[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S10822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EXPLANATION OF VOTES ON THE FY98 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the Senate 
finished consideration of the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior appropriations 
bill. I would like to speak for a moment on the amendments to this 
legislation.
  One of the first amendments to be considered was offered by Senator 
Bryan of Nevada. The Bryan amendment proposed to cut $10 million from 
the Forest Service's timber roads construction budget and to eliminate 
the Purchaser Credit Program. As I understand it, Senator Bryan 
believes the monies used by the Forest Service to assist with the 
construction and maintenance of roads used by loggers constitutes a 
subsidy and he targets it accordingly. Proponents of this program, 
however, argue that there is no road subsidy because the Forest Service 
takes possession of the roads after the timber harvest and uses them to 
fight forest fires, manage the forestlands and provide recreational 
access.
  The Purchaser Credit Program, meanwhile, credits timber companies for 
the cost to build roads when it bids out a timber sale. The logging 
company will then build the roads, harvest the timber and pay the 
Forest Service for the timber minus the cost of the road. Meanwhile, 
that same company is able to use the credit it received from the first 
sale to bid on other timber sales. The ability to use this credit 
toward other timber sales benefit is particularly beneficial to small 
logging companies with limited capital. Elimination of this program, 
therefore, would do little to reduce logging on federal lands, but 
would greatly reduce the ability of small timber companies to bid on 
timber sales.
  Finally, I am concerned that the Bryan amendment could make it even 
more difficult to conduct timber sales on Forest Service lands. In the 
past decade, timber sales on federal lands have declined by over two-
thirds. Timber harvests on private lands have necessarily increased in 
order to make up for the lost wood. Private timber harvests have proven 
insufficient to meet market demand, however, and the shortfalls are 
increasingly being made up with imported, Canadian lumber. If this 
trend continues, I fear that the resulting timber shortages will raise 
the price per board-foot of lumber and increase housing and furniture 
costs.
  Nevertheless, while I opposed the 49-51 vote to table the Bryan 
amendment, I reserve the right to reconsider my vote on this issue in 
the future. At this time, I am concerned, but not convinced, that the 
timber program represents a subsidy to the timber industry. In order to 
clarify this question, I urge the chairman of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee to hold hearings on this issue.
  The Senate next turned to consideration of a Hutchinson amendment to 
authorize the President to implement the recently announced American 
Heritage Rivers Initiative subject to Congressional approval. The goal 
of this amendment was both to ensure that Congress has a say in such 
designation and define what constitutes a river community.
  Proposed by the President, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative 
seeks to identify polluted rivers which are important to this nation's 
history and provide a new avenue for funding cleanup efforts. While I 
believe this amendment was well-intentioned, after careful review I 
became convinced that the Hutchinson amendment would actually serve to 
greatly increase the cost for a community to designate their river as 
an American Heritage site. As long as property owners are assured of 
their rights, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative could play a 
significant role in cleaning up some of this nation's most polluted 
rivers. In order to keep the Heritage River designation a viable option 
for Michigan's rivers, I voted in support of the motion to table the 
Hutchinson amendment which passed on a 57-42 vote.
  Shortly after dispensing with the Hutchinson amendment, the Senate 
took up a Kyl Amendment to provide $4.8 million for law enforcement to 
combat gangs on Indian Tribal Lands. While these gangs have yet to 
present themselves in Michigan, states such as Arizona are having to 
confront this problem with increasing frequency. In an effort to 
address this problem before it becomes a national phenomenon, I 
supported Senator Kyl's amendment. Nevertheless, it was defeated on a 
34-64 vote.
  The next legislation to be considered was a Bumpers amendment to 
impose a royalty of five percent of the net return on the profits from 
mining gold, silver and platinum. In addition, in order to raise funds 
to pay for the cleanup of abandoned mines, the amendment would also 
charge a reclamation fee for those mines which have patented their 
lands.
  In his speech on the Senate floor, Senator Bumpers indicated that the 
reclamation fee served as a much needed tax on the industry. Shortly 
after, a point of order was raised which noted that the introduction of 
a tax measure such as this in the Senate was unconstitutional. A vote 
was called to determine the merit of the point of order. Whether 
Senator Bumpers legislation had merit or not, it was clear to me that 
the amendment did violate the Constitutional law stating all tax 
measures must originate in the House of Representatives. I agreed that 
the Point of Order was well taken and, on a 59-39 vote, the Bumpers 
amendment was deemed out of order.
  Shortly after disposing of the Bumpers Amendment, the Senate turned 
to final consideration of the FY98 Interior Appropriations bill. I was 
pleased to support its 93-3 passage and urge the conferees to work as 
quickly as possible to finalize the conference report before the end of 
the fiscal year.

                          ____________________