
  The other point that I think is interesting for the Senator from 
Missouri to imply is that the music funded by the National Endowment 
for the Arts is all for the elite, the upper crust, and he talked about 
the opera and how he doesn't go to the opera much, and yet, the opera 
is funded. Well, I tell the Senator from Missouri that many groups 
across the country are funded by the NEA: The Carter Family Memorial 
Music Center in Hiltons, VA, supporting a weekly series and annual 
festival of old-time traditional music, played on acoustic instruments. 
There is the Western Folklife Center in Nevada, dedicated to the 
preservation and presentation of the cultural traditions of the 
American West. There is the Folk Arts Apprenticeship Program, fostering 
the growth and evolution of Mississippi's traditional arts by bringing 
master traditional artists together with promising apprentices.

  So, again, we have a misleading presentation here that doesn't square 
with the facts. This is 1997, not 1968. Mistakes were made, but many 
revisions have taken place and reforms have been implemented to 
straighten out the problems.
  In 1993, the NEA initiated a complete overhaul of the agency's grant 
review

[[Page S9468]]

and monitoring process. All subgrants to private nonapproved groups 
have been eliminated. Since 1996, all fine arts grants to individual 
artists have been eliminated. Since 1996, all grants to organizations 
must be for projects specifically described in the application, further 
increasing accountability of grantees. Since 1994, all grantees must 
file interim and final project reports. The final one-third of all 
grant payments are withheld pending the NEA's approval of grantees' 
interim reports. In addition, grantees must now seek written permission 
in advance to change grant activities proposed in the organization's 
application. The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act 
of 1965 requires a rigorous multistep review process of all 
applications. Diverse panels of citizens, representing wide geographic, 
ethnic, and cultural points of view, review all applications. Following 
panel consideration, all applications are then reviewed by the National 
Council on the Arts, which is a body of 26 private citizens nominated 
by the President and, yes, confirmed by the U.S. Senate to 6-year 
terms. Do we have so little faith in what we have already done to 
straighten out some of the problems with the NEA that we would, with 
one vote, do away with the NEA? I hope not. By the way, applications 
recommended by the council for support are forwarded to the chairman of 
NEA for a final decision. The chairman may not approve an application 
with respect to which the council has made a negative evaluation. So we 
have even put a rein on the chairman.
  Some of my colleagues have spoken on this floor expressing concerns 
that projects receiving funding from the NEA are obscene. Anybody who 
says that should know that Federal law ensures that artistic excellence 
and artistic merit are the criteria used to evaluate applications. The 
law expressly prohibits the award of financial assistance to any 
project or program determined to be obscene. If a mistake is made in 
judgment, yes, we should ensure that it is corrected, just as we must 
do in any Federal agency or just as we must do in our own lives. If one 
postman is obnoxious as he or she delivers the mail, we don't stop 
delivering the mail. We get rid of that person. If one military officer 
sexually harasses another, we don't shut down the military; we hold a 
hearing and we hold the perpetrator accountable.
  We have had an extraordinary number of military planes crashing, and 
not one person would suggest that we don't build any more military 
planes. Clearly, we are going to take the problems as they come to us 
and deal with them. And, surely, we are capable of doing that with the 
National Endowment for the Arts. This body ought to be very pleased 
that it has made tremendous progress.
  Now, speaking of the military, we spend more on military bands than 
we spend on the National Endowment for the Arts. I support spending 
money on military bands. I also support spending money on the National 
Endowment for the Arts. We spent $176.2 million on military bands in 
1997, which is almost twice the $99.4 million spent on the NEA. Let me 
tell you something. If a military band played an inappropriate song, or 
someone was dressed inappropriately or, in any way, degraded that 
cultural event, we would address the situation. By the way, it is very 
important to our country that we keep the culture of the U.S. military 
and that we keep the music of patriotism that fills our souls every 
time we hear from it. But if there is a mistake made and 
an inappropriate song chosen, or someone is acting in an inappropriate 
way, we don't walk away from funding the military band. Do you know 
what we spend per person for the NEA? When this Senate voted $10 
billion more for the military than the military asked for, I stood on 
this floor in disbelief, because I heard all these speeches about how 
much money we are spending in taxes. I agree, I don't want to spend 
money we don't need to spend. I want to give the military what it 
needs--not $10 billion more. But now we are going to save the Federal 
budget because we are going to cut out less than $100 million, 38 cents 
per person in this United States of America?

  I was called to a meeting in San Diego. In terms of politics, I would 
say you would call it a Republican county. I had people there from the 
business community, I had people there from the arts community, I had 
people there from nonprofit organizations, and we had elected officials 
there of both political parties. Do you know what their message to me 
was? Go and fight this thing, because every time we get a dollar from 
the NEA, we get matched $12. ``It is important,'' they said to me, 
``for our community.'' As a matter of fact, they said to me, ``Can't 
you fight so that we can spend 50 cents per person in a year? If we 
spend 50 cents per person a year, we would get that much more leverage, 
that much more job creation, that much more tourism, and it would help 
us.'' So it is very interesting. In San Diego, CA, I get called to a 
meeting and I am told to fight for more. Here I find myself fighting 
just to keep what we have.
  So when we talk about tax load, don't be fooled about that. Don't be 
fooled. In essence, what we have here is a grant program that is far 
lower than it was under George Bush and Ronald Reagan who, by the way, 
signed all those bills for the NEA--and it costs 38 cents per person.
  Public funding of the arts is good for the economy. Now, there was a 
recent study by McKinsey Consultants for New York City and they said in 
their study that funding of the arts generates taxes, which brings down 
the deficit, jobs and economic growth far in excess of the amounts 
invested.
  I used to be a stockbroker. When you look at recommending a stock, 
you look at whether or not it is a good investment. Does it bring back 
dividends? When you put in a dollar, what do you get out? This is 
clear. Republicans in my State, Democrats in my State, Independent 
voters in my State--this is the place where they cross over party 
lines. They want us to save the NEA. They think it is good. They know 
mistakes will happen, yes, when you give thousands of grants. I think 
they are willing to forgive a grant made in 1968. An investment of $100 
million in the NEA is relatively small. We are talking about less than 
one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the nearly $1.5 trillion Federal 
budget.
  Now, I want to share with you some pictures because I think they are 
worth many times a thousand words. Let me talk about Leon Bates, a 
world-class, highly respected concert pianist, who has appeared with 
major orchestras throughout the United States, Europe and Africa. By 
the way, my colleagues have talked about Communist countries and have 
somehow linked what we are doing here to communism. You know, if you 
look at every capitalist country in the world, every democracy and 
capitalist country in the world, they spend a far greater proportion of 
their budgets on the arts than we do. So I don't get how communism, 
socialism and capitalism comes in here, because in fact every 
capitalist democracy in the world spends more on the arts than we do. 
So I don't see how that gets into the debate.
  Well, here is Leon Bates. He has traveled in Europe, Africa, and the 
United States. He was hired by the Long Beach Symphony Orchestra to 
perform a piano concerto in January of 1996.
  As part of this week-long residency of rehearsals and public 
appearances, Mr. Bates performed for an audience of 250 members of the 
Long Beach Boys and Girls Club.
  Everyone in here stands up and talks about the children--everyone of 
us. And we should.
  I wish you could see the faces on these kids at the Boys and Girls 
Clubs watching this creative genius perform his work with an NEA grant 
enabling him to go to the Boys and Girls Clubs, be a role model, and 
give them a love of music. He is the perfect ambassador for classical 
music to an audience of children, parents, and counselors who are not 
exposed to the world of performing arts that often. He brought with him 
a full-sized concert grand piano, and in between anecdotes from his 
life as a musician he answered questions and played excerpts from 
several classical composers. The event was a spectacular success.
  He was supported in part by the NEA. Without continued support of the 
NEA, the Long Beach Symphony Orchestra would not be able to bring in 
top-quality artists like Mr. Bates.
  I want to show you another photograph which I think is wonderful. The 
Senator from Missouri holds up a poem from 1968. I am talking about 
what is

[[Page S9469]]

going on now. This is a group called We Tell Stories. It is a 
performance group based in Los Angeles--a troop of actors which travels 
to museums, parks, schools, and libraries to perform stories for 
children. Its goal is to enhance cultural awareness, communication, and 
awaken a taste for theater and children of all cultures.
  We Tell Stories received an NEA grant to support the creation and 
presentation throughout the United States of work by Carl Sandburg, a 
great American.
  We Tell Stories began in cooperation with the Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art in 1981. Now in partnership with several organizations 
and agencies, including the Los Angeles Unified School District, and 
the troupe has performed for over 2 million people. In 1996, the troupe 
presented performances for 270,000 children.
  I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks, much to the delight of 
several of my colleagues who are here to speak. But I want to show you 
one last photograph. This is one of the audience members who was 
watching a recent performance in Westwood, CA, by We Tell Stories. Look 
at her face. It captures the promise of the arts. The great 
expectations of the arts, the creativity, the imagination.
  Will there be art without the NEA? Of course. I say to my colleague 
from Missouri, there will always be the arts. Why wouldn't there be? 
One of the things we do in this country is to give a very small 
amount--38 cents per person in this country to be matched 12 times by 
the private sector, the nonprofit communities, the State governments. 
Why would we do that? To bring these opportunities to the people of our 
country--and, yes; to the children of our country--because that is what 
the NEA has been focusing on recently.
  I just want to say that I know we have disagreements in this body. I 
respect those disagreements, and I respect my colleagues who come at it 
from a different way. But I think for the sake of this debate the 
American people--and I know the people in my State of every political 
persuasion--again, in my State, there are three issues that unite 
people along party lines. This is California, and I can't speak for 
Missouri, and I can't speak for any other State, but there are three 
issues that make people cross over party lines.
  One of them is the environment. People cross over, and they say, 
``You know, I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican. I want 
clean air. I want clean water. And I want my kid to grow up without 
getting environmental cancer.''
  So there are no politics in that issue, in my opinion, in my State.
  Another issue is a woman's right to choose. It's the same thing--
people from both parties come to me, and they say, ``Please. This is a 
private personal matter, and it has nothing to do with Government. Stay 
out of our lives.''
  And the third issue is funding for the arts. I have letters. I have 
phone calls. I have gone to meetings. I have never seen such bipartisan 
audiences as I have with those three issues.
  On this issue, they all agree that we need to put the facts on the 
table. This isn't some political issue. This is a really important 
issue for our people. Will we stand up and say, ``For a modest amount 
per person, 38 cents a year, we will work with the States, the local 
groups, the local symphonies, the local Girl Scouts, the groups that 
benefit from this to bring the arts to our people, to help them 
leverage that investment?''
  I can't imagine why anyone would think that it is dangerous for us to 
have this very modest program that sparks such enthusiasm. Are there 
mistakes? Yes. Are there mistakes in everything we do in life? 
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we destroy the idea of the spark.
  Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords across party lines have worked 
out an agreement on this. They would block grant up to 40 percent of 
the NEA funds and send it back to the States. That is a good 
compromise. That would be up from 35 percent.
  I hope we can come together across party lines because we need to do 
that.
  I hope we will reject this amendment. I hope that we will support the 
Jeffords-Kennedy attempt to resolve this matter. And let's make sure 
that we fulfill our responsibilities, it seems to me, to have a small, 
dynamic, flexible program that responds to criticism but continues to 
give a modicum of support--let's use it to support dance and the arts 
in this Nation.
  Thank you, very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I reserve the remainder of our side's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the Senator from California for correcting the fact that I am 
not from Ohio. I didn't want people from Ohio to be too upset. It 
reminds me of my having been introduced as having been an individual 
from Missouri but who was born in Illinois. I say, ``Yes, both States 
claim me. Missouri claims I am from Illinois, and Illinois claims I am 
from Missouri.''
  The truth of the matter is that I would like to address some of the 
issues which the Senator from California has talked about.
  She mentions the fact of a poem--for which we paid $214 a letter--
which was paid for earlier in the history of the National Endowment. 
She is correct. But it is incorrect to suggest that there are not 
abuses now that are even more egregious.
  This is one of the more decent egregious abuses of National Endowment 
money.
  I have excerpts from a book in my hand which very proudly bears the 
imprint, the so-called good seal of approval, of the National Endowment 
for the Arts. This book was published in 1996 after all the supposed 
improvements, after all of these wonderful safeguards to make sure that 
our money is well spent. I think it is instructive to read just what 
the authors say about their own book. This isn't some attack upon the 
book. This is the bragging of the authors.
  I read:

       The blood of the Mugwump clan of Catholic gender-shifting 
     vampires has become infected by decadent words and confused 
     memories.

  It talks about a man trapped inside a body that is always changing 
from male to female, and dealing with his polysexual sister.
  I asked my staff to just take a couple of pages of the book. And this 
book was written because the National Endowment for the Arts felt that 
the American people needed to have this capacity to identify good art 
so they could invest in it under the ``Good Housekeeping'' or ``good 
art'' seal. I asked them just to get a couple of pages of the book and 
Xerox them. But I said, ``Be sure to mark out the things that would be 
not suitable to be shown on C-SPAN in the middle of the day.''
  This is what a typical set of pages looks like. This is what the 
American people are paying for. This isn't something from 30 years ago. 
This is something from 30 minutes ago. This is something that is 
current. This is something from 1996.
  No. 1, the so-called reforms have been ineffective. And, if we had an 
abuse which was at least not obscene--our abuses have not gone uphill. 
They have gone downhill.
  I have a list of current abusive things funded by the National 
Endowment for the Arts. I could go through them time after time. I will 
not bother to give them to you. Hundreds of thousands--hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted in the current 
selection of grantees. They are not as easy to describe, and they are 
not as suitable for television as the 30-year-old abuses are. 
Unfortunately, they are not as easy to use on television.
  The Senator from California pled for honesty and integrity in talking 
about whether or not we would have any funding--that somehow there is a 
matching grant program. There is no matching program. We are not 
talking about matching funds here. We are just talking about other 
money spent on the arts--most of it in the private sector. And when 
they have that kind of an expenditure, sure enough, they could say, 
``For every dollar we have in Federal money we have $12 in private 
money.'' That doesn't mean the private money wouldn't have been spent 
anyhow. After all, what happened before 1965 when Lyndon Johnson 
concluded in the Great Society that we had to have funding for the 
arts? For several

[[Page S9470]]

hundred years America had great artists, and we weren't devoid of 
expenditure. We had great museums. We had tremendous collections. We 
had artists who thrived. We had novelists, and poets.
  So it is pretty clear to me that art is not dependent upon some 
matching fund system.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 40 minutes and 41 
seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, first of all, the Senator from Missouri has repeatedly 
talked about the poem ``Lighght.'' He has held up this little piece of 
paper, and he has talked about this poem and castigated it as one of 
the great spending holes of the U.S. Government, we spent money on the 
poem ``Lighght.''
  Well, I saw that and I recognized it. Believe it or not, I recognized 
that poem. And so I thought I would take some time since I have a 
history in this to shed a little light on ``Lighght''.
  Now, again, I am glad that the Senator from California brought this 
up because the Senator from Missouri never did mention this until the 
Senator from California, Mrs Boxer, brought it up. This poem 
``Lighght'' was published in 1969. The Senator from Missouri did not 
say that. He admitted it after the Senator from California pointed that 
out. But in listening in the last couple of days to the Senator from 
Missouri, one would have assumed that this grant was just made, not in 
fact made in 1969, when it was.
  Mr. President, the debate on the NEA, National Endowment for the 
Arts, has set a new standard for debate in the Senate. First of all, 
suggesting that we should eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts 
in 1997 because of a grant that was made in 1969 begs incredulity. That 
would be like saying the State of Missouri, since it had laws on its 
books that allowed segregated schools until the 1960's, will not be 
eligible for Federal education programs. Or saying that the University 
of Alabama will be prohibited from participating in Federal student aid 
programs because it was segregated prior to June 1963, or the schools 
in Little Rock, AR.
  Times change. Conditions change. Well, now, the Senator from Missouri 
said, oh, OK, fine. ``Lighght,'' this was 1969, but then he held up a 
piece of paper which he was reading something from--I didn't catch it 
all, but it was from a book called ``Blood of Mugwump,'' which I never 
heard of until today, but I remembered someone had said something to me 
about it and I looked it up. My staff gave me this. Lo and behold, the 
Senator from Missouri is wrong again. ``Blood of Mugwump'' did not 
receive any NEA funding. How many of these misrepresentations will we 
hear from the Senator from Missouri in debate on funding of the 
National Endowment for the Arts?
  Now, I have here a letter, Mr. President, from People For The 
American Way. It said:

       In a letter to Congressional Members dated June 25, 1997, 
     the Christian Coalition urged Members to ``vote against any 
     amendments to increase NEA funding'' and asserted that the 
     NEA is now ``funding the proliferation of pornography,'' 
     citing specifically two films, ``Sick'' and ``Age 12,'' and 
     one book, ``Blood of Mugwump.''
       Fact 5: The Christian Coalition is wrong. The NEA did not 
     fund any of the three examples used.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this material from the 
People For The American Way be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Claim: In a letter to Congressional members dated June 25, 
     1997, the Christian Coalition urged members to ``vote against 
     any amendments to increase NEA funding'' and asserted that 
     the NEA is now ``funding the proliferation of pornography,'' 
     citing specifically two films, ``Sick'' and ``Age 12'' and 
     one book, ``Blood of Mugwump.''
       Fact: The Christian Coalition was wrong. The NEA did not 
     fund any of the three examples used.

  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator from Missouri would like, I am sure that 
we could sign him up for People For the American Way, and he could get 
the correct information as to what is going on and not the false 
information that he got from the so-called Christian Coalition.
  And so again the Senator from Missouri has brought up something that 
simply has no basis in fact. And I have here again, Mr. President, a 
letter dated March 17, 1997, from Karen Christensen, general counsel of 
the National Endowment for the Arts. It is written to Mr. Curtis White. 
I will not read the whole thing. It just said here:

       The progress report which you filed with this agency 
     erroneously included ``Blood of Mugwump'' as among those 
     volumes partially supported by a grant from the National 
     Endowment for the Arts; this is not the case.
       In any future publications, including promotional materials 
     and reprints of FC2 volumes, please remove any reference to 
     the National Endowment for the Arts from any publication 
     which is not supported by an NEA grant.
       I would appreciate prompt attention to this matter.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Nancy Hanks Center,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 1997.
     Re Grant #96-5223-0091.

     Mr. Curtis White,
     Co-Director, Fiction Collective 2, Unit for Contemporary 
         Literature, Illinois State University, Normal, IL.
       Dear Mr. White: It has come to my attention that the 
     National Endowment for the Arts has been credited with 
     supporting a number of books published by FC2 that were not 
     funded by a grant from this agency. As you know and as the 
     Endowment's grant letter makes clear, funds are released for 
     the specific project described in the grant letter and 
     specified in the grant application. The Endowment's logo 
     should be used only on those publications for which a grant 
     was received.
       Grant #96-5223-0091, which will conclude on June 30, 1997, 
     awarded funds for the following books: S&M, by Jeffrey 
     DeShell; Mexico Trilogy, by D.M. Stuefloten; A Spell for the 
     Fulfillment of Desire, by Don Webb; Memory Wax, by Alan 
     Singer; and Aviary Slag, by Jacques Servin. The progress 
     report which you filed with this agency erroneously included 
     Blood of Mugwump as among those volumes partially supported 
     by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts; this is 
     not the case.
       In any future publications, including promotional materials 
     and reprints of FC2 volumes, please remove any reference to 
     the National Endowment for the Arts from any publication 
     which is not supported by an NEA grant.
       I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Karen Christensen,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. HARKIN. Again, Mr. President, if the Senator from Missouri was 
really serious, I am sure that he could have found out that in March of 
this year the National Endowment for the Arts wrote a letter to the 
director, who put out this book, I guess, under this grant, that it 
wasn't supported by the NEA. And the Senator from Missouri would not 
have stood in this Chamber today and said that ``Blood of Mugwump'' was 
another example of bad taxpayer spending by the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  I caution my friend from Missouri that he simply check his facts. 
That is all. And I am certain that if he just wanted to check his 
facts, if the Senator from Missouri just simply wanted to check whether 
or not what he was saying was factual, a simple call to the National 
Endowment for the Arts--they are not hard to get hold of. They are 
right down here in Washington, DC. Their phone number is 682-5400. I 
would suggest to my friend from Missouri that he simply pick up the 
phone and call them, ask them: Is it so that ``Blood of Mugwump'' was 
funded by an NEA grant? And he would have been told the facts.
  So I think we have an obligation when we debate here on the Senate 
floor to be, at least, somewhat careful. I know we make mistakes around 
here. But, at least, try to check our facts out.
  In that regard, Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit more 
about the poem ``Lighght.'' Now, the reason this came to my attention 
is because this was an issue in my first campaign for public office in 
1974 when then incumbent Congressman Bill Scherle in the House had gone 
after the National Endowment for the Arts on the same basis, that they 
had funded this word, one-word poem ``Lighght.''

[[Page S9471]]

  And so I want to set the record straight, and I want to talk a little 
bit about it to get the facts out, the latest facts out. Mr. President, 
here are the facts. The National Endowment for the Arts sponsored a 
three-part series entitled ``American Literary Anthology.'' This was 
the idea of George Plimpton and also Roger Stevens, that they would 
seek out writers, poets around the country who were not well known, who 
maybe had published in small literary journals that had small 
circulation, to have a contest to put them together and to pick what 
judges decided were the best of these new writers and to put them in an 
American anthology to give them a wider berth so that more people could 
read them.
  The purpose again was to support small literary magazines and their 
contributors. After all, most writers, Mr. President, don't start 
writing for Esquire or the New Yorker or the big magazines. They start 
with small literary journals around the country. And so that was the 
idea of George Plimpton and Roger Stevens, to get some of these new 
writers out there and bring them in and give them a wider circulation.
  I spoke just the other evening with George Plimpton about this. He 
and Peter Ardery were the directors of the ``American Literary 
Anthology.'' He told me that the NEA grant in 1966 had three goals. 
First, to provide wider distribution for literary works which first 
appeared in magazines with limited circulation. Second, to supplement 
the small stipend the magazines used to provide to the authors.
  As Mr. Plimpton told me, in many cases these writers got nothing 
except four or five copies of the magazine in which they were 
published.
  So, it was to supplement it. And here was the supplement: $1,000 for 
prose material, $500 for poems. That was to the contributor, the 
writer. And, third, to reward the magazines which published the 
literary works in the first place: $500 for prose, $250 for poems. The 
total was $60,000 for the second volume. So the Senator from Missouri 
is wrong again. Again, I ask the Senator from Missouri, please check 
your facts. The amount of grant for this one-word poem was not $1,500, 
it was $750: $500 to the writer, $250 to the magazine.
  I am certain the Senator will say that $750 is still too much for 
this poem, but nonetheless I thought it important to set the record 
straight, that it is not $1,500, it was $750.
  I got a copy of the American Literary Anthology, volume II. Actually 
I read some of the poems in it. It is interesting that the Senator from 
Missouri picked out a poem written by Aram Saroyan, the son of William 
Saroyan, by the way. I don't know Aram Saroyan. I have never read his 
poetry before and I have not since. But I looked in volume II of the 
American Literary Anthology to see who else was published: people like 
Robert Penn Warren, John Ashberry, Jim Harrison--I say to the Senator 
from Missouri, Jim Harrison, who later wrote ``Legends of the Fall,'' 
which has been made into a movie, I guess; W.S. Merwyn, Pulitzer Prize-
winning poet who also attended the Writers Workshop at the University 
of Iowa, and I will say more about that in a second; James Tate, one of 
our foremost poets in America; Joyce Carol Oates, also in volume II.
  That is just a sampling. Why didn't he pick out some of those? No; he 
picked out this one-word poem, just to show people how it appeared in 
the book. Here it is, volume II, a one-word poem, on one page.
  This is called calligraphic poetry. Calligraphic poetry is poetry 
where it's not just the content of the poem, but it is how it is laid 
out on the page that also sends a message, or conveys a thought or a 
feeling. I might point out to the Senator from Missouri that 
calligraphic poetry is not new; it is very old. In fact, some 
calligraphic poetry goes back to the 18th century, some in religious 
poetry. These religious poetry might be shaped in the form of pulpits, 
crosses, churches, saints, icons, things like that, to convey a 
religious image by the way the poem looked as well as the words that 
the poem contained.
  I must say, I think the Senator from Missouri, if I might just say--I 
think the Senator from Missouri picked the wrong poem. There is a poem, 
it starts on page 273 of the second volume of the American Literary 
Anthology. It is ``The Last Will And Testimony of Art Evergreen,'' and 
it goes on for 17 pages. If the Senator had picked that poem, he might 
have a little more sympathy from this Senator. I say that tongue in 
cheek.
  But why did the Senator not also pick the poem on page 339 by James 
Tate called ``Stray Animals''? No; he picked this one-word poem 
because, obviously, he doesn't like it. Frankly, I am not certain I 
like it either. It doesn't say much to me. But some calligraphic poetry 
I like, in the way the words are shaped and put on a page. That one 
doesn't say much to me at all. But, nonetheless, it is legitimate 
poetry. And there are a lot of other poems in there.
  Again, the Senator may not care for this type of poetry, but that is 
no reason to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. Over its 32-
year history, the NEA has made 112,000 grants. To date, about 40 that 
we have been able to find have caused people some problems--about 40 
out of 112,000. I think that is a pretty good record. Again, the 
Senator did not mention all of the other people who have gotten grants 
from NEA.
  A little while ago I spoke on the phone with Jorie Graham. She is at 
the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. Last year, 1996, she 
won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry. I had a long talk with her. Here is 
an individual who received an NEA grant, and she told me without that 
she would not have been able to take the year off and write poetry 
because she had a young child. So that grant enabled her to do that.

  I might also point out with some sense of pride that in 1996, last 
year, the three nominees for the Pulitzer Prize in poetry, Charles 
Wright, Donald Justice and Jorie Graham, were all from the Writers 
Workshop at the University of Iowa. It is interesting to note that it 
was the student, Jorie Graham, who won the prize. All three were 
recipients of NEA grants.
  Why does the Senator from Missouri not talk about that? Why doesn't 
he go after the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa?
  Here, I will be glad to give it to my friend from Missouri. Here is a 
whole packet of pages, going clear back to 1970, of writers and poets 
who have received grants, who were at the Writers Workshop. Who will 
the Senator find in here? People like Robert Penn Warren, he'll find 
people like Kurt Vonnegut, he'll find people like Tennessee Williams--
he may not like Tennessee Williams.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? The Senator asked me a 
question.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator in just a second. 
He'll find people like John Irving, Kurt Vonnegut, Tennessee Williams, 
Flannery O'Connor, Jane Smiley, who just wrote the wonderful book ``A 
Thousand Acres'' and won a Pulitzer Prize for it. It is now being made 
into a movie. Writers Workshop. NEA recipients.
  No, he didn't mention those.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Now I will be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator has asked why I didn't cite all these 
others. Is it the Senator's position that none of these people would 
have been writers absent these grants? That absent the ability to have 
the Federal subsidies we could not have literature like this in the 
United States?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will just answer my friend from Missouri. I just had a 
long conversation on the phone with Jorie Graham, the poet from the 
University of Iowa Writers Workshop, who won the Pulitzer Prize last 
year. She told me without that NEA grant--she had a little child--she 
would not have been able to take the year off to develop her talents as 
a poet that enabled her to win the Pulitzer Prize. Yes, she absolutely 
stated that to me.
  Some of these, maybe not. But I can tell you some people like Kurt 
Vonnegut and some people, when they first started out--no. They needed 
these grants to get up to a level.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Did Kurt Vonnegut start out with an NEA grant?
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't know. He got an NEA grant at one point, I 
believe.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I see. It seems to me, will the Senator concede we had 
a lot of great poets and a lot of great artists in America between the 
time of the

[[Page S9472]]

founding of this culture and the time in the mid-1960's when we started 
NEA grants.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will respond to my friend this way. That is true. We 
have had a lot of great poets and writers who received no NEA grants. 
How many more, though, were out there in the little towns of Missouri, 
in the fields of Iowa, around the coal mines of Kentucky and in the 
hills of Kentucky, who wanted to develop their writing skills and their 
talents but did not have the support to do so? How many were left lying 
fallow in the ground because we wouldn't even come up with the two 
pennies, the two pennies per taxpayer per year, to help them to develop 
their talent?
  I think that is the appropriate question to ask, is how many were out 
there who didn't get the nourishment who, if they had the nourishment, 
could have been great writers and poets in our society today?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I can name----
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. In response to that question, I can name at least one 
who didn't have that kind of grant, who was a poor fellow from a small 
town in Missouri. His name was Samuel Clemens. He wrote under the name 
of Mark Twain. He seemed to do pretty well. In the name of artists 
whose works are arrayed in this Capitol, George Caleb Bingham, who is 
considered to be the American Rembrandt, who was a Missouri State 
treasurer, who did not have a public subsidy to do it. We could go 
through the list. Obviously you could always say there may have been 
lots more. There may have been some who would have been great artists 
in the last 25 years but, because they didn't get the seal of approval, 
weren't able to market as successfully their artwork, now that the arts 
community has been so oriented to the Federal approval or disapproval.
  It seems to me, how many would be here or how many would be there is 
not a question that would be very productive in leading us to good 
policy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I only responded because the Senator raised the issue. He 
was saying, questioning me, that was I saying all these great ones all 
received NEA grants. I would say no. But I think the question I asked 
was how many more were out there that could have risen up?
  He mentioned Samuel Clemens. That was the last century and of course, 
again, we had great musicians and we had great artists and poets in the 
past. But again, I challenge my friend from Missouri to think about 
this. The few that we talk about in the past century were so few in 
number. I mean, they were absolutely the pinnacle, absolutely the best. 
How many more who didn't quite make it up there could have been very 
good? Maybe they wouldn't have been the top echelon, but they might 
have been very good writers and purveyors of senses of the esthetics of 
different regions of this country that weren't there.
  Sure, you can point to Samuel Clemens and a few others. But how many 
more might have come along, might have been great, might have been 
maybe not at that pinnacle, but maybe up in that level who died 
aborning because they had no support whatsoever?
  I might also, tongue in cheek, ask my friend from Missouri, who has 
gone after some writings that he claims are not quite appropriate for 
readers to read--you know, old Samuel Clemens wrote some things that 
were pretty risque. I wonder if the Senator from Missouri has ever read 
``Letters From Heaven''? If the Senator from Missouri has never read 
``Letters From Heaven'' by Samuel Clemens, I ask him to read it and 
bring it on the floor and read it. I doubt he would want to read 
``Letters From Heaven'' on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank you for raising the extent to which I have read 
Samuel Clemens' work, Mark Twain. I find him to be an interesting 
author, and I think some of his works are better than others and some 
of them are very helpful and some of them moved society in the right 
direction--I think move us all and inspire us all.
  The point is not whether or not a writer has the ability to write 
things that might be appropriate in one setting or not appropriate in 
another setting. The point is, what do you do by way of subsidy and 
whether the Government decides to endow any particular writer with a 
special stamp of approval and discriminate in favor of that writer and 
thereby discriminate against every other writer? Had Samuel Clemens 
been a writer 100 years ago and had there been the current NEA and had 
the fellow from down the river in St. Louis gotten the grant and Samuel 
Clemens been discriminated against and shunned by the arts community 
because the other guy had gotten the grant, we might never have known 
about Samuel Clemens.
  The point is, when you start with Government identifying and 
establishing the value for one artist over another, picking 
and choosing between the levels of free expression, free expression in 
the free society, pushing people toward politically correct expression, 
there are risks involved there that might result in stifling other 
people who are not favored by the Government. So, it seems to me there 
are equally--it's equally possible that there are great writers who are 
being stifled by the current system--there are art critics who say 
there are--just as much as there might have been people in previous 
years who didn't rise to the level of being able to write because they 
lacked the Federal subsidy.

  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Missouri, he couldn't be further 
from the truth. This is the American Literary Anthology in which the 
poem ``Lighght'' appears. No Government agent or employee decided what 
went into this book. I can't for the life of me figure out what the 
Senator from Missouri is talking about.
  For example, who decides whether a writer gets published? It is the 
editor of a magazine, the publisher of the magazine. Who decided what 
poems and what fiction, essays, went into this anthology? Editors and 
publishers of magazines. They all got together and went through all of 
their different magazines and decided who they thought ought to be in 
here. It wasn't Government. No Government agent did this. No Government 
employee did that.
  Does the Senator think that writers just sort of spring up and, 
because they are so good in the beginning, that right away they appear 
in the New Yorker Magazine? Of course not.
  They appear in these small literary magazines around the country, and 
it is the editors of those magazines and the publishers who decide what 
gets published. They were the ones who decided what went into this 
anthology. There is no Government agency. I don't know of one 
Government agent who decided on an NEA grant. It has all been done in a 
peer review process.
  That would be like saying, I say to my friend from Missouri, that we 
should cut out research at the National Institutes of Health because it 
is Government money, and why should the Government pick which research 
to do, whether it is cancer or heart, whether it is diabetes or 
Alzheimer's? The present occupant of the chair knows a lot about this. 
Should the Government be picking the researchers because we put the 
money into the NIH? We put a lot of money, as the occupant of the chair 
knows, into NIH. We don't tell them what to pick. They do it through 
the peer review process, through scientists in the field who decide 
what is legitimate, good research to do.
  The same is done in the National Endowment for the Arts. We don't sit 
there. No one in the Government sits there and says we pick this and we 
pick that. They set up boards, commissions, they set up peer review 
entities that decide what is going to be. You can disagree with them, 
and sometimes I have disagreed with them, too, but that is no reason to 
end the National Endowment for the Arts.
  So I repeat, Mr. President, I had a lengthy conversation yesterday 
with Mr. George Plimpton and today, again, with Jorie Graham, who, I 
repeat to my friend from Missouri, won the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for 
poetry. She was emphatic that she and so many of her colleagues would 
not have been able to develop their talents were it not for the NEA 
grants they received, and then go on to win the Pulitzer Prize.
  She said the NEA took a risk, I say to my friend from Missouri. She 
said it was a gamble. They didn't know if she

[[Page S9473]]

was going to be a good writer, poet or not. But she said the cost to 
the taxpayers for the creative fellowship was 2 cents, two pennies. 
That is what we are putting into supporting writers and poets around 
the country--2 cents per taxpayer.
  Again, if I may use the analogy of the National Institutes of Health, 
we don't expect that all $13.5 billion that we have put in every year 
at NIH is going to produce a medical miracle. Not at all. A lot of that 
research is dead end and nothing ever happens, but we believe in doing 
the research.
  So, again, NIH is not right 100 percent of the time, and we shouldn't 
expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be right 100 percent of 
the time and that every writer that is picked through this process is 
going to be a Pulitzer Prize winner or another Samuel Clemens or 
another Jorie Graham. No, some of them won't make it, but at least we 
are getting them out.
  As Jorie Graham told me, she said, ``You know, there is a market out 
there. The American people aren't stupid. If they read the poetry and 
they read the literature, like cream on milk, the best will rise to the 
top.'' But until you put that milk together and put it in the bottle, 
forget it. That is what we are doing through the NEA grants; we are 
bringing these people together and giving them an outlet for their 
creative abilities. Some will make it, some won't. Some will write a 
one-word poem that is calligraphic. It may mean something to somebody. 
It doesn't particularly to me. Or some people like the poet I just 
pointed out will write a 17-page poem, which also didn't mean much to 
me either.
  But I can tell you that there are some writers in here that have 
meant a lot to me and a lot to a lot of other people. People like 
Robert Penn Warren, John Ashberry, Jim Harrison, W. S. Merwyn, who, by 
the way, was also at the Writers Workshop and received the Pulitzer 
Prize in poetry, and James Tate, Joyce Carol Oates. They were in this 
anthology, too. So I guess that is what we are saying. It is not an 
elitist institution. The creative writer fellowships are made to 
writers with no other means to support themselves. These grants don't 
go to the wealthy; they don't even go to the middle class.

  Second, I might point out to my friend from Missouri, these grants 
also are awarded geographically, not just to a few areas. Since these 
grants are awarded on a geographical basis, the writings that we get 
reflect the regional and aesthetic values of those regions. How else 
could we get the flavor of what it means to be born and raised in Iowa 
on a farm unless perhaps we read something by Jane Smiley, ``A Thousand 
Acres,'' and what it means today about what is happening to the farmers 
in Iowa. Or what would it mean if we didn't have a flavor of what was 
happening in the West or in the South with writers who can understand, 
who feel and are sensitive to the aesthetics of that State or that 
region or that area? That is why NEA grants go out to regions and 
geographically so it doesn't just go to one certain area of America.
  The critics many times focus only on those from the cities, but as I 
have just pointed out, many, many, many rural writers have also 
received awards and many have gone on to do great things.
  So, the Senator from Missouri can get up all he wants. I just wish he 
would be straight with the facts. First of all, he or his staff should 
have checked and let us know--let everyone know--that this poem was 
awarded a grant in 1969.
  Second, I wish the Senator from Missouri had further checked his 
facts and found out that the book ``Blood of Mugwump'' received no NEA 
grant. A letter from NEA March 17, 1997, points out that ``Blood of 
Mugwump'' did not receive an NEA grant.
  As I said to my friend from Missouri, all he has to do, if ever he 
has a doubt about what NEA is doing, is pick up the phone and call 
them--they are here in Washington--and ask them and they will be glad 
to set you straight on what they are doing.
  I will wind up by saying, Mr. President, for 2 cents from every 
taxpayer in America--just 2 pennies--we can go out and lift up some of 
these young writers and poets all over America, artists who may be like 
Jorie Graham and have a young child but they have innate talent, to be 
able to get across to people, as she did with poetry, what it is like 
in small rural towns or small communities of rural Iowa. She said 
without those 2 cents and with a small child, she wouldn't have been 
able to do it.
  The Senator can get up and say he doesn't like ``Lighght''; that is 
fine. There is a lot of poetry I don't like either. As I said, I am not 
partial to this particular poem, although there is a lot of 
calligraphic poetry I do like.
  I will say one other thing. I was looking at some information that 
came out from Mr. Frank Luntz. I don't know Mr. Frank Luntz, but he has 
been in the news a lot lately. He wrote a book on how the GOP can use 
language to manipulate people. His book is called ``The Language of the 
21st Century.'' I guess it was presented to the Republican conference 
before the August recess. I was looking at some excerpts from Mr. 
Luntz' book. He is saying how people should talk about things. Oh, 
there is addressing the gender gap. There is health care. How to talk 
about Clinton. Education. And then he has here, ``Prolog: Luntz's 12 
step program to make Republican language more soothing to voters.''
  Here is a quote from his book:

       Every time Republicans get into a conflict with the 
     President, you begin to shout, mistakenly believing that if 
     you speak loud enough, your message will get through. But the 
     American people aren't deaf. They simply don't understand 
     what you're saying, nor understand its relevance to their 
     day-to-day lives. Linguistically, you're out of touch with 
     the American people.

  So he has 12 principles. I will not read them all, obviously, but I 
will read the seventh principle of Mr. Frank Luntz, who is writing this 
for the GOP: ``Abolish the National Endowment for the Arts.'' That is 
what he is saying Republicans should say: ``Abolish the National 
Endowment for the Arts.''

  ``This makes sense,'' Mr. Luntz says, ``for strategic reasons as well 
as on principle.'' I will give him that benefit. ``Napoleon spoke of 
the importance of feeding your army if you expect the soldiers to go 
off to battle. You must deliver some nourishment to the true believers. 
You need a symbol that both differentiates the two parties and stirs up 
the troops.''
  No. 7 in his book of the 12 principles.
  If you want to stir up the troops, that is fine. Again, I hope they 
will be clear on the facts and that we understand what this is about. I 
don't believe it is really valid, and, again, I happen to like the 
Senator from Missouri, he is a good guy and I like him, but I think he 
has gotten mixed up on his facts. But then, again, we all do 
periodically around here. But I just wish that he would be a little bit 
more careful in looking at what the National Endowment for the Arts 
really does and how it operates in Missouri and Iowa and the Midwest 
and to think about whether or not we would want to throw out all 
funding for the National Institutes of Health because some of the money 
we gave them might have gone for bad research or something we didn't 
like. I don't think so.
  We may not like all the things the NEA does, but on the whole, out of 
112,000 grants in its history, this Senator only knows of 40 that has 
been raised as issues on the floor of the Senate or the House in the 22 
years I have been privileged to serve here.
  So, again, Mr. President, the National Endowment for the Arts is much 
too important to us as a nation, much too important for America, for 
our diversity, for understanding who we are and where we have come from 
and perhaps even where we are going to have maybe one example of one 
poem disliked by one or two or three Senators be the cause of not 
funding the entire National Endowment for the Arts. It has done an 
outstanding job. We should make sure we continue to fund it, not so 
that Government can pick winners and losers and all that, but to make 
sure that those who are out there in the field, those budding writers 
and poets will at least have some hope that they, too, can become the 
next Jorie Graham at the Writers Workshop in Iowa and win a Nobel Prize 
for her or his poetry. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes also 
in support of the National Endowment for the Arts and a strong Federal 
role in

[[Page S9474]]

supporting the arts. I am honored to follow the eloquent Senator from 
Iowa. I think he has made a very strong case for continued Federal 
support in this area. I also believe the Senator from Utah, Senator 
Bennett, made a very eloquent statement in support of the NEA and 
demonstrated great common sense in much of what he said there.
  Over the past few days, several of my colleagues have attacked the 
NEA, and one of the attacks has been that NEA funds are concentrated 
too much in big cities--six big cities in particular. I want to make it 
clear at the beginning of my comments that none of those big cities are 
in New Mexico, but still the NEA does support a very wide spectrum of 
arts in my State of New Mexico.
  NEA funds come to my State and support everything from opera to 
cowboy poets. In my hometown of Silver City where I grew up, we have an 
annual event where cowboy poets come from all over the country to 
participate. It is my understanding--and I can be corrected on this--
but it is my understanding that the first cowboy poetry convention or 
conference that occurred in this country was in Elko, NV, and was 
sponsored by the NEA. And they have continued with that tradition in 
Elko, NV, ever since.

  So clearly the funds go to a broad range of arts. There have been 
more than 20 national competitive grants in my State in 1996.
  NEA National Heritage awards have gone to individuals in my State. 
NEA has supported the arts in education strongly in my State.
  This year, the NEA provided the New Mexico State arts agency with a 
$380,000 block grant. So some of the Federal funds that come from the 
NEA do come in block grant form so that the State can make the 
judgment. Those funds are matched on a 2-to-1 basis with State funding. 
They enable our State agency to make 125 awards, both small awards and 
large awards.
  NEA's goal is to support the arts that enrich the lives of everyone 
in our country. I have seen that in my own State of New Mexico over the 
14, 15 years that I have served here in the Senate, Mr. President. I 
have seen arts councils established and grow in virtually every 
community in New Mexico.
  There was a time in my State when the arts were essentially Santa Fe 
and Taos. If you started talking about the arts, whether they were 
paintings or chamber music or the opera or any of a variety of arts, 
you talked about Santa Fe and Taos. But that is no longer true in my 
home State of New Mexico.
  At the present time in New Mexico there is an arts council in 
virtually every community, every community of any size in the State. 
And those arts councils are bringing into those communities artists who 
contribute a tremendous amount to the lives of the people who live 
there. I am very proud of the rich tradition of arts that we have in my 
State and in the Southwest in general.
  New Mexico has a wealth of artists and musicians, museums and arts 
centers. NEA support over the last several years has strengthened the 
arts and strengthened arts education in New Mexico in very important 
ways. It has benefited the children in my State.
  Research has shown that art and music education is extremely 
important to the development, the proper development of a child. 
Healthy brain development in very young children is aided by arts 
education and by exposure to art and to music. Problem-solving skills 
are enhanced. There is improvement even on math tests as a result of 
exposure to music. That has been demonstrated in various tests in 
recent years.
  I recently attended a program in Albuquerque which was inspirational. 
It was called ``Starts with the Arts.'' It was a conference for 
children with exceptional needs at the Very Special Arts Center in 
Albuquerque. Clearly, this is making a great contribution to the lives 
of those children.
  In 1997, $90,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts came 
through our State arts agency to assist with that type of program.
  This has benefited not only children, young children, but it benefits 
students, programs like the Working Classroom in Albuquerque. This is a 
free year-round art and theater instruction program in the Broadway 
section of Albuquerque in southeast Albuquerque.
  Disadvantaged, at-risk children starting in their early teenage years 
participate in this. There is reduced dropout rates as a result of this 
work. There is substantial beautification of some areas of downtown 
Albuquerque through the painting of murals. That program has been 
supported by NEA funding as well.
  In 1997, they received $15,000 from the NEA through a State block 
grant. So the decision was made by the State to put that money into the 
Working Classroom Program, but it was funding that came through the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  There have been benefits to many of the communities in our State, as 
I indicated, that not only benefits to the cultural lives of those 
communities but also to tourism, to economic development, to job 
creation.
  Mr. President, I do not have exact figures to provide to the Senate 
today, but I can tell you that the arts are a substantial part of the 
reason why tourists come to my State. Whatever we do to strengthen the 
arts also strengthens our economy and helps to strengthen the economy 
of all those communities. It benefits a wide audience.

  We benefit a wide audience by giving recognition to local artists, 
artists such as Ramon Jose Lopez, who is a santero and is a master 
metalsmith. He won an NEA National Heritage Fellowship last year. He 
was involved with the Smithsonian Institution in an exhibit that 
attracted national attention. And this type of recognition enriches the 
lives of many of our artists and of visitors that come to our State.
  I fought very hard in the last Congress to maintain the program of 
heritage grants to outstanding individuals. But despite all these 
benefits that I have gone through here we have Members of Congress, 
Members of the Senate, who continue to campaign to eliminate the 
National Endowment for the Arts. I believe we need to resist that. We 
need to also resist turning this into a block grant program.
  On July 23 of this year the Labor Committee marked up and passed the 
NEA's reauthorization. Even though the measure has not come to the 
Senate floor, people here in the Senate need to know the outcome of the 
committee's deliberations.
  Like most of us in the committee, I concluded that the NEA now 
strikes the right balance, the right balance between national 
involvement, State and local involvement.
  NEA has been criticized as inefficient. But under the leadership of 
its present chairman, the NEA has established numerous accountability 
and streamlining measures that ensure responsible use of Federal 
funds--consolidating administrative operations of the NEA and the NEH, 
the National Endowment for the Humanities; reducing administrative 
costs of both.
  There are peer review panels that are chosen from all sections of the 
country under this language that we adopted in this reauthorization 
bill. We ensured that all sections of the country would be represented. 
We ensured also that on the peer review panels that no State would be 
unduly represented.
  Some groups continue to spread what I believe are misrepresentations 
about NEA support for obscene art projects. Most of those stories turn 
out to be half-stories. Many of those stories involve subgranting of 
NEA dollars for objectionable projects. It is my understanding that the 
chairman, the present chairman of the NEA, has eliminated the practice 
of subgranting NEA awards except to State arts councils.
  I am convinced that the arts and arts education contribute enormously 
to the cultural life of our country. I strongly believe we should 
maintain it.
  I had the good fortune, Mr. President, last night to attend a 
reception and dinner at the Library of Congress and to see there the 
program that they have developed and put on the Internet for anyone in 
this country to dial up who wants to dial up Thomas--``www.Thomas.org'' 
I believe is how. But you can get into Thomas. And when you do, you can 
get access to all of the photographs that were taken in this country 
during the 1930's under the Federal Writers Project which was part of 
the Works Progress Administration, the WPA, at that time. That was 
money well spent.

[[Page S9475]]

  We are not here through the NEA having the Government choose who to 
support and who not to support. That is done by peer review panels. But 
I think it is anomalous to suggest that the Federal Government has no 
interest in this issue or to suggest that Federal Government should not 
be able to lend its support to a richer cultural life for this country.
  So I very much hope that we will resist all efforts to eliminate the 
NEA and to drastically change its structure.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
Ashcroft amendment. This amendment would eliminate the National 
Endowment for the Arts [NEA], an organization which has come under 
unfair attack in the past few years.
  Funding for the NEA has consistently dropped. Funding last year was 
$99.5 million, a 39-percent decrease in 2 years. Now, many of my 
colleagues want to abolish the endowment completely. I disagree with 
this approach.
  For every Federal dollar invested in the arts, our citizens receive 
an enormous return. My state of Maryland received $1.4 million in arts 
funding last year. This means that the Baltimore Childrens Theater 
Association is able to thrive. It means that the Baltimore Museum of 
Art can bring world renown exhibits to the citizens of my State. And it 
means that local communities throughout Maryland have access to 
community festivals, arts centers, and galleries.
  There is a myth that the arts are for the elite. However, I believe 
the arts are about three things: Jobs, economic development, and 
families. The arts attract jobs. The arts help create economic 
development in communities. The arts are family first.
  The cost of Federal funding for the arts is 35 cents for every 
citizen. The arts are a sound investment. The rewards are great.
  Federal funding for the NEA has led to the flourishing of arts 
organizations in small cities and rural areas across the country. In my 
State of Maryland, local arts agencies are able to leverage Federal 
dollars for their fundraising efforts.
  Without Federal support, Marylanders wouldn't have the Puppet Co. in 
Glen Echo, the Bluebird Blues Festival at Prince George's Community 
College, the Writers Center in Bethesda, or the University of Maryland 
music programs.
  I am committed to protecting the Federal role in the arts. We should 
not become the only civilized country in the world that does not 
support the arts.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Ashcroft amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for years during consideration of the 
Interior appropriations bill, the Senate has debated the fate of the 
National Endowment for the Arts. Those debates have had mixed results. 
On one hand, NEA funding has been severely reduced. On the other hand, 
the NEA has made changes in its policies and operation to safeguard 
against providing Federal dollars to distasteful and, yes, perhaps, 
inappropriate projects. So, some bad and some good has come from our 
discussions here.
  Now, we are in the midst of another such debate. The House voted to 
eliminate funding for the NEA. It even rejected a proposal to provide 
$10 million in close down costs. There are Senators who support the 
House and have offered amendments to eliminate funding for the NEA 
altogether. Others would eliminate the Endowment by providing all of 
the appropriated dollars directly to the States in the form of block 
grants based on State populations. Still others would allow the 
Endowment to continue but would vastly diminish its role by sending the 
lion's share of funding to the States as block grants.
  Earlier this summer, I introduced legislation with Senators Jeffords 
and Kennedy to reauthorize both the National Endowment for the Arts and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities for 5 years. The Labor and 
Human Resources Committee marked up the bill and reported it from the 
committee on a bipartisan basis. According to our bill, 40 percent of 
funds would go to State arts agencies, 40 percent would be used by the 
Endowment to support projects of national significance, 10 percent 
would be for direct grants, and the remaining 10 percent would go to 
arts education in underserved communities. All funds appropriated 
beyond the current level of $99 million also would go to arts 
education.
  My colleagues might wonder: Why this emphasis on arts education? All 
across the Nation, arts education is being integrated into the core 
curriculum of schools. This integration is the result of the 
realization that an arts education can help students to develop better 
skills in analysis, problem solving, and just plain thinking. This is 
in addition to nurturing and developing the child's imagination and 
creativity.
  A study by the College Entrance Examination Board found that students 
who have studied the arts regularly outperform students who do not have 
an arts background on SAT exams. According to the study, students who 
have studied the arts for 4 years score 53 points higher on the verbal 
SAT exam and 35 points higher in math than do students who lack arts 
education.
  Senator Gorton recognizes the importance of continuing to fund the 
National Endowment for the Arts. The bill he has brought before us even 
provides a small increase to the NEA, from $99 to $100 million. The NEA 
costs each American less than 38 cents per year. My colleagues might be 
interested to know that a recent Lou Harris poll showed overwhelming 
support among the American people for arts funding, even if it meant a 
tax increase. For this minute investment of 38 cents per year, the 
American people get orchestras, chamber music ensembles, children's 
festivals, operas, poetry readings, concerts in the parks, music 
festivals, Shakespeare festivals, artists visiting schools, museum and 
gallery exhibits, dance troupes, and much more. For this tiny 
investment, local communities in rural areas far from our Nation's 
cultural centers are able to experience our rich artistic traditions.
  According to BusinessWeek magazine, the arts support 1.3 million 
jobs. The arts contribute $36.8 billion annually to our economy, and 6 
percent of the GNP is attributable to nonprofit arts activities.
  In Rhode Island, we count our artists among our State's natural 
resources, among the resources that are contributing to a wonderful 
revitalization, particularly evident in Providence. We are very 
fortunate to be home to one of the most prestigious art schools in the 
Nation, Rhode Island School of Design. RISD draws young artists to 
Rhode Island from around the globe. Perhaps because of our State's 
marvelous quality of life or perhaps because of the efforts of 
community leaders and State officials to develop an atmosphere in which 
the arts can flourish, many of these fine art students stay and 
contribute to our community and to our economy.
  Let me share a few excerpts from a letter I received earlier this 
summer from Roger Mandle, President of RISD. Mr Mandle writes:

       Federal support for the arts and humanities is more than a 
     symbolic matter, and helps to leverage strong state and local 
     private sector support for operas, dance companies, 
     symphonies and museums. Students of schools and colleges gain 
     access, some for the first time, as performers or audiences 
     for these cultural activities. Cities and towns benefit from 
     the tourism generated by the institutions and events they 
     sponsor. Federal inspiration to maintain and support 
     America's cultural heritage comes at a small price to every 
     citizen. The existence of these Endowments helps to compare 
     ourselves favorably to other nations whose governmental 
     support for the arts exceeds that of the United States by 
     many times.

  Some critics of the NEA suggest that supporting the arts should be 
left up to the private sector. They contend that there is no purpose 
for Federal support and that the arts would do just fine without it. 
Mr. President, you may be interested to know that since the creation of 
the NEA 30 years ago, the number of nonprofit theaters has grown from 
56 to more than 400; the number of orchestras has quadrupled to more 
than 200; the number of opera companies has grown from 27 to more than 
100; the number of dance companies has increased from 30 to about 250; 
and today there are more than 3,000 public arts agencies in small 
cities and towns throughout the United States. There is no doubt in my 
mind that the NEA, whose budget is seven-tenths of 1 percent of federal 
spending, has had a

[[Page S9476]]

sizable contribution in making the arts accessible to all Americans, 
rather than to an elite few.
  I was curious about the idea of providing block grants to the States. 
Surely, that would mean more money to the State arts agencies, and they 
would be all for it. But, of course, that is not the case at all. I 
asked Randall Rosenbaum, executive director of the Rhode Island State 
Council on the Arts, what he thought of either providing the entire 
appropriated amount for the NEA directly to the States in the form of 
block grants, or increasing the size of the State block grants by 
scaling back NEA grants to projects of national significance. Here is 
what Mr. Rosenbaum had to say:

       While the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts might, on 
     appearance, benefit from such a move (we would not), the 
     Nation as a whole would suffer immeasurably. The Federal 
     Government's leadership in arts funding has been critical to 
     State and local efforts to raise matching dollars from public 
     and private sources to support the arts. Stacks of research 
     support this point . . .
       More to the point, if the money is just block granted to 
     the States, we will lose one of the most precious things the 
     NEA has to offer, leadership in development of public policy 
     in support of the arts. A strong federal presence through the 
     arts endowment has changed the nature of an arts field I have 
     worked in since 1976. Through its consensus building, policy 
     making, and yes, financial support, I have seen more emphasis 
     on access for all Americans to the arts. NEA-supported 
     projects in Rhode Island ensure that everyone, from toddlers 
     to seniors, experiences the arts on a personal level.

  The NEA supports the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, and I have 
heard from many of its musicians writing in strong support of continued 
funding. It provides funds to the Trinity Repertoire Co., to RISD and 
to Brown University. But it also provides funds to smaller, less well 
known theater and dance companies, such as ``Lydia Perez and Ensemble'' 
whom I was privileged to hear at a gathering in Providence in July. Ms. 
Perez specializes in bomba'' music. Grants have gone to the All 
Children's Theater Ensemble in Providence, to the Blackstone Valley 
Tourism Council, to the Capeverdean American Community Development 
Center in Pawtucket, to the Children's Museum of Rhode Island, to the 
Festival Ballet of Rhode Island, to the Island Arts Center in Newport, 
to the Ocean State Light Opera, and to literally dozens of other 
community arts groups.
  Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support Senator Gorton's efforts to 
continue to fund the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, and I support Senator Jeffords as he 
works to reauthorize both Endowments for 5 years. I urge my colleagues 
to reject efforts to eliminate the Endowments, either by cutting 
funding or by creating block grants to the States.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the 
Ashcroft amendment to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I 
oppose the amendment. There are also several amendments that seek to 
restrict, censor, or block grant the NEA.
  Mr. President, in my view, the arts play an enormously important role 
in shaping our national culture and our local communities. The question 
is what is the best way for the Federal Government to fund the arts, if 
at all.


                            nea is a success

  Since the NEA's creation in 1966, there has been an explosion of 
community arts in local communities throughout the country. There are 8 
times more nonprofit theaters, 7 times more dance companies, and 4 
times more orchestras and opera companies. The impact of the National 
Endowment is far reaching. Through sponsorship of the arts, the NEA can 
stimulate expressions of our national character in many localities and 
guide our young people and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into 
local economies. Mr. President, if it were not for the strong 
leadership of the NEA, many rural areas and impoverished communities 
would be denied the opportunity to experience artistic presentations, 
performances, and education.


                           academic benefits

  Exposure to the arts has academic benefits. According to College 
Entrance Examination Board, students with more than four years of 
course work in the arts score 59 points higher on the verbal and 44 
points higher on the math portions of the SAT. Children with a 
background in piano have also scored better in math.


                           economic benefits

  The National Endowment for the Arts contributes to our national 
economy. For every $1 spent by the NEA, $34 are returned to the U.S. 
Treasury. Because of the Endowment's support of the arts, the arts 
industry has boomed. Every $1 spent by the NEA attracts $12 to the arts 
from other sources. The nonprofit are industry now generates $37 
billion annually in economic activity. The nonprofit arts industry also 
employs nearly 1.3 million Americans and represents nearly one percent 
of the entire U.S. work force.


                              block grants

  Some of my colleagues believe that all of the NEA's funds should go 
to the states in the form of block grants. Under current law, states 
have direct control over 35% of NEA funds in the form of block grants 
and state arts agencies believe this is the appropriate federal-state 
balance.


                       losses under block grants

  If further block granting is successful, states will lose hundreds of 
national grants that benefit all Americans. For example, according to 
the NEA, under block granting shows on public television like Great 
Performances, Dance in America, American Playhouse, and American 
Masters will be lost. 98% of American homes have access to public 
television--a great example of one grant having a huge national impact. 
Programs of this large scale are best run, are most efficiently run, on 
a national level. Most states cannot take on a project of this 
magnitude. Another national program that the NEA says will be 
eliminated under block granting is the Mayor's Institute on City 
Design, in which over 300 of the nation's mayors have had the 
opportunity to meet with planners and architects to discuss urban 
design issues. This single grant benefited over 300 American 
communities.


                          privatization of nea

  Other members of this body would like to privatize the National 
Endowment for the Arts. I believe this would be a grave mistake. 
According to Independent Sector's 1996 Giving and Volunteering survey, 
households giving to the arts, culture, and humanities has decreased by 
29 percent since 1987. ``Giving USA'' found that total donations to the 
arts and humanities declined by $270 million between 1992 and 1995 and 
private donations to the arts and humanities decreased by 7.7 percent 
in 1992 and to 6.9 in 1995. These statistics do not bode well for arts 
without the support of a federal endowment.


                        controversial nea grants

  I have heard some Senators criticize the questionable content of past 
NEA grants. I agree there have been mistakes. Yet, throughout the NEA's 
30-year history, ``objectionable'' grants have amounted to only 45 out 
of more than 112,000 grants. This figure translates to approximately 
four-one-hundredths of 1 percent of all grants. Few other federal 
agencies can claim the same small proportion of error or high rate of 
success.


                              new reforms

  NEA grantees must now adhere to strict guidelines to ensure quality 
content: all grants to individual artists have been eliminated, all 
grants to organizations must be for grants specifically described in 
the application, all grantees must file interim and final project 
reports, and all grantees must seek written permission in advance to 
change grant activities proposed in the organizational application.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that most great 
civilizations are remembered primarily for their arts. Already, the 
United States spends nearly fifty times less on the arts than any of 
its major allies. The National Endowment for the Arts represents a 
national commitment to our nation's culture, history, and people. If 
the NEA were to be privatized, block granted, or eliminated, not only 
would we suffer a great economic loss, but more importantly Americans, 
particularly those living in rural and low-income areas, would suffer a 
great loss. The NEA benefits our young people, our communities, and our 
economy. We cannot deny our citizens this national treasure.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise before you today to express my 
support

[[Page S9477]]

for the NEA and to articulate the importance of preserving the arts in 
America. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly describe to 
my colleagues how the NEA, in it's unique capacity, has strengthened 
the values and cultural education of the people in my state. 
Specifically, it has played a critical role in enhancing the local 
talent and in funding community education activities for all Louisiana 
families and children. Mr. President, not only has the NEA provided 
access to the arts for the less advantaged in all of the 64 parishes, 
reaching a total audience of 7.5 million Louisianians by funding 
programs like philharmonics, ballets and training for young talented 
inner-city artists, but NEA has also played a vital role in supporting 
cultural tourism. The NEA-funded arts programs have remained a 
consistent source of economic revenue for Louisiana with our rich 
musical and cultural history. We have a brilliant history of talented 
local artists and renowned musicians that people from all over the 
world come to Louisiana to experience. Mr. President, as a nation that 
values the promotion of individual creative talent and these 
contributions to our cultural fabric, I encourage and respectfully ask 
my colleagues not to abandon our national responsibility and to support 
an equitable balance of grant distribution to the NEA. We have all seen 
the NEA adhere to the valid concerns of my colleagues, Senator Helms 
and Senator Sessions. I give Jane Alexander her due credit for putting 
in place a new organizational structure--including the elimination of 
all sub-grants and grants to individual artists. Yes, there are clear 
examples in the past where the NEA should have used better judgment, 
but I ask my colleagues to concur that this is by no means grounds to 
deny our children the right to access the arts--and not just on the 
state level in the form of block grants--but with a national 
commitment. Mr. President, I do not want to debate the past nor do I 
think I can define what is art and what is not art. However, there are 
clear examples across the nation where NEA funding has supported the 
very talented and worthy people we all represent. I support my 
colleagues' efforts to continue to fund the NEA and to establish a 
permanent endowment fund that, matched with private funds, would 
continue the successful private/public partnerships the NEA has 
created. I look forward to the opportunity to work with my colleagues 
to find an agreeable funding formula that will show the American people 
that this Congress values and supports American culture, our creative 
talent and the arts.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains if there is time 
allocated on my side on this issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). All the time in opposition to 
the amendment has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself so much time as I might 
consume.
  I do want to be responsive to some of the comments that were made by 
those in opposition to this amendment.
  They have suggested over and over again that difficulties are 
isolated, that they are misrepresented. And I want to bring some sense 
of authentication to the kinds of things in which I have been involved.
  In talking about the poem ``Lighght,'' if that is what this poem is, 
the one-word poem, there was a question about the documentation for the 
payment of $1,500 for the poem. The documentation we have is from 
Policy Analysis, August 8, 1990, No. 137, ``Subsidies to the Arts: 
Cultivating Mediocrity,'' by Bill Kauffman. And I quote:

       The NEA has been more patronizing than patron to the towns 
     and villages of Middle America.

  So that is interesting to me, and especially in light of the remarks 
of the Senator from Iowa as if the NEA has been a savior to middle 
America.
  An example: In 1969, NEA grantee George Plimpton, editor of the 
American Literary Anthology/2, confounded observers by paying $1,500 
for a poem by Aram Saroyan consisting of a single misspelled word, 
``lighght.''
  That is interesting. We have been through this particular poem. This 
is the entirety of the poem for which taxpayers paid. I suppose you can 
say it is a better poem if you put it on a bigger piece of paper so 
that you have a sense of the calligraphy involved. I will be willing to 
concede that, although I think the Senator from Iowa says it did not 
mean much to him anyhow.
  But it is kind of an interesting thing, when an assistant to an Iowa 
Congressman asked this grantee about the meaning of the poem, here is 
what the person to whom we gave the Federal funds for the distribution 
among other authors in the assemblage of this work said. The editor 
replied, ``You are from the Midwest. You are culturally deprived, so 
you would not understand it anyway.''
  When the representative of the agency that is doling out grants 
treats American people who ask that kind of question, about whether or 
not this is an effective expenditure of tax dollars, that way, I do not 
think that is really such an enriching experience for our culture so 
that we need to continue that kind of subsidy.
  There has been a persistent stream of suggestions additionally from 
those in opposition to this amendment that there is no problem in the 
way the grants are awarded, and that as a matter of fact these are done 
by independent groups and they do not have any particular slant. That 
is simply not the way the world looks at it when the world reviews 
these things.
  From an article by Jan Breslauer, in a special to the Washington 
Post--and certainly the Washington Post is not some sort of 
conservative journal. Jan Breslauer is from Los Angeles and I believe 
is normally a critic for the Los Angeles Times in their arts 
department. She puts it this way, that the NEA has had a bad impact on 
art. It has--according to her--``. . . quietly pursued policies rooted 
in identity politics--a kind of separatism that emphasizes racial, 
sexual and cultural differences above all else.''
  So in choosing people to assemble anthologies or in choosing 
publishers to favor or in choosing artists to favor, here is an 
independent individual who writes for the Los Angeles Times, writing in 
the Washington Post, and here is what she says about it on March 16, 
1997.
  Perhaps this poem that I used as an example is a poem from years gone 
by. It happens to be a lot cleaner than any of the other examples which 
are objectionable now. There are a lot of materials that I simply could 
not bring to the floor in good conscience. I held one up a moment ago 
that showed what we had to mark out in order to bring it to the floor.
  But she puts it this way, that what has happened here is that the NEA 
``. . . has quietly pursued policies rooted in identity politics--a 
kind of separatism that emphasizes racial, sexual and cultural 
difference above all else.''
  I would expect that to be something that hurts the culture. When the 
Government spends $100 million to favor people who will emphasize 
racial, sexual and cultural differences, that is bad for America. My 
colleague and friend from Iowa can hold up 2 pennies and say this is 
what it costs. Well, he can show me the line on the appropriations, if 
he chooses, that says it costs 2 cents, but the truth of the matter is 
we are debating $100 million in expenditures here, $100 million in 
expenditure that, according to this independent observer, says it 
emphasizes our racial divisions. We don't need anyone to emphasize the 
divisions in this country racially, our divisions sexually, or our 
cultural differences.

  America needs to get beyond our differences. We need to be one nation 
united. We don't need to be a place where we emphasize these 
differences.
  She says, ``The art world's version of affirmative action, these 
policies haven't excited much controversy, but they have had a 
profoundly corrosive effect on the American arts.'' Now, here is the 
real trigger. She states a condition which would make this very serious 
and adverse to our culture, and then she says, the truth of the matter 
is this hurts the arts. Then she goes on to say how it hurts the arts, 
``pigeonholing artists and pressuring them to produce work that 
satisfies a politically correct agenda rather than their best creative 
instincts.''
  You have a situation where an independent observer says, all of what 
the

[[Page S9478]]

NEA says aside, she says they emphasize things that divide us in race, 
culture, and sexual matters, and that they pigeonhole artists by 
getting them to know, if you want a grant from whomever it is that the 
NEA allows to make these designations, you have to satisfy a 
politically correct agenda.
  It is interesting to note that there are those who are eager to 
satisfy a politically correct agenda, and in a list of projects that 
was favored with funds just this year, $60,000 was given to the 
American Conservatory Theatre Foundation in San Francisco in order to 
put on a play by Tony Kushner. Here is what Tony Kushner said about 
art: Art should be used to ``punish Republicans.'' I suppose you can 
say that the funding of his plays is not a problem. You might say that 
more eagerly if you sat on the other side of the aisle than if you sat 
here, but frankly, I don't think anybody on any side of the aisle 
should want a Government subsidy that goes to people who say one of the 
purposes of art--and especially a subsidy for their art--is to punish 
any political party.
  I would be ashamed if I were hearing arguments in favor of a subsidy 
for some sort of literature which was designed to punish Democrats. I 
disagree with Democrats, but I don't think they are to be punished 
because they don't agree with me. I don't think we need a subsidy for 
artists or authors or poets who would punish them or otherwise speak 
against them.
  I think that is what Jan Breslauer was talking about when she said we 
are driving artists into a politically correct agenda. If you want to 
get the grant, you have to say things like the playwright whose plays 
are being subsidized in San Francisco, that art should be used to 
``punish Republicans.''
  Incidentally, there is a list of things here of similar sorts of 
grants, the kinds of things that I don't think any of us would really 
want to support.
  I should mention that Jan Breslauer, in her special to the Washington 
Post, of the Los Angeles Times, is not the only art critic who says we 
have been wasting money on politically correct art. William Craig Rice, 
from Harvard University, put it this way: ``The marketplace, with its 
potential for democratic engagement and dissemination, is hardly the 
enemy of the arts. The burgeoning American theater of the 19th century 
owed nothing to Washington. In fact, any system of selective, expert-
dictated Federal support for the arts would have been anathema to the 
rollicking impresarios of that era.''
  Here you have a poet who says, ``Wait a minute, we had great art. We 
had great poetry. We had great drama. And we had a system of selecting 
and supporting on a selective basis art during that era. It would have 
been an anathema, an enemy, a corrosive impact on those who were 
involved in the art community; creative people expressing, and 
audiences receiving, without the independence or the confidence to pit 
their taste against those critics, performers, and artists.''
  The point I am making, is the U.S. Government has no business 
spending $100 million--you can talk about it being 2 cents if you want; 
I guess you can talk about it being 2 cents. The truth is $100 million 
is $100 million. To me that is significant. Most people in my State 
realize $100 million is significant.
  More important is the fact that Government should not be favoring one 
kind of speech or one kind of expression over another kind of speech or 
another kind of expression. We should not be highlighting someone's 
idea of what is good or what is bad.
  I move to another individual, Hilton Kramer. This was published in 
the Indianapolis Star, in 1993. Kramer believes that the NEA has 
``gutted the initiative of private patronage.'' He says that private 
donors lack the confidence of their own taste. Now they ``wait to 
piggyback on NEA certification before they commit.'' So they wait to 
see who the Government says ought to be favored and who the Government 
says shouldn't be favored, and then the private donors pile on. I think 
that is inverted. We have distorted the marketplace by putting 
Government funding into the marketplace.
  Now, back again, to the first question of the Senator from Iowa about 
the one-word poem. He says we only paid $107 a letter for this poem. I 
say we paid $214 a letter for this poem based on the article in the 
Policy Analysis, but let's just reduce the price. I will give it to you 
cheap, Mr. President, $107 a letter for this poem. Yes, it was 30 years 
ago, but have the abuses been corrected? Absolutely not.
  I talked about a book, ``Blood of Mugwump.'' He says it was disavowed 
by the National Endowment for the Arts. Here is what the National 
Endowment for the Arts says in its letter to the publisher, massively 
subsidized in publishing this book: ``The progress report which you 
filed with this agency erroneously included `Blood of Mugwump' as among 
those volumes partially supported by a grant from the National 
Endowment for the Arts; this is not the case.'' I want to know who 
knows what book was supported when they got the grant. Would the 
publisher know? If you were the businessman running the printing press, 
would you know how you spent the money? Apparently the people who 
publish the book thought they spent the money that came from the 
Government on the ``Blood of Mugwump'' book.
  That is why on the book itself they put the seal of the National 
Endowment for the Arts. That is what the publisher thinks the money 
went for. It may be that the National Endowment for the Arts decided 
they didn't want to claim credit for the book when they saw what they 
had gotten, although I am puzzled by that, too, because of a letter I 
have seen from Jane Alexander, the Chairman for the National Endowment 
for the Arts, to the U.S. House of Representatives some 2 months after 
disavowing this book. In March they say we don't want to claim credit 
for ``Blood of Mugwump,'' and we think you have mistakenly or illegally 
or inappropriately--in a letter from the general counsel--we think you 
have mistakenly, illegally, or inappropriately included the fact that 
you spent the money.
  It looks to me like the author or publisher knew where they spent the 
money. What do they say about a publisher who does this later on? Here 
is what Ms. Alexander says about that publisher. She says, ``The 
[American Family Association] also criticized the agency for supporting 
Fiction Collective 2 (FC-2), a small publisher at the University of 
Illinois, which has introduced some of our newest minority writers of 
quality to the American public. Over the years, FC-2 has sustained a 
commitment to intellectual challenge, and some of America's greatest 
writers have supported it.''
  She goes on to endorse the publisher. We provide the funding for 
which the publisher says part of what we got for it was ``Blood of 
Mugwump.'' Here is a letter saying you better not say we helped publish 
``Blood of Mugwump,'' and then they endorse the publisher and say what 
a fine group they are.
  You don't have to read too far between the lines to find out what is 
going on.
  Incidentally, the ``Blood of Mugwump'' volume is one which is frankly 
so repugnant to the values of America--it talks about a clan of 
Catholic, gender-shifting vampires who get infections, viruses, by 
reading prayer books. The virus comes in through the eyes. I really 
cannot imagine this is the kind of thing we want to suggest to the 
American people, that the way you get the kind of fatal diseases or the 
way you really get involved in things that are counterproductive is to 
somehow be involved with religious artifacts or read a prayer book that 
will get you infected so you start eating your own flesh or the flesh 
of others.
  I had my staff look at the book and just Xerox a couple pages. I told 
them I didn't want anything that would offend the conscience of the 
American people if I showed it on television, to mark out that which 
should not be shown on Senate TV, and that is what came from the book. 
It carries the so-called Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval of the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  It is kind of interesting, though. Here is another set of individuals 
who have been careful about their statements, and I think they are 
appropriate. There have been a lot of suggestions here that this is 
important or we will not have anybody who is not well to do who can 
appreciate art or participate in art. I think that is nonsense.
  They talked about Robert Penn Warren having been included in the 
anthology of poetry. The truth of the matter

[[Page S9479]]

is Robert Penn Warren wrote his famous ``All the King's Men'' in 1945, 
20 years before the National Endowment for the Arts came into 
existence. He was a nationally known, world-renowned author.
  The truth of the matter is we have had great individuals who have not 
received NEA grants. The suggestion that because a few people have 
succeeded or a number of people have succeeded after they have received 
a Federal subsidy and that they somehow could not have succeeded 
without a Federal subsidy, I can't really follow that logic.
  America has been full of good people who have written well and have 
produced well artistically. I don't think there has been any suggestion 
they have all been born to rich parents or even predominantly born to 
wealth. I don't think the ability to express one's self correlates to 
whether or not you have wealthy parents. It certainly doesn't correlate 
to whether or not you have been favored with a Federal grant.
  One thing that does correlate is the fact that most Federal grants, 
or a large portion of them, go to support institutions that the wealthy 
patronize far more than the poor do.
  I am quoting again from Policy Analysis in an article by Mr. 
Kauffman, No. 137, ``Take art museums, a favorite NEA beneficiary. 
Eighty-four percent of art museum visitors have attended college; less 
than a third of the entire population has.'' So people who are getting 
that subsidy are people who are very well educated. He said ``Blue-
collar workers constitute 47 percent of the workforce but just 7 
percent of the art museum audience.''
  So you have basically one-seventh of the art museum audience that is 
blue collar.
  I am not saying we should not have art museums, but I am saying we 
ought to be careful, when we talk about subsidies, that we don't 
suggest to people we are subsidizing things for people who cannot 
afford them when in fact we are subsidizing programs for people who can 
very well afford them.
  Robert J. Samuelson, a well-known, outstanding economist and 
commentator, put it this way, calling subvention of the arts ``highbrow 
pork barrel,'' and ``an income transfer from middle-class taxpayers to 
affluent museum goers.''
  Now, I think the point is that to suggest that the National Endowment 
for the Arts is some way that we somehow open a door for everyone who 
is poor to become a great artist is simply to misinterpret what is 
happening here. All too frequently, the National Endowment for the Arts 
is subsidy for well-to-do individuals to be able to do what they would 
do anyhow. I believe that our responsibility to tax Americans is not 
related to providing subsidies for people to do what they can do on 
their own. Maybe Abraham Lincoln said it better than anybody else, when 
he said that ``The role of Government is to do for people what they 
cannot do well for themselves.'' I think these are things that can be 
done well.
  There has been some suggestion on the part of those who would oppose 
this amendment, also, that the existence of good authors who have 
received help shows that we should have been subsidizing the program. I 
don't think that proves anything at all. You can have a good baseball 
player who got some help from the Government; does that mean we should 
have a program to subsidize baseball? You have to look at what happens 
in the absence of a subsidy and what happens in the presence of a 
subsidy. I think if you look at the first 200 years of this Nation's 
existence, basically where we had no subsidy, the quality of art was 
very good. As a matter of fact, it may have been better than it is 
today.
  In many respects, whenever you provide a subsidy, you pay for 
something that the public would not pay for. Now, usually the public 
won't pay for things that are not as good. In business, for example, if 
you have a subsidy for something and it won't exist unless you 
subsidize it, it means that the market doesn't really believe that it 
is worth what people would be asked to pay for it and it simply doesn't 
survive. So that subsidies themselves become a way for picking up 
things, in many respects, at the bottom end of quality. I won't deny 
that there may be fledgling artists who may be beginning and might want 
to try and find somebody to provide them a stake so that they can get 
started. But people who find their way into other professions don't 
have a means of getting started in their writing, in their music, and 
in their paintings. For my music and for my writing, I have never had 
that kind of subsidy. I have done it on my own. It is not that I resent 
those who do. But I think it is important for us to understand that 
when the Government chooses one and denies another, it expresses a 
special set of values. In my view, that special set of values is 
something that we ought to be careful about, especially when that 
special set of values is found in books like ``Blood of Mugwump,'' 
where you have people who are sexual deviants and vampires, who involve 
themselves in cannibalism and other things as a result of their 
problems, which come to them because they were involved in religious 
experiences. I think that is an affront. I am not a Catholic. I am 
grateful for my Catholic friends and for the influence of the Catholic 
Church in this culture. But if I were, as a Catholic, to look at the 
book ``Blood of Mugwump,'' about a Catholic family group of vampires 
with all this deviance and were to learn that it suggested in the book 
that many of their problems come as a result of a virus that infects 
them because they are involved in prayer, I don't know if I would think 
that was a very appropriate book. I don't think the Government needs to 
be in the business of approaching this culture of literature and 
subsidizing this literature, if it is going to pull the spiritual 
underpinnings of America from beneath us.
  I know there is a dispute about whether this publisher was the one 
that got the assistance, or whether this specific book got the 
assistance. The publisher seems to be representing the fact that he 
used the money to publish this book. The National Endowment for the 
Arts, having learned that people are distressed about this, now wants 
to say that the publisher should not have used the money for the book. 
But then, later on, the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts 
indicates that this is one fine publisher and it ought to be credited 
for what it has done to bring on line exciting new authors who would 
have novel approaches to the world. Some of those novel approaches 
would certainly be best left without a Federal subsidy, in my judgment.

  I observe the presence in the Chamber of other individuals, such as 
the senior Senator from North Carolina. I reserve the balance of my 
time at this moment and suggest the absence----
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator withhold that?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.
  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?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much. I was going to ask my 
colleague if it was possible to have 5 minutes to speak, obviously, in 
opposition to the amendment. I know there is no time for the opponents 
left. If my colleagues would so indulge me, I would be grateful.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. GORTON. I am certainly not going to have any objection to that 
request. I wanted to find out where we are in order to announce what I 
can announce, and this would not be inconsistent with the request of 
the Senator from Illinois.
  It looks like this debate will be concluded at about 4:45. There will 
then be a vote, I believe, on the amendment. I certainly do not propose 
to table the amendment.
  I now, with the permission of the minority leader, ask unanimous 
consent that immediately following the vote on the Ashcroft amendment, 
there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided between Senator Bryan and 
myself, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Bryan 
amendment No. 1205.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. May I inquire as to the current state of business in 
the Senate then? What has been done? Has the Senator from Illinois been 
granted time to speak?
  Mr. GORTON. I don't think the request has been formally made yet.

[[Page S9480]]

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, necessarily. I wanted to know if the Senator from Washington 
would be prepared to allow me to speak.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Washington is not going to object to a 
request by the Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Could the unanimous-consent request be amended to 
provide 5 minutes for the Senator from Illinois before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. May I 
inquire as to how much time is left for debate on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 14 seconds for the 
Senator from Missouri and 5 minutes for the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it my understanding that the Senator from Washington 
is yielding his 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. GORTON. That understanding would not be correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the case.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Then is it my understanding that the Senator from 
Illinois is asking that the proponents of this amendment, who have 18 
minutes left, yield to the opponents an additional 5 minutes from their 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The request, as I understand it, of the 
Senator from Illinois was simply for an extra 5 minutes--to delay the 
voting time 5 minutes to give her an additional 5 minutes.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, again, as a matter of deference to 
my colleagues, if they are prepared to give 5 minutes of debate to the 
opponent, I would be grateful to accept that. Alternatively, if the 
proponents of the amendment would agree to add an additional 5 minutes, 
I would be grateful for that. Really, I am not concerned as to the 
source of the time. I would like to have some time to speak to this 
before a vote takes place.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Illinois?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, is my unanimous-consent agreement on the 
stacked votes agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has already been agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. One other point, for the convenience of colleagues. When 
those 2 stacked votes have been completed, we will go to the Abraham 
amendment and, after that, on the other two amendments that have 
already been extensively debated on the National Endowment for the 
Arts, I believe there will be 30 minutes equally divided agreed to on 
each of those. Whether or not those votes will be stacked to occur all 
at the same time or not is yet undecided. But there will be more votes 
this afternoon. There will be more debate on the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair. I am going to try to be brief. 
I have a lot to say and I will try to summarize. Some friends of mine 
were having a conversation over dinner, and their 5-year-old was 
sitting at the table. They were talking about this issue, the funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts. And midconversation, the baby 
looked up and said, ``Mommy, do Republicans hate Big Bird?'' The answer 
is obviously that Republicans don't hate Big Bird and, in any event, 
``Sesame Street'' is only indirectly supported by the National 
Endowment for the Arts. But there is little question but that some have 
made this issue one of those wedge issues to inflame passions about 
cultural values and the role of Government, to pit people against each 
other and, again, to make us angry at each other as Americans, and 
focus in on those things that make us different from one another, on 
the things that separate us instead of the things that bring us 
together.
  Public support of the arts ought to be one of those points around 
which we as Americans can come together, because it is one of the ways 
in which we define ourselves as Americans and in which we communicate 
the richness of our American culture.
  The NEA follows in a noble tradition of publicly supported art 
initiatives. Just last night, we were over at the Library of Congress, 
and there we had an opportunity to see firsthand what public support of 
the arts can do. That building is one of the more magnificent treasures 
of this country. I hope every American can have the opportunity to see 
it. I was particularly impressed by the room in which we held our 
meeting, which had been built by American craftsmen--publicly 
supported, following the end of the Columbian Exposition in my hometown 
of Chicago--who brought a variety of skills to bear on its creation, 
the woodworking, plaster work, painting, ceramics--some so beautifully 
done that it lifted spirits just to look at them.
  Some of them were so refined that, frankly, the talents, skills, and 
art involved are in danger of being lost to us forever.
  Then in another part of the Library of Congress, there is a wonderful 
exhibit of the Works Progress Administration that was started, as you 
know, during the Depression, by President Roosevelt. President 
Roosevelt started WPA to hire starving artists, and, frankly, every 
American should be grateful that he did. The work that they did, 
preserved for us the indigenous music out of the Delta of Mississippi, 
folk music and blues--and oral histories that would have been lost to 
us forever. We would not have the value of the photographs and the 
paintings and the music and the original art that had been created all 
over this country had it not been for the activities and intercession 
of the WPA. And so they did all of this wonderful stuff and left it as 
a legacy to all of us.
  By and through the arts, the cultural fabric of our country was 
reinforced during some of its darkest days. Now the National Endowment 
for the Arts, which was created in 1965, is under attack again. I point 
out what their charter says. It says: ``To foster excellence, diversity 
and vitality of art and broaden public access to the arts.''
  That is the charter; that is what NEA is supposed to do, and that is 
what it in fact has done. Has it followed tradition? A look at the good 
things it does for our country resoundingly answers that question. In 
Illinois, it has supported the YMCA of Chicago, The Lyric Opera, the 
Art Institute, and other large institutions that might have private 
support, but then it also, most importantly, supports those smaller 
institutions that would not have the help otherwise.
  We have in Illinois received NEA grants for the Peoria Symphony and 
the Little City Foundation, Glenn Ellyn Children's Choir--activities 
that would not have the support and would not be able to leverage 
private dollars were it not for the NEA.
  These community initiatives educate children, provide adults with the 
tools to socialize our young people, help communities to build on 
positive values which art inspires.
  I would like to quote from Tolstoy for a moment who defines art ``as 
a human activity having for its purpose the transmission to others of 
the highest and best feelings to which men have risen.''
  Obviously, this amendment, I think, takes the position that if you do 
not have private money, those positive values won't be available to you 
or to your community.
  Have there been embarrassments among the projects supported? Of 
course there have. As with any art, some of it will at all times be 
repugnant to somebody. There is 16th century art around that some of my 
colleagues will find offensive. That is a matter of their personal 
taste. But the truth is that in any republic such as ours the freedom 
we enjoy starts with the proposition that individual expression is a 
positive value. Instead of allowing for the fact that expression will 
be of all kinds, the sponsors of this

[[Page S9481]]

amendment would shut down all expression because they don't like some 
of it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to divide us as 
Americans, and I urge their support of the NEA.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence and thank the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished senior Senator from North 
Carolina, Senator Helms, is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I hope the Senator will yield to me 5 
or 6 minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Missouri is pleased to yield as much 
time as the distinguished Senator from North Carolina desires.
  Mr. HELMS. I certainly appreciate it. I would have been here earlier 
but we had a meeting on China in the Foreign Relations Committee. I 
couldn't leave. The witnesses were long-winded, as well as some others.
  But I compliment the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I have been 
in the same position that he has been in for several years. It is 
pretty lonely. But the people all across this country will admire the 
Senator from Missouri for it, and the Senator will hear from them--
people who believe in high principles and morality. I just want the 
Senator to know that he is not being overlooked.
  I want a few minutes this afternoon to reflect upon an Associated 
Press report published Tuesday morning quoting NEA spokeswoman Cherie 
Simon as claiming that ``legislative restrictions'' and ``internal 
reforms'' have solved the NEA problem and that the NEA ``didn't fund 
some of the programs as Helms condemned''.
  Mr. President, isn't it interesting? You have a little lady --and I 
know she is a nice lady because she is somebody's daughter, but I never 
heard of her--make this statement, which is not true in the first 
place, that the NEA is not furnishing taxpayers' money for a whole 
plethora of rotten material. No other word will fit. This dissembling 
has been going on, but every year they come up, and say, ``Oh, no. Not 
us. We just fund nice things.''
  It is sort of like the farmer who heard some noise in his chicken 
house. He said, ``Who is out there?'' He heard a voice say, ``Just us 
chickens.'' And that is all the NEA says. I like Jane Alexander. I have 
met with her. But they are evading the issue every year. They are 
getting money that they ought not to get every year.

  If spokeswoman Cherie Simon, whoever she is, believes that 
``legislative restrictions,'' as she put it, and ``internal reforms,'' 
as she put it, have, as she put it, ``solved'' the problem, she needs 
to wake up and smell the coffee because she obviously didn't understand 
the problem in the first place. The truth is that legislative 
restrictions and internal reforms mean simply that the NEA has been 
using subterfuge and sophistry to spend the taxpayers' money on 
programs that every year outrage the taxpayers.
  So the NEA wants to deny funding this filthy book, with all of their 
double talk about who is paying for it, or who has paid for it. This 
book, called ``Blood of Mugwump'' by a fellow named Doug Rice--the 
saints have been good to me; I have never heard of him before--the most 
filthy thing I believe I have ever read. And I have not read but about 
half a page of it. But down here it says--what do you guess? The 
National Endowment for the Arts. Up here it says that the National 
Endowment for the Arts is furnishing the money through the English 
Department for Contemporary Literature of Illinois State University, 
Illinois Arts Center.
  That is the way it always is--subterfuge about what is going on with 
the taxpayers' money.
  I am informed that while I was over in the Dirksen Building presiding 
in the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Harkin inserted a letter 
from the NEA disavowing NEA connection with the book. Yet, even the 
letter acknowledges that it was published by FC2. That is the 
publishing company, FC2. And FC2 put the NEA seal of approval on the 
copyright page of this book. All I am doing is reading it to you.
  The point, Mr. President, is this: The NEA and the FC2 can cook the 
books all they want to, but they know what this publishing company is 
all about, and they know about the filth that they have published, 
particularly in this book. There is not a Senator in this body who will 
take this book home and show it to his wife, or her husband, let alone 
their children. It is filth. And the taxpayers paid for it. No matter 
what Cherie Simon says about it, the taxpayers of America paid for this 
book.
  On June 24 of this year--long after the Senator from Iowa claimed 
that the NEA disavowed ``Blood of Mugwump''--Jane Alexander wrote that 
FC2--get this--``FC2 has sustained a commitment to intellectual 
challenge. . .'' That is the lady who heads the agency. That is the 
lady whom I like personally. She is a nice lady. But I don't know where 
she is when all of these decisions are made. This book sure is an 
intellectual challenge, isn't it?. I wish every citizen of America 
would take a look at it; they'd want to throw it in the furnace.
  Perhaps we should examine another example of how these legislative 
restrictions and internal reforms work.
  The other day on this floor I mentioned a grant--for fiscal year 
1997--for a project by choreographer Mark Morris. This is the same guy 
who once staged a version of The Nutcracker Suite complete with cross-
dressing and other unsavory themes.
  If the folks at the NEA want to say that the taxpayers didn't fund 
that piece of work, they might be accurate. But, knowing this fellow 
Morris and his background, the NEA will nevertheless--nevertheless--
funnel $150,000 of the taxpayers' money this year to support his future 
work.
  That is what is going on. They come forth with obfuscation and 
confusion, Mr. President, and they hoodwink a lot of Senators. They 
didn't hoodwink them over in the House of Representatives.
  The amendment of the Senator from Missouri deserves to be approved on 
a unanimous vote. It won't be, because there are enough weak sisters 
sitting around that will find some excuse for not voting for it.
  But I commend the Senator, and I praise him for taking the time to 
address this subject.
  One final note. I think it is time to end the charade at the NEA and 
just acknowledge to the taxpayers once and for all that Congress will 
no longer waste money on this Federal agency. So the Senate of the 
United States ought to do the right thing today by adopting the 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri.

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield back such time as I may have.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Washington.
  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.

[[Page S9482]]

 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Washington. 
I believe the 8 minutes that I have remaining will be sufficient for 
me.
  I want to begin by thanking Senator Helms for his understanding of 
the fact that subsidized speech, the process of identifying for 
Americans what they should value and what they should not in terms of 
ideas, somehow selecting between one author and another, has been a bad 
concept. It has been a bad concept which turned into a horrible concept 
as we have literally wasted resources, and it has been a waste of 
resources from the inception. I provided examples from the 1960's, and 
I have examples from the 1990's.
  Now, part of the activity on the part of the group that would seek to 
praise the National Endowment and say that it is just fine is the 
suggestion that the NEA disavowed involvement in the publication of the 
``Blood of Mugwump'' book.
  In March this year they said to the publisher: You shouldn't have 
used the money on ``Blood of Mugwump.'' And this was brought to the 
floor by the Senator from Iowa as testimony that the National Endowment 
had nothing to do with the scandalous and literally revolting attack on 
faith and on persons of spiritual values and upon morality that the 
``Blood of Mugwump'' book represents. And obviously, the National 
Endowment, having been caught in this indiscretion, feels bad about it 
and seeks to repudiate it. But the Senator from Iowa did not provide 
the additional documentation showing that 5 months before that the 
publisher was submitting a reimbursement form that included ``Blood of 
Mugwump'' as part of what was being subsidized.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this ``Request for 
Advance or Reimbursement'' form to which I am referring be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the form was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                  Request for Advance or Reimbursement

                              (Long Form)

       Please type or print clearly.
       Complete and mail the top three copies to: Grants Office, 
     National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
     N.W., Washington, DC 20506-0001 OR-FAX one copy to 202/682-
     5610. Do not do both.
       If you need assistance, call 202/882-5403.
     {time}  National Endowment for the Arts
     {time}  Grant #96-5223-0091
     {time}  Type of payment requested
       a. {time}  Advance
       {time}  Reimbursement
       b. {time}  Final
       {time}  Partial
     {time}  Basis of request
       {time}  Cash
       {time}  Accrued Expenditures
     {time}  Payment request #2
     {time}  Grantee account or identifying #13-2957841
     {time}  Period covered by this request (month/day/year)
       From 8-15-16 To 11-15-96
     {time}  Grantee (Official IRS name/mailing address)
       Fiction Collective, Inc. Unit for Contemporary Literature 
     Illinois State University Normal, IL 61790-4241.
     {time}  Remittance address. Complete only if different from 
         #8.
       For faster payment, complete #14 below.
{time}  Computation of amount requested:
    a. Total project outlays to date (As of 10-10-96)...........$18,000
    b. Estimated net cash outlays needed for advance period.......7,000
    c. Total (a plus b)..........................................25,000
    d. Non-Endowment share of amount on line c......................  0
    e. Endowment share of amount on line c (c minus d)...........25,000
    f. Endowment payments previously requested...................16,000
    g. Endowment share now requested (e minus f)..................9,000
     {time}  Reminders:
       a. Authorizing Official. This form must be signed by an 
     authorizing official who either signed the original 
     application or has a signature authorization form on file. If 
     necessary, submit an updated signature authorization form.
       b. Labor Assurances. In signing below, grantee is also 
     certifying to the Assurances as to Labor Standards printed on 
     the reverse of this form.
       c. Progress Report. Complete #12 the first time the 
     cumulative amount requested exceeds two-thirds of the grant 
     amount. Consult the Reporting Requirements document included 
     in your grant award package for guidance on the content of 
     this report.
     {time}  Progress report. Please respond in the space 
         provided.
     {time}  Authorizing Official: To the best of my knowledge and 
         belief, the data reported above are correct and all 
         outlays were made in accordance with grant conditions. 
         Payment is due and has not been previously requested.
       Signature: Curtis White.
       Name/Title: Co-director.
       Contact Person: Curtis White.
       Date 10-10-96.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the situation is simply this. The 
publisher in the previous year was claiming that it was publishing with 
the grant the ``Blood of Mugwump.'' I think the record is clear. It may 
be that the National Endowment for the Arts doesn't want to say that 
the money, our money, your money, my money, taxpayers' money was being 
used for what was obviously revolting or repugnant literature. But the 
publisher knew what he was using it for and his request for 
reimbursement submitted to the agency well before, during the previous 
year indicated that the utilization of the resource was for ``Blood of 
Mugwump.'' Nevertheless, the National Endowment for the Arts says that 
its grant wasn't ``Blood of Mugwump.'' It was books like this one, ``S 
& M.'' Frankly, I could not read a page out of this book that I have 
seen to the Senate; I could not read it in my home, could not read it 
anywhere else. It says on the front, ``It's funny. It's smart.'' It is 
not, not at all.
  Fellow Members of the Senate, the United States of America has been a 
culture that's been rich in good art and has been rich in good culture 
and has attained a level of being a world leader not because of 
Government sponsorship, not because of Government telling people what's 
good and what's not good and awarding scholarships or grants to one 
group and not to another. We attained our level of greatness in the 
absence of those things and in the presence of a free marketplace, in 
the presence of freedom for art.
  Less than a month before John Kennedy was assassinated, less than a 
month before he died, he was asked to speak at Amherst College in 
Massachusetts to praise American poet Robert Frost. John Kennedy talked 
about art and about freedom and about how artists need to be free in 
order to express themselves with integrity and how Government might 
corrupt that process.
  Now, you have to understand that there was no such thing as the 
National Endowment for the Arts in the lifetime of John Kennedy, 
President of the United States, assassinated in 1963. This program, the 
National Endowment for the Arts, was part of Lyndon Johnson's 
discontent with America, thinking we could make it a great society by 
infusing Government money everywhere. And you know what he did to

[[Page S9483]]

the family; you know what he did with the welfare system, and you are 
seeing what he did to the arts.
  Here are the words of John F. Kennedy.

       For art establishes the basic human truths which must serve 
     as the touchstones of our judgment. The artist, however 
     faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last 
     champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an 
     intrusive society and an officious State.

  Let me just say that again and see if I can say it more clearly. John 
Kennedy says that the artist becomes an individual who stands against 
the intrusive society and the officious State. He sees the artist as a 
line of defense against statism. He sees it as a bulwark of freedom--
John Kennedy. I wonder what he would have thought if the officious 
State was to be guarded by an artist paid by the State.
  He goes on to say:

       The great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as 
     Frost said, ``a lover's quarrel with the world.''

  Then John Kennedy is eloquent and insightful.

       In pursuing his perceptions of reality, the artist must 
     often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a 
     popular role.

  Well, against the currents of your time is not what we find is 
happening with the National Endowment for the Arts. They are directing 
the current. We have gone over and over the article by Jan Breslauer 
from the Los Angeles Times which reminds us that they are demanding 
that artists be politically correct in accordance with what the 
Government would dictate.
  That is really not rising to the challenge of being against the 
officious State. That is falling into the trap of being a participant 
of the officious State telling citizens what to believe and how to 
think. So when John Kennedy was praising Robert Frost, John Kennedy put 
it this way:

       In pursuing his perceptions of reality, the artist must 
     often sail against the currents of his time.

  Perhaps he might even dare be politically incorrect, but were he to 
do so, woe be unto his chance of being identified for a grant from the 
NEA.
  Kennedy spoke in praise of Robert Frost who, without subsidy from the 
Government, wrote eloquently:

       Two roads diverged in a wood and I, I took the one less 
     traveled by, and that has made all the difference.

  America could have art that was subsidized, controlled by, directed 
by Government. It can happen. You can look at the art of the Soviet 
Union of the last 70 years. They had art. They took the artists that 
weren't acceptable and they banished them. Solzhenitsyn was one of 
them. We don't manage artists but we identify ones for approval and 
others for subsidy, and some of those that don't get the subsidy and 
don't get the approval are individuals that we ought to be looking 
carefully at and they should not be discriminated against. A Government 
which discriminates against artists by discriminating in favor of 
others violates our fundamental responsibility of free speech. And when 
it promotes morality, it undermines the very foundation and 
underpinnings of a culture.
  We should defund the National Endowment for the Arts. We should not 
spend this $100 million of taxpayer resources.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GORTON. Has all time expired? I assume that the Senator from 
Missouri wishes a rollcall?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ashcroft 
amendment numbered 1188. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Coats
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed (RI)
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1205

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1205 
offered by the Senator from the State of Nevada, Mr. Bryan. Under the 
previous order, there will now be 2 minutes for debate equally divided 
between Senators Bryan and Gorton.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Presiding Officer bring the Senate to order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. This is 
an important amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is correct. The Senate 
will be in order.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as a cosponsor to the Bryan 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I want to tell you, first of 
all, what this amendment is not about. This amendment is not about 
timber harvesting in the national forests. It does not prevent it. And 
it does not prevent the construction of new roads in the national 
forests for purposes of timber access.
  What it does is to eliminate a costly taxpayer subsidy that is part 
of the Forest Service program, a subsidy that has been roundly 
denounced, and correctly so, by virtually every taxpayer group in 
America, such as Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, because it cannot be justified.
  Second, this is an important environmental vote, perhaps our most 
important environmental vote to date because we reduce by $10 million 
an amount of money that is appropriated for new road construction in 
the national forests.
  The amendment does absolutely nothing to reduce or to impede the 
accounts that are provided for in the maintenance of roads in the 
National Park System.
  So Mr. President, I urge support of the Bryan amendment because it is 
truth in budgeting and makes sense from a fiscal point of view and 
because environmentally it is sound policy for the Nation.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, harvesters in national forests have 
declined by more than two-thirds over the course of the last several 
years. This amendment is designed to cause them to decline still 
further. Many of its principal sponsors outside of this body have as 
their design the entire termination of any harvest on our Federal 
lands. This proposal drives significantly in that direction.
  The amount of money in the bill for Forest Service roads is the 
recommendation of the Clinton administration. The Clinton 
administration reflects no savings of money by the ending of the Forest 
Service credit. It is simply another step in the desire to see to it 
that there is no harvest whatsoever on our forest lands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for the debate on the amendment has 
now expired.

[[Page S9484]]

  Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I have cleared this request with the Republican leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may address the Senate for not to 
exceed 10 minutes following this rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, 
there is an effort to have the Armed Services Committee meet. I was 
just speaking with the chairman. Would it be possible to have the votes 
on those three amendments lined up together at the end of the debate 
for all three? Was that part of the UC?
  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. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
unanimous-consent request is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1205 offered by the Senator from Nevada. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mack
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 1205) was rejected.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  For the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the motion to 
reconsider the previous vote.
  The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mack
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, there is an amendment that might have 
caused a lot of debate that has been agreed to by Members on both 
sides. I request the President recognize Senator Bumpers to offer that 
amendment. Senator Byrd has graciously agreed to give us a minute 
before his special order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield 1 minute for that purpose without 
losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Arkansas offering a first-
degree amendment to the bill?


  Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning On Page 123, Line 9, Through 
                           Page 124, Line 20

  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid 
aside and the Senate proceed to the committee amendment beginning on 
line 9, page 123 of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the excepted committee amendment is as follows:

       Sec. 339. (a) No funds provided in this or any other act 
     may be expended to develop a rulemaking proposal to amend or 
     replace the Bureau of Land Management regulations found at 43 
     C.F.R. 3809 or to prepare a draft environmental impact 
     statement on any such proposal, until the Secretary of the 
     Interior establishes a Committee which shall prepare and 
     submit a report in accordance with this section.
       (b) The Committee shall be composed of appropriate 
     representatives from the Department of the Interior and a 
     representative appointed by the Governor from each State that 
     contains public lands open to location under the General 
     Mining Laws. The Committee shall be established and operated 
     pursuant to the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
     5 U.S.C. ap 21 et seq.
       (c) The Committee established pursuant to subsection (b) 
     shall prepare and submit a report

[[Page S9485]]

     to the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and 
     Appropriations of the United States Senate and the Committees 
     on Resources and Appropriations of the United States House of 
     Representatives which (1) contains consensus recommendations 
     on the appropriate relationship of State and Federal land 
     management agencies in environmental, land management and 
     regulation of activities subject to the Bureau's regulations 
     at 43 C.F.R. 3809, (2) identifies current and proposed State 
     environmental, land management and reclamation laws, 
     regulations, performance standards and policies, applicable 
     to such activities, including those State laws and 
     regulations which have been adopted to achieve primacy in the 
     administration of federally mandated efforts; (3) explains 
     how these current State laws, regulations, performance 
     standards and policies are coordinated with Federal surface 
     management efforts; and (4) contains consensus 
     recommendations for how Federal and State coordination can be 
     maximized in the future to ensure environmental protection 
     and minimize regulatory duplication, conflict and burdens.


 Amendment No. 1209 To Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning On Page 
                 123, Line 9, Through Page 124, Line 20

 (Purpose: To modify an antienvironmental rider to permit the Interior 
   Department to revise environmental regulations governing hardrock 
                    mining on certain Federal land)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1209 to excepted committee amendment 
     beginning on page 123, line 9, through page 124, line 20.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after ``Sec. 339.'' on page 123, line 9, of the 
     pending Committee amendment and add the following:
       ``(a) No funds provided in this or any other act may be 
     expended to develop a rulemaking proposal to amend or replace 
     the Bureau of Land Management regulations found at 43 C.F.R. 
     3809 or to prepare a draft environmental impact statement on 
     such proposal, until the Secretary of the Interior certifies 
     to the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and 
     Appropriations of the United States Senate and the Committees 
     on Resources and Appropriations of the United States House of 
     Representatives that the Department of the Interior has 
     consulted with the governor, or his/her representative, from 
     each state that contains public lands open to location under 
     the General Mining Laws.
       ``(b) The Secretary shall not publish proposed regulations 
     to amend or replace the Bureau of Land Management regulations 
     found at 43 C.F.R. 3809 prior to November 15, 1998, and shall 
     not finalize such regulations prior to 90 days after such 
     publication.''.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, this amendment has not only been agreed 
to, it has been microscopically fly-specked by all of the parties for 
the past 24 hours. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1209) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the underlying 
committee amendment.
  All those in favor, say aye.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I don't yield the floor for that purpose. 
I yielded for 1 minute. I did not yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 9 minutes, 
under the previous order.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, may we have order in 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
West Virginia.

                          ____________________