[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10793-S10801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2466, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk (Mary Anne Clarkson) read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Gorton amendment No. 1359, of a technical nature.
       Hutchison amendment No. 1603, to prohibit the use of funds 
     for the purpose of issuing a

[[Page S10794]]

     notice of rulemaking with respect to the valuation of crude 
     oil for royalty purposes until September 30, 2000.
       Bryan amendment No. 1588, to make available certain funds, 
     by reducing the subsidy for the below-cost timber program 
     administered by the Forest Service and for the construction 
     of logging roads in national forests, for other Forest 
     Service programs including road maintenance, wildlife and 
     fish habitat management, and for threatened, endangered, and 
     sensitive species habitat management.
       Bryan/Wyden amendment No. 1623 (to amendment No. 1588), to 
     make available certain funds for survey and manage 
     requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision.


                           Amendment No. 1623

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now 
on amendment 1623 on which there shall be 1 hour of debate which will 
be equally divided.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I would like to take just a few minutes 
now to speak on behalf of the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment and try 
to offer up to colleagues on both sides of the aisle why Senator Bryan, 
Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to incorporate some of the 
important thinking that has been done by the chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, as well as the work with respect to 
forestry done on the floor of the Senate over the last few days by 
Senator Robb of Virginia. It seems to me that Senator Gorton, as well 
as Senator Robb, are making extremely important points. What Senator 
Bryan, Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to do is build on the work 
done by both of our colleagues.
  For example, I think Senator Gorton and Senator Craig are absolutely 
right in terms of saying that the Forest Service has lacked direction, 
particularly as it relates to the Pacific Northwest. They have known at 
the Forest Service for many months that they had to comply with each of 
these survey and management requirements. The Forest Service dawdled 
and dragged its feet. It has been literally flailing around in the 
woods.
  I think Senator Gorton and Senator Craig have been absolutely right 
that there has been a lack of accountability and a lack of oversight 
with respect to the Forest Service.
  At the same time, I think Senator Robb has also been correct in terms 
of saying we can't just throw the environmental laws in the trash can 
because a Federal agency messes up. You can't just set aside the 
environmental laws of the United States because a Federal agency, in 
this case the Forest Service, has not done its job. You have to figure 
out a way to put this agency and this program back on track.
  What the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment seeks to do is to get the 
Forest Service on track by building on some of the important work done 
by Senator Gorton and Senator Craig, as well as focusing on the 
environmental principles pursued by Senator Robb.
  One of the reasons I so strongly support the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden 
amendment is we have seen in past years that throwing money at the 
timber sale program does not make things better. Each year, since 1996, 
this Congress has authorized more money for the timber sale program 
than the administration has asked for. So we have, in effect, shoveled 
more money out the door for the timber sale program.
  The fact of the matter is, in spite of the fact the Congress keeps 
spending more money on the timber sale program, the problems in these 
rural communities, particularly the rural West --and these are economic 
and environmental problems--keep getting worse. So the notion that 
throwing money at the timber sale program is going to solve these 
problems is simply not correct. The Congress has continued to spend 
money. The problems are getting worse, both from an economic and an 
environmental standpoint. And that is the bottom line.
  So what Senator Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald and I are seeking to do 
is to link the money that the Forest Service needs for these important 
programs--not just in Oregon but across the country--to a new focus on 
accountability.
  What our legislation does is earmark resources for the important 
environmental work that needs to be done and at the same time places a 
stringent timetable on the completion of the important environmental 
work. So, in effect, we have a chance to do some good by getting the 
environmental work done while at the same time helping timber workers 
and environmental concerns addressed in a responsible fashion.
  We do direct additional funds for the survey and management program 
so we can have the protocols for the species that currently lack this 
data, but we do it in a way that brings new accountability. This is the 
first time on the floor of the Senate that we have tried to take this 
program, which has been so mismanaged by the Forest Service, and put in 
place some real accountability.
  This is not the old days of just throwing money at problems. This is 
a new approach, a fresh and creative approach, that Senators Bryan, 
Fitzgerald, and I are trying to offer which will ensure that not just 
in the Northwest but across the country there will be the funds that 
are needed for the timber sale program, but at the same time we are 
going to have a real process to watchdog the Forest Service to make 
sure they actually get the work done.
  With respect to the problems that have shut down the forests in the 
Pacific Northwest, our amendment requires that the survey and 
management draft, the environmental impact statement would be completed 
by November 15 of this year. The final version of that impact statement 
would be published by February 14 of 2000.

  So this gives us a chance, I say to my colleagues, to make sure the 
work that was promised actually gets done. We fund the timber sale 
program at the levels called for by the administration. We have a 
chance to learn from years past that just throwing money at the timber 
sale program does not solve things.
  I hope our colleagues will realize that this bipartisan approach is a 
chance to solve problems, which is vitally important to rural 
communities not just in the West but across the country, while at the 
same time honoring the important environmental obligations this 
Congress has set out for the Forest Service and other agencies.
  I do hope that however colleagues voted on the Robb amendment, 
whatever they think with respect to the original language proposed by 
Senator Gorton, they will look anew at the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden 
amendment because what we are seeking to do is build on the important 
principles embodied behind both of those positions.
  My two colleagues are here from the Northwest, the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the chairman of the 
committee on which I serve, Senator Craig. They are absolutely right; 
the Forest Service has lacked direction. Under the Bryan-Fitzgerald-
Wyden amendment, we put in place that direction and real 
accountability.
  For those who voted for the Robb amendment earlier, and want to make 
sure environmental laws are respected and honored, we keep in place the 
notion that you do not throw those laws into the garbage can on 
appropriations bills.
  So I am hopeful my colleagues will support this on a bipartisan 
basis. I particularly thank the original sponsor of the legislation, 
Senator Bryan. He has done yeoman work to try to put in place a 
bipartisan coalition. I hope this proposal will be attractive to my 
colleagues of both political parties.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, good morning.
  I am not quite sure I know, for all of the Senators who are listening 
this morning or who will be asked to vote in about 45 minutes, how to 
capture the essence of this amendment--the first-degree and second-
degree amendments--brought to us by the Senator from Nevada and the 
Senator from Oregon.
  I guess the best way to do that is to kind of take a snapshot back to 
1989 and 1990 when this country had a vibrant forest products industry 
and a green sale program on the forested lands, the forested public 
lands of our Nation.
  I would be the first to tell you, as I have said over the years, that 
at that

[[Page S10795]]

time we were probably managing a level of cut on our public lands that 
was not sustainable. But it was at that time that the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air 
Act, and the Clean Water Act began to take effect on those lands. We 
saw some very dramatic reductions in logging.
  Here is an example of the kind of reductions we have seen since 1989. 
The Senator from Oregon just spoke. In his State alone, 111 mills and 
11,600 jobs. The Forest Service, by its action, in response to public 
policy shaped by the Senate, and interpreted by the courts of this 
country, caused this to happen by disallowing the availability of 
public saw logs to 111 mills.
  My State of Idaho: 17 mills, 770 jobs. That is a comparable impact 
because of the number of mills.
  I spoke yesterday about my community of Midvale--45 jobs in a 300-
person community, a big impact. But that mill is gone, torn down, sent 
to Brazil to cut down the rain forest.
  Literally this mill right here, Grangeville, ID, closed for lack of 
timber, lack of public timber, lack of public timber by public policy, 
not for the lack of growth of trees on the Nezperce Forest, torn down 
and sent to Brazil to cut rain forest trees.
  We have struggled for a decade to try to transform public policy to 
meet the environmental sensitivity that all of us want the Forest 
Service to meet. The chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, 
Senator Gorton, has constantly worked where he could through the 
appropriations process to shape that new policy.
  We have now reduced the allowable cut on the public forests of our 
country, from 1990 to today, by 70 percent, a precipitous drop. In 
other words, if that were the auto industry, GM and Chrysler would no 
longer exist. They would be gone. Their plants would be torn down and 
their people would be strewn across the landscape looking for a new 
job. But it wasn't the auto industry, it was the forest products 
industry. We have recognized that and tried to reshape it to meet the 
environmental standards all of us want our Forest Service to adhere to, 
but also to wring the politics out of it.

  So there has been a 70-percent decline in logging for timber harvest 
since 1990; 140,000 people were employed in that industry in 1990; 
there are 55,000 today. Think of that tremendous flip-flop. Many of 
those folks don't have jobs yet. When you come to the public lands-
dependent communities and counties of the West and some places in the 
South and Southeast, the unemployment today is not nearly at full 
employment as are most of our urban communities. It is at 16 and 17-
percent unemployment. These are former loggers, men and women who made 
their jobs in the logging industry--not cutting trees, but working in 
sawmills and selling the product.
  So that is a snapshot of time. That has all happened since about 1989 
to 1999. In less than a decade, we have seen the collapse of the forest 
product industry of this country, all in the name of the environment, 
while we are still growing more trees now than ever in the history of 
our country. We are growing more trees now than when European man came 
to this continent. Our forests, in some instances, are more healthy 
today, and in other areas they are devastatingly old, with 30 to 40 
percent dead and dying. They create phenomenal fire potential 
situations when the climate goes dry, as they do in the Great Basin 
West about every 6 years. Yet we have Senators who come to the floor 
and want to reduce the 70-percent reduction again and again and again. 
That is exactly the intent of the amendment by the Senator from Nevada.
  So I scratch my head most sincerely, and ask why. It can't be because 
we haven't reduced the program. It can't be because we are trying to 
build environmental sensitivity and shape timber sales so they are much 
different than they were a decade ago. It must be because the national 
environmental movement--and the Sierra Club is the best example--in a 
national policy shaped 3 years ago, said: zero cut of trees on public 
lands. We don't want to see another tree cut.
  Somehow, other Senators seem to want to echo that and bring it to the 
floor. I have to believe that is the driving impetus behind this 
amendment. I know of no other reason--at least I can't come up with a 
good one--when you look at the history and recognize what the Forest 
Service has done. The Senator from Oregon and I are working together to 
shape policy. The Forest Service has lost its direction. It tried to 
deal with the National Endangered Species Act and National 
Environmental Policy Act, and as it tried to amalgamate these into the 
National Forest Planning Act and the national forest plans under which 
the forest operates. The courts have stepped in time and time again and 
said, no, you can't do it that way. The reason is that environmental 
groups have filed lawsuits. We have allowed the courts to become the 
managers of our public forested lands, not the U.S. Senate.
  You and I were elected to shape public policy. The chairman of the 
Appropriations Interior Subcommittee is working to do that. The 
legislation we have here, which dramatically reduces the overall 
programs in spending, is to do that. Some instructive words are in 
there. Even the amendment here, while it is argued to do something 
different, actually goes out on the land to improve existing roads and 
make them more environmentally sound.
  Now, it would be argued by some that these are going to be brand new 
roads out through a pristine forest. That is really not true in about 
99 percent of the cases because the Forest Service is not opening up 
new land. They are going back now in the States of Oregon, Washington, 
and Idaho and recutting old land. So they are taking old roads and 
improving them and putting in culverts and graveling them and making 
them more environmentally sound so you don't get sediment creating 
runoff into the streams and damaging the fisheries. Ninety percent of 
the very money the Senator from Nevada wants to take out of this bill 
will go to that kind of reconstruction of the roads.

  Those are the facts. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and 
Public Land Management, in the last 3 years, we have held 45 hearings 
on the U.S. Forest Service. We turned it upside down and we shook to 
try to figure out why it was the most dysfunctional agency of the 
Federal Government. Here is part of the reason why: Because the 
Congress of the United States, over the last two decades of shaping 
public policy, didn't blend the policy together and it collided, which 
caused the Forest Service, in large part, to crash because of lawsuits 
and very dedicated environmental groups who really do want to shut 
public timber cutting down.
  For the first time, yesterday, the Senator from Pennsylvania spoke on 
this. You would not expect Pennsylvania to be involved in this debate. 
Yet they have National Forest lands, hard wood lands. They have the 
same problem. Now lawsuits are being filed there to disallow the cut of 
red cherry and other woods that are critical to the furniture industry 
and to about four counties in Pennsylvania. This amendment affects 
every State in the United States that has a National Forest so 
designated within its boundaries. In some form, it will impact every 
one of those States.
  The second-degree amendment is simply to shift over a little over 
one-third of the $34 million that is taken out of the program by the 
amendment of the Senator from Nevada to do research. The Senator from 
Oregon will argue that it expedites an agenda. I am confident it 
doesn't because the Forest Service simply can't move that quickly. If 
they did, they would probably be sued and shut down again.
  So we can argue on the floor, and we will vote; and it will be a vote 
on politics a lot more than on policy or substance, tragically enough. 
I hope the Senate will stand up and say, no, we have reduced the timber 
sales in the United States by 70 percent, and that is enough. We have 
to cut some for health reasons, to clean our forest floors, for our 
stewardship programs, for salvage purposes, get rid of the dead and 
dying in the bug-infested forests that oftentimes breed the kind of 
death that when the drought cycle comes and creates the catastrophic 
fires we have seen through the Great Basin, in New Mexico and Arizona, 
which we will see once again. This is what is at issue today.
  I hope the Senate will agree with the chairman of the subcommittee, 
who spent a great deal of time with those of

[[Page S10796]]

us who are committed to shaping public policy on these most critical 
public land issues. I believe that is the substance of the amendments 
at hand. I know of no other way to tell about it or to understand it. 
So if you want to keep ratcheting down the cut to a zero amount on our 
public lands, then you want to vote for Bryan-Wyden because that is 
their answer. If you do that, we will still build homes, but we will 
import that lumber from Canada and Brazil's rain forests and from 
Argentina and Venezuela and all the other areas and even Norway, 
strangely enough, but it will not be cut here. Hundreds of communities 
across this country will die because they are dying now. It is just 
that we haven't gone to their funerals yet. The rest of these mills 
will close, and this country will not have something it ought to have, 
which is a balanced, multiple-use, environmentally sound stewardship 
program for its public lands, which includes some tree cutting where 
necessary and appropriate.
  I retain the remainder of our time.
  Mr. FITZGERALD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the 
Bryan amendment. In fact, I would like to tell the body that I am a 
cosponsor of this amendment, the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment. It is 
going to be second degreed with Senator Wyden's amendment. I continue 
to support the bill. I think it is a reasonable, moderate approach. I 
have great respect for my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and I am 
very impressed by his concern for his State and the Forest Service, for 
his knowledge of the area, and for the jobs that are in the timber 
industry in this country. But I think it is important to notice that 
this is a very moderate amendment.
  It does not end timber sales in this country. In fact, it simply cuts 
back an increase that the Appropriations Committee added to the Forest 
Service's Timber Sales Management Program--an increase that went $32 
million beyond what the Forest Service chief requested, what the 
administration requested.
  This bill simply funds the Timber Sales Management Program at the 
very same amount that the Forest Service has requested.
  With all due respect, I have to say that many of the horror stories 
we heard on the floor last night and this morning about what effect 
this would have on timber sales and logging in this country are not 
true. It is also a very fiscally conservative approach. Of the $32 
million that the Appropriations Committee gave to the Forest Service 
budget beyond what the Forest Service requested, we are going to apply 
$10 million to reduce our national debt--to pay down that important 
debt we are trying to eliminate over time. The rest of it we are 
applying for other important priorities such as restoring cuts in the 
fish and wildlife program that were used to, in fact, fund this 
increase.
  People might ask why do we need this amendment? In my judgment, 
increasing the timber sales management budget can't be justified either 
on economic grounds or on environmental grounds.
  First, if I could speak for a moment on the economic grounds, there 
have been a variety of studies over the recent years that have been 
very critical of the country's Timber Sales Management Program. All of 
the different reports have suggested that the program loses money. 
There have been different studies. Some have suggested--in fact, the 
Forest Service itself, I believe, estimated its loss in fiscal year 
1997 at $889 million. But other estimates by other people using 
different accounting methods have suggested that the true net cash loss 
to the taxpayers could be as much as $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1997. 
You get different amounts depending on which type of accounting you 
would use to estimate the loss from the timber sales in this country. 
But whatever the true number is, there is widespread agreement that the 
program loses money and that it is a drain on the taxpayers.

  I have to ask why would we want to put more money into a program that 
by everybody's measure loses money for the taxpayers? It doesn't seem 
to make sense economically. Also, environmentally there are many 
arguments that appropriate management of our national forests and 
appropriate targeted cuts may actually have a beneficial effect over 
time.
  I have talked on several occasions to Senator Craig. I know he 
believes strongly that the management of our forests is environmentally 
sound. I would simply point out we are not curtailing all timber sales. 
We are preserving the status quo in timber sales in this country. This 
amendment does not go so far as to end timber sales. It funds them at 
roughly the same level they were funded last year. But we are not going 
to increase it.
  Obviously, from an environmental standpoint, the timber sales in this 
country are very controversial, particularly where you have an old-
growth forest. Forests once cut come back. They grow back. But they 
never quite grow back in the same way in the same original pristine 
state that they once were.
  Over the August recess, I had the occasion to vacation in northern 
Wisconsin, in an area that was in the middle of a State forest in 
Wisconsin. That whole area, as I understood it from reading the history 
of the region, was completely clearcut in the late 1890s. In the 
intervening 100 years, the forest has grown back. But I read a study of 
the forest which showed that it didn't come back in the same way. There 
were different trees that came back. In fact, some of the more valuable 
trees were not favored in that regrowth process.
  Once a pure pristine forest is cut, it can never be regained in the 
beautiful form that it once was. Since those pristine areas in this 
country are fewer and fewer now as we enter the third millennium, don't 
we want to think about how much we want to expand the cutting of our 
national forests?
  Finally, one of the points I make is that timber sales from timber 
harvested in our national forests represent only a small portion of our 
Nation's timber supply. In fact, I am told--I have seen estimates--that 
as low as 3.3 percent of our timber comes from national forests. We are 
in no way dependent on those national forests in order to meet our 
timber needs in this country. In any case, this amendment does not cut 
that amount, whatever it is; it says we are not going to expand it.
  In sum, I think this is a very well balanced, moderate, measured 
amendment. I compliment Senator Bryan, my colleague, and also Senator 
Wyden for their work on this.
  I am proud to support this amendment. I support it with wholehearted 
enthusiasm. While I cannot claim to have the extent of beautiful 
national forests in my great State of Illinois that some of my 
colleagues from the West may have, we have the Shawnee National Forest 
in southern Illinois. It is one of the most beautiful parts of our 
State. It is something that is of concern to people right in my State--
and that we have jobs in that area down in southern Illinois.
  I very much enjoyed spending 5 days with my family in the Shawnee 
National Forest about a year or so ago.
  I am hoping we can go forward into the 21st century finding a way to 
make sure we have an ample supply of timber in this country but at the 
same time preserving some of the pristine natural areas in this 
country--that we don't go too far in either direction.
  This is a very well-balanced amendment. I am pleased to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in fiscal year 1990, the Forest Service 
sold 11 billion board feet of timber for harvest and for productive 
use. For the last 2 years, we have authorized through our 
appropriations 3.6 billion board feet of harvest. The administration 
proposed in its budget for this year 3.2 billion, a further reduction, 
and a reduction from 1990 of 71 percent, as my colleague from Idaho 
pointed out.
  Peculiarly, or interestingly enough, the Forest Service in its actual 
National Forest Land Management Plan allows for a harvest of about 
twice this amount. It is only the appropriations level recommended by 
the administration, and for that matter by this Congress, that has the 
level almost 50 percent below what the Forest Service plans say is both 
economically and environmentally sustainable.
  That is the first peculiar argument.

[[Page S10797]]

  Second, the committee bill does not increase the allowable harvest. 
It simply allows the same harvest for next year that appropriations 
bills passed overwhelmingly by this body and signed by the President 
have permitted for the course of the last 2 years.
  The question is whether or not we should continue to move toward no 
harvest at all, as many of the national environmental organizations 
recommend, or whether we should consider continuing the relatively 
modest harvests that were promised by this President and this 
administration at the beginning of his Presidency, most particularly in 
the Pacific Northwest.
  The Senator from Idaho pointed out that this is not exclusively a 
Northwest issue; that it applies to forests in other parts of the 
country, including the hardwood forests in the Northeast.
  The original Bryan amendment distributes this money relatively 
widely--a fairly small percentage of the overall Interior 
appropriations bill--including a modest amount which simply is not to 
be spent at all and will go to the national debt. Most of that modest 
amount, however, is taken up and spent by the Wyden second-degree 
amendment that is to be directed at surveys of various species in the 
forests of the Pacific Northwest.
  About those surveys, the Oregonian wrote an editorial 3 days ago. 
Three paragraphs of that editorial read as follows:

       Maybe now it is finally clear to the Clinton administration 
     that it is fiscally and practically impossible to count every 
     slug, every lichen, every salamander that lives on every 
     timber sale on public forest land in the Northwest.
       The surveys of rare species of animals and plants required 
     in the Northwest Forest Plan are ``technically impossible'' 
     and ``preposterous,'' in the words of the Society of American 
     Foresters, a professional group holding its national 
     convention in Portland this week. . .
       Intentional or not, the survey requirement inserted into 
     the Northwest Forest Plan has proven to be a poison pill--a 
     way to block all logging and prevent the plan from working as 
     it was designed.

  That is the end of my quote from that editorial.
  The Wyden second-degree amendment wastes $10 million. It literally 
wastes $10 million on surveys that are ``impossible'' according to the 
newspaper, ``preposterous'' according to the Society of American 
Farmers, and ``a poison pill'' for any timber sales whatever.
  Estimates made during the course of a debate last week on carrying 
out all of these surveys were somewhere between $5 billion and $9 
billion--not the $10 million that is included in this amendment. In 
other words, we are being asked by this amendment simply to throw away 
$10 million on useless surveys and at the same time to reduce further a 
timber sale program, a harvest, that is approximately half of what the 
Clinton Forest Service and its forest plans has said is environmentally 
and economically appropriate in the forests of the United States.
  There is no rational ground for either the first-degree amendment or 
the second-degree amendment, except for the proposition that we wish to 
drive as quickly as we possibly can to a situation in which there is no 
longer any harvest of timber products on the national forests or, for 
that matter, all of the public lands of the United States. That is a 
conclusion and a goal that is economically unsound, environmentally 
unsound in the United States, bad for our balanced payments, and bad 
for the management of forests and the rest of the world whose products 
would be substituted for our own if that goal were reached.
  I trust that sound judgment and wisdom will prevail and that both of 
these amendments will be rejected.
  I want to point out once again that the committee report, the 
Appropriations Committee bill that is before the Senate, does not 
increase timber harvests on public lands of the United States. It 
retains exactly the level they were authorized for in the current year 
by the current appropriations bill, a level that the Senator from 
Idaho, I, and the junior Senator from Oregon believe already to be 
unwisely low.
  We did not come here with a controversial point of view; we came here 
with essentially a freeze. We ask our colleagues to support the 
committee in that connection.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
introduced by the Senior Senator from Nevada that would drastically cut 
funding for our schools and rural communities. Over the past ten years 
the federal timber sale program has already declined by more than 70 
percent to an all-time, post World War II low. This rapid decline has 
brought with it severe economic instability to resource dependent 
communities in rural America.
  The most visible victims have been rural schools who were dependent 
on their share of the 25% payments they received from the proceeds of 
timber sales to fund such programs as, school lunches, nurses, 
computers for the classrooms, and just about any extra-curricular 
activity that you now see vanishing from America's education system. 
Some school districts have been forced to cut back to 4-day weeks, 
others have been forced to lay off teachers, and others have dropped 
courses, all in attempts to survive within diminishing budgets.
  This instability has also impacted the rest of the community. 
Increased unemployment has resulted in an increase in domestic 
violence, family dislocation, substance abuse, and increased welfare 
rolls in rural counties in all regions of the country. More and more 
families and communities have been driven to live near or below the 
poverty level.
  Many local communities, however, have begun working with their local 
Forest Service offices to restore economic equilibrium. They have 
joined with local environmentalists, local governments and industries 
to form coalitions that they hope can help save their schools while 
maintaining or improving the forest ecosystems in which they live. And 
yet, as quickly as they rebuild, new attacks come to reduce or 
eliminate funding for the federal timber sale program. These attacks 
are based on the concept that federal timber sales are below-cost and 
economic boondoggles for the federal treasury.
  As a former accountant, I would like us to take a moment to look at 
this program and to evaluate exactly what is going on with our Federal 
Timber Sale program.
  The first question we have to ask is: Does the federal timber sale 
program constitute a subsidy for the forest products industry, or in 
other words, is the price paid for federal timber below its actual 
market value?
  If federal timber contractors were to receive a special benefit and 
pay less money for the timber they harvest on federal lands, then we 
could say that there is a subsidy. However, Federal timber is sold by 
means of a competitive bid system. As a result, these auction sales are 
the most likely of any type of commercial transaction to generate the 
returns that meet or exceed market value. Because timber sales are 
designed to generate market value prices, we therefore must conclude 
that there is no subsidy.
  Furthermore, the forest products industry has been able to 
demonstrate time and time again that the benefits gained by the public 
through the Federal timber sale program far outweigh the costs to the 
Federal treasury.
  Only twice in the history of the Federal Timber sale program has the 
Forest Service reported that the costs of operating the program has 
exceeded revenues, in the years 1996 and 1997. This sudden loss of 
revenues, however, has not occurred because timber sales are not 
profitable.
  A quick breakdown of the timber sale program shows that commercial 
sales still generate a profit for the federal government. The Forest 
Products industry is still paying its share.
  What has changed is the focus within the Forest Service to implement 
an increased number of what is called stewardship sales, or timber 
sales designed to improve forest health without necessarily harvesting 
merchantable timber. These sales are not, and never have been intended 
to make a profit.
  Because of this increased emphasis on stewardship, there is now 
virtually no such thing as a purely commercial timber sale on our 
National Forests. Almost every timber sale released by the United 
States Forest Service now includes some form of stewardship element 
that is intended solely for the purpose of improving the health and 
fire resilience of our National Forests. In a sense we now have timber 
companies paying for the privilege of improving forest health. As a 
result, our national timber sale program continues to be the single 
most effective tool of

[[Page S10798]]

the United States Forest Service for restoring health to our national 
forests. And our national forests desperately need help.
  According the Forest Service's own records, more than 40 million 
acres of our national forest system currently exist under an extreme 
threat of destruction by catastrophic wildfire. An additional 26 
million acres suffer from threat of destruction as a result of disease 
and insect infestation. Without the National Timber Sale program to 
thin out these forests and drastically reduce the amount of combustible 
fuels accumulating in our national forests I can guarantee you that 
when these forests burn, not if they burn, but when they burn, habitat 
will be destroyed, animals will be killed, water tables will be 
decimated, jobs will be lost, and more communities have to suffer the 
pains of rebuilding after another economic loss.
  Mr. President, it does not make sense to take money from our nation's 
most effective forest restoration program just to give it to another 
forest restoration program. The Timber Sale Program is currently funded 
at a level very close to last year--an appropriate figure as we work to 
restore equilibrium in rural economies.
  This bill, however, does not ignore the other restoration programs. 
Wherever possible we have increased funding for watershed restoration, 
road maintenance, and fish and wildlife management and I hope that we 
can continue to increase funding for these important programs, but 
where we have limited resources, we need to spend our tax dollars in 
the most effective manner, which means continuing to support the timber 
sale program.
  In closing Mr. President, I would like to say that the goals of 
environmental protection and economic stability are not mutually 
exclusive. We can save our environment without sacrificing rural 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, how much time remains for the proponents of 
the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 12 minutes 43 seconds, and 
the opponents have 10 minutes 4 seconds.
  Mr. BRYAN. I reserve 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me compliment the Senator from Oregon 
for his leadership in helping craft this very carefully balanced and I 
believe very modest amendment. Although the Senator from Illinois has 
left the floor, I want to compliment him for the clarity of his 
comments. I think he has put this debate in the proper context.
  The Senator from Idaho has framed the issue as being for or against 
harvesting timber for commercial sales on the national forests. That is 
not the issue before the Senate today. This amendment does not deal 
with that issue. This amendment reduces the amount of money allocated 
for the commercial timber sales program back to the amount the 
President recommended in his budget and the Forest Service, the 
professional managers, recommended, which was $196 million.
  That commercial timber program has been subject to much criticism 
over the years. It is, in my judgment, one of the vestiges of corporate 
welfare that still exists in the Congress of the United States. 
Courageously, on a bipartisan basis, both parties worked to reform the 
welfare system. We have already seen enormous benefits as a result of 
that bipartisan action. For reasons that are not altogether clear to 
me, we have had much less success in removing the vestiges of corporate 
welfare. It is for that reason that such responsible organizations as 
the Concord Coalition as well as the National Taxpayers Union are 
strongly in support of the Bryan-Wyden-Fitzgerald amendment.
  The commercial timber sales program has been widely criticized 
because it is a subsidy. The Forest Service itself has acknowledged 
that fact. In the most recent fiscal year in which data is available, 
they have acknowledged that it is an $88.6 million loss to the 
taxpayer. The General Accounting Office, reviewing the data from 1992 
to 1997, concluded the American taxpayers have lost some $1.5 billion 
as a result of this program. The Bryan-Wyden-Fitzgerald amendment is an 
attempt to bring some balance to the program.

  My friend from Idaho has suggested that somehow this commercial sales 
program deals with forest management. We should be candid: It deals 
with commercial sales. We are subsidizing some of the largest logging 
companies in America. To do so, the appropriators, in changing the 
President's recommendation, have stripped money from some of the most 
important accounts in the Forest Service.
  Regarding the road maintenance account, we have in the neighborhood 
of 380,000 miles of roads in the national forests. That is more miles 
than we have on the National Interstate Highway System. Each one of 
those miles of new roads that are cut in requires a substantial amount 
of ongoing maintenance to prevent environmental damage. The Forest 
Service estimated it would require $431 million annually to begin to 
address the environmental consequences of some of these roads that have 
been cut through the national forest. The backlog is some $3.85 
billion. Yet in the bill that the appropriators present to the floor, 
they have stripped about $11.3 million out of this road maintenance 
program.
  From firsthand experience, based upon our experience in Nevada and 
the Tahoe Basin, that is a major contributing factor to erosion and 
degradation of the ecosystem. Yet in terms of priorities, the 
appropriators would set as a priority increasing the timber sales 
program and reducing the amount of money available for the road 
maintenance program.
  In addition, they have cut substantial amounts of money out of the 
fish and wildlife accounts.
  Putting the National Forest System in some perspective, only 4 
percent of the timber harvested in America comes from the National 
Forest System. However, it is not the only use that the national forest 
has. The national forest, as my colleague from Illinois noted in citing 
his own personal experience, provides an enormous recreational 
opportunity for millions of people. Yet the programs which they depend 
upon--the fish and wildlife accounts to make sure the habitat is there, 
that the fishery is not devastated as a consequence of some of these 
practices--those accounts have been substantially reduced. The funding 
that goes to those accounts is an investment in the Nation's 63 million 
wildlife watchers, 14 million hunters, and 35 million anglers who spend 
approximately 127.6 million activity days hunting, fishing, and 
observing fish and wildlife annually on the national forests.
  Those who oppose the amendment have cited some of the economic 
circumstances that have affected the logging industry. Let me suggest 
with great respect, those are consequences of changing technology. 
Those jobs, I regret to say, will never come back because we harvest 
differently. The technology is more efficient. It is less manpower 
intensive.
  On the other hand, the moneys that we invest in these programs that 
deal with fish and wildlife directly result in local community 
expenditures of billions of dollars, in over 230,000 full-time 
equivalent jobs.
  One out of every three anglers fishes the national forest waters 
nationally, and two out of three anglers in the West fish the national 
forest waters.
  So what my colleagues from Oregon and Illinois have put together is a 
carefully crafted balance: Maintain the timber harvest program at a 
$196 million level but do not increase it, because of the massive 
subsidy involved and the damage that has been done to the national 
forest system; put money back into the road maintenance account to help 
address that backlog, which is a major contributor to the environmental 
degradation that the ecosystem, according to the National Forest 
Service, is experiencing; restore money to the fish and wildlife 
accounts so we can help those who use the national forests for 
recreational purposes and address their needs.
  I think as evidence of how balanced this effort is, the editorial 
support is not confined to any particular region. The Chattanooga Times 
expresses its support for it, as does my own hometown newspaper, the 
Las Vegas Sun, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, and the San Francisco 
Chronicle. All who looked at this recognize this subsidy needs to be 
limited. What we have done is provide a carefully balanced response to 
that. I urge my colleagues to

[[Page S10799]]

support the Bryan-Wyden-Fitzgerald amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me wrap up by saying that colleagues 
can see, year after year, this Congress has increased funding for the 
timber sale program. You can see that pattern since the late 1990s, 
going into this year. So all Senator Bryan, Senator Fitzgerald, and I 
are trying to say is that there is more to this question, practicing 
sustainable forestry that will be good for rural communities as relates 
to their economic needs and to their environmental needs--there is more 
to this than just throwing money at the timber sale program.
  If throwing money at the timber sale program was going to make things 
better, all of us in this body would have seen improvements over the 
last few years. In fact, we have seen the problems get worse. The 
problems have worsened in so many of these rural communities in both 
economics and the environment.
  Much has been made of comments in our newspaper, the Oregonian, 
because of the importance of the forest in the Pacific Northwest. The 
Oregonian, in their editorial pages, said:

       What is needed is a carefully negotiated agreement on 
     appropriate surveys for rare species and adequate funding to 
     do them.

  That is exactly what the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden package does. For the 
first time we link adequate funding for the timber sale program to 
specific requirements for accountability and oversight. Never before on 
the floor of the Senate have we made the judgment that is in the Bryan-
Fitzgerald-Wyden package that in fact the Forest Service really has 
lost direction in complying with a lot of these environmental concerns.

  But we do not throw the environmental laws in the garbage can. 
Instead, we have the important effort that was launched by Senator Robb 
and our good friend, Senator Cleland, who is here this morning. At the 
same time, we agree with Senators Craig and Gorton that we do need to 
put this program on track.
  So I am very hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
see this as a practical approach, an approach that is sensitive to the 
economic needs of rural communities, an approach that complies with the 
Nation's environmental laws and at the same time allows us to be a more 
effective steward of resources for taxpayers in this country.
  This is not the end of the debate. Certainly what the Oregonian 
called for recently--a negotiated agreement on surveys to comply with 
the environmental rules and adequate funding--is going to have to be 
fleshed out when the House and Senate go to a conference committee. But 
this is the first step to a fresh approach that links adequate funding 
for the necessary environmental work with accountability that is long 
overdue at the Forest Service and a chance to meet the economic needs 
of the rural communities.
  If all that was needed was what some of my colleagues on the other 
side have called for, which is spending more money on the timber sale 
program--we would not have many of the problems we are seeing today 
because year after year this Congress has put more money in the timber 
sale program. What we need is what Senators Bryan and Fitzgerald and I 
have talked about on this floor, an effort to link the new focus on 
accountability at the Forest Service with compliance with environmental 
rules and sensitivity to economic concerns.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every year at this time it seems we are 
here on the Senate floor debating another attack on the Forest 
Service's Timber Management Program. Every year those who wish to 
eliminate logging in our national forests come up with another angle 
which they claim helps protect the environment by eliminating 
``wasteful'' spending on logging practices. Every year people 
throughout northern Minnesota and forested regions across the country 
see their jobs and their livelihoods threatened in the name of 
preservation or conservation. And every year, those of us who represent 
the good people of the timber and paper industry in our states have to 
fight, scratch, and claw our way to a narrow victory that saves those 
jobs and those families from economic ruin.
  I come from a state in which the forest and paper industry is vital 
to our economy. The reduction in the timber program on national forests 
has had a dramatic impact over the past ten years on the number of jobs 
and the economic vitality of northern Minnesota. According to Minnesota 
Forest Industries (MFI), jobs provided by the timber program in 
Minnesota dropped from over 1,900 in 1987 to less than 1,100 last year, 
and they continue to decline.
  The reduction in timber harvests on federal lands has had an equally 
dramatic effect on unrealized economic impacts. MFI estimates that 
unrealized economic benefits include over $10 million from timber 
sales, $25 million in federal taxes, $2.5 million in payments to 
states, and $116 million in community economic impact in Minnesota 
alone.
  It is important to point out that the timber program in national 
forests has a very positive impact on the amount of federal money that 
goes to rural counties and schools. Nationally, the program contributes 
$225 million to counties and schools each year through receipts from 
timber sales in national forests. In Minnesota, the timber program 
provided roughly $1.7 million to counties and schools in 1998 alone. If 
the timber program would have met its allowable sale quantity in 1998, 
that number would have risen to nearly $2.5 million.
  I am fascinated by the claims of some of my colleagues that the 
timber program is a subsidy to wealthy timber and paper companies and 
the claims that the timber program loses money because we are giving 
timber away to these companies. If you truly believe that, I challenge 
you to visit northern Minnesota and speak with the families who have 
lost their mills and the loggers who have lost their jobs. Talk to the 
counties and the private landowners who cannot access to their own 
property because the Forest Service doesn't have enough money to do the 
environmental reviews. Or talk directly to the Forest Service personnel 
and let them tell you how lengthy and costly environmental reviews and 
the overwhelming number of court challenges to those reviews is making 
the timber program so costly.
  Then go speak with state or county land managers and ask them why 
their timber programs are so successful. Ask them why their lands are 
so much more healthy than the federal lands and why they're able to 
make money with their timber programs. In Minnesota, St. Louis County 
only has to spend 26 cents in order to generate one dollar of revenue 
in their timber program and the State of Minnesota spends 75 cents to 
generate one dollar of revenue. The Superior National Forest, on the 
other hand, spends one dollar and three cents to get the same result.
  I cannot see how my colleagues can stand here on the Senate floor and 
tell me that the forest and paper industry in our country, and its 
employees, are the bad guys. The forest and paper industry in America 
employs over 1.5 million people and ranks among the top ten 
manufacturing employers in 46 states. These are good, traditional jobs 
that help a family make a living, allow children to pursue higher 
education, help keep rural families in rural areas, and provide a 
legitimate tax base from which rural counties can fund basic services. 
These are jobs that we in Congress should be working diligently not 
only to protect, but to grow.
  Unfortunately, many Members of Congress who advocate these ideas have 
never taken the time to understand the positive economic and 
environmental benefits of science-based timber harvests. They have 
never sat down with a county commissioner who does not know where he is 
going to get the money for some of the most basic services the county 
provides to its citizens. They have never considered that for every 1 
million board feet in timber harvest reductions in Minnesota, 10 people 
lose their jobs and over $570,000 in economic activity is lost. And 
they have never taken the time to go into a

[[Page S10800]]

healthy forest where prudent logging practices have been essential to 
ensuring the vitality and diversity of species.
  If Members of this body want to make the timber program profitable 
across the country, then we should have an honest debate about what 
works and does not work in the program. We should discuss frankly the 
ridiculous number of hoops public land managers have to jump through in 
order to process a timber sale. I think we need to discuss the fact 
that under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act the 
federal government must provide access across federal lands for state, 
county, and private landowners to access their land. Yet in Minnesota, 
those landowners either have to wait a number of years or pay for the 
environmental reviews themselves because the Forest Service claims it 
does not have enough money. We should also discuss openly the dramatic 
impact court challenges are having on the ability of the Forest Service 
to do its job and to carry out the timber program in a cost-effective 
manner. On top of that, it's clear that under this administration the 
Forest Service does not want a timber program that shows a profit and 
they have done an effective job of using the powers of the executive 
branch to vilify both the timber program and the men and women of my 
state who rely upon that program in order to meet their most basic 
needs.
  Virtually everyone in this body, including this Senator, is committed 
to the protection of our environment and to the conservation of our 
wildlife species and wildlife habitat. I believe we can expand upon our 
commitment to wildlife and provide additional resources for habitat 
protection. But I do not believe we must do so on the backs of timber 
and paper workers throughout the nation. I am willing to work with 
anybody in this chamber towards those conservation efforts, but let's 
not do it by pitting timber and paper workers against conservationists.
  We cannot simply stand here and claim that the Bryan amendment is an 
easy way to throw some money towards the preservation of public land. 
Rather, this amendment is going to take jobs from my constituents and 
hurt the economy of the northern part of my state. The Bryan amendment 
is just one more step down the road toward eliminating logging on 
federal land. This amendment is going to reduce the ability of a number 
of rural counties in my state to make ends meet and to provide 
necessary services to residents. Those are just a few of the realities 
of the Bryan amendment and just a few of the reasons why I cannot and 
will not support its passage.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to at least try to shape for the 
Record some of the facts and statistics that have just been brought 
out. Last year, commercial sales of logs by the Forest Service produced 
a profit of $14.7 million. Last year's stewardship sales, the kind that 
the Senator from Nevada is talking about, for the purposes of forest 
health, the kind that is going on in the Tahoe Basin, lost the Forest 
Service $57.4 million. Those are the facts from the Forest Service.
  It is understandable because when you go in to clean up the dead and 
dying and to improve the general health of the forested lands, you are 
dealing with a less valuable stick of timber. But the reality is that 
what the Senator from Nevada advocates is, in fact, a losing 
proposition. But I support stewardship, as does the Senator from 
Nevada, because it improves the forest health, it improves wildlife 
habitat, and water quality when it is properly done. It is not a money-
maker. It is something that will have to be subsidized.
  Is the Senator from Nevada willing to say that the company that does 
the stewardship contract for the Forest Service is a subsidized 
business? He just finished talking about corporate welfare. Is that 
welfare or is that forest health? Is that an environmentally sound 
thing to do? I think we are getting our facts a bit mixed up.
  The road maintenance program was not slashed this year; $10 million 
was added to it. The Senator from Nevada knows the President's budget, 
when it came to the Hill, was dead on arrival, and we did not really 
consider any aspect of it. They wanted more money. They wanted $20 
million. We gave them $10 million. So the program was not slashed; it 
was added to by $10 million over last year's level. It was reduced from 
the President's recommendation. I believe that shapes the reality of 
the facts a bit differently.
  Let me talk a little more about facts. The Forest Service timber 
program generated directly for personal and business incomes this last 
year over $2 billion. Personal and business income from the timber 
program has dropped by almost $5 billion since 1991, for the very 
reasons we have given, because the Forest Service has reduced its 
program by 70 percent. We are dealing with less than the 30 percent 
that remains, and even that produces an income for working men and 
women and businesses of around $2 billion.
  The amendment will continue to reduce this. There is no question 
because you are not going to have the money to do the studies, to do 
the EISs, to produce the sales, and to recondition the roads necessary 
to gain access to that timber. There are over 50 timber-dependent 
communities that each receive over $10 million of personal and business 
income from the forest timber program. There are almost 150 counties 
that each receive over $1 million. This income is at risk with the 
Bryan amendment--no question about it--because he continues to reduce 
the program.
  The timber sales program generated $577 million in revenue to the 
Government and returned $220 million directly to school districts and 
counties for their roads and bridges. That is the reality of the money 
from the timber program.
  It is important to understand that when we talk of allocating tax 
dollars to the Forest Service, it is done for the purpose of 
maintenance and of stewardship. All of these create a healthier, more 
vibrant forest.
  That is largely the timber sale program today. It is not the large 
green-cuts program of a decade ago. Still the Senator from Nevada says 
that is too much and even used phrases like ``corporate welfare'' this 
morning. I do not think he would say the companies that are in the 
Tahoe Basin today, thinning and taking out the dead and dying and 
improving the forest health and ultimately improving the water quality 
of that basin, are corporate welfare babies. They are industries hired 
by the Forest Service to improve the health of the forest.
  The Forest Service timber program generated $309 million in Federal 
taxes in 1997. This kind of significant economic activity is only when 
we have a viable timber program. We have reduced it dramatically, the 
timber program contributed over $700 million in income taxes in 1992. 
Again, the Bryan amendment will continue to reduce that.
  We have already talked of the loss of jobs. One-half of the timber 
program is stewardship or personal use. Sales are used, again, for the 
purpose of maintaining or improving forest health--thinning, cleaning, 
reducing the fire hazards and the fuel loads. These types of sales are 
always, as I have just said, marginally profitable, some of them not, 
but they are done as part of the responsibility of the Forest Service 
to progressively improve the general health of our forested lands.
  We know that Mother Nature, left to her own decisions in forest 
management, takes a lightning strike where she takes it and oftentimes 
burns down hundreds of thousands of acres, destroying habitat and 
dramatically impairing water quality in that immediate area for several 
years to come. We know that the hand of man, properly directed, can 
assist in improving the forest health, and that is exactly what many of 
our programs are about today.
  The amendment will penalize the Forest Service timber program by 
reducing activities that are improving the health that I have talked 
about and the ecosystems about which all of us are concerned. At the 
same time, the amendment will throw a monkey wrench into a program that 
is already in trouble and will not contribute increased dollars to the 
coffers of the Public Treasury.
  Those are the general issues at hand.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. I was just informed, and I think it is reasonable, Mr. 
President,

[[Page S10801]]

to suggest if Hurricane Floyd sweeps up the coast and destroys some of 
our timberlands in the next few days, we are going to have the 
President come to us asking for emergency moneys in these areas to 
clean up the dead and dying trees in some of those areas, and yet here 
we are trying to cut it at this moment. I guess we will have to wait 
and see about Hurricane Floyd and forest health.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have 58 
seconds. The opponents of the amendment have 2 minutes 1 second.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of the time remaining on my side if my colleague from Idaho is prepared 
to do the same.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my 
time. I move to table amendment No. 1588 and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1588. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Gregg
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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.

                          ____________________