[Pages S6728-S6761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BOND:

S. 975. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to extend the
bridge discretionary program, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.

THE SAFE BRIDGES ACT OF 1997

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this bill I am introducing today is a bridge
discretionary bill. We cannot forget in our reauthorization of the
Nation's transportation policy the importance of maintaining our
bridges.
Missouri has approximately 23,000 bridges in total.
Unfortunately, the State of Missouri, according to Department of
Transportation statistics ranks sixth from the bottom on conditions of
bridges in this country. This is a deplorable place for the State of
Missouri to be.
We must start taking better care of our roads and bridges and begin
building roads for the 21st century--with new technologies, new
materials, and better designs.
According to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials America must address the deficiencies of over
11,000 bridges per year just to maintain current levels of condition.
According to the Department of Transportation, the cost to improve
bridge conditions would require an annual investment of $8.9 billion.
Let us not lose the hard-won gains in our transportation
infrastructure. Let's not squander our investment.
Postponing taking care of our bridge needs only means that our
investment declines and to make repairs later will cost more. The
cliche does say ``Pay now or pay More later.''
Taking care of our transportation infrastructure can be compared to
taking care of your home. If you fail to fix the leaky roof, fail to
re-paint, fail to adequately insulate, your costs increase and the
value of your home declines.
If we fail to maintain and reinvest in our Nation's bridges not only
does the value of our investment decline, but lives are lost and our
economic prosperity is jeopardized.
I am pleased to work with my dear friend and House colleague,
Congresswoman Emerson to introduce this bill in both Houses--the Safe
Bridges Act of 1997.
The Safe Bridges Act of 1997 is our marker to stress to our
colleagues from around the country that bridges are an important and
necessary component to this country's transportation system.
Properly maintained and constructed bridges help save lives and
provide for the efficient movement of people and goods in this country.
If we want to secure our foundation--we must renew our investment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 975

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Bridges Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) bridges are important and necessary components of the
surface transportation system of the United States;
(2) bridges are an important factor in the efficient
movement of people and goods;
(3) properly maintained and constructed bridges help save
lives;
(4) more than 25 percent of the bridges on the Interstate
System are classified as deficient or in poor condition; and
(5) an investment of more than $5,000,000,000 annually is
needed to maintain the bridges that are in existence as of
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. BRIDGE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM.

(a) Extension of Program.--Section 144(g) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Discretionary bridge program.--
``(A) Set aside.--For each fiscal year, before any
apportionment is made under subsection (e), the Secretary
shall set aside $500,000,000 from the funds authorized to
carry out this section.
``(B) Use of set aside.--The amount set aside under
subparagraph (A) shall be available for obligation in the
same manner and to the same extent as the sums apportioned
under subsection (e), except that--
``(i) the amount shall be available for obligation at the
discretion of the Secretary;
``(ii) for each fiscal year, $8,500,000 of the amount shall
be available to carry out section 144A;
``(iii) for each fiscal year, $12,500,000 of the amount
shall be available to carry out section 144B;
``(iv) for each fiscal year, $15,000,000 of the amount
shall be available to carry out section 144C; and
``(v) the remainder of the amount shall be available in
accordance with paragraph (2).
``(C) Other state funds.--Funds made available to a State
under subparagraph (B) shall not be considered in determining
the apportionments and allocations that the State shall be
entitled to receive, under the other provisions of this title
and other law, of amounts in the Highway Trust Fund.''.
(b) Highway Timber Bridge Research and Construction
Program.--
(1) Transfer to title 23.--Section 1039 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 144
note; 105 Stat. 1990) is--
(A) transferred to title 23, United States Code;
(B) redesignated as section 144A of that title; and
(C) inserted after section 144 of that title.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 144A of title 23, United States Code (as added
by paragraph (1)), is amended--
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 144A. Highway timber bridge research and construction
program'';

(ii) in subsection (e)--

(I) by striking ``of title 23, United States Code, for each
of fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and
inserting ``for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003''; and
(II) in paragraph (2), by striking ``($7,000,000 in the
case of fiscal year 1992)''; and

(iii) by striking subsection (f).
(B) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 144 the following:

``144A. Highway timber bridge research and construction program.''.

SEC. 4. INNOVATIVE HIGHWAY STEEL BRIDGE RESEARCH AND
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 144A (as added by
section 3(b)(1)) the following:

``Sec. 144B. Innovative highway steel bridge research and
construction program

``(a) Research Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to
other Federal agencies, universities, private businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and research or engineering entities
to carry out research concerning--
``(1) the development of new, cost-effective highway steel
bridge applications;
``(2) the development of engineering design criteria for
steel products and materials for use in highway bridges and
structures to improve steel design properties;
``(3) the development of highway steel bridges and
structures that will withstand natural disasters;
``(4) the development of products, materials, and systems
for use in highway steel bridges that demonstrate new
alternatives to current processes and procedures with respect
to performance in various environments; and
``(5) rehabilitation measures that demonstrate effective,
safe, and reliable methods for the use of steel in
rehabilitating highway bridges and structures.
``(b) Technology and Information Transfer.--The Secretary
shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that the
information and technology resulting from research conducted
under subsection (a) is made available to State and local
transportation departments and other interests as specified
by the Secretary.
``(c) Construction Grants.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall make grants to States
for projects for the construction of steel bridges and
structures on Federal-aid highways.
``(2) Applications.--
``(A) Submission.--A State that desires to receive a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Secretary.
``(B) Contents.--The application shall be in such form and
contain such information as the Secretary may require by
regulation.

[[Page S6729]]

``(3) Approval criteria.--The Secretary shall select and
approve applications for grants under this subsection based
on whether the project that is the subject of the grant--
``(A) has a design that has both initial and long-term
structural integrity;
``(B) has an innovative design, product, material, or
system that has the potential for increasing knowledge, cost
effectiveness, durability, and future use of the innovation;
and
``(C) uses practices and construction techniques that
comply with all environmental regulations.
``(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
research or construction project under this section shall be
80 percent.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--From the funds reserved from
apportionment under section 144(g)(1) for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003--
``(A) $2,500,000 shall be available to the Secretary to
carry out subsections (a) and (b); and
``(B) $10,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary to
carry out subsection (c).
``(2) Availability.--Sums made available under paragraph
(1) shall remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 144A (as added by section
3(b)(2)(B)) the following:

``144B. Innovative highway steel bridge research and construction
program.''.

SEC. 5. CARBON COMPOSITE BRIDGE RETROFIT RESEARCH AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 144B (as added by
section 4(a)) the following:

``Sec. 144C. Carbon composite bridge retrofit research and
demonstration program

``(a) Research Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to
other Federal agencies and to universities, private
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and research or
engineering entities, in the United States, to carry out
research concerning--
``(1) the development of new, economical carbon composite
highway bridge retrofit systems;
``(2) the development of engineering design criteria for
carbon composite products for use in highway bridges in order
to improve methods for characterizing carbon composite design
properties;
``(3) deployment systems for the incorporation of carbon
composites that demonstrate alternative processes for the
seismic retrofit of bridges and the rehabilitation of
structurally deficient bridge structures;
``(4) alternative carbon composite transportation system
structures that demonstrate the development of applications
for lighting support, sound barriers, culverts, and retaining
walls in highway infrastructure; and
``(5) additional rehabilitation measures that demonstrate
effective, safe, and reliable methods for rehabilitating
highway infrastructure with carbon composites.
``(b) Technology and Information Transfer.--The Secretary
shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that the
information and technology resulting from research conducted
under subsection (a) is made available to State and local
transportation departments and other interests as specified
by the Secretary.
``(c) Construction Grants.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall make grants to States
for projects for the reconstruction or seismic retrofit of
bridges on the National Highway System.
``(2) Applications.--
``(A) Submission.--A State that desires to receive a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Secretary.
``(B) Contents.--The application shall be in such form and
contain such information as the Secretary may require by
regulation.
``(3) Approval criteria.--The Secretary shall select and
approve applications for grants under this subsection based
on whether the project that is the subject of the grant--
``(A) has a design that has both initial and long-term
structural and environmental integrity;
``(B) has a design that uses carbon composite materials;
``(C) has an innovative design that has the potential for
increasing knowledge, cost effectiveness, and future use of
the design;
``(D) will ensure the structural integrity of a major river
crossing in the New Madrid region during a seismic event;
``(E) will extend the service life of a structurally
deficient bridge by at least 15 years; and
``(F) uses bridge retrofit technology and material that are
produced in the United States.
``(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
research or construction project under this section shall be
80 percent.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--From the funds reserved from
apportionment under section 144(g)(1) for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003--
``(A) $1,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary to
carry out subsections (a) and (b); and
``(B) $14,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary to
carry out subsection (c).
``(2) Availability.--Sums made available under paragraph
(1) shall remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 144B (as added by section 4(b))
the following:

``144C. Carbon composite bridge retrofit research and demonstration
program.''.
______

By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 977. A bill to amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 and related laws to strengthen the protection of
native biodiversity and ban clearcutting on Federal lands, and to
designate certain Federal lands as Ancient Forests, Roadless Areas,
Watershed Protection Areas, Special Areas, and Federal Boundary Areas
where logging and other intrusive activities are prohibited; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

THE SAVE AMERICA'S FORESTS ACT

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Kerry and I are
introducing the Save America's Forests Act. I rise to draw this
country's attention to the management practices that threaten the
health of our Nation's forest lands. When this country was founded over
200 years ago, it is estimated that there was 1 billion acres of forest
land across this Nation. Today, 95 percent of those original virgin
forests have been cut down.
Forests are unique and valuable public assets. Large, unfragmented
forest watersheds provide high-quality water supplies for drinking,
agriculture, industry, as well as habitat for recreational and
commercial fisheries and other wildlife. The large-scale destruction of
natural forests threatens other industries such as tourism and fishing
with job loss. As a legacy for the enjoyment, knowledge, and well-being
of future generations, provisions must be made for the protection and
perpetuation of America's forests. We must also set an example to
poorer developing countries to preserve their vast forests so they do
not make the same mistakes we did. We cannot call upon these countries
to preserve large portions of their rain forests when we do not
preserve the last fraction of our own ancient forests.
Clear cutting, even aged logging practices, and timber road
construction have been the preferred management practices used on our
Federal forests in recent years. These practices have caused widespread
forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species
extinction, soil erosion, flooding, declining water quality,
diminishing commercial and sport fisheries--that is, salmon--and
mudslides. Mudslides in Western forest regions during recent winter
flooding have caused millions of dollars of environmental and property
damage, and resulted in several deaths. An environmentally sustainable
alternative to these practices is selection management: the selection
system involves the removal of trees of different ages either singly or
in small groups in order to preserve the biodiversity of the forest.
Destructive forestry practices such as clearcutting on Federal lands
was legalized by the passage of the National Forest Management Act of
1976. From 1984 to 1991, an average of 243,000 acres were clearcut
annually on Federal lands. During the same time period an average of
only 33,000 acres were harvested using the protective selection
management practices. Interpretations of forestry laws have also been
used by Federal managers to include the promotion of even age logging
and road construction. In addition, the laws are not effective in
preserving our forests because in many cases judges do not allow
citizens standing in court to ensure that the Forest Service or other
agencies follow the environmental protections of the law.
I am introducing this legislation to halt and reverse the effects of
deforestation on Federal lands by ending the practice of clearcutting,
while promoting environmentally compatible and economically sustainable
selection management logging. It is important to note this legislation
would only apply to Federal forests which constitute 20 percent of the
country's harvestable timber supply, the vast majority of the 490
million acres of harvestable timber are privately owned and unaffected
by the bill. This legislation

[[Page S6730]]

puts forward positive alternatives that will achieve two principle
policies for our Federal forests. First, the act would ban logging and
road building in remaining core areas of biodiversity throughout the
Federal forest system including roadless areas, specially designated
areas and 13 million acres of Ancient Forests. Second, in noncore areas
it would abolish environmentally dangerous forms of logging such as
clearcutting and even aged logging.
The act requires selection management logging practices to be used
whereby timber companies would only be allowed to log a certain
percentage of the forests over specified periods of time. Further it
takes extra steps to protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting
logging in buffer areas along streams, lakes, and wetlands. The act
would also call for an independent panel of scientists to develop a
plan to restore and rejuvenate those forests and their ecosystems that
are damaged from decades of these logging practices. And finally, the
legislation would empower citizen involvement in insuring compliance
with environmental protections of forest management laws by making
certain that all citizens have standing to pursue actions in court.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 977

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Act to
Save America's Forests''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes and findings.
Sec. 3. Effective date.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING LAND MANAGEMENT LAWS

Sec. 101. Amendment of Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 relating to National Forest System
lands.
Sec. 102. Amendment of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
relating to the public lands.
Sec. 103. Amendment of National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966 relating to the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Sec. 104. Amendment of National Indian Forest Resources Management Act
relating to Indian lands.
Sec. 105. Amendment of title 10, United States Code, relating to forest
management on military lands.

TITLE II--PROTECTION FOR ANCIENT FORESTS, ROADLESS AREAS, WATERSHED
PROTECTION AREAS, SPECIAL AREAS, AND FEDERAL BOUNDARY AREAS

Sec. 201. Definitions and findings.
Sec. 202. Designation of Special Areas.
Sec. 203. Restrictions on management activities in Ancient Forests,
Roadless Areas, Watershed Protection Areas, Special
Areas, and Federal Boundary Areas.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are, on all Federal
public lands, to conserve native biodiversity and to protect
all native ecosystems against losses that result from--
(1) clearcutting and other forms of even-age logging; and
(2) logging in Ancient Forests, Roadless Areas, Watershed
Protection Areas, Special Areas, and Federal Boundary Areas.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Federal agencies of the United States that engage in
even-age logging practices include the Forest Service of the
Department of Agriculture, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of
Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, and the
Army, Navy, and Air Force of the Department of Defense.
(2) Even-age logging causes substantial alterations in
native biodiversity by emphasizing the production of a
limited number of commercial species of trees on each site,
generally only one; by manipulating the vegetation toward
greater relative density of such commercial species, by
suppressing competing species, and by planting, on numerous
sites, a commercial strain that was developed to reduce the
relative diversity of genetic strains that previously
occurred within the species on the same sites.
(3) Even-age logging kills immobile species and the very
young of mobile species of wildlife and depletes the habitat
of deep-forest species of animals, including endangered
species.
(4) Even-age logging exposes the soil to direct sunlight
and the impact of rains, disrupts the surface, and compacts
organic layers. It disrupts the run-off restraining
capabilities of roots and low-lying vegetation, which results
in soil erosion, the leaching our of nutrients, a reduction
in the biological content of the soil, and the impoverishment
of the soil. All these consequences have a long-range
deleterious effect on all land resources, including timber
production.
(5) Even-age logging decreases the capability of the soil
to retain carbon and, during the critical periods of felling
and site preparation, reduces the capacity of the biomass to
process and to store carbon, with a resultant of loss of such
carbon to the atmosphere, thereby aggravating global warming.
(6) Even-age logging renders the soil increasingly
sensitive to acid deposits by causing a decline of soil wood
and coarse woody debris, thereby reducing the capacity of the
soil to retain water and nutrients, which increases soil heat
and impairs the soil's ability to maintain protective carbon
compounds on its surface.
(7) Even-age logging results in increased stream
sedimentation, the silting of stream bottoms, a decline in
water quality, and the impairment of life cycles and spawning
processes of aquatic life from benthic organisms to large
fish, thereby depleting the sports and commercial fisheries
of the United States.
(8) Even-age logging increases harmful edge effects,
including blowdowns, invasions by weed species, and heavier
losses to predators and competitors.
(9) Even-age logging decreases the land's recreational
values, reducing deep, canopied, variegated, permanent
forests, thereby limiting areas where the public can fulfill
an expending need for recreation. Even-age logging replaces
such forests with a surplus of clearings that grow into
relatively impenetrable thickets of saplings, and then into
monoculture tree plantations.
(10) Human beings depend on native biological resources,
including plants, animals, and micro-organisms, for food,
medicine, shelter, and other important products, and as a
source of intellectual and scientific knowledge, recreation,
and aesthetic pleasure.
(11) Alteration of native biodiversity has serious
consequences for human welfare as America irretrievably loses
resources for research and agricultural, medicinal, and
industrial development.
(12) Alteration of biodiversity in Federal forests
adversely affects the functions of ecosystems and critical
ecosystem processes that moderate climate, govern nutrient
cycles and soil conservation and production, control pests
and diseases, and degrade wastes and pollutants.
(13) The harm of even-age logging to the natural resources
of this Nation and the quality of life of its people are
substantial, severe, and avoidable.
(14) By substituting selection management, as prescribed in
this Act, for the even-age system, the Federal agencies now
engaged in even-age logging would substantially reduce
devastation to the environment and would improve the quality
of life of the American people.
(15) By protecting native biodiversity, as prescribed in
this Act, Federal agencies would maintain vital native
ecosystems and would improve the quality of life of the
American people.
(16) Selection logging is more job intensive, and therefore
provides more employment than even-age logging to manage the
same amount of timber production, and produces higher quality
sawlogs.
(17) The court remedies now available to enforce Federal
forest laws are inadequate, and should be strengthened by
providing for injunctions, declaratory judgments, statutory
damages, and reasonable costs of suit.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(1) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(b) Effect on Existing Contracts.--The amendments made by
this Act shall not apply with respect to any contract to sell
timber which was awarded on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING LAND MANAGEMENT LAWS

SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE
RESOURCES PLANNING ACT OF 1974 RELATING TO
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS.

(a) Conservation of Native Biodiversity.--Section
6(g)(3)(B) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) In each stand and each watershed throughout each
forested area, the Secretary shall provide for the
conservation or restoration of native biodiversity except
during the extraction stage of authorized mineral development
or during authorized construction projects, in which events
the Secretary shall conserve native biodiversity to the
extent possible;''.
(b) Committee of Scientists.--Section 6(h)(1) of the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16
U.S.C. 1604(h)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Committee of Scientists.--(1) In carrying out the
purposes of subsection (g) of this section, the Secretary
shall appoint a committee of scientists who are not officers
or employees of the Forest Service nor of any other public
entity, nor of any entity engaged in whole or in part in the
production of wood or wood products, and have not contracted
with or represented any such entities within a period of 5
years prior to serving on

[[Page S6731]]

such committee. The committee shall provide scientific and
technical advice and counsel on proposed guidelines and
procedures and all other issues involving forestry and native
biodiversity to assure that an effective interdisciplinary
approach is proposed and adopted. The committee shall
terminate after the expiration of 10 years from the date of
the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(c) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--
Section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(n) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--(1)
In each stand and watershed throughout each forested area,
the Secretary shall prohibit any even-age logging and any
even-age management after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) On each stand already under even-age management, the
Secretary shall (A) prescribe a shift to selection
management, or (B) cease managing for timber purposes and
actively restore the native biodiversity, or permit each
stand to regain its native biodiversity.
``(3) For the purposes of this Act:
``(A) The term `native biodiversity' means the full range
of variety and variability within and among living organisms
and the ecological complexes in which they would have
occurred in the absence of significant human impact, and
encompasses diversity within a species (genetic diversity,
species diversity, or age diversity), within a community of
species (within-community diversity), between communities of
species (between-communities), within a total area such as a
watershed (total area), along a plane from ground to sky
(vertical), and along the plane of the earth-surface
(horizontal). Vertical and horizontal diversity apply to all
the other aspects of diversity.
``(B) The terms `conserve' and `conservation' refer to
protective measures for maintaining existing native
biodiversity and active and passive measures for restoring
diversity through management efforts, in order to protect,
restore, and enhance as much of the variety of species and
communities as possible in abundances and distributions that
provide for their continued existence and normal functioning,
including the viability of populations throughout their
natural geographic distributions.
``(C) The term `within-community diversity' means the
distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes
that occur in different physical settings of the biosphere
and distinct parts of the world.
``(D) The term `genetic diversity' means the differences in
genetic composition within and among populations of a given
species.
``(E) The term `species diversity' means the richness and
variety of native species in a particular location of the
world.
``(F) The term `age diversity' means the naturally
occurring range and distribution of age classes within a
given species.
``(G) Selection management.--(i) The term `selection
management' means a method of logging that emphasizes the
periodic removal of trees, including mature, undesirable, and
cull trees in a manner that insures:
``(a) the maintenance of continuous high forest cover where
such cover naturally occurs,
``(b) the maintenance or natural regeneration of all native
species in a stand, and
``(c) the growth and development of trees through a range
of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of
forest products.
``(ii) Cutting methods that develop and maintain selection
stands are:
``(a) Individual-tree selection, in which individual trees
of varying size and age classes are selected and logged in a
generally uniform pattern throughout a stand, and
``(b) Group selection, in which small groups of trees are
selected and logged.
``(iii) The application of individual-tree selection, group
selection, or any other method consistent with selection
management shall under no event:
``(a) create a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
``(b) create a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
``(c) cut or remove more than 10 percent of the basal area
of a stand within 15 years. The foregoing limitation shall
not be deemed to establish a 150-year projected felling age
as the standard at which individual trees in a stand are to
be cut, nor shall native biodiversity be limited to that
which occurs within the context of a 150-year projected
felling age.
``(H) The term `stand' means a biological community with
enough identity by location, topography, or dominant species
to be managed as a unit, not to exceed 100 acres.
``(I) Even-age Logging and Even-age Management.--(i) The
terms `even-age logging' and `even-age management' mean any
logging activity which:
``(a) creates a clearing or opening that exceeds in width
in any direction the height of the tallest tree standing
within 10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening,
or
``(b) creates a stand where the majority of trees are
within 10 years of the same age, or
``(c) cuts or removes more than 10 percent of the basal
area of a stand within 15 years.
``(ii) Even-age logging and even-age management include the
application of clearcutting, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood
cutting, or any other logging method in a manner inconsistent
with selection management.
``(J) The term `clearcutting' means an even-age logging
operation that removes all of the trees over a considerable
area of a stand at one time.
``(K) The term `seed-tree' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a small minority of seed trees in a
stand for any period of time.
``(L) The term `shelterwood cut' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a minority (larger than in a seed-tree
cut) of the stand as a seed source or protection cover
remaining standing for any period of time.
``(M) The term `timber purposes' shall include the use,
sale, lease, or distribution of trees, or the felling of
trees or portions of trees except to create land space for a
structure or other use.
``(N) The term `basal area' means the area of the cross
section of a tree stem, including the bark, at 4.5 feet above
the ground.
``(4)(A)(i) The purpose of this paragraph is to foster the
widest possible enforcement of subsection (g)(3)(B) and this
subsection.
``(ii) Congress finds that all people of the United States
are injured by actions on lands to which subsection (g)(3)(B)
and this subsection apply.
``(B) The provisions of subsection (g)(3)(B) and this
subsection shall be enforced by the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Attorney General of the United States against any
person who violates either of them.
``(C)(i) Any citizen harmed by a violation of this Act may
enforce any provision of subsection (g)(3)(B) and this
subsection by bringing an action for declaratory judgment,
temporary restraining order, injunction, statutory damages,
and other remedies against any alleged violator including the
United States, in any district court of the United States.
``(ii) The court, after determining a violation of either
of such subsections, shall impose a damage award of not less
than $5,000, shall issue one or more injunctions and other
equitable relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs
reasonable costs of litigation including attorney's fees,
witness fees and other necessary expenses.
``(iii) The standard of proof in all actions brought under
this subparagraph shall be the preponderance of the evidence
and the trial shall be de novo.
``(D) The damage award authorized by subparagraph (C)(ii)
shall be paid by the violator or violators designated by the
court to the U.S. Treasury.
``(E) The damage award shall be paid from the U.S.
Treasury, as provided by Congress under section 1304 of title
31, United States Code, within 40 days after judgment to the
person or persons designated to receive it, to be applied in
protecting or restoring native biodiversity in or adjoining
Federal land. Any award of costs of litigation and any award
of attorney fees shall be paid within 40 days after judgment.
``(F) The United States, including its agents and employees
waives its sovereign immunity in all respects in all actions
under subsection (g)(3)(B) and this subsection. No notice is
required to enforce this subsection.''.
(d) Repeal.--Section 6(g)(3)(F) of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(F)) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 102. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
OF 1976 RELATING TO THE PUBLIC LANDS.

(a) Conservation of Native Biodiversity.--Section 202(c) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs
(9) and (10), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph (8):
``(8) In each stand and each watershed throughout each
forested area, the Secretary shall provide for the
conservation or restoration of native biodiversity except
during the extraction stage of authorized mineral development
or during authorized construction projects, in which events
the Secretary shall conserve native biodiversity to the
extent possible;''.
(b) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--
Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--(1)
In each stand and watershed throughout each forested area,
the Secretary shall prohibit any even-age logging and any
even-age management after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) On each stand already under even-age management, the
Secretary shall (A) prescribe a shift to selection
management, or (B) cease managing for timber purposes and
actively restore the native biodiversity, or permit each
stand to regain its native biodiversity.
``(3) For the purposes of this Act:
``(A) The term `native biodiversity' means the full range
of variety and variability within and among living organisms
and the ecological complexes in which they would have
occurred in the absence of significant human impact, and
encompasses diversity within a species (genetic diversity,
species diversity, or age diversity), within a community of
species (within-community diversity), between communities of
species (between-communities), within a total area such as a
watershed (total area), along a plane from ground to sky
(vertical), and along the plane of the earth-surface
(horizontal). Vertical and horizontal diversity apply to all
the other aspects of diversity.

[[Page S6732]]

``(B) The terms `conserve' and `conservation' refer to
protective measures for maintaining existing native
biodiversity and active and passive measures for restoring
diversity through management efforts, in order to protect,
restore, and enhance as much of the variety of species and
communities as possible in abundances and distributions that
provide for their continued existence and normal functioning,
including the viability of populations throughout their
natural geographic distributions.
``(C) The term `within-community diversity' means the
distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes
that occur in different physical settings of the biosphere
and distinct parts of the world.
``(D) The term `genetic diversity' means the differences in
genetic composition within and among populations of a given
species.
``(E) The term `species diversity' means the richness and
variety of native species in a particular location of the
world.
``(F) The term `age diversity' means the naturally
occurring range and distribution of age classes within a
given species.
``(G) Selection management.--(i) The term `selection
management' means a method of logging that emphasizes the
periodic removal of trees, including mature, undesirable, and
cull trees in a manner that insures:
``(a) the maintenance of continuous high forest cover where
such cover naturally occurs,
``(b) the maintenance or natural regeneration of all native
species in a stand, and
``(c) the growth and development of trees through a range
of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of
forest products.
``(ii) Cutting methods that develop and maintain selection
stands are:
``(a) Individual-tree selection, in which individual trees
of varying size and age classes are selected and logged in a
generally uniform pattern throughout a stand, and
``(b) Group selection, in which small groups of trees are
selected and logged.
``(iii) The application of individual-tree selection, group
selection, or any other method consistent with selection
management shall under no event:
``(a) create a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
``(b) create a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
``(c) cut or remove more than 10 percent of the basal area
of a stand within 15 years. The foregoing imitation shall not
be deemed to establish a 150-year projected felling age as
the standard at which individual trees in a stand are to be
cut, nor shall native biodiversity be limited to that which
occurs within the context of a 150-year projected felling
age.
``(H) The term, `stand' means a biological community with
enough identify by location, topography, or dominant species
to be managed as a unit, not to exceed 100 acres.
``(I) Even-age logging and even-age management.--(i) The
term `even-age logging' and `even-age management' mean any
logging activity which:
``(a) creates a clearing or opening that exceeds in width
in any direction the height of the tallest tree standing
within 10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening,
or
``(b) creates a stand where the majority of trees are
within 10 years of the same age, or
``(c) cuts or removes more than 10 percent of the basal
area of a stand within 15 years.
``(ii) Even-age logging and even-age management include the
application of clearcutting, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood
cutting, or any other logging method in a manner inconsistent
with selection management.
``(J) The term `clearcutting' means an even-age logging
operation that removes all of the trees over a considerable
area of a stand at one time.
``(K) The term `seed-tree cut' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a small minority of seed trees in a
stand for any period of time.
``(L) The term `shelterwood cut' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a minority (larger than in a seed-tree
cut) of the stand as a seed source or protection cover
remaining standing for any period of time.
``(M) The term `timber purposes' shall include the use,
sale, or lease, or distribution of trees, or the felling of
trees or portions of trees except to create land space for a
structure or other use.
``(N) The term `basal area' means the area of the cross
section of a tree stem, including the bark, at 4.5 feet above
the ground.
``(4)(A)(i) The purpose of this paragraph is to foster the
widest possible enforcement of subsection (c)(8) and this
subsection.
``(ii) Congress finds that all people of the United States
are injured by actions on lands to which subsection (c)(8)
and this subsection apply.
``(B) The provisions of subsection (c)(8) and this
subsection shall be enforced by the Secretary of the Interior
and the Attorney General of the United States against any
person who violates either of them.
``(C)(i) Any citizen harmed by a violation of this Act may
enforce any provision of subsection (c)(8) and this
subsection by bringing an action for declaratory judgment,
temporary restraining order, injunction, statutory damages,
and other remedies against any alleged violator including the
United States, in any district court of the United States.
``(ii) The court, after determining a violation of either
of such subsections, shall impose a damage award of not less
than $5,000, shall issue one or more injunctions and other
equitable relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs
reasonable costs of litigation including attorney's fees,
witness fees and other necessary expenses.
``(iii) The standard of proof in all actions brought under
this subparagraph shall be the preponderance of the evidence
and the trial shall be de novo.
``(D) The damage award authorized by subparagraph (C)(ii)
shall be paid by the violator or violators designated by the
court to the U.S. Treasury.
``(E) The damage award shall be paid from the U.S.
Treasury, as provided by Congress under section 1304 of title
31, United States Code, within 40 days after judgment to the
person or persons designated to receive it, to be applied in
protecting or restoring native biodiversity in or adjoining
Federal land. Any award of costs of litigation and any award
of attorney fees shall be paid within 40 days after judgment.
``(F) The United States, including its agents and employees
waives its sovereign immunity in all respects in all actions
under subsection (c)(8) and this subsection. No notice is
required to enforce this subsection.''.
``(c) Repeal.--Subsection (b) of section 701 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 note)
is hereby repealed.

SEC. 103. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1966 RELATING TO THE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM.

Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(j) Conservation of Native Biodiversity.--In each stand
and each watershed throughout each forested area within the
System, the Secretary shall provide for the conservation or
restoration of native biodiversity, except during the
extraction stage of authorized mineral development or during
authorized construction projects, in which events the
Secretary shall conserve native biodiversity to the extent
possible.
``(k) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--(1)
In each stand and watershed throughout each forested area,
the Secretary shall prohibit any even-age logging and any
even-age management after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) On each stand already under even-age management, the
Secretary shall (A) prescribe a shift to selection
management, or (B) cease managing for timber purposes and
actively restore the native biodiversity, or permit each
stand to regain its native biodiversity.
``(3) For the purposes of this subsection:
``(A) The term `native biodiversity' means the full range
of variety and variability within and among living organisms
and the ecological complexes in which they would have
occurred in the absence of significant human impact, and
encompasses diversity within a species (genetic diversity,
species diversity, or age diversity), within a community of
species (within-community diversity), between communities of
species (between-communities), within a total area such as a
watershed (total area), along a plane from ground to sky
(vertical), and along the plane of the earth-surface
(horizontal). Vertical and horizontal diversity apply to all
the other aspects of diversity.
``(B) The term `conserve' and `conservation' refer to
protective measures for maintaining existing native
biodiversity and active and passive measures for restoring
diversity through management efforts, in order to protect,
restore, and enhance as much of the variety of species and
communities as possible in abundances and distributions that
provide for their continued existence and normal functioning,
including the viability of populations throughout their
natural geographic distributions.
``(C) The term `within-community diversity' means the
distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes
that occur in different physical settings of the biosphere
and distinct parts of the world.
``(D) The term genetic diversity means the differences in
genetic composition within and among populations of a given
species.
``(E) The term `species diversity' means the richness and
variety of native species in a particular location of the
world.
``(F) The term `age diversity' means the naturally
occurring range and distribution of age classes within a
given species.
``(G) Selection management.--(i) The term ``selection
management'' means a method of logging that emphasizes the
periodic removal of trees, including mature, undesirable, and
cull trees in a manner that insures:
(a) the maintenance of continuous high forest cover where
such cover naturally occurs,
(b) the maintenance or natural regeneration of all native
species in a stand, and
(c) the growth and development of trees through a range of
diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of
forest products.
(ii) Cutting methods that develop and maintain selection
stands are:
(a) Individual-tree selection, in which individual trees of
varying size and age classes are selected and logged in a
generally uniform pattern throughout a stand, and
(b) Group selection, in which small groups of trees are
selected and logged.
(iii) The application of individual-tree selection, group
selection, or any other method consistent with selection
management shall under no event:

[[Page S6733]]

(a) create a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
(b) create a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
(c) cut or remove more than 10 percent of the basal area of
a stand within 15 years. The foregoing limitation shall not
be deemed to establish a 150-year projected felling age as
the standard at which individual trees in a stand are to be
cut, nor shall native biodiversity be limited to that which
occurs within the context of a 150-year projected felling
age.
``(H) The term ``stand'' means a biological community with
enough identity by location, topography, or dominant species
to be managed as a unit, not to exceed 100 acres.
``(I) Even-age logging and even-age management.--(i) The
terms ``even-age logging'' and ``even-age management'' mean
any logging activity which:
(a) creates a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
(b) creates a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
(c) cuts or removes more than 10 percent of the basal area
of a stand within 15 years.
(ii) Even-age logging and even-age management include the
application of clearcutting, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood
cutting, or any other logging method in a manner inconsistent
with selection management.
``(J) The term ``clearcutting'' means an even-age logging
operation that removes all of the trees over a considerable
area of a stand at one time.
``(K) The term ``seed-tree cut'' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a small minority of seed trees in a
stand for any period of time.
``(L) The term ``shelterwood cut'' means an even-age
logging operation that leaves a minority (larger than in a
seed-tree cut) of the stand as a source or protection cover
remaining standing for any period of time.
``(M) The term ``timber purposes'' shall include the use,
sale, lease, or distribution of trees, or the felling of
trees or portions of trees except to create land space for a
structure or other use.
``(N) The term ``basal area'' means the area of the cross
section of a tree stem, including the bark, at 4.5 feet above
the ground.
``(4)(A)(i) The purpose of this paragraph is to foster the
widest possible enforcement of subsection (j) and this
subsection.
``(ii) Congress finds that all people of the United States
are injured by actions on lands to which subsection (j) and
this subsection apply.
``(B) The provisions of subsection (j) and this subsection
shall be enforced by the Secretary of the Interior and the
Attorney General of the United States against any person who
violates either of them.
``(C)(i) Any citizen harmed by a violation of this Act may
enforce any provisions of this subsection by bringing an
action for declaratory judgment, temporary restraining order,
injunction, statutory damages, and other remedies against any
alleged violator including the United States, in any district
court of the United States.
``(ii) The court, after determining a violation of either
of such subsections, shall impose a damage award of not less
than $5,000, shall issue one or more injunctions and other
equitable relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs
reasonable costs of litigation including attorney's fees,
witness fees and other necessary expenses.
``(iii) The standard of proof in all actions brought under
this subparagraph shall be the preponderance of the evidence
and the trial shall be de novo.
``(D) The damage award authorized by subparagraph (C)(ii)
shall be paid by the violator or violators designed by the
court to the U.S. Treasury.
``(E) The damage award shall be paid from the U.S.
Treasury, as provided by Congress under section 1304 of title
31, United States Code, within 40 days after judgment to the
person or persons designated to receive it, to be applied in
protecting or restoring native biodiversity in or adjoining
Federal land. Any award of costs of litigation and any award
of attorney fees shall be paid within 40 days after judgment.
``(F) The United States, including its agents and employees
waives its sovereign immunity in all respects in all actions
under subsection (j) and this subsection. No notice is
required to enforce this subsection.''.

SEC. 104. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL INDIAN FOREST RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT ACT RELATING TO INDIAN LANDS.

Section 305 of the National Indian Forest Resources
Management Act (25 U.S.C. 4535) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsections:
``(c) Conservation of Native Biodiversity.--In each stand
and each watershed throughout each forested area on Indian
lands, the Secretary shall provide for the conservation or
restoration of native biodiversity except during the
extraction stage of authorized mineral development or during
authorized construction projects, in which events the
Secretary shall conserve native biodiversity to the extent
possible;''.
``(d) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--(1)
In each stand and watershed throughout each forested area,
the Secretary shall prohibit any even-age logging and any
even-age management after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) On each stand already under even-age management, the
Secretary shall (A) prescribe a shift to selection
management, or (B) cease managing for timber purposes and
actively restore the native biodiversity, or permit each
stand to regain its native biodiversity.
``(3) For the purposes of this section:.
``(A) The term ``native biodiversity'' means the full range
of variety and variability within and among living organisms
and the ecological complexes in which they would have
occurred in the absence of significant human impact, and
encompasses diversity within a specie (genetic diversity,
species diversity, or age diversity), within a community of
species (within-community diversity), between communities of
species (between-communities), within a total area such as a
watershed (total area), along a plane from ground to sky
(vertical), and along the plane of the earth-surface
(horizontal). Vertical and horizontal diversity apply to all
the other aspects of diversity.
``(B) The terms ``conserve'' and ``conservation'' refer to
protective measures for maintaining existing native
biodiversity and active and passive measures for restoring
diversity through management efforts, in order to protect,
restore, and enhance as much of the variety of species and
communities as possible in abundances and distributions that
provide for their continued existence and normal functioning,
including the viability of populations throughout their
natural geographic distributions.
``(C) The term ``within-community diversity'' means the
distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes
that occur in different physical settings of the biosphere
and distinct parts of the world.
``(D) The term ``genetic diversity'' means the differences
in genetic composition within and among populations of a
given species.
``(E) The term ``species diversity'' means the richness and
variety of native species in a particular location of the
world.
``(F) The term ``age diversity'' means the naturally
occurring range and distribution of age classes within a
given species.
``(G) Selection management.--(i) The term ``selection
management'' means a method of logging that emphasizes the
periodic removal of trees, including mature, undesirable, and
cull trees in a manner that insures:
``(a) the maintenance of continuous high forest cover where
such cover naturally occurs.
``(b) the maintenance or natural regeneration of all native
species in a stand, and
``(c) the growth and development of trees through a range
of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of
forest products.
``(ii) Cutting methods that develop and maintain selection
stands are:.
``(a) Individual-tree selection, in which individual trees
of varying size and age classes are selected and logged in a
generally uniform pattern throughout a stand, and
``(b) Group selection, in which small groups of trees are
selected and logged.
``(iii) The application of individual-tree selection, group
selection, or any other method consistent with selection
management shall under no event:
``(a) create a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
``(b) create a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
``(c) cut or remove more than 10 percent of the basal area
or a stand within 15 years. The foregoing limitation shall
not be. deemed to establish a 150-year projected felling age
as the standard at which individual tress in a stand are
to be cut, nor shall native biodiversity be limited to
that which occurs within the context of a 150-year
projected felling age.
``(H) The term ``stand'' means a biological community with
enough identity by location, topography, or dominant species
to be managed as a unit, not to exceed 100 acres
``(I) Even-age logging and even-age management.--(i) The
terms ``even-age logging'' and ``even-age management'' mean
any logging activity which:
(a) creates a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
(b) creates a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
(c) cuts or removes more than 10 percent of the basal area
of a stand within 15 years.
``Even-age logging and even-age management include the
application of clearcutting, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood
cutting, or any other logging method in a manner inconsistent
with selection management.
``(J) The term ``clearcutting'' means an even-age logging
operation that removes all of the trees over a considerable
area of a stand at one time.
``(K) The term ``seed-tree cut'' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a small minority of seed trees in a
stand for any period of time.
``(L) The term ``shelterwood cut'' means an even-age
logging operation that leaves a minority (larger than in a
seed-tree cut) of the stand as a seed source or protection
cover remaining standing for any period of time.
``(M) The term ``timber purposes'' shall include the use,
sale, lease, or distribution of trees, or the felling of
trees or portions of trees except to create land space for a
structure or other use.
``(N) The term ``basal area'' means the area of the cross
section of a tree stem, including the bark, at 4.5 beet above
the ground.
``(4)(A)(i) The purpose of this paragraph is to foster the
widest possible enforcement of subsection (c) and this
subsection.

[[Page S6734]]

``(ii) Congress finds that all people of the United States
are injured by actions on lands to which subsection (c) and
this subsection apply.
``(B) The provisions of subsection (c) and this subsection
shall be enforced by the Secretary of the Interior and the
Attorney General of the United States against any person who
violates either of them.
``(C)(i) Any citizen harmed by a violation of this Act may
enforce any provision of subsection (c) and this subsection
by bringing an action for declaratory judgment, temporary
restraining order, injunction, statutory damages, and other
remedies against any alleged violator including the United
States, in any district court of the United States.
``(ii) The court, after determining a violation of either
of such subsections shall impose a damage award of not less
than $5,000, shall issue one or more injunctions and other
equitable relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs
reasonable costs of litigation including attorney's fees,
witness fees and other necessary expenses.
``(iii) The standard of proof in all actions brought under
this subparagraph shall be the preponderance of the evidence
and the trial shall be de novo.
``(D) The damage award authorized by subparagraph (C)(ii)
shall be paid by the violator or violators designated by the
court to the U.S. Treasury.
``(E) The damage award shall be paid from the U.S.
Treasury, as provided by Congress under section 1304 of title
31, United States Code, within 40 days after judgment to the
person or persons designated to receive it, to be applied in
protecting or restoring native biodiversity in or adjoining
Federal land. Any award of costs of litigation and any award
of attorney fees shall be paid within 40 days after judgment.
``(F) The United States, including its agents and employees
waives it sovereign immunity in all respects in all actions
under subsection (c) and this subsection. No notice is
required to enforce this subsection.''.

SEC. 105. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, RELATING
TO FOREST MANAGEMENT ON MILITARY LANDS.

(a) In General.--chapter 159 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 2694. CONSERVATION OF NATIVE BIODIVERSITY.

``(a) Conservation of Native Biodiversity.--In each stand
and each watershed throughout each forested area on a
military installation or projects administered by the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Secretary shall provide for the
conservation or restoration of native biodiversity, except
during authorized construction projects in which events the
Secretary shall conserve native biodiversity to the extent
possible.
``(b) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--(1)
In each stand and watershed throughout each forested area,
the Secretary shall prohibit any even-age logging and any
even-age management after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) On each stand already under even-age management, the
Secretary shall (A) prescribe a shift to selection
management, or (B) cease managing for timber purposes and
actively restore the native biodiversity, or permit each
stand to regain its native biodiversity.
``(3) In this section:
``(A) The term ``native biodiversity'' means the full range
of variety and variability within and among living organisms
and the ecological complexes in which they would have
occurred in the absence of significant human impact, and
encompasses diversity within a species (genetic diversity,
species diversity, or age diversity), within a community of
species (within-community diversity), between communities of
species (between-communities), within a total area such as a
watershed (total area), along a plane from ground to sky
(vertical), and along the plane of the earth-surface
(horizontal). Vertical and horizontal diversity apply to all
the other aspects of diversity.
``(B) The terms ``conserve'' and ``conservation'' refer to
protective measures for maintaining existing native
biodiversity and active and passive measures for restoring
diversity through management efforts, in order to protect,
restore, and enhance as much of the variety of species and
communities as possible in abundances and distributions that
provide for their continued existence and normal functioning,
including the viability of populations throughout their
natural geographic distributions.
``(C) The term ``within-community diversity'' means the
distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes
that occur in different physical settings of the biosphere
and distinct parts of the world.
``(D) The term ``genetic diversity'' means the differences
in genetic composition within and among populations of a
given species.
``(E) The term ``species diversity'' means the richness and
variety of native species in a particular location of the
world.
(F) The term ``age diversity'' means the naturally
occurring range and distribution of age classes within a
given ``species.''
(G) Selection management.--(i) The term ``selection
management'' means a method of logging that emphasizes the
periodic removal of trees, including mature, undesirable, and
cull trees in a manner that insures:
(a) the maintenance of continuous high forest cover where
such cover naturally occurs.
(b) the maintenance or natural regeneration of all native
species in a stand, and
(c) the growth and development of trees through a range of
diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of
forest products.
(ii) Cutting methods that develop and maintain selection
stands are:
(a) Individual-tree selection, in which individual trees of
varying size and age classes are selected and logged in a
generally uniform pattern throughout a stand, and
(b) Group selection, in which small groups of trees are
selected and logged.
(iii) The application of individual-tree selection, group
selection, or any other method consistent with selection
management shall under no event:
(a) create a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
(b) create a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
(c) cut or remove more than 10 percent of the basal area of
a stand within 15 years. The foregoing limitation shall not
be deemed to establish a 150-year projected felling age as
the standard at which individual trees in a stand are to be
cut, nor shall native biodiversity be limited to that which
occurs within the context of a 150-year projected felling
age.
``(H) The term ``stand'' means a biological community with
enough identity by location, topography, or dominant species
to be managed as a unit, not to exceed 100 acres.
``(I) Even-age, logging, and even-age management.--(i) The
terms ``even-age logging'' and ``even-age management'' mean
any logging activity which:
(a) creates a clearing or opening that exceeds in width in
any direction the height of the tallest tree standing within
10 feet outside the edge of the clearing or opening, or
(b) create a stand where the majority of trees are within
10 years of the same age, or
(c) cuts or removes more than 10 percent of the basal area
of a stand within 15 years.
(ii) Even-age logging and even-age management include the
application of clearcutting, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood
cutting, or any other logging method in a manner inconsistent
with selection management.
``(J) The term ``clearcutting'' means an even-age logging
operation that removes all of the trees over a considerable
area of a stand at one time.
``(K) The term ``seed-tree cut'' means an even-age logging
operation that leaves a small minority of seed trees in a
stand for any period of time.
``(L) The term ``shelterwood cut'' means an even-age
logging operation that leaves a minority (larger than in a
seed-tree cut) of the stand as a seed source or protection
cover remaining standing for any period of time.
``(M) The term ``timber purposes'' shall include the use,
sale, lease, or distribution of trees, or the felling of
trees or portions of trees except to create land space for a
structure or other use.
``(N) The term ``basal area'' means the area of the cross
section of a tree stem, including the bark, at 4.5 feet above
the ground.
``(4)(A)(i) The purpose of this paragraph is to foster the
widest possible enforcement of this section.
``(ii) Congress finds that all people of the United States
are injured by actions on lands to which this section
applies.
``(B) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by
the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General of the
United States against any person who violates this section.
``(C)(i) Any citizen harmed by a violation of this Act may
enforce any provision of this section by bringing an action
for declaratory judgment, temporary restraining order,
injunction, statutory damages, and other remedies against any
alleged violator including the United States, in any district
court of the United States.
``(ii) The court, after determining a violation of this
section, shall impose a damage award of not less than $5,000,
shall issue one or more injunctions and other equitable
relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs reasonable costs of
litigation including attorney's fees, witness fees and other
necessary expenses.
``(iii) The standard of proof in all actions brought under
this subparagraph shall be the preponderance of the evidence
and the trial shall be de novo.
``(D) The damage award authorized by subparagraph (C)(ii)
shall be paid by the violator or violators designated by the
court to the U.S. Treasury.
``(E) The damage award shall be paid from the U.S.
Treasury, as provided by Congress under section 1304 of title
31, United States Code, within 40 days after judgment to the
person or persons designated to receive it, to be applied in
protecting or restoring native biodiversity in or adjoining
Federal land. Any award of costs of litigation and any award
of attorney fees shall be paid within 40 days after judgment.
``(F) The United States, including its agents and employees
waives its sovereign immunity in all respects in all actions
under this section. No notice is required to enforce this
section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 159 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item: ``2694.
Conservation of native biodiversity.''.

[[Page S6735]]

TITLE II--PROTECTION FOR ANCIENT FORESTS, ROADLESS AREAS, WATERSHED
PROTECTION AREAS, SPECIAL AREAS, AND FEDERAL BOUNDARY AREAS

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this title:
(1) Extractive logging.--The term ``extractive logging''
means the cutting or removal of any trees from Federal forest
lands for any purpose.
(2) Ancient forests.--The term ``Ancient Forests'' refers
to ``Northwest Ancient Forests'', ``East Side Cascade Ancient
Forests'', and ``Sierra Nevada Ancient Forests'' as defined
below:
(A) The term ``Northwest Ancient Forests'' refers to--
(i) Federal lands identified as Late-Successional Reserves,
Riparian Reserves, and Key Watersheds under the heading
``Alternative 1'' of the report ``Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for
Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species
Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Vol. I.'',
dated February 1994; and
(ii) Federal lands identified by the term ``Medium and
Large Conifer Multi-Storied, Canopied Forests'' as defined in
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-
Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the
Northern Spotted Owl, Vol. I.'', dated February 1994.
(B) The term ``Eastside Cascade Ancient Forests'' refers
to--
(i) Federal lands identified as ``Late-Succession/Old-
growth Forest (LS/OG)'' depicted on maps for the Colville,
Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and
Winema National Forests in the document entitled ``Interim
Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and
Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest,
Oregon, and Washington'', prepared by the Eastside Forests
Scientific Society Panel (The Wildlife Society, Technical
Review 94-2, August 1994);
(ii) Federal lands, east of the Cascade crest in Oregon and
Washington defined as ``late successional and old-growth
forests'' in the general definition on page 28 of the report
entitled ``Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests,
Fisheries, and Watersheds: National Forests East of the
Cascade Crest, Oregon, and Washington''; and
(iii) Federal lands classified as ``Oregon Aquatic
Diversity Areas'' as defined in the report entitled ``Interim
Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and
Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest,
Oregon, and Washington''.
(C) The term ``Sierra Nevada Ancient forests'' refers to
(i) Federal lands identified as ``Areas of Late-
Successional Emphasis (ALSE)'' in the document entitled
``Final Report to Congress: Status of the Sierra Nevada'',
prepared by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (Wildland
Resources Center Report #40, University of California, David,
1996/97);
(ii) Federal lands identified as ``Late-Successional/Old-
Growth Forests Rank, 3, 4 or 5'' in the document entitled
``Final Report to Congress: Status of the Sierra Nevada'';
and
(iii) Federal lands identified as ``Potential Aquatic
Diversity Management Areas'' in the map on page 1497 of the
document entitled ``Final Report to Congress: Status of the
Sierra Nevada, Volume II''.
(3) Improved roads.--The term ``improved roads'' means any
roads maintained for travel by standard passenger type
vehicles.
(4) Roadless areas.--The term ``Roadless Areas'' means
those contiguous parcels of Federal land that are devoid of
improved roads, except as permitted by subparagraph (B),
and--
(A) are greater than or equal to 5,000 acres west of the
100th meridian; or
(B) are greater than or equal to 1,500 acres east of the
100th meridian, but possibly containing up to \1/2\ mile of
improved roads per 1,000 acres; or
(C) are less than 5,000 acres, but share a border that is
not an improved road with an existing Wilderness Area,
Primitive Area, or Wilderness Study Area.
(5) Watershed protection areas.--The term ``Watershed
Protection Areas'' refers to Federal lands
(A) extending 300 feet from both sides of the active stream
channel of any permanently flowing stream or river, or
(B) extending 100 feet from both sides of the active
channel of any intermittent, ephemeral or seasonal stream, or
any other non-permanently flowing drainage feature having a
definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition
of flow-related debris, or
(C) extending 300 feet from the edge of the maximum level
of any natural lake or pond, or
(D) extending 150 feet from the edge of the maximum level
of constructed lakes, ponds, or reservoirs and natural or
constructed wetlands including.
(6) Special areas.--The term ``Special Areas'' means
certain area of Federal land designated in section 202.
(7) Federal boundary areas.--The term ``Federal Boundary
Areas'' means lands managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management, or Fish & Wildlife Service, within 200 feet
of a property line.
(8) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction over
Federal lands included within an Ancient Forest, Roadless
Area, Watershed Protection Area, Special Area, or Federal
Boundary Area.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Unfragmented forests on Federal lands are unique an
valuable assets to the general public which are damaged by
extractive logging.
(2) Less than 10 percent of the original unlogged forests
of the Untied States remain. The vast majority of the
remnants of America's original forests are located on Federal
lands.
(3) Large, unfragmented forest watersheds provide high-
quality water supplies for drinking, agriculture, industry,
and fisheries across the United States.
(4) The most recent scientific studies indicate that
several thousand species of plants and animals are dependent
on large, unfragmented forest areas.
(5) Many neotropical migratory songbird species are
currently experiencing documented broad-scale population
declines and require large, unfragmented forests to ensure
their survival.
(6) Destruction of large-scale natural forests has resulted
in a tremendous loss of jobs in the fishing, hunting,
tourism, recreation, and guiding industries, and has
adversely affected sustainable nontimber forest products
industries such as the collection of mushrooms and herbs.
(7) Extractive logging programs on Federal lands are
carried out at enormous financial costs to the United States
Treasury and American taxpayers.
(8) The Ancient Forests continue to be threatened by
logging and deforestation and are rapidly disappearing.
(9) Ancient Forests help regulate atmospheric balance,
maintain biodiversity, and provide valuable scientific
opportunity for monitoring the health of the planet.
(10) Prohibiting extractive logging in the Ancient Forests
would create the best conditions for ensuring stable, well
distributed, and viable populations of the northern spotted
owl, marbled murrelet, American marten, and other
vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular plants, and nonvascular
plants associated with those forests.
(11) Prohibiting extractive logging in the Ancient Forests
would create the best conditions for ensuring stable, well
distributed, and viable populations of anadromous salmonids,
resident salmonids, and bull trout.
(12) Roadless areas are de facto wilderness that provide
wildlife habitat and recreation.
(13) Roadless areas contain many of the largest
unfragmented forests on Federal lands. Large unfragmented
forests are among the last refuges for native animal and
plant biodiversity, and are vital to maintaining viable
populations of threatened, endangers, sensitive, and rare
species.
(14) Roads cause soil erosion, disrupt wildlife migration,
and allow nonnative species of plants and animals to invade
native forests.
(15) The morality and reproduction patterns of forest
dwelling animal populations are adversely affected by
traffic-related fatalities that accompany roads.
(16) The exceptional recreational, biological, scientific,
or economic assets of certain special forested areas on
Federal lands are valuable to the American public and are
damaged by extractive logging in these areas.
(17) In order to gauge the effectiveness and
appropriateness of current and future resource management
activities, and to continue to broaden and develop our
understanding of silvicultural practices, many special
forested areas need to remain in a natural, unmanaged state
to serve as scientifically established baseline control
forests.
(18) Certain special forested areas provide habitat for the
survival and recovery of endangered and threatened plant and
wildlife species such as grizzly bears, spotted owls, Pacific
salmon, and Pacific yew that are harmed by extractive
logging.
(19) Many special forested areas on Federal lands are
considered sacred sites by native peoples.
(20) Ecological, economic, and aesthetic values on private
property are damaged by logging and roadbuilding in Federal
Boundary Areas.
(21) As a legacy for the enjoyment, knowledge, and well-
being of future generations, provisions must be made for the
protection and perpetuation of America's Ancient Forests,
Roadless Areas, Watershed Protection Areas, Special Areas,
and Federal Boundary Areas.

SEC. 202. DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS.

(a) Description of Special Areas.--
(1) In general.--Special areas are parcels of Federal
forest land that posses outstanding biological, scenic,
recreational, or cultural values, exemplary on a regional,
national, or international level, yet may not meet the
definitions of Ancient Forests, Roadless Areas, Watershed
Protection Areas, or Federal Boundary Areas.
(2) Biological values.--Biological values include--
(A) the presence of threatened or endangered species of
plants or animals;
(B) rare or endangered ecosystems;
(C) key habitats necessary for the recovery of endangered
or threatened species;
(D) recovery or restoration areas of rare or
underrepresented forest ecosystems;
(E) migration corridors;
(F) areas of outstanding biodiversity;

[[Page S6736]]

(G) old growth forests;
(H) commercial fisheries; and
(I) sources of clean water such as key watersheds.
(3) Scenic values.--Scenic values include--
(A) unusual geological formations;
(B) designated wild and scenic rivers;
(C) unique biota; and
(D) vistas.
(4) Recreational values.--Recreational values include--
(A) designated National Recreational Trails or Recreational
Areas;
(B) popular areas for recreation and sports including--
(i) hunting;
(ii) fishing;
(iii) camping;
(iv) hiking;
(v) aquatic recreation; and
(vi) winter recreation;
(C) Federal lands in regions that are underserved in terms
of recreation;
(D) lands adjacent to designated Wilderness Areas; and
(E) solitude.
(5) Cultural values.--Cultural values include--
(A) sites with Native American religious significance; and
(B) historic or prehistoric archaeological sites eligible
for national historic register.
(b) Size Variation.--Special areas may vary in size to
encompass the outstanding biological, scenic, recreational,
or cultural value or values to be protected.
(c) Designation of Special Areas.--For purposes of this
title, there are hereby designated the following Special
Areas, which shall be subject to the management restrictions
specified in section 203(c):
(1) Alabama: sipsey wilderness.--Certain lands in the
Bankhead National Forest in Alabama, which comprise
approximately 20,000 acres, located directly west of Highway
33 and directly north of County Road 60, including all of the
Sipsey River Watershed north of Cranal Road, known as the
``Sipsey Wilderness''.
(2) Alaska.--
(A) Turnagain arm.--Certain lands in the Chugach National
Forest, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, which comprise approximately
100,000 acres, known as ``Turnagain Arm'', extending from sea
level to ridgetop surrounding the inlet of Turnagain Arm.
(B) Honker divide.--Certain lands in the Tongass National
Forest in Alaska, which comprise approximately 75,000 acres,
located on north central Prince of Wales Island, comprising
the Thorne River and Hatchery Creek watersheds, stretching
approximately 40 miles northwest from the vicinity of the
town of Thorne Bay to the vicinity of the town of Coffman
Cove, generally known as the ``Honker Divide''.
(3) Arizona: north rim of the grand canyon.--Certain lands
in the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona, included in the Grand
Canyon Game Preserve, which comprise approximately 500,000
acres, abutting the northern side of the Grand Canyon in the
area generally known as the ``North Rim of the Grand
Canyon''.
(4) Arkansas.--
(A) Cow creek drainage, arkansas.--Certain lands in the
Ouachita National Forest, Mena Ranger District, Polk County,
Arkansas, comprising approximately 7,000 acres, bounded
approximately by the following landmarks: on the north by
County Road 95; on the south by County Road 157; on the east
by County Road 48 and on the west by the Arkansas-Oklahoma
border, known as ``Cow Creek Drainage, Arkansas''.
(B) Leader and brush mountains.--Certain lands in the
Ouachita National Forest of Montgomery and Polk Counties,
Arkansas, known as ``Leader and Brush Mountains'', which
comprise approximately 120,000 acres located in the vicinity
of the Blaylock Creek Watershed between Long Creek and the
South Fork of the Saline River.
(C) Polk creek area.--Certain lands in the Ouachita
National Forest, Mena Ranger District, Arkansas, comprising
approximately 20,000 acres bounded by Arkansas Highway 4 and
Forest Roads 73 and 43 known as the ``Polk Creek Area''.
(D) Lower buffalo river watershed.--Certain lands in the
Ozark National Forest, Sylamore Ranger District, totaling
approximately 60,000 acres, known as ``The Lower Buffalo
River Watershed''. The area is comprised of those Forest
Service lands, not already designated as Wilderness, located
in the watershed of Big Creek, southwest of the Leatherwood
Wilderness Area in Searcy and Marion Counties, Arkansas.
(E) Upper buffalo river watershed.--Certain lands in the
Ozark National Forest, Buffalo Ranger District, totaling
approximately 220,000 acres known as the ``Upper Buffalo
River Watershed''. This area is located approximately 35
miles from the town of Harrison, in Madison, Newton and
Searcy Counties, Arkansas. The Upper Buffalo River Watershed
is comprised of those Forest Service lands, not already
designated as Wilderness Areas, upstream of the confluence of
the Buffalo River and Richland Creek and located in the
following watersheds: Buffalo River, the various streams
comprising the Headwaters of the Buffalo River, Richland
Creek, Little Buffalo Headwaters, Edgmon Creek, Big Creek and
Cane Creek.
(5) California: giant sequoia Preserve.--Certain lands in
the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests in California
comprised of 3 discontinuous parcels, totaling approximately
442,425 acres known as the ``Giant Sequoia Preserve'' located
in Fresno, Tulare, and Kern Counties. All 3 parcels are
located in the Southern Sierra Nevada mountain range; the
Kings River Unit (145,600 acres) and nearby Redwood Mountain
Unit (11,730 acres) are located approximately 25 miles east
of the city of Fresno. The South Unit (285,095 acres) is
approximately 15 miles east of the city of Porterville.
(6) Colorado: cochetopa hills.--Certain lands in the
Gunnison Basin area administered by the Gunnison, Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre, and Rio Grand National forests, comprising
approximately 500,000 acres, known as the ``Cochetopa
Hills''. This area spans the continental divide south and
east of Gunnison in Saguache County, Colorado and includes
the Elk and West Elk Mountains, Grand Mesa, the Uncompahgre
Plateau, the northern San Juan Mountains, the La Garitas
Mountains and the Cochetopa Hills.
(7) Georgia.--
(A) Armuchee cluster.--Certain lands in the Chattahoochee
National Forest, Armuchee Ranger District, totaling
approximately 19,700 acres, known as the ``Armuchee
Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of three parcels known as
Rocky Face, Johns Mountain and Hidden Creek. The cluster is
located approximately 10 miles southwest of Dalton and 14
miles north of Rome, Whitfield, Walker, Chattooga, Floyd, and
Gordon Counties, Georgia.
(B) Blue ridge corridor cluster, georgia areas.--Certain
lands in the Chattahoochee National Forest, Chestatee Ranger
District, totaling approximately 15,000 acres, known as the
``Blue Ridge Corridor Cluster, Georgia Areas''. The cluster
is comprised of the following 5 parcels: Horse Gap, Hogback
Mountain, Blackwell Creek, Little Cedar Mountain, and Black
Mountain. The cluster is located approximately 15 to 20 miles
north of the town of Dahlonega, Union and Lumpkin Counties,
Georgia.
(C) Chattooga watershed cluster, georgia areas.--Certain
lands in the Chattahoochee National Forest, Tallulah Ranger
District, comprising 63,500 acres known as the ``Chattooga
Watershed Cluster, Georgia Areas''. This cluster is comprised
of 7 areas, located in Rabun County, Georgia, known as the
following: Rabun Bald, Three Forks, Ellicott Rock Extension,
Rock Gorge, Big Shoals, Thrift's Ferry, and Five Falls. The
towns of Clayton, Georgia, and Dillard, South Carolina are
situated nearby.
(D) Cohutta cluster.--Certain lands in the Chattahoochee
National Forest, Cohutta Ranger District, totaling
approximately 28,000 acres, known as the ``Cohutta Cluster''.
The cluster is comprised of four parcels known as Cohutta
Extensions, Grassy Mountain, Emery Creek, and Mountaintown.
The cluster is located near the towns of Chatsworth and
Ellijay, Murray, Fannin, and Gilmer Counties, Georgia.
(E) Duncan ridge cluster.--Certain lands in the
Chattahoochee National Forest, Brasstown and Toccoa Ranger
Districts, comprising approximately 17,000 acres known as the
``Duncan Ridge Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of the
following four parcels: Licklog Mountain, Duncan Ridge, Board
Camp, and Cooper Creek Scenic Area Extension. The cluster is
located approximately 10 to 15 miles south of the town of
Blairsville in Union and Fannin Counties, Georgia.
(F) Ed jenkins national recreation area cluster.--Certain
lands in the Chattahoochee National Forest, Toccoa and
Chestatee Ranger Districts, totaling approximately 19,300
acres, known as the ``Ed Jenkins National Recreation Area
Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of the Springer Mountain,
Mill Creek, and Toonowee parcels. The cluster is located 30
miles north of the town of Dahlonega, Fannin, Dawson, and
Lumpkin Counties, Georgia.
(G) Gainesville ridges cluster.--Certain lands in the
Chattahoochee National Forest, Chattooga Ranger District,
totaling approximately 14,200 acres, known as the
``Gainesville Ridges Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of
the following three parcels: Panther Creek, Tugaloo Uplands,
and Middle Fork Broad River. The cluster is located
approximately 10 miles from the town of Toccoa, Habersham and
Stephens Counties, Georgia.
(H) Northern blue ridge cluster, georgia areas.--Certain
lands in the Chattahoochee National Forest, Brasstown and
Tallulah Ranger Districts, totaling approximately 46,000
acres, known as the ``Northern Blue Ridge Cluster, Georgia
Areas''. The cluster is comprised of the following eight
areas: Andrews Cove, Anna Ruby Falls Scenic Area Extension,
High Shoals, Tray Mountain Extension, Kelly Ridge-Moccasin
Creek, Buzzard Knob, Southern Nantahala Extension, and
Patterson Gap. The cluster is located approximately 5 to
15 miles north of Helen, 5 to 15 miles southeast of
Hiawassee, north of Clayton and west of Dillard, White,
Towns and Rabun Counties, Georgia.
(I) Rich mountain cluster.--Certain lands in the
Chattahoochee National Forest, Toccoa Ranger District,
totaling approximately 9,500 acres known as the ``Rich
Mountain Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of the parcels
known as Rich Mountain Extension and Rocky Mountain. The
cluster is located 10 to 15 miles northeast of the town of
Ellijay, Gilmer and Fannin Counties, Georgia.
(J) Wilderness heartlands cluster, georgia areas.--Certain
lands in the Chattahoochee National Forest, Chestatee,
Brasstown and Chattooga Ranger Districts, comprising
approximately 16,500 acres, known as the ``Wilderness
Heartlands Cluster, Georgia Areas''. The cluster is comprised

[[Page S6737]]

of four parcels known as the following: Blood Mountain
Extensions, Raven Cliffs Extensions, Mark Trail Extensions,
and Brasstown Extensions. The cluster is located near the
towns of Dahlonega, Cleveland, Helen, and Blairsville,
Lumpkin, Union, White, and Towns Counties, Georgia.
(8) Idaho.--
(A) Cove/Mallard.--Certain lands in the Nez Perce National
Forest in Idaho, which comprise approximately 94,000 acres,
located approximately 30 miles southwest of the town of Elk
City, west of the town of Dixie, in the area generally known
as ``Cove/Mallard''.
(B) Meadow creek.--Certain lands in the Nez Perce National
Forest in Idaho, which comprise approximately 180,000 acres,
located approximately 8 miles east of the town of Elk City in
the area generally known as ``Meadow Creek''.
(C) French creek/patrick butte.--Certain lands in the
Payette National Forest in Idaho, which comprise
approximately 141,000 acres, located approximately 20 miles
north of the town of McCall in the area generally known as
``French Creek/Patrick Butte''.
(9) Illinois.--
(A) Cripps bend.--Certain lands in the Shawnee National
Forest in Illinois, which comprise approximately 39 acres in
Jackson County in the Big Muddy River watershed, in the area
generally known as ``Cripps Bend''.
(B) Opportunity area 6.--Certain lands in the Shawnee
National Forest in Illinois, which comprise approximately
50,000 acres located in northern Pope County, surrounding
Bell Smith Springs Natural Area, in the area generally known
as ``Opportunity Area 6''.
(C) Quarrel creek.--Certain lands in the Shawnee National
Forest in Illinois, which comprise approximately 490 acres
located in northern Pope County, in the Quarrel Creek
watershed, in the area generally known as ``Quarrel Creek''.
(10) Michigan: trap hills.--Certain lands in the Ottawa
National Forest, Bergland Ranger District, totaling
approximately 37,120 acres, known as the ``Trap Hills'',
located approximately 5 miles from the town of Bergland,
Ontonagon County, Michigan.
(11) Minnesota.--
(A) Trout lake and suomi hills.--Certain lands in the
Chippewa National Forest, comprising approximately 12,000
acres, known as ``Trout Lake/Suomi Hills'' in Itasca County,
Minnesota.
(B) Lullaby white pine reserve.--Certain lands in the
Superior National Forest in Minnesota, Gunflint Ranger
District, which comprise approximately 2,518 acres, in the
South Brule Opportunity Area, northwest of Grand Marais in
Cook County, Minnesota, known as the ``Lullaby White Pine
Reserve''.
(12) Missouri: eleven point-big springs area.--Certain
lands in the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri, Eleven
Point Ranger District, totaling approximately 200,000 acres,
comprised of the administrative area of the Eleven Point
Ranger District, known as the ``Eleven Point-Big Springs
Area''.
(13) Montana: mount bushnell.--Certain lands in the Lolo
National Forest in Montana, which comprise approximately
41,000 acres located approximately 5 miles southwest of the
town of Thompson Falls in the area generally known as ``Mount
Bushnell''.
(14) New Mexico.--
(A) Angostura.--Certain lands in the east half of the
Carson National Forest in New Mexico, Camino Real Ranger
District, totaling approximately 10,000 acres located in
Township 21, Ranges 12 and 13, known as ``Angostura''. The
area's approximate boundaries are as follows: the northeast
boundary is formed by Highway 518, the southeast boundary
consists of the Angostura Creek watershed boundary, the
southern boundary is Trail 19 and the Pecos Wilderness, and
on the west, the boundary is formed by the Agua Piedra Creek
watershed.
(B) La manga.--Certain lands in the western half of the
Carson National Forest, El Rito Ranger District, New Mexico,
Vallecitos Sustained Yield Unit, comprising approximately
5,400 acres, known as ``La Manga''. The parcel is in Township
27, Range 6 and bounded on the north by the Tierra Amarilla
Land Grant, on the south by Canada Escondida, on the west by
the Sustained Yield Unit boundary and the Tierra Amarilla
Land Grant, and on the east by the Rio Vallecitos.
(C) Elk mountain.--Certain lands in the Santa Fe National
Forest, New Mexico, comprising approximately 7,220 acres,
known as ``Elk Mountain'' and located in Townships 17 and 18
and Ranges 12 and 13. The area is bounded on the north by the
Pecos Wilderness, the Cow Creek Watershed forms the eastern
boundary and the Cow Creek, itself, forms the western
boundary. The southern boundary is formed by Rito de la Osha.
(D) Jemez highlands.--Certain lands in the Jemez Ranger
District of the Santa Fe National Forest, totaling
approximately 54,400 acres, known as the ``Jemez Highlands'',
located primarily in Sandoval County, New Mexico.
(15) North Carolina.--
(A) Central nantahala cluster, north carolina areas.--
Certain lands in the Nantahala National Forest, Tusquitee,
Cheoah, and Wayah Ranger Districts, totaling approximately
107,000 acres, known as the ``Central Nantahala Cluster,
North Carolina Areas''. The cluster is comprised of the
following nine parcels: Tusquitee Bald, Shooting Creek
Bald, Cheoah Bald, Piercy Bald, Wesser Bald, Tellico Bald,
Split White Oak, Siler Bald, and Southern Nantahala
Extensions. The cluster is located near the towns of
Murphy, Franklin, Bryson City, Andrews, and Beechertown,
Cherokee, Macon, Clay and Swain Counties, North Carolina.
(B) Chattooga watershed cluster, north carolina areas.--
Certain lands in the Nantahala National Forest, Highlands
Ranger District, totaling approximately 8,000 acres, known as
the ``Chattooga Watershed Cluster, North Carolina Areas''.
The cluster is comprised of the Overflow (Blue Valley) and
Terrapin Mountain parcels. The cluster is located five miles
from the town of Highlands, Macon and Jackson Counties, North
Carolina.
(C) Tennessee border cluster, north carolina areas.--
Certain lands in the Nantahala National Forest, Tusquitee and
Cheoah Ranger Districts, totaling approximately 28,000 acres,
known as the ``Tennessee Border Cluster, North Carolina
Areas''. The cluster is comprised of the four following
parcels: Unicoi Mountains, Deaden Tree, Snowbird, and Joyce
Kilmer-Slickrock Extension. The cluster is located near the
towns of Murphy and Robbinsville, Cherokee and Graham
Counties, North Carolina.
(D) Bald mountains.--Certain lands in the Pisgah National
Forest, French Broad Ranger District, totaling approximately
13,000 acres known as the ``Bald Mountains'', located 12
miles northeast of Hot Springs, Madison County, North
Carolina.
(E) Big ivy tract.--Certain lands in the Pisgah National
Forest in North Carolina, which comprise approximately 14,000
acres, located approximately 15 miles west of Mount Mitchell
in the area generally known as the ``Big Ivy Tract''.
(F) Black mountains cluster, north carolina areas.--Certain
lands in the Pisgah National Forest, Toecane and Grandfather
Ranger Districts, totaling approximately 62,000 acres, known
as the ``Black Mountains Cluster, North Carolina Areas''. The
cluster is comprised of the following five parcels: Craggy
Mountains, Black Mountains, Jarrett Creek, Mackey Mountain,
and Woods Mountain. The cluster is located near the towns of
Burnsville, Montreat and Marion, Buncombe, Yancey and
McDowell Counties, North Carolina.
(G) Linville cluster.--Certain lands in the Pisgah National
Forest, Grandfather Ranger District, totaling approximately
42,000 acres known as the ``Linville Cluster''. The cluster
is comprised of the following seven parcels: Dobson Knob,
Linville Gorge Extension, Steels Creek, Sugar Knob, Harper
Creek, Lost Cove and Upper Wilson Creek. The cluster is
located near the towns of Marion, Morgantown, Spruce Pine,
Linville, and Blowing Rock, Burke, McDowell, Avery and
Caldwell Counties, North Carolina.
H) Nolichucky, north carolina area.--Certain lands in the
Pisgah National Forest, Toecane Ranger District, totaling
approximately 4,000 acres, known as the ``Nolichucky, North
Carolina Area'', located 25 miles northwest of Burnsville,
Mitchell and Yancy Counties, North Carolina.
(I) Pisgah cluster, north carolina areas.--Certain lands in
the Pisgah National Forest, Pisgah Ranger District, totaling
approximately 52,000 areas, known as the ``Pisgah Cluster,
North Carolina Areas''. The cluster is comprised of the
following 5 parcels: Shining rock and Middle Prong
Extensions, Daniel Ridge, Cedar Rock Mountain, South Mills
River, and Laurel Mountain. The cluster is located 5 to 12
miles north of the town of Brevard and southwest of the city
of Asheville, Haywood, Transylvania, and Henderson Counties,
North Carolina.
(J) Wildcat.--Certain lands in the Pisgah National Forest,
French Broad Ranger District, totaling approximately 6,500
acres, known as ``Wildcat'', located 20 miles northwest of
the town of Canton, Haywood County, North Carolina.
(16) Ohio.--
(A) Archers fork complex.--Certain lands in the Marietta
Unit of the Athens Ranger District, in the Wayne National
Forest, Washington County, Ohio, known as ``Archers Fork
Complex'', comprising approximately 18,350 acres, located
northeast of Newport and bounded by State Highway 26 to the
northwest, State Highway 260 to the northeast, the Ohio River
to the southeast and Bear Run and Danas Creek to the
southwest.
(B) Bluegrass ridge.--Certain lands in the Ironton Ranger
District of the Wayne National Forest, Lawrence County, Ohio,
known as ``Bluegrass Ridge'', comprising approximately 4,000
acres, located three miles east of Etna in Township 4 North,
Range 17 West, sections 19-23, 27-30.
(C) Buffalo creek.--Certain lands in the Ironton Ranger
District of the Wayne National Forest, Lawrence County, Ohio,
known as ``Buffalo Creek'', comprising approximately 6,500
acres, located four miles northwest of Waterloo in Township 5
North, Range 17 West, sections 3-10, 15-18.
(D) Lake vesuvius.--Certain lands in the Ironton Ranger
District of the Wayne National Forest, Lawrence County, Ohio,
comprising approximately 4,900 acres, generally known as
``Lake Vesuvius'', located to the east of Etna and bounded by
State Highway 93 to the southwest and State Highway 4 to the
northwest in Township 2 North, Range 18 West.
(E) Morgan sisters.--Certain lands in the Ironton Ranger
District of the Wayne National Forest, Lawrence County, Ohio,
known as ``Morgan Sisters'', comprising approximately 2,500
acres, located one mile east of Gallia and bounded by State
Highway

[[Page S6738]]

233 in Township 6 North, Range 17 West, sections 13, 14, 23,
24 and Township 5 North, Range 16 West, sections 18, 19.
(F) Utah ridge.--Certain lands in the Athens Ranger
District of the Wayne National Forest, Athens County, Ohio,
known as ``Utah Ridge'', comprising approximately 9,000
acres, located one mile northwest of Chauncey and bounded by
State Highway 682 and State Highway 13 to the southeast, US
Highway 33 to the southwest and State Highway 216 and State
Highway 665 to the north.
(G) Wildcat hollow.--Certain lands in the Athens Ranger
District of the Wayne National Forest, Perry and
Morgan Counties, Ohio, known as ``Wildcat Hollow'',
comprising approximately 4,500 acres, located one mile
east of Corning in Township 12 North, Range 14 West,
sections 1, 2, 11-14, 23, 24, and Township 8 North, Range
13 West, sections 7, 18, 19.
(17) Oklahoma: cow creek drainage, oklahoma.--Certain lands
in the Ouachita National Forest, Mena Ranger District, Le
Flore County, Oklahoma, comprising approximately 3,000 acres,
bounded approximately by the Beech Creek National Scenic Area
on the west, State Highway 63 on the north and the Arkansas-
Oklahoma border on the east, and County Road 9038 on the
south, known as ``Cow Creek Drainage, Oklahoma''.
(18) Oregon: applegate wilderness.--Certain lands in the
Siskiyou National Forest and Rouge River National Forest in
Oregon, which comprise approximately 20,000 acres, located
approximately 20 miles southwest of the town of Grants Pass
and 10 miles south of Williams, in the area generally known
as the ``Applegate Wilderness''.
(19) South carolina.--
(A) Big shoals, south carolina area.--Certain lands in the
Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District,
Oconee County, South Carolina, comprising approximately 2,000
acres known as ``Big Shoals, South Carolina Area''. This area
is located 15 miles south of Highlands, North Carolina.
(B) Brasstown creek, south carolina area.--Certain lands in
the Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District,
Oconee County, South Carolina, comprising approximately 3,500
acres known as ``Brasstown Creek, South Carolina Area''. This
area is located approximately 15 miles west of Westminster,
South Carolina.
(C) Chauga.--Certain lands in the Sumter National Forest,
Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Oconee County, South
Carolina, comprising approximately 16,000 acres known as
``Chauga''. This area is located approximately 10 miles west
of Walhalla, South Carolina.
(D) Dark bottoms.--Certain lands in the Sumter National
Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Oconee County, South
Carolina, comprising approximately 4,000 acres known as
``Dark Bottoms''. This area is located approximately 10 miles
northwest of Westminister, South Carolina.
(E) Ellicott rock extension, south carolina area.--Certain
lands in the Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger
District, Oconee County, South Carolina, comprising
approximately 2,000 acres known as ``Ellioctt Rock Extension,
South Carolina Area''. This area is located approximately 10
miles south of Cashiers, North Carolina.
(F) Five falls, south carolina area.--Certain lands in the
Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District,
Oconee County, South Carolina, comprising approximately 3,500
acres known as ``Five Falls, South Carolina Area''. This area
is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Clayton,
Georgia.
(G) Persimmon mountain.--Certain lands in the Sumter
National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Oconee
County, South Carolina, comprising approximately 7,000 acres
known as ``Persimmon Mountain''. This area is located
approximately 12 miles south of Cashiers, North Carolina.
(H) Rock gorge, south carolina area.--Certain lands in the
Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District,
Oconee County, South Carolina, comprising approximately 2,000
acres known as ``Rock Gorge, South Carolina Area''. This area
is located 12 miles southeast of Highlands, North Carolina.
(I) Tamassee.--Certain lands in the Sumter National Forest,
Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Oconee County, South
Carolina, comprising approximately 5,500 acres known as
``Tamassee''. This area is located 10 miles north of
Walhalla, South Carolina.
(J) Thrift's ferry, south carolina area.--Certain lands in
the Sumter National Forest, Andrew Pickens Ranger District,
Oconee County, South Carolina, comprising approximately 5,000
acres known as ``Thrift's Ferry, South Carolina Area''. This
area is located 10 miles east of Clayton, Georgia.
(20) South dakota.--
(A) Black fox area.--Certain lands in the Black Hills
National Forest of South Dakota, totaling approximately
12,400 acres, located in the upper reaches of the Rapid Creek
watershed known as the ``Black Fox Area''. The area is
roughly bounded by FDR 206 in the north, the steep slopes
north of Forest Road 231 form the southern boundary and a
fork of Rapid Creek forms the western boundary.
(B) Breakneck area.--Certain lands in the Black Hills
National Forest, South Dakota, totaling 6,700 acres along the
northeast edge of the Black Hills in the vicinity of the
Black Hills National Cemetery and the Bureau of Land
Management's Fort Meade Recreation Area known as the
``Breakneck Area''. The area is generally bounded by Forest
Roads 139 and 169 on the north, west and south. The eastern
and western boundaries are also demarcated by the ridge-
crests dividing the watershed.
(C) Norbeck preserve.--Certain lands in the Black Hills
National Forest of South Dakota, totaling approximately
27,766 acres known as the ``Norbeck Preserve'' encompassed
approximately by the following traverse. Starting at the
southeast corner, the area boundary runs north along FDR 753
and U.S. Highway Alt. 16, then along SD 244 to the junction
of Palmer Creek Road, which serves generally as a northwest
limit. It then heads south from the junction of Highways 87-
89, southeast along Highway 87, and east back to FDR 753. A
corridor of private land along FDR 345 is excluded.
(D) Piger mountain area.--Certain lands in the Black Hills
National Forest of South Dakota, comprising approximately
12,600 acres, known as the ``Pilger Mountain Area'' and
located in the Elk Mountains on the southwest edge of the
Black Hills. This area is roughly bounded by Forest Roads 318
and 319 on the east and northeast, Road 312 on the north and
northwest, and private land to the southwest.
(E) Stagebarn canyons.--Certain lands in the Black Hills
National Forest, South Dakota, known as ``Stagebarn
Canyons'', which comprise approximately 7,300 acres located
approximately 10 miles west of Rapid City, South Dakota.
(21) Tennessee.--
(A) Bald mountains cluster, tennessee areas.--Certain lands
in the Nolichucky and Unaka Ranger Districts of the Cherokee
National Forest, Cooke, Green, Washington and Unicoi
Counties, Tennessee, comprising approximately 46,133 acres
known as the ``Bald Mountains Cluster, Tennessee Areas''.
This Cluster is comprised of the following parcels known as:
Laurel Hollow Mountain, Devil's Backbone, Laurel Mountain,
Walnut Mountain, Wolf Creek, Meadow Creek Mountain, Brush
Creek Mountain, Paint Creek, Bald Mountain and Sampson
Mountain Extension. These parcels are located near the towns
of Newport, Hot Springs, Greeneville and Erwin, Tennessee.
(B) Big frog/cohutta cluster.--Certain lands in the
Cherokee National Forest, Polk County, Tennessee, Ocoee,
Hiwassee, and Tennessee Ranger Districts, comprising
approximately 28,800 acres known as the ``Big Frog/Cohutta
Cluster''. This Cluster is comprised of the following
parcels: Big Frog Extensions, Little Frog Extensions, Smith
Mountain and Rock Creek. These parcels are located near the
towns of Copperhill, Ducktown, Turtletown and Benton,
Tennessee.
(C) Citico creek watershed cluster tennessee areas.--
Certain lands in the Tellico Ranger District of the Cherokee
National Forest, Monroe County, Tennessee, comprising
approximately 14,256 acres known as the ``Citico Creek
Watershed Cluster, Tennessee Areas''. This Cluster is
comprised of the following parcels known as: Flats Mountain,
Miller Ridge, Cowcamp Ridge and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Extension. These parcels are located near the town of Tellico
Plains, Tennessee.
(D) Iron mountains cluster.--Certain lands in the Cherokee
National Forest, Watauga Ranger District, totaling
approximately 58,090 acres known as the ``Iron Mountains
Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of the following 8
parcels: Big Laurel Branch Addition, Hickory Flat Branch,
Flint Mill, Lower Iron Mountain, Upper Iron Mountain, London
Bridge, Beaverdam Creek, and Rodgers Ridge. The cluster is
located near the towns of Briston and Elizabethton, Sullivan
and Johnson Counties, Tennessee.
(E) Northern unicoi mountains cluster.--Certain lands in
the Tellico Ranger District of the Cherokee National Forest,
Monroe County, Tennessee, comprising approximately 30,453
acres known as the ``Northern Unicoi Mountains Cluster''.
This Cluster is comprised of the following parcels known as:
Bald River Gorge Extension, Upper Bald River, Sycamore Creek
and Brushy Ridge. These parcels are located near the town of
Tellico Plains, Tennessee.
(F) Roan mountains cluster.--Certain lands in the Cherokee
National Forest, Unaka and Watauga Ranger Districts, totaling
approximately 23,725 acres known as the ``Roan Mountain
Cluster''. The cluster is comprised of the following seven
parcels: Strawberry Mountain, Highlands of Roan, Ripshin
Ridge, Doe River Gorge Scenic Area, White Rocks Mountain,
Slide Hollow and Watauga Reserve. The cluster is located
approximately eight to twenty miles south of the town of
Elizabethton, Unicoi, Carter and Johnson Counties, Tennessee.
(G) Southern unicoi mountains cluster.--Certain lands in
the Hiwassee Ranger District of the Cherokee National Forest,
Polk, Monroe and McMinn Counties, Tennessee, comprising
approximately 11,251 acres known as the ``Southern Unicoi
Mountains Cluster''. This Cluster is comprised of the
following parcels known as: Gee Creek Extension, Coker
Creek and Buck Bald. These parcels are located near the
towns Etowah, Benton and Turtletown, Tennessee.
(H) Unaka mountains cluster, tennessee areas.--Certain
lands in the Cherokee National Forest, Unaka Ranger District,
totaling approximately 15,669 acres known as the ``Unaka
Mountains Cluster, Tennessee areas''. The cluster is
comprised of the Nolichucky, Unaka Mountain Extension and
Stone Mountain parcels. The cluster is located approximately
eight miles from Erwin, Unicoi and Carter Counties,
Tennessee.

[[Page S6739]]

(22) Texas: longleaf ridge.--Certain lands in the Angelina
National Forest, Jasper and Angelina Counties, Texas,
comprising approximately 30,000 acres bounded on the west by
Upland Island Wilderness Area, on the south by the Neches
River, and on the northeast by Sam Rayburn Reservoir,
generally known as ``Longleaf Ridge''.
(23) Vermont.--
(A) Glastenbury area.--Certain lands in the Green Mountain
National Forest in Vermont, which comprise approximately
35,000 acres, located 3 miles northeast of Bennington,
bounded by Kelly Stand Road to the North, Forest Road 71 to
the east, Route 9 to the south and Route 7 to the west,
generally known as the ``Glastenbury Area''.
(B) Lamb brook.--Certain lands in the Green Mountain
National Forest in Vermont, which comprise approximately
5,500 acres, located 3 miles southwest of Wilmington, bounded
on the west and south by Routes 8 and 100, on the north by
Route 9, and on the east by New England Power Company lands,
generally known as ``Lamb Brook''.
(C) Robert frost mountain area.--Certain lands in the Green
Mountain National Forest, Vermont, comprising approximately
8,500 acres, known as ``Robert Frost Mountain Area'',
northeast by Middlebury, consisting of the Forest Service
lands bounded on the west by Route 116, on the north by
Bristol Notch Road, on the east by Lincoln/Ripton Road and on
the south by Route 125.
(24) Virginia.--
(A) Bear creek.--Certain lands known as ``Bear Creek'', in
the Jefferson National Forest, Wythe Ranger District, north
of Rural Retreat, Smyth and Wythe Counties, Virginia.
(B) Cave springs.--Certain lands known as ``Cave Springs'',
in the Jefferson National Forest, Clinch Ranger District,
comprising approximately 3,000 acres located between State
Route 621 and the North Fork of the Powell River, Lee County,
Virginia.
(C) Dismal creek.--Certain lands known as ``Dismal Creek''
totaling approximately 6,000 acres in the Jefferson National
Forest, Blacksburg Ranger District, north of State Route 42,
Giles and Bland Counties, Virginia.
(D) Stone coal creek.--Certain lands known as ``Stone Coal
Creek'', totaling approximately 2,000 acres in the Jefferson
National Forest, New Castle Ranger District, Craig and
Botentourt Counties, Virginia.
(E) White oak ridge: terrapin mountain.--Certain lands
known as ``White Oak Ridge--Terrapin Mountain'', totaling
approximately 8,000 acres, Glenwood Ranger District of the
Jefferson National Forest, east of the Blue Ridge Parkway,
Botetourt and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia.
(F) Whitetop mountain.--Certain lands in the Jefferson
National Forest, Mt. Rodgers Recreation Area, comprising
3,500 acres in Washington, Smyth and Grayson Counties,
Virginia, known as ``Whitetop Mountain''.
(G) Wilson mountain.--Certain lands known as ``Wilson
Mountain,'' comprising approximately 5,100 acres in the
Jefferson National Forest, Glenwood Ranger District, east of
Interstate 81, Botetourt and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia.
(H) Feathercamp.--Certain lands located in the Mt. Rodgers
Recreation Area of the Jefferson National Forest, comprising
4,974 acres, known as ``Feathercamp,'' in Washington County,
Virginia, located northeast of the town of Damascus and north
of State Route 58 on the Feathercamp ridge.
(25) Wisconsin.--
(A) Flynn lake.--Certain lands in the Chequamegon National
Forest, Washburn Ranger District, totaling approximately
5,700 acres within the Flynn Lake Semi-primitive Non-
motorized Area, known as ``Flynn Lake.'' The site is located
in Bayfield County, Wisconsin.
(B) Ghost lake cluster.--Certain lands in the Chequamegon
National Forest, Great Divide Ranger District, totaling
approximately 6,000 acres, known as ``Ghost Lake Cluster''
and including parcels known as Chost Lake, Perch Lake, Lower
Teal River, Foo Lake, and Bulldog Springs. The cluster is
located in Sawyer County, Wisconsin.
(C) Lake owens cluster.--Certain lands in the Chequamegon
National Forest, Great Divide and Washburn Ranger Districts,
totaling approximately 3,600 acres, known as ``Lake Owens
Cluster'' and including parcels known as or near Lake Owens,
Sage, Hidden, and Deer Lick Lakes, Eighteenmile Creek, and
Northeast and Sugarbush Lakes. The cluster is in Bayfield
County, Wisconsin.
(D) Medford cluster.--Certain lands in the Chequamegon
National Forest, Medford-Park Falls Ranger District, totaling
approximately 23,000 acres, known as the ``Medford Cluster,''
and including parcels known as County E. Hardwoods, Silver
Creek/Mondeaux River Bottoms, Lost Lake Esker, North and
South Fork Yellow Rivers, Bear Creek, Brush Creek,
Chequamegon Waters, John's and Joseph Creeks, Hay Creek Pine-
Flatwoods, 558 Hardwoods, Richter Lake, and Lower Yellow
River. The cluster is located in Taylor County, Wisconsin.
(E) Park falls cluster.--Certain lands in the Chequamegon
National Forest, Medford-Park Falls Ranger District, totaling
approximately 23,000 acres, known as ``Park Falls Cluster,''
and including parcels known as Sixteen Lakes, Chippewa Trail,
Tucker and Amik Lakes, Lower Rice Creek, Doering Tract,
Foulds Creek, Bootjack Conifers, Pond, Mud and Riley Lake
Peatlands, Little Willow Drumlin, and Elk River. The cluster
is located in Price and Vilas Counties, Wisconsin.
(F) Penokee mountain cluster.--Certain lands in the
Chequamegon National Forest, Great Divide Ranger District,
totaling approximately 23,000 acres, known as ``Penokee
Mountain Cluster'', and including parcels known as or near
St. Peters Dome, Brunsweiler River Gorge, Lake Three, Marengo
River and Brunsweiler River Semi-primitive Non-motorized
Areas, Hell Hole Creek, and the North County Trail Hardwoods.
The cluster is located in Ashland and Bayfield Counties,
Wisconsin.
(G) Southeast great divide cluster.--Certain lands in the
Chequamegon National Forest, Medford Park Falls Ranger
District, totaling approximately 25,000 acres, known as the
``Southeast Great Divide Cluster'', and including parcels
known as or near Snoose Lake, Cub Lake, Springbrook
Hardwoods, upper Moose River, East Fork Chippewa River, upper
Torch River, Venison Creek, upper Brunet River, Bear Lake
Slough, and No-name Lake. The Cluster is located in Ashland
and Sawyer Counties, Wisconsin.
(H) Diamond roof cluster.--Certain lands in the Nicolet
National Forest, Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, totaling
approximately 6,000 acres, known as ``Diamond Roof Cluster'',
including parcels known as McCaslin Creek, Ada Lake, Section
10 Lake, and Diamond Roof. The cluster is located in Forest,
Langlade, and Oconto Counties, Wisconsin.
(I) Argonne forest cluster.--Certain lands in the Nicolet
National Forest, Eagle River-Florence Ranger District,
totaling approximately 12,000 acres, known as ``Argonne
Forest Cluster'' and including parcels known as Argonne
Experimental Forest, Scott Creek, Atkins Lake, and Island
Swamp. The cluster is located in Forest County, Wisconsin.
(J) Bonita grade.--Certain lands in the Nicolet National
Forest, Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, totaling
approximately 1,200 acres, known as ``Bonita Grade'', and
including parcels near Mountain Lakes, Temple Lake, and
Second South Branch, First South Branch, and South Branch
Oconto River. The cluster is located in Langlade County,
Wisconsin.
(K) Franklin and butternut lakes cluster.--Certain lands in
the Nicolet National Forest, Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District, totaling approximately 12,000 acres, known as
``Franklin and Butternut Lakes Cluster'', and including
parcels known as Bose Lake Hemlocks, Luna White Deer, Echo
Lake, Franklin and Butternut Lakes, Wolf Lake, Upper
Ninemile, Meadow, and Bailey Creeks. The cluster is located
in Forest and Onieda Counties, Wisconsin.
(L) Lauterman lake and kieper creek.--Certain lands in the
Nicolet National Forest, Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District, totaling approximately 2,500 acres, known as
``Lauterman Lake and Kieper Creek'', located in Florence
County, Wisconsin.
(26) Wyoming: sand creek area.--Certain lands in the Black
Hills National Forest, totaling approximately 8,300 acres
known as the ``Sand Creek Area'', located in Crook County,
Wyoming. This area is situated in the far northwest corner of
the Black Hills. Beginning in the northwest corner and
proceeding counterclockwise, the boundary for the Sand Creek
Area roughly follows Forest Road 863, 866, 866.1B, a line
linking 866.1B to 802.1B, 802.1B, 802.1, an unnamed road,
Spotted Tail Creek (excluding all private lands), 8219.1, a
line connecting 829.1 with 864, 852.1 and a line
connecting 852.1 with 863.
(d) Committee of Scientists.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretaries concerned shall appoint
a committee consisting of scientists who--
(A) are not officers or employees of the Federal
Government;
(B) are not officers or employees of any entity engaged in
whole or in part in the production of wood or wood products;
and
(C) have not contracted with or represented any such
entities within a 5-year period prior to serving on the
committee.
(2) Recommendations for additional special areas.--Within 2
years of the date of the enactment of this Act, the committee
shall provide Congress with recommendations for additional
Special Areas.
(3) Candidate areas.--Candidate areas for recommendation as
additional Special Area shall have outstanding biological
values that are exemplary on a regional, national, or
international level. Biological values include--
(A) the presence of threatened or endangered species of
plants or animals;
(B) rare or endangered ecosystems;
(C) key habitats necessary for the recovery or endangered
or threatened species;
(D) recovery or restoration areas of rare or
underrepresented forest ecosystems;
(E) migration corridors;
(F) areas of outstanding biodiversity;
(G) old growth forests;
(H) commercial fisheries; and
(I) sources of clean water such as key watersheds.
(4) Governing principle.--The committee shall adhere to the
principles of conservation biology in identifying Special
Areas based on biological values.

SEC. 203. RESTRICTIONS ON MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN ANCIENT
FORESTS, ROADLESS AREAS, WATERSHED PROTECTION
AREAS, SPECIAL AREAS, AND FEDERAL BOUNDARY
AREAS.

(a) Restriction of Management Activities in Ancient
Forests.--With respect to Ancient Forests on Federal lands,
the following prohibitions shall apply:
(1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.

[[Page S6740]]

(2) No extractive logging shall be permitted.
(3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging
shall be permitted.
(b) Restriction of Management Activities in Roadless
Areas.--With respect to Roadless Areas on Federal lands
except military installations, the following prohibitions
shall apply:
(1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
(2) No extractive logging shall be permitted.
(3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging
shall be permitted.
(c) Restriction of Management Activities in Watershed
Protection Areas.--With respect to Watershed Protection Areas
on Federal lands except military installations, the following
prohibitions shall apply:
(1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
(2) No extractive logging shall be permitted.
(3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging
shall be permitted.
(d) Restriction of Management Activities in Special
Areas.--With respect to Special Areas on Federal lands, the
following prohibitions shall apply:
(1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
(2) No extractive logging shall be permitted, and
(3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging
shall be permitted.
(e) Restriction of Management Activities in Federal
Boundary Areas.--With respect to Federal Boundary Areas on
Federal lands, the following prohibitions shall apply:
(1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
(2) No extractive logging shall be permitted, and
(3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging
shall be permitted.
(f) Maintenance of Existing Roads.--The above restrictions
on the reconstruction of roads on Federal lands in Ancient
Forests, Roadless, Areas, Watershed Protection Areas, Special
Areas, and Federal Boundary Areas does not prohibit the
maintenance of an improved road, or any road accessing
private inholdings, with the exception that any roads which
the Secretary concerned determines to have been abandoned
before the enactment of this act shall not be maintained or
reconstructed.
(g) Enforcement.--
(1) Purpose and finding.--The purpose of this subsection is
to foster the widest possible enforcement of this section.
Congress finds that all people of the United States are
injured by actions on lands to which this section applies.
(2) Federal enforcement.--The provisions of this section
shall be enforced by the Secretary concerned and the Attorney
General of the United States against any person who violates
this section.
(3) Citizen suits.--Any citizen harmed by a violation of
this Act may enforce any provision of this section by
bringing an action for declaratory judgment, temporary
restraining order, injunction, statutory damages, and other
remedies against any alleged violator including the United
States, in any district court of the United States.
(4) Standard of proof.--The standard of proof in all
actions brought under this subsection shall be the
preponderance of the evidence and the trial shall be de novo.
(5) Damage award.--The court, after determining a violation
of this section, shall impose a damage award of not less than
$5,000, shall issue one or more injunctions and other
equitable relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs
reasonable costs of litigation including attorney's fees,
witness fees and other necessary expenses. The damage award
shall be paid by the violator of violators designated by the
court to the U.S. Treasury. The damage award shall be paid
from the U.S. Treasury, as provided by Congress under section
1304 of title 31, United States Code, within 40 days after
judgment to the person or persons designated to receive it,
to be applied in protecting or restoring native biodiversity
in or adjoining Federal land. Any award of costs of
litigation and any award of attorney fees shall be paid
within 40 days after judgment.
(6) Waiver.--The United States, including its agents and
employees waives its sovereign immunity in all respects in
all actions under this subsection. No notice is required to
enforce this subsection.
______

By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 978. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
employers a credit for a portion of the expenses of providing dependent
care services to employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.

the affordable child care act

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
the Affordable Child Care Act, which will ease the financial burden of
child care for working families by reducing the cost of day care. I
would like to commend Congressman Jon Fox from Pennsylvania's 13th
District, who has sponsored this legislation in the House. Our bill
would provide a tax credit for employers who provide on-site or site-
adjacent child care to their employees in order to reduce the child
care expenses of the employee.
Many employees have expressed support for on-site day care
facilities, which allow parents to spend more time with their children
during the day, such as over the lunch hour. On-site child care may not
be the best option for all families. Many families rely on relatives,
centers operated by churches and other religious organizations, or make
other arrangements to provide care for their children while they work.
However, it is my view that this bill represents a good start toward
reducing the cost of child care for many Americans.
The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the
increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the
United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31
percent of married mothers with a child younger than age 1 participated
in the labor force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent.
Almost 64 percent of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers
with children younger than age six participated in the labor force in
1995.
Yet, as reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on June 5, 1996, only
13 percent of all major U.S. companies provide some form of on-site day
care. Further, it costs at least $1 million to start up such a day care
center. About 70 percent of working parents missed at least 1 work day
in the past year because of child-related problems, according to Work
Family Directions of Boston, a company that advises firms on how to
improve work and family programs. A 1991 estimate by the Child Care
Action Committee, a national child care advocacy group, found that U.S.
businesses lose $3 billion a year because of child care related
absences.
The cost of child care for families is also significant. A 1995
report by the Census Bureau showed that in 1993, the average weekly
child care cost per arrangement paid by families with employed mothers
was $57. Parents using organized child care facilities paid the most
per arrangement at around $65 per week. Child care is even more
expensive in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas, averaging
$80 per week versus $55 per week. I know that licensed day care centers
in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, which is quite a
burden on families which need the second income. These figures serve to
underscore the need for action on the part of the Federal Government to
provide the necessary assistance to our Nation's working families.
Accordingly, the legislation I am proposing today would provide a tax
credit to businesses that provide licensed, on-site or site-adjacent
child care for their employees. Employers would be eligible for a tax
credit equal to 50 percent of the net cost of providing dependent care
services at a child day care facility for employees. This bill also
provides, however, that no credit shall be allocated unless the
employer certifies that the amount of such a credit is passed on to the
employees using the provider day care in the form of reduced child care
costs.
The Affordable Child Care Act complements my recent efforts to assist
working families in a number of areas. When Congress debated welfare
reform in 1995 and 1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were
provided for child care, a critical component for welfare mothers who
would be required to work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am
pleased that the welfare reform bill that became law provides $20
billion in child care funding over a 6-year period.

Providing health insurance for children is also a top priority of
mine, and I have sponsored legislation to establish a discretionary
pilot program to cover the 4.2 million children of the working poor,
who are not eligible for Medicaid but whose parents cannot afford
private insurance. I am also a cosponsor of legislation introduced by
my colleagues, Senators Chafee and Rockefeller, to expand the Medicaid
Program to cover children whose families earn up to 150 percent of the
Federal poverty level.
To encourage the adoption of children into healthy and stable
families, last April I introduced the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996
(S. 1715) with 13 other Senators to provide tax credits for families
that adopt. Subsequently, a broader piece of tax legislation, the Small
Business Job Protection Act of

[[Page S6741]]

1996, was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 20, 1996.
This act included a $5,000 adoption tax credit for qualified adoption
expenses and a $6,000 tax credit for special needs adoptions, and was
much like our legislation. I recently reintroduced legislation to
increase the tax credit for special needs adoptions for $7,500, and
permit penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts up
to $2,000 for adoption expenses.
In conclusion, Mr. President, encouraging businesses to provide
affordable child care for their employees will help provide peace of
mind to those in our Nation struggling to balance career and family. I
urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important
legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.
______

By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 979. A bill to provide a tax credit to families with elderly
family members living in the family home; to the Committee on Finance.

tax credit legislation

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation that would provide a $2,500 tax credit for individuals or
families with elderly family members living in the family home. As we
all know, our Nation's population is living longer. With advances in
medical treatment, improvements in the Nation's nutrition, and the
development of drugs to combat infectious diseases, our Nation's
elderly population is expected to more than double by the year 2050.
This demographic change presents a unique challenge to America, and it
is our duty to work together to ensure that our Nation's elderly and
every generation of American families maintain a high quality of life.
Since the Great Depression, our Government has instituted several
extremely successful social insurance programs to protect the elderly.
The Social Security Program has provided an income security net, and
the Medicare Program has insured that senior citizens are afforded
access to medical care. Many families, however, are faced with
difficult decisions when elderly family members are no longer able to
live alone. Many of these seniors are brought into the family home.
Others are placed in institutional nursing facilities.
While multigenerational families are not a new phenomenon in America,
a new survey released by the National Alliance for Caregiving
illustrates how contemporary multigenerational families are faced with
extraordinary pressures. Nearly two of three individuals who
provide care to elderly family members are employed full or part time,
and about half have reported that their caretaking duties have made
them late for work, forced them to come home early or to take time off.
These caregivers spend an average of 18 hours a week taking care of
loved ones, grocery shopping, managing their medications, and helping
with transportation and personal care. Many people needing care are
chronically ill. More than one in five caregivers, or about 5 million
households nationwide, take care of someone with Alzheimer's disease,
confusion, dementia or forgetfulness.

Today, millions of American families face a no-win situation when an
elderly family member is no longer able to live independently. Taking a
loved one into the family home may be much desired instead of having to
see a person impoverished by the Medicaid eligibility rules and left a
ward of the State, living in a nursing home. Obviously, on the other
hand, very few families can afford to pay for private nursing home care
themselves. But, bringing an elderly relative into the family home is
costly. Our public policy should recognize this dilemma and support
those loving families seeking to care for the elderly with their own
resources in their own homes.
Currently, there are more than 33.5 million Americans who are 65
years of age and older. In my own State of Pennsylvania, there are 2
million individuals 65 years of age and older. Many of these seniors
live independent lives. However, nationwide approximately 3.9 million
of our elderly citizens live with relatives other than their spouse and
an additional 1.7 million seniors live in nursing homes. My amendment
would provide a $2,500 tax credit to individuals or families who care
for an elderly family member in the family home. In order to qualify
for this tax credit, the elderly family member would have to be at
least 65 years old, would have to reside with their family at least
half of the taxable year, and must have been eligible under current law
to be claimed as a dependent on the family's tax return.
With this amendment, families will be given the vital assistance
necessary to provide care to seniors in their homes. It will also
provide flexibility to families who would like to provide care to
family members in their home rather than place these seniors in
institutionalized care facilities, but are otherwise unable to afford
this financial commitment. In Congress, we have made many speeches
about strengthening the American family and about providing support for
our Nations senior citizens. This bill would accomplish both of these
important goals. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of
this bill to find real solutions to the real problems faced by the
growing numbers of caregivers and senior citizens in America.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 980. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to close the U.S.
Army School of the Americas; to the Committee on Armed Services.

the school of the americas closure act of 1997

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call upon my colleagues to
support a bill to close the School of the Americas.
The School of the Americas is an institute that has outlived its
usefulness and its purpose. SOA was established over 50 years ago. Its
mission is to provide military education and training to military
personnel of Central America, South America, and Caribbean countries.
The training provided at the school in tactical intelligence, infantry
tactics, combat skills, and battle planning was designed in accordance
with U.S. strategy of a bygone era: to create a Latin and South
American staging area to thwart the Communist threat. But times have
changed and there is no longer a Soviet bloc threatening to attack the
United States. Unfortunately, SOA has not successfully adapted to the
great changes in the world since the 1992 breakup of the Soviet Union.
Despite attempts made over the past couple of years to update the
curriculum and improve the selection process for students and the
quality of the teaching staff, SOA remains an anachronism.
In the post-cold-war era, we need to strengthen civilian institutions
in Latin America and help these countries continue to reform their
militaries. This region contains some of the most fragile democracies
which need our support in encouraging democratically elected
governments, the role of civilian institutions and economic stability.
Our focus should be on supporting these nascent civilian governments
and helping them shift authority away from their militaries.
I also believe the school should be closed because of its past links
to numerous military personnel who have committed some of the most
heinous crimes of recent memory. SOA graduates include: Panamanian
dictator and drug dealer, Manuel Noriega; 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked
to the 1989 murder of 6 Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her
daughter; El Salvador death squad leader, Roberto D'Aubuisson;
Argentinian dictator, Leopoldo Galtieri; three of the five officers
involved in the 1980 rape and murder of four United States churchwomen
in El Salvador; and 10 of the 12 officers responsible for the murder of
900 civilians in the El Salvadoran village, El Mozote. These criminals,
multiple murderers, and rapists are former students and graduates of
the School of the Americas where they received their military and
counterinsurgency training.
The U.S. military has readily admitted that these SOA graduates were
guilty of these atrocities. These admissions are an embarrassment to
the United States and to our reputation as a leader in promoting human
rights throughout the world.
In addition, recently the Pentagon released the training manuals used
at

[[Page S6742]]

SOA from 1982 to 1991. These manuals contained instruction in torture
and extortion techniques. These manuals are inconsistent with U.S.
policy and democratic ideals. I am concerned that there might be other
former students, trained with these manuals and guilty of human rights
abuses but who have not as yet come to public attention.
Some have suggested that if SOA is revamped and reorganized that it
could still serve a useful purpose. I disagree. SOA cannot be salvaged.
Its reputation is too tarnished and its name is too closely linked to
the assassins and rapists who were trained there. The United States
cannot deny the human rights violations inflicted by the graduates of
SOA. But, we still need to find a resolution for these terrible events.
I believe that closing SOA is the only way to finally break with this
chapter in U.S. history.
Our South American neighbors need to know that human rights and
democratic values are held in high esteem in the United States. We are
hampered in making this claim as long as the School of the Americas
remains open. The continued funding of SOA does not fit into the United
States long-term strategy for the Latin American region and undermines
our credibility on human rights issues in this hemisphere. I call upon
my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support the closure of
the School of the Americas.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original
cosponsor of the legislation being introduced today by the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas
[SOA] located at Fort Benning, GA.
SOA was created in 1946 to train Latin American military officers in
combat and counterinsurgency skills, with the goal of professionalizing
Latin American armies and strengthening democracies. Originally located
in Panama, the SOA moved to Fort Benning in 1948. There has been a
great deal of controversy surrounding the types of leaders that have
graduated from the SOA, leading it to be called the School for
Dictators. Some of SOA's graduates include Manuel Noriega, at least 19
Salvadorean officers implicated by El Salvador's Truth Commission in
the murder of 6 Jesuit priests, and officers who participated in the
coup against former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
In 1991, following an internal investigation, the Pentagon removed
certain SOA training manuals from circulation. On September 22, 1996,
the Pentagon released the full text of those training manuals and
acknowledged that some of those manuals provided instruction in
techniques that, in the Pentagon's words, were ``clearly objectionable
and possibly illegal.'' The techniques in question included torture,
extortion, false arrest, and execution. I and other Senators have
written the Department of Defense several times to request additional
disclosure of SOA policies, curriculums, training manuals and other
materials so that the history of the school can be fully understood.
The horrendous record of the SOA has inspired hundreds of Wisconsin
residents to contact my office to express their support for closing
this school. Numerous organizations, including Public Citizen, the
Washington Office on Latin America and Human Rights Watch also support
the elimination of SOA.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I am
committed to promoting human rights throughout the world. In my view,
our Government cannot continue to support the existence of a school
that counts so many murderers among its alumni. While I do not doubt
that it can be in our national interest to conduct military training
with our friends and partners, it is unexcusable that such military
training should take place at an institution with the reputation of the
School of the Americas. This bill gives Members of the Senate an
opportunity to separate the legitimate training exercises conducted by
the U.S. military from the sordid acts of many individuals who have
been trained at SOA. We must lift the cloud of suspicion that has
fallen on these programs by closing SOA once and for all.
Not only are the human costs of this training program unjustifiable,
but so are its monetary costs. With a national debt in excess of $5
trillion, every Federal program needs to be carefully scrutinized to
ensure that Federal tax dollars are wisely spent. Given the end of the
cold war, and in light of documents indicating the SOA training program
provided instruction in techniques which violate human rights
standards, I feel that the School of Americas is an unwise expenditure,
and I support eliminating it as soon as possible.
______

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Robb, Mr. Roth, Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Stevens):
S. 981. A bill to provide for analysis of major rules; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.

The Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today Senator Thompson and I are joined by
Senators Glenn, Abraham, Robb, Rockefeller, Roth, and Stevens in
introducing the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997. The bill would put
into law--first, basic requirements for cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment of major rules; second, a process for the review of existing
rules where there is a possibility of achieving significantly greater
net benefits; and third, executive oversight of the rulemaking process.
It builds on the bipartisan Roth-Glenn bill that was unanimously
reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 1995.
This bill would require agencies, when issuing rules that have a
major impact on the economy or a sector of the economy, to do a cost-
benefit analysis to determine whether the benefits of the rule justify
its costs and to determine whether the regulatory option chosen by the
agency is more cost effective or provides greater net benefits than
other regulatory options considered by the agency. If the rule involves
a risk to health, safety or the environment, the bill requires the
agency to do a risk assessment as part of the analysis of the benefits
of the rule.
The bill also requires agencies that issue major rules to establish
advisory committees to identify existing rules that the agency should
consider for review because they have the potential, if modified, to
achieve significantly greater net benefits. It would also codify the
review procedure now conducted by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] and require public disclosure of OIRA's
review process.
The bill is significantly different from S. 343, the Dole-Johnston
bill which I strongly opposed and which was rejected by the Senate in
the 104th Congress.
It does not create a supermandate that would amend existing laws nor
does it contain mandatory decisional criteria that would establish new
standards for an agency to meet. It does require agencies to conduct
cost-benefit analyses for major rules and explain whether the benefits
of the rules justify the costs and whether the rule is cost-effective
than the other alternatives considered by the agency. It does not
mandate the outcome of the process, only the process itself.
It does not provide for judicial review of the process for, or the
contents of, the cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment. The cost-
benefit analysis and risk assessment are made part of the rulemaking
record for judicial review of whether the final rule is reasonable.
It does not provide for a petition process for challenging existing
rules. It provides for advisory committees to identify rules for
possible review, gives the agency head the discretion to select rules
for review especially taking into account the resources of the agency,
and requires the agency to review the rules scheduled for review in 5
years.

Mr. President, many people think that when many of us fought hard
against the Dole-Johnston bill that we didn't really want to reform the
regulatory process. Well they are wrong. Many of us were disappointed
that we were unable to pass a comprehensive regulatory reform bill in
the last Congress. We weren't going to support bad reform, but that
doesn't mean we didn't want to see good reform. Those of us who believe
in the benefits of regulation to protect health and safety have a
particular responsibility to make sure that regulations are sensible
and cost-effective. When they aren't, the regulatory process--which is
so

[[Page S6743]]

vital to our health and well being --comes under constant attack . By
providing a common sense, moderate and open regulatory process, we are
contributing to the well being of that process and immunizing it from
the attacks on excesses.
Mr. President, I've fought for regulatory reform since 1979, the year
I came to the Senate. I even had as part of my platform back in 1978,
the legislative veto--which would give Congress the chance to block
excessively costly and burdensome regulations before they take effect.
That was my battle cry for years. I worked with former Senator Boren,
for instance, trying to get an across-the-board legislative veto bill
enacted into law. Last Congress we were finally able to get a version
of that adopted.
I was also the author of the Regulatory Negotiation Act which was
passed in 1990 and reauthorized in 1995 to encourage agencies to use
the collegial process of negotiation in developing certain rules in
order to avoid the delays and costs inherent in the otherwise
adversarial process.
As for an overall regulatory reform bill, I've supported such
legislation since 1980, when the Senate first passed S. 1080, the
Laxalt-Leahy bill only to have it die later that year in the House.
At the same time, I took a strong stand against several damaging
regulatory reform proposals from the House including an overall
moratorium of regulations and against the Dole-Johnston bill in the
Senate. I will not support any regulatory reform proposal that I
believe would roll back important environmental, public health and
safety protections. Nor will I support any regulatory reform proposal
that I believe will lead to gridlock in the agencies or the courts. We
certainly don't need that.
We do need--better cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, more
flexibility for the regulated industries to reach legislative goals in
a variety of ways, more cooperative efforts between government and
industry and less ``us versus them'' attitudes.
Based on these common principles, Senator Thompson and I have been
working for months on this legislative proposal that I hope will yield
a more rational and fair regulatory process and better, more flexible,
more cost-effective and more enforceable regulations.
Let me highlight some important features of this legislation.
First, we say right from the beginning, in the section on findings,
that cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment are useful tools to help
agencies issue reasonable regulations. But they are only tools; they
are not the sole basis upon which regulations should be developed or
issued. They do not, we explicitly state, they do not replace the need
for good judgment and the agencies' consideration of social values in
deciding when and how to regulate.
We define benefits very broadly--expressly taking into account
nonquantifiable benefits. There is nothing in this bill that suggests
that the assessment of benefits by an agency should be only
quantifiable. On the contrary, this bill explicitly recognizes that
many important benefits may be nonquantifiable, and that agencies have
the right and authority to fully consider such benefits when doing the
cost-benefit analysis and when determining whether the benefits justify
the costs. We emphatically do not intend for the benefits part of the
equation in the cost-benefit analysis to be limited to merely those
benefits that are quantifiable.
We direct the agencies to consider regulatory options that provide
flexibility, where possible, to the regulated parties. I have been a
longtime proponent of performance standards in regulations and not the
so-called command and control approach. This bill urges the agencies to
include in its identification of possible regulatory approaches that
permit flexibility in achieving the required goal, either through
performance standards or market type mechanisms.
The definition of major rule, to which the provisions of this bill
apply, is limited to those with a $100 million impact on the economy
and those otherwise designated by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA].
The bill requires an agency issuing a major rule to evaluate the
benefits and costs of a ``reasonable number of reasonable alternatives
reflecting the range of regulatory options that would achieve the
objective of the statute as addressed by the rulemaking.'' I am quoting
these words, because they are significant. The bill doesn't require an
agency to look at all the possible alternatives, just a reasonable
number; but it does require the agency to pick a selection of options
that are available to it within the range of the rulemaking objective.

This cost-benefit analysis, of which any risk assessment would be a
part, is intended to be transparent to the public; that is, those of us
outside the agency--Congress, the regulated community, the
beneficiaries of the regulation, the general public--should be able to
see and understand the thinking the agency used to select the
regulatory option it did, as well as the underlying scientific and/or
economic data. Agencies should not hide the important information that
forms the basis of their regulatory actions.
Another important provision of this bill is the one that requires the
agency to make a reasonable determination whether the benefits of the
rule justify the costs and whether the regulatory option selected by
the agency is substantially likely to achieve the objective of the
rulemaking in a more cost effective manner or with greater net benefits
than the other regulatory options considered by the agency. This is not
in any way a decisional criteria that the agency must meet. This only
requires the agency to make its assessment. And, if, as the agency is
free to do, it chooses a regulatory option where the benefits do not
justify the costs or that is not more cost effective or does not
provide greater net benefits than the other options, the agency is
required to explain why it did what it did and list the factors that
caused it to so. Those factors could be a statute, a policy judgment,
uncertainties in the data and the like. There is no added judicial
scrutiny of a rule provided for or intended by this section. The final
rule must still stand or fall based on whether the court finds that the
rule is arbitrary or capricious in light of the whole rulemaking
record. That is the current standard of judicial review.
The bill says that if an agency cannot make the determinations
required by the bill, it has to say why it can't. Use of the word
cannot does not mean that an agency rule can be overturned by a court
for its failure to pick an option that would permit the agency to make
the determinations required by the bill. The agency is free to use its
discretion to regulate under the substantive statute, and there is no
implication that such rule must meet the standards described in the
determinations subsection. It does mean, though, that the agency is
required to make such determinations and let the public know why it
picked the regulatory option that it did, and if it can't say, or
determine, that the regulatory option it chose is the most cost
effective or provides greatest net benefits, it must say why it chose
it. This legislation requires only that the agency be up front with the
public as to just how cost beneficial and cost effective its regulatory
proposal is.
The risk assessment requirement in this bill, unlike previous bills,
is not unduly proscriptive. It establishes basic elements for
performing risk assessments, many of which, again, will provide
transparency for an agency's development of a rule, and it requires
guidelines for such assessments to be issued by OIRA in consultation
with the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Peer review, Mr. President, is required by this bill for both cost-
benefit analyses and risk assessments, but only once per rule. Peer
review is not required at both the proposed and final rule stages.
There is great concern in the public interest community, that there
will not be sufficient personnel available with appropriate expertise
and independence to serve on each of these peer review bodies. I am
hoping to pursue that issue at greater length during our committee
hearings.
There is a similar concern by the public interest sector as to the
availability of a balanced cross-section of individuals to serve on the
advisory committees required for the review of rules. Service on such
bodies obviously takes time and expertise and both of

[[Page S6744]]

those cost money. I hope we can also address the concerns about the
possibility of inadequate levels of participation by groups and
interests which have fiscal constraints that could preclude their full
participation.
Mr. President, the review of rules provision in this bill is also a
reasonable approach. Unlike past proposals, it does not provide for an
automatic sunset of a rule that is not reviewed pursuant to the
schedule. Rather it provides for the agency to determine during the
review period of rules it chooses to review whether it is going to
continue, modify, or repeal the rule under review. If it fails to make
that determination and take the appropriate action, the agency can be
sued under the existing provision of the Administrative Procedure Act
to force agency action unlawfully withheld.

Rules would be scheduled for review under the provisions of this
bill, only at the discretion of the agency head. However, the public
would know the list of rules recommended for review by the advisory
committee. The advisory committee would recommend those rules for
review that, if modified, could result in substantially greater net
benefits to society. That is the standard the committees are supposed
to apply. The agency must review the recommendations of the advisory
committee and develop a schedule for review of rules taking into
account the resources available to the agency to conduct such reviews.
Judicial review has been of great concern to those of us who want
real regulatory reform without bottling up important regulations in the
courts. There is no judicial review permitted of the cost-benefit
analysis or risk assessment required by this bill outside of judicial
review of the final rule. The analysis and assessment are included in
the rulemaking record, but there is no judicial review of the content
of those items or the procedural steps followed or not followed by the
agency in the development of the analysis or assessment. Only the total
failure to actually do the cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment
would allow the court to remand the rule to the agency.
Finally, Mr. President, the bill puts into law the requirement that
the President establish a process for reviewing rules and coordinating
Federal agency regulatory actions. Despite over 15 years of Executive
orders that impose such a requirement, Congress has yet to put such a
responsibility of the President into law. This bill would do that. And
with that responsibility goes the obligation of the President, acting
through OIRA, to make public the process and results of its review of
agency rules. This is an important element of accountability, and such
disclosure should not depend upon the whim of the President but rather
on the requirements imposed by permanent law.
So those are some highlights. Senator Thompson has committed to
hearings on the bill. Everybody will be given an opportunity to comment
and identify potential problems and possible improvements.
I believe this bill will improve the regulatory process, will build
confidence in the regulatory programs that are so important to this
society's well-being, and will result in a better--and I believe--a
less contentious regulatory process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 981

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Improvement Act
of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Current regulatory programs can be improved by being
more firmly rooted in sound economic and scientific analysis.
(2) Cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment are useful
tools to better inform agencies in developing regulations,
although they do not replace the need for good judgment and
consideration of values.
(3) Cost and risk need to be considered in evaluating
regulatory proposals which address health, safety, or the
environment. Other factors such as social values,
distributional effects, and equity, must also be considered.
(4) Cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment should be
presented with a clear statement of the analytical
assumptions and uncertainties including an explanation of
what is known and not known and what the implications of
alternative assumptions might be.
(5) The public has a right to know about the costs and
benefits of regulations, the risks addressed, the amount of
risk reduced, and the quality of scientific and economic
analysis used to support decisions. Such knowledge will
promote the quality, integrity and responsiveness of agency
actions.
(6) The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs should oversee regulatory activities to
ensure consistent and valid use of cost-benefit analysis and
risk assessment among all agencies.
(7) The Federal Government should develop a better
understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties
of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment and conduct the
research needed to improve these analytical tools.

SEC. 3. REGULATORY ANALYSIS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER II--REGULATORY ANALYSIS

``Sec. 621. Definitions

``For purposes of this subchapter the definitions under
section 551 shall apply and--
``(1) the term `benefit' means the reasonably identifiable
significant favorable effects, quantifiable and
nonquantifiable, including social, health, safety,
environmental, economic, and distributional effects, that are
expected to result directly or indirectly from implementation
of, or compliance with, a rule;
``(2) the term `cost' means the reasonably identifiable
significant adverse effects, quantifiable and
nonquantifiable, including social, health, safety,
environmental, economic, and distributional effects that are
expected to result directly or indirectly from implementation
of, or compliance with, a rule;
``(3) the term `cost-benefit analysis' means an evaluation
of the costs and benefits of a rule, quantified to the extent
feasible and appropriate and otherwise qualitatively
described, that is prepared in accordance with the
requirements of this subchapter at the level of detail
appropriate and practicable for reasoned decisionmaking on
the matter involved, taking into consideration uncertainties,
the significance and complexity of the decision, and the need
to adequately inform the public;
``(4) the term `Director' means the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, acting through the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs;
``(5) the term `flexible regulatory options' means
regulatory options that permit flexibility to regulated
persons in achieving the objective of the statute as
addressed by the rule making, including regulatory options
that use market-based mechanisms, outcome oriented
performance-based standards, or other options that promote
flexibility;
(6) the term `major rule' means a rule or a group of
closely related rules that--
``(A) the agency proposing the rule or the Director
reasonably determines is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100,000,000 or more in reasonably
quantifiable costs; or
``(B) is otherwise designated a major rule by the Director
on the ground that the rule is likely to adversely affect, in
a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
including small business, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments, or communities;
``(7) the term `reasonable alternative' means a reasonable
regulatory option that would achieve the objective of the
statute as addressed by the rule making and that the agency
has authority to adopt under the statute granting rule making
authority, including flexible regulatory options;
``(8) the term `risk assessment' means the systematic
process of organizing hazard and exposure assessments to
estimate the potential for specific harm to exposed
individuals, populations, or natural resources;
``(9) the term `risk characterization' means the
presentation of risk assessment results including, to the
extent feasible, a characterization of the distribution of
risk as well as an analysis of uncertainties, variabilities,
conflicting information, and inferences and assumptions in
the assessment;
``(10) the term `rule' has the same meaning as in section
551(4), and shall not include--
``(A) a rule exempt from notice and public comment
procedure under section 553;
``(B) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the
United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes,
duties, or other revenue or receipts;
``(C) a rule of particular applicability that approves or
prescribes for the future rates, wages, prices, services,
corporate or financial structures, reorganizations, mergers,
acquisitions, accounting practices, or disclosures bearing on
any of the foregoing;
``(D) a rule relating to monetary policy proposed or
promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System or by the Federal Open Market Committee;
``(E) a rule relating to the safety or soundness of
federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of
such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) of the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k)); credit
unions; the Federal Home Loan

[[Page S6745]]

Banks; government-sponsored housing enterprises; a Farm
Credit System Institution; foreign banks, and their branches,
agencies, commercial lending companies or representative
offices that operate in the United States and any affiliate
of such foreign banks (as those terms are defined in the
International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101)); or a
rule relating to the payments system or the protection of
deposit insurance funds or Farm Credit Insurance Fund;
``(F) a rule or order relating to the financial
responsibility, recordkeeping, or reporting of brokers and
dealers (including Government securities brokers and dealers)
or futures commission merchants, the safeguarding of investor
securities and funds or commodity future or options customer
securities and funds, the clearance and settlement of
securities, futures, or options transactions, or the
suspension of trading under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or emergency action taken under
the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), or a rule
relating to the protection of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation, that is promulgated under the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 78aaa
et seq.), or a rule relating to the custody of Government
securities by depository institutions under section 3121 or
9110 of title 31;
``(G) a rule issued by the Federal Election Commission or a
rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission under
sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 312(a)(7) and 315);
``(H) a rule required to be promulgated at least annually
pursuant to statute; or
``(I) a rule or agency action relating to the public debt;
``(11) the term `screening analysis' means an analysis
using simple assumptions to arrive at an estimate of upper
and lower bounds of risk as appropriate; and
``(12) the term `substitution risk' means an increased risk
to health, safety, or the environment reasonably likely to
result from a regulatory option.

``Sec. 622. Applicability

``Except as provided in section 623(e), this subchapter
shall apply to all proposed and final major rules.

``Sec. 623. Regulatory analysis

``(a)(1) Before publishing a notice of a proposed rule
making for any rule, each agency shall determine whether the
rule is or is not a major rule covered by this subchapter.
``(2) The Director may designate any rule to be a major
rule under section 621(6)(B), if the Director--
``(A) makes such designation no later than 30 days after
the close of the comment period for the rule; and
``(B) publishes such determination in the Federal Register
together with a succinct statement of the basis for the
determination within 30 days after such determination.
``(b)(1)(A) When an agency publishes a notice of proposed
rule making for a major rule, the agency shall prepare and
place in the rule making file an initial regulatory analysis,
and shall include a summary of such analysis consistent with
subsection (d) in the notice of proposed rule making.
``(B)(i) When the Director has published a determination
that a rule is a major rule after the publication of the
notice of proposed rule making for the rule, the agency shall
promptly prepare and place in the rule making file an initial
regulatory analysis for the rule and shall publish in the
Federal Register a summary of such analysis consistent with
subsection (d).
``(ii) Following the issuance of an initial regulatory
analysis under clause (i), the agency shall give interested
persons an opportunity to comment under section 553 in the
same manner as if the initial regulatory analysis had been
issued with the notice of proposed rule making.
``(2) Each initial regulatory analysis shall contain--
``(A) a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule that
shall contain--
``(i) an analysis of the benefits of the proposed rule,
including any benefits that cannot be quantified, and an
explanation of how the agency anticipates that such benefits
will be achieved by the proposed rule, including a
description of the persons or classes of persons likely to
receive such benefits;
``(ii) an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule,
including any costs that cannot be quantified, and an
explanation of how the agency anticipates that such costs
will result from the proposed rule, including a description
of the persons or classes of persons likely to bear such
costs; and
``(iii) an evaluation of the relationship of the benefits
of the proposed rule to its costs, including the
determinations required under subsection (c)(3), taking into
account the results of any risk assessment;
``(iv) an evaluation of the benefits and costs of a
reasonable number of reasonable alternatives reflecting the
range of regulatory options that would achieve the objective
of the statute as addressed by the rule making, including,
where feasible, alternatives that--
``(I) require no government action;
``(II) accommodate differences among geographic regions and
among persons with differing levels of resources with which
to comply; or
``(III) employ flexible regulatory options;
``(v) a description of the scientific or economic
evaluations or information upon which the agency
substantially relied in the cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment required under this subchapter, and an explanation
of how the agency reached the determinations under subsection
(c)(3); and
``(B) if required, the risk assessment in accordance with
section 624.
``(c)(1) When the agency publishes a final major rule, the
agency shall also prepare and place in the rule making file a
final regulatory analysis, and shall prepare a summary of the
analysis consistent with subsection (d).
``(2) Each final regulatory analysis shall address each of
the requirements for the initial regulatory analysis under
subsection (b)(2), revised to reflect--
``(A) any material changes made to the proposed rule by the
agency after publication of the notice of proposed rule
making;
``(B) any material changes made to the cost-benefit
analysis or risk assessment; and
``(C) agency consideration of significant comments received
regarding the proposed rule and the initial regulatory
analysis, including regulatory review communications under
subchapter IV.
``(3)(A) The agency shall include in the statement of basis
and purpose for the rule a reasonable determination, based
upon the rule making record considered as a whole--
``(i) whether the rule is likely to provide benefits that
justify the costs of the rule; and
``(ii) whether the rule is likely to substantially achieve
the rule making objective in a more cost-effective manner, or
with greater net benefits, than the other reasonable
alternatives considered by the agency.
``(B) If the agency head cannot reasonably determine that
the final rule is likely to provide benefits that justify the
costs of the rule and substantially achieve the rule making
objective in a more cost-effective manner or with greater net
benefits than the other reasonable alternatives considered by
the agency, the agency head shall--
``(i) explain why such determinations cannot be made;
``(ii) identify any statutory provision or other factor
that prevents such determinations; and
``(iii) describe a reasonable alternative considered by the
agency, if feasible, that would allow the agency to determine
that the benefits justify the costs and that the rule making
objective would be achieved in a more cost-effective manner
or with greater net benefits than the other reasonable
alternatives considered by the agency.
``(d) Each agency shall include an executive summary of the
regulatory analysis, including any risk assessment, in the
regulatory analysis and in the statement of basis and purpose
for the rule. Such executive summary shall include a succinct
presentation of--
``(1) the benefits and costs expected to result from the
rule and any determinations required under subsection (c)(3);
``(2) if applicable, the risk addressed by the rule,
including the most plausible estimate of the risk and the
results of any risk assessment;
``(3) the benefits and costs of reasonable alternatives
considered by the agency; and
``(4) the key assumptions and scientific or economic
information upon which the agency relied.
``(e)(1) A major rule may be adopted without prior
compliance with this subchapter if--
``(A) the agency for good cause finds that conducting the
regulatory analysis under this subchapter is contrary to the
public interest due to an emergency, or an imminent threat to
health or safety that is likely to result in significant harm
to the public or the environment; and
``(B) the agency publishes in the Federal Register,
together with such finding, a succinct statement of the basis
for the finding.
``(2) If a major rule is adopted under paragraph (1), the
agency shall comply with this subchapter as promptly as
possible unless compliance would be unreasonable because the
rule is, or soon will be, no longer in effect.

``Sec. 624. Principles for risk assessments

``(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each agency shall design
and conduct risk assessments in accordance with this
subchapter for each proposed and final major rule the primary
purpose of which is to address health, safety, or
environmental risk, or which results in a significant
substitution risk, in a manner that promotes rational and
informed risk management decisions and informed public input
into and understanding of the process of making agency
decisions.
``(2) If a risk assessment under this subchapter is
otherwise required by this section, but the agency determines
that--
``(A) a final rule subject to this subchapter is
substantially similar to the proposed rule with respect to
the risk being addressed;
``(B) a risk assessment for the proposed rule has been
carried out in a manner consistent with this subchapter; and
``(C) a new risk assessment for the final rule is not
required in order to respond to comments received during the
period for comment on the proposed rule,
the agency may publish such determination along with the
final rule in lieu of preparing a new risk assessment for the
final rule.
``(b) Each agency shall consider in each risk assessment
reliable and reasonably available scientific information and
shall describe the basis for selecting such scientific
information.
``(c)(1) Each agency may use reasonable assumptions to the
extent that relevant and reliable scientific information,
including

[[Page S6746]]

site-specific or substance-specific information, is not
reasonably available.
``(2) When a risk assessment involves a choice of
assumptions, the agency shall--
``(A) identify the assumption and its scientific or policy
basis, including the extent to which the assumption has been
validated by, or conflicts with, empirical data;
``(B) explain the basis for any choices among assumptions
and, where applicable, the basis for combining multiple
assumptions; and
``(C) describe reasonable alternative assumptions that were
considered but not selected by the agency for use in the risk
assessment, how such alternative assumptions would have
changed the conclusions of the risk assessment, and the
rationale for not using such alternatives.
``(d) Each agency shall provide appropriate opportunity for
public comment and participation during the development of a
risk assessment.
``(e) Each risk assessment supporting a major rule under
this subchapter shall include, as appropriate, each of the
following:
``(1) A description of the hazard of concern.
``(2) A description of the populations or natural resources
that are the subject of the risk assessment.
``(3) An explanation of the exposure scenarios used in the
risk assessment, including an estimate of the corresponding
population at risk and the likelihood of such exposure
scenarios.
``(4) A description of the nature and severity of the harm
that could reasonably occur as a result of exposure to the
hazard.
``(5) A description of the major uncertainties in each
component of the risk assessment and their influence on the
results of the assessment.
``(f) To the extent scientifically appropriate, each agency
shall--
``(1) express the overall estimate of risk as a reasonable
range or probability distribution that reflects
variabilities, uncertainties, and lack of data in the
analysis;
``(2) provide the range and distribution of risks and the
corresponding exposure scenarios, identifying the range and
distribution and likelihood of risk to the general population
and, as appropriate, to more highly exposed or sensitive
subpopulations, including the most plausible estimates of the
risks; and
``(3) where quantitative estimates are not available,
describe the qualitative factors influencing the range,
distribution, and likelihood of possible risks.
``(g) When scientific information that permits relevant
comparisons of risk is reasonably available, each agency
shall use the information to place the nature and magnitude
of a risk to health, safety, or the environment being
analyzed in relationship to other reasonably comparable risks
familiar to and routinely encountered by the general public.
Such comparisons should consider relevant distinctions among
risks, such as the voluntary or involuntary nature of risks.
``(h) When scientifically appropriate information on
significant substitution risks to health, safety, or the
environment is reasonably available to the agency, the agency
shall describe such risks in the risk assessment.

``Sec. 625. Peer review

``(a) Each agency shall provide for peer review in
accordance with this section of any cost benefit analysis and
risk assessment required by this subchapter that forms the
basis of any major rule covered by this subchapter.
``(b)(1) Peer review required under subsection (a) shall--
``(A) provide for the creation or utilization of peer
review panels, expert bodies, or other formal or informal
devices that are broadly representative and balanced and that
consist of panel members or participants with expertise
relevant to the sciences involved in the regulatory decisions
and who are independent of the agency program;
``(B) exclude any person as a panel member or participant
if such person has a financial interest in the outcome,
unless such person fully discloses such interest to the
agency and the public;
``(C) provide for the timely completion of the peer review
including meeting agency deadlines;
``(D) contain a balanced presentation of all
considerations, including minority reports and an agency
response to all significant peer review comments; and
``(E) provide adequate protections for confidential
business information and trade secrets, including requiring
panel members or participants to enter into confidentiality
agreements.
``(2) All peer review written comments or conclusions and
the agency's written responses to significant peer review
comments shall be made available to the public and shall be
made part of the rule making record for purposes of judicial
review of any final agency action.
``(3) If the head of an agency, with the concurrence of the
Director, publishes a determination that a cost-benefit
analysis or risk assessment, or any component thereof, has
been previously subjected to adequate peer review, no further
peer review shall be required under this section for such
analysis, assessment, or component.

``Sec. 626. Deadlines for rule making

``(a) All deadlines in statutes or imposed by a court of
the United States, that require an agency to propose or
promulgate any major rule during the 2-year period beginning
on the effective date of this section shall be suspended
until the earlier of--
``(1) the date on which the requirements of this subchapter
are satisfied; or
``(2) the date occurring 6 months after the date of the
applicable deadline.
``(b) In any case in which the failure to promulgate a
major rule by a deadline occurring during the 2-year period
beginning on the effective date of this section would create
an obligation to regulate through individual adjudications,
the deadline shall be suspended until the earlier of--
``(1) the date on which the requirements of this subchapter
are satisfied; or
``(2) the date occurring 6 months after the date of the
applicable deadline.

``Sec. 627. Judicial review

``(a) Compliance or noncompliance by an agency with the
provisions of this subchapter shall only be subject to
judicial review in accordance with this section.
``(b) Any determination of an agency whether a rule is or
is not a major rule under section 621(6)(A) shall be set
aside by a reviewing court only upon a clear and convincing
showing that the determination is erroneous in light of the
information available to the agency at the time the agency
made the determination.
``(c) Any determination by the Director that a rule is a
major rule under section 621(6), or any failure to make such
determination, shall not be subject to judicial review in any
manner.
``(d) The cost-benefit analysis and any risk assessment
required under this subchapter shall not be subject to
judicial review separate from review of the final rule to
which they apply. The cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit
determination under section 623(c)(3), and any risk
assessment shall be part of the whole rule making record for
purposes of judicial review of the rule and shall be
considered by a court in determining whether the final rule
is arbitrary or capricious unless the agency can demonstrate
that the analysis or assessment would not be material to the
outcome of the rule.
``(e) If an agency fails to perform the cost-benefit
analysis, cost-benefit determination, or risk assessment, a
court shall remand or invalidate the rule.

``Sec. 628. Guidelines, interagency coordination, and
research

``(a)(1) No later than 9 months after the date of enactment
of this section, the Director, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and
the relevant agency heads, shall develop guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses and risk assessments required by this
subchapter or with significant implications for public
policy. To the extent feasible such guidelines shall apply
the principles of sections 623 and 624. The Director shall
oversee and periodically revise such guidelines as
appropriate.
``(2) As soon as practicable and no later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this section, each relevant
agency shall adopt detailed guidelines for risk assessments
required by this subchapter or with significant implications
for public policy. Such guidelines shall be consistent with
the guidance issued under paragraph (1). Each agency shall
periodically revise such agency guidelines as appropriate.
``(3) The guidelines under this subsection shall be
developed following notice and public comment. The
development and issuance of the guidelines shall not be
subject to judicial review, except in accordance with section
706(1) of this title.
``(b) To promote the use of cost-benefit analysis and
assessment in a consistent manner and to identify agency
research and training needs, the Director, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, shall--
``(1) oversee periodic evaluations of Federal agency cost-
benefit analysis and risk assessment;
``(2) provide advice and recommendations to the President
and Congress to improve agency use of cost-benefit analysis
and risk assessment;
``(3) establish appropriate interagency mechanisms to
improve the consistency and quality of cost-benefit analysis
and risk assessment among Federal agencies; and
``(4) establish appropriate mechanisms between Federal and
State agencies to improve cooperation in the development and
application of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment.
``(c)(1) The head of each agency, in consultation with the
Director and the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, shall regularly evaluate and develop a
strategy to meet agency needs for research and training in
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, including research
on modelling, the development of generic data, use of
assumptions and the identification and quantification of
uncertainty and variability.
``(2)(A) No later than 6 months from the date of enactment
of this section, the Director, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
shall enter into appropriate arrangements with an accredited
scientific institution to conduct research to--
``(i) identify and evaluate a common basis to assist
comparative risk analysis and risk communication related to
both carcinogens and noncarcinogens; and
``(ii) appropriately incorporate risk assessments into
related cost-benefit analyses.
``(B) The results of the research conducted under this
paragraph shall be submitted to the Director and Congress no
later than 18

[[Page S6747]]

months after the date of enactment of this section.

``Sec. 629. Comparative risk analysis study

``(a) No later than 180 days after the effective date of
this section, the Director, in consultation with the Director
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall enter
into a contract with an accredited scientific institution to
conduct a study that provides--
``(1) a systematic comparison of the extent and severity of
significant risks to human health, safety, or the environment
(hereafter referred to as a comparative risk analysis);
``(2) a study of methodologies for using comparative risk
analysis to compare dissimilar risks to human health, safety,
or the environment; and
``(3) technical guidance and recommendations on the use of
comparative risk analysis to assist in allocating resources
within and across agencies to set priorities for the
reduction of risks to human health, safety, or the
environment.
``(b) The Director shall ensure that the study required
under subsection (a) is--
``(1) conducted through an open process providing peer
review consistent with section 625 and opportunities for
public comment and participation; and
``(2) completed and submitted to Congress and the President
no later than 3 years after the effective date of this
section.
``(c) No later than 5 years after the effective date of
this section, and periodically thereafter, the President
shall submit a report to Congress recommending legislative
changes to assist in setting priorities to more effectively
and efficiently reduce risks to human health, safety, or the
environment.

``SUBCHAPTER III--REVIEW OF RULES

``Sec. 631. Definitions

``For purposes of this subchapter the definitions under
sections 551 and 621 shall apply.

``Sec. 632. Advisory committee on regulations

``(a)(1)(A) No later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this section and every 5 years thereafter, the
head of each agency described under subparagraph (B) shall
establish an advisory committee for the review of rules.
``(B) An agency referred to under subparagraph (A) is any
agency that has promulgated a major rule during the 10-year
period preceding the date of the establishment of an advisory
committee under subparagraph (A).
``(2) The head of an agency described under paragraph (1)
may establish panels under its advisory committee.
``(b)(1) Each such agency head shall appoint a reasonable
number of members to serve on the agency's advisory committee
and shall designate a chairman from the members of the
committee. Membership on the committee shall represent a
balanced cross-section of public and private interests
affected by the regulations of the agency, including small
businesses, small governments, and public interest groups. No
employee of the agency establishing the committee shall serve
as a member of such agency's committee under this section.
``(2) Each member shall be appointed for the life of the
advisory committee. The advisory committee shall terminate 1
year after the date on which the committee is established.
``(3) A vacancy on a committee shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
``(4) Each committee shall solicit public comments and may
solicit public participation through appropriate means
including hearings, written comments, public meetings, and
electronic mail.
``(5) Members of each committee shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703.
``(6) Each committee shall be subject to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

``Sec. 633. Agency regulatory review

``(a) Each advisory committee appointed under section 632
shall develop a list of rules promulgated by the agency that
the committee serves, which the committee determines should
be reviewed by the agency and can reasonably be reviewed by
the agency within a 5-year period. In selecting rules for
review, each committee shall consider the extent to which--
``(1) a rule could be revised to substantially increase net
benefits, including through flexible regulatory options;
``(2) the rule is important relative to other rules being
considered for review; and
``(3) the agency has discretion under the statute
authorizing the rule to modify or repeal the rule.
``(b) In developing the list required under subsection (a),
each advisory committee shall obtain comments and suggestions
from the public.
``(c) No later than 1 year after an advisory committee is
established, such committee shall deliver to the agency the
committee's recommended list of rules to be reviewed in order
of priority. The agency shall immediately publish the list in
the Federal Register and forward a copy of the list to the
appropriate committees of jurisdiction in the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
``(d)(1) No later than 60 days after receiving and
reviewing the list of rules from its committee, the agency
shall publish in the Federal Register a preliminary schedule
for review of rules based on such list.
``(2) The agency shall provide in the Federal Register at
the time the preliminary schedule is published an explanation
of each modification to the list provided by the advisory
committee and shall invite public comment on the preliminary
schedule for a period of no less than 60 days.
``(e) The preliminary schedule under this section shall
propose deadlines for review of each rule listed thereon, and
such deadlines shall occur no later than 5 years from the
date of publication of the final schedule.
``(f)(1) No later than 60 days after the close of the
comment period, the agency shall publish a final schedule of
rules to be reviewed by the agency under this section.
``(2) The schedule shall establish a deadline for
completion of the review of each rule listed on the schedule.
Each deadline shall occur no later than 5 years from the date
of publication of the final schedule.
``(g) In preparing the preliminary and final schedule, the
agency shall give deference to the recommendations of its
advisory committee but may modify the list of rules to be
reviewed, taking into account the factors contained in
subsection (a) and the resource constraints of the agency.
``(h)(1) For each rule on the schedule under subsection
(e), the agency shall--
``(A) no later than 2 years before the deadline in such
schedule, publish in the Federal Register a notice that
solicits public comment regarding whether the rule should be
continued, amended, or repealed;
``(B) no later than 1 year before the deadline in such
schedule, publish in the Federal Register a notice that--
``(i) addresses public comments generated by the notice in
subparagraph (A);
``(ii) contains a preliminary analysis by the agency with
respect to subsection (a) (1), (2), and (3);
``(iii) contains a preliminary determination whether the
rule should be continued, amended, or repealed; and
``(iv) solicits public comment on the preliminary
determination for the rule; and
``(C) no later than 60 days before the deadline in such
schedule, publish in the Federal Register a final notice on
the rule that--
``(i) addresses public comments generated by the notice in
subsection (c);
``(ii) contains a determination to continue, amend, or
repeal the rule and an explanation of such determination with
respect to subsection (a) (1), (2), and (3); and
``(iii) if the agency determines to amend or repeal the
rule, contains, if required, a notice of proposed rule making
under section 553.
``(2) If the final determination of the agency is to
continue the rule, such determination shall constitute final
agency action 60 days after the publication in the Federal
Register of the notice in paragraph (1)(C).
``(i) If an agency makes a determination to amend or repeal
a rule under subsection (h)(1)(C), the agency shall complete
final agency action with regard to such rule no later than 2
years after the deadline established for such rule under
subsection (f)(2).
``(j) Nothing in this section shall limit the discretion of
an agency to decide, after having proposed to modify or
repeal a rule, not to promulgate such modification or repeal.
Such decision shall constitute final agency action for the
purposes of judicial review.
``(k) Agency failure to take the actions required by this
section shall be subject to judicial review only under
section 706(1). There shall be no judicial review of the
preliminary or final schedule.
``(l) A court may remand a determination under subsection
(h)(2) only upon a clear and convincing showing that the
agency could have adopted a reasonable alternative that would
substantially increase net benefits, including through
flexible regulatory options, while meeting the objectives of
the statute as addressed by the rule making.

``SUBCHAPTER IV--EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

``Sec. 641. Definitions

``For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) the definitions under sections 551 and 621 shall
apply; and
``(2) the term `regulatory action' means any one of the
following:
``(A) An agenda or schedule for rule makings.
``(B) Advance notice of proposed rule making.
``(C) Notice of proposed rule making.
``(D) Final rule making, including interim final rule
making.

``Sec. 642. Presidential regulatory review

``(a) The President shall establish a process for the
review and coordination of Federal agency regulatory actions.
Such process shall be the responsibility of the Director.
``(b) For the purpose of carrying out the review
established under subsection (a), the Director shall--
``(1) develop and oversee uniform regulatory policies and
procedures, including those by which each agency shall comply
with the requirements of this chapter;
``(2) develop policies and procedures for the review of
regulatory actions by the Director; and
``(3) develop and oversee an annual governmentwide
regulatory planning process that shall include review of
planned agency major rules and other significant regulatory
actions and publication of--
``(A) a summary of and schedule for promulgation of planned
agency major rules;
``(B) agency specific schedules for review of existing
rules under subchapter III;
``(C) a summary of regulatory review actions undertaken in
the prior year;

[[Page S6748]]

``(D) a list of major rules promulgated in the prior year
for which an agency could not make the determinations that
the benefits of a rule justify the costs under section
623(c)(3);
``(E) identification of significant agency noncompliance
with this chapter in the prior year; and
``(F) recommendations for improving compliance with this
chapter and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
the regulatory process.
``(c) The review established under subsection (a) shall be
conducted as expeditiously as practicable and the Director's
review of any regulatory action shall be limited to no more
than 90 days, unless extended for an additional 30 days at
the written request of the rule making agency or the
Director.

``Sec. 643. Public disclosure of information

``(a) The Director, in carrying out the provisions of
section 642, shall establish procedures to provide public and
agency access to information concerning regulatory review
actions, including--
``(1) disclosure to the public on an ongoing basis of
information regarding the status of regulatory actions
undergoing review;
``(2) disclosure to the public, no later than publication
of a regulatory action, of--
``(A) all written communications relating to the substance
of a regulatory action including drafts of all proposals and
associated analyses, between the Director or employees of the
Director and the regulatory agency;
``(B) all written communications relating to the substance
of a regulatory action between the Director or employees of
the Director and any person not employed by the executive
branch of the Federal Government;
``(C) a list identifying the dates, names of individuals
involved, and subject matter discussed in substantive
meetings and telephone conversations relating to the
substance of a regulatory action between the Director or
employees of the Director and any person not employed by the
executive branch of the Federal Government; and
``(D) a written explanation of any review action and the
date of such action; and
``(3) disclosure to the regulatory agency, on a timely
basis, of--
``(A) all written communications relating to the substance
of a regulatory action between the Director or employees of
the Director and any person who is not employed by the
executive branch of the Federal Government;
``(B) a list identifying the dates, names of individuals
involved, and subject matter discussed in substantive
meetings and telephone conversations, and an invitation to
participate in meetings, relating to the substance of a
regulatory action between the Director or employees of the
Director and any person not employed by the executive branch
of the Federal Government; and
``(C) a written explanation of any review action taken
concerning an agency regulatory action.
``(b) Prior to the publication of any proposed or final
rule, the agency shall include in the rule making record--
``(1) a document identifying in a complete, clear, and
simple manner, the substantive changes between the draft
submitted to the Director for review and the rule
subsequently announced;
``(2) a document identifying those changes in the rule that
were made at the suggestion or recommendation of the
Director; and
``(3) all written communications exchanged between the
Director and the agency during the review of the rule,
including drafts of all proposals and associated analyses.

``Sec. 644. Judicial review

``The exercise of the authority granted under this
subchapter by the Director or the President shall not be
subject to judicial review in any manner.''.
(b) Presidential Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall
limit the exercise by the President of the authority and
responsibility that the President otherwise possesses under
the Constitution and other laws of the United States with
respect to regulatory policies, procedures, and programs of
departments, agencies, and offices.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Part I of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking the chapter heading and table of sections for
chapter 6 and inserting the following:

``CHAPTER 6--THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

``SUBCHAPTER I--ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

``Sec.
``601. Definitions.
``602. Regulatory agenda.
``603. Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
``604. Final regulatory flexibility analysis.
``605. Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses.
``606. Effect on other law.
``607. Preparation of analysis.
``608. Procedure for waiver or delay of completion.
``609. Procedures for gathering comments.
``610. Periodic review of rules.
``611. Judicial review.
``612. Reports and intervention rights.

``SUBCHAPTER II--REGULATORY ANALYSIS

``621. Definitions.
``622. Applicability.
``623. Regulatory analysis.
``624. Principles for risk assessments.
``625. Peer review.
``626. Deadlines for rule making.
``627. Judicial review.
``628. Guidelines, interagency coordination, and research.
``629. Comparative risk analysis study.

``SUBCHAPTER III--REVIEW OF RULES

``631. Definitions.
``632. Advisory committee on regulations.
``633. Agency regulatory review.

``SUBCHAPTER IV--EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

``641. Definitions.
``642. Presidential regulatory review.
``643. Public disclosure of information.
``644. Judicial review.''.
(2) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting immediately before section 601, the following
subchapter heading:

``SUBCHAPTER I--ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act shall
take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
but shall not apply to any agency rule for which a notice of
proposed rulemaking is published on or before August 1, 1997.

Summary of the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997

1. Regulatory Analysis (Sec. 623). When issuing major rules
(costing over $100 million or deemed by OMB to have a
significant impact on the economy), Federal agencies must
conduct a regulatory analysis, including a cost-benefit
analysis and, if relevant, a risk assessment.
a. Cost-benefit analysis. The cost-benefit analysis shall
consider: The expected benefits of the rule (quantifiable and
nonquantifiable); the expected costs of the rule
(quantifiable and nonquantifiable); reasonable alternatives,
including flexible regulatory options--such as market-based
mechanisms or outcome-oriented performance-based standards;
b. Cost-benefit determination. The agency shall include in
the statement of basis and purpose for the rule a reasonable
determination: (1) whether the rule is likely to provide
benefits that justify the costs of the rule; and (2) whether
the rule is likely to substantially achieve the rule making
objective in a more cost-effective manner, or with greater
net benefits, than the other reasonable alternatives
considered by the agency.
If the agency cannot make those determinations, it shall:
(1) explain why such determinations cannot be made; (2)
identify any statutory provision or other factor that
prevents such determinations; and (3) describe a reasonable
alternative considered by the agency, if feasible, that would
allow the agency to make such determinations.
The agency shall include an executive summary in the
regulatory analysis and in the statement of basis and purpose
for the rule.
There is an exception from the regulatory analysis
requirements when an agency must act expeditiously to address
an imminent threat to health, safety or the environment.
2. Risk assessment principles (Sec. 624). If the major rule
has the primary purpose of addressing health, safety, or
environmental risks, or results in a significant substitution
risk, the regulatory analysis must also include a risk
assessment following general statutory criteria to ensure
that the assessment is scientifically sound and transparent,
including: Identify and explain assumptions made when
measuring risks; provide appropriate opportunities for public
comment and participation during the development of the risk
assessment; disclose relevant information about the risk,
including the range and distribution of risks and
corresponding exposure scenarios, identifying the range and
distribution and likehood of risk to the general population
and any sensitive subpopulations, including the most
plausible estimates of the risks; when scientific information
permits, compare the risk being analyzed with other
reasonably comparable risks familiar to and routinely
encountered by the general public.
3. Peer review (Sec. 625). Agencies shall conduct
independent peer review for risk assessments and cost-benefit
analyses related to major rules. Peer review is not required
where the agency and OMB certify that an assessment or
analysis has previously been subjected to adequate peer
review.
4. Deadlines for rule making (Sec. 626). For two years
after the Act becomes effective, agencies are provided with a
6-month time extension from a regulatory deadline if needed
to satisfy the requirements of the Act.
5. Judicial Review (Sec. 627). Judicial review is limited
to making sure that agencies perform the cost-benefit
analyses and risk assessments for major rules. (The process
for and content of such analysis is not subject to separate
judicial review.) The cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment are to be included in the rule making record for
purposes of judicial review of the final rule under the
deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.
6. Guidelines, interagency coordination, and research
(Sec. 628). Within 9 months, OMB is required to consult with
OSTP and relevant agencies to develop broad guidelines for
risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses consistent with
the Act.
Within 18 months, each relevant agency shall develop more
detailed guidelines for risk assessments tailored to agency
programs consistent with the OMB/OSTP guidelines.

[[Page S6749]]

OMB shall consult with OSTP to coordinate and improve
agency cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment practices
and to develop a strategy to agency research and training
needs.
Within 6 months, OMB shall consult with OSTP to arrange for
research to identify and evaluate a common basis to assist
comparative risk analysis and risk communication related to
both carcinogens and noncarcinogens; and to appropriately
incorporate risk assessments into cost-benefit analyses.
7. Comparative risk analysis study (Sec. 629). OMB, in
consultation with OSTP, shall enter into a contract with an
accredited scientific institution to conduct a study that
provides a comparison of significant health, safety and
environmental risks, the methodologies for such comparisons,
and technical guidance and recommendations on the use of
comparative risk analysis to set priorities within and across
agencies.
Within 5 years, the President shall submit a report to
Congress recommending legislative changes to assist in
setting priorities to more effectively and efficiently reduce
risks to health, safety and the environment.
8. Review of Rules (Sec. Sec. 631-633). Each agency that
has issued a major rule within the last 10 years shall
establish a balanced advisory committee to recommend a list
of rules that the agency should review to increase net
benefits. Membership of the committee shall include a
balanced cross-section of the public and private interests
affected by agency regulations, including small business,
small governments, and public interest groups.
After reviewing the recommendations of the advisory group,
the agency shall develop and issue a schedule of rules to be
reviewed every 5 years, taking into account the extent of the
agencies resources to review such rules. The agency may
continue, modify or repeal the reviewed rule pursuant to
notice and comment rule making.
9. Executive Oversight (Sec. Sec. 641-644). The bill
codifies the regulatory review process and sets out
responsibilities and authority of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to develop policies and
procedures to review regulatory actions and to develop and
oversee an annual government-wide regulatory planning process
that includes the review of major rules and other significant
regulatory actions.
OIRA shall establish procedures to provide public and
agency access to information concerning regulatory review
actions.
Information to be disclosed to the public includes: the
status of regulatory actions; written communications between
OIRA and the agency on the regulatory action; written
communications between OIRA and persons outside the Executive
Branch; and a list identifying the dates, names of
individuals involved, and subject matter discussed in
meetings and telephone conversations relating to the
regulatory action between OIRA and persons not employed by
the Executive Branch.
Information to be disclosed to the regulatory agency
includes: written communications between OIRA and persons
outside the Executive Branch on a regulatory action; a list
identifying the dates, names of individuals involved, and
subject matter discussed in meetings and telephone
conversations relating to the regulatory action between OIRA
and persons not employed by the Executive Branch; and a
written explanation of any review action taken.
The agency shall include in the rule making record: a
document identifying the substantive changes between the
draft submitted to the Director for review and the rule
subsequently announced; a document identifying those changes
in the rule that were made at the suggestion or
recommendation of the Director; and all written
communications exchanged between the Director and the agency
during the review of the rule, including drafts of all
proposals and associated analyses.
10. Effective Date (Section 4). The Act shall take effect
180 days after the date of enactment, but shall not apply to
any agency rule for which a notice of proposed rule making is
published on or before August 1, 1997.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join with
Senator Levin and several of our colleagues in introducing legislation
to improve how the federal government regulates. This legislation is an
effort by some of us to devise a common solution to the problems of our
regulatory system. We have some real political differences among us,
but we all share the same goals: clean air and water, injury free
workplaces, safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good
things that can come from regulation. We also all share the goal of
avoiding regulation which unnecessarily interferes in people's lives
and businesses, which costs more than it benefits, or which--
inadvertently--causes actual harm.
I am pleased we are introducing this bill with Senators Glenn,
Abraham, Robb, Roth, Rockefeller and Stevens. They have all toiled in
the fields to improve regulation.
It was in this spirit that the legislation we are introducing today
was drafted. The Regulatory Improvement Act will promote the public's
right to know how and why agencies regulate, improve the quality of
government decisionmaking, and increase Government accountability and
responsiveness to the people it serves.
The problem is that agencies sometimes lose sight of common sense as
they create regulations. Then even well-intentioned rules can produce
disappointing results.
Consider the airbag issue that has been in the news lately. The
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration required high-
force airbags to maximize the odds of survival for adult males in
highway crashes. But the deployment force from these airbags can be so
severe that they can injure children, women, and the elderly. Senator
Kempthorne has spoken about the tragic death of a young girl from Idaho
who was decapitated when an airbag deployed during a low-impact
collision. The agency is now considering the use of an airbag cut-off
switch to avoid these tragedies. But Mr. President, tragedies like this
never should have occurred. We could have avoided needless deaths and
injuries if the agency had carefully considered the risks that high-
impact airbags pose to certain populations. I hope today's proposal
will correct mistakes like this before they occur.
A second example is the removal of asbestos from our schools and
other public buildings. Early in the 1980s, government scientists
argued that asbestos exposure could cause thousands of deaths. Congress
responded by passing a sweeping law that led cities and states to spend
nearly $20 billion to remove asbestos from public buildings. After
further research, EPA officials eventually concluded that ripping out
the asbestos had been an expensive mistake. Ironically, removing the
asbestos actually raised the risk to the public--because asbestos
fibers become airborne during removal. This mistake never would have
occurred if these increased risks had been considered in the first
place. I hope that would change under the Regulatory Improvement Act.
Finally, let me mention our Superfund requirements. Superfund was
passed with the good intention of cleaning up America's toxic waste-
sites. Unfortunately, things are not working as well as intended.
Superfund has become a legal and regulatory maze where a good 90
percent of insurers' costs and 20 percent of liable parties' costs are
spent on lawyers and consultants--not on cleaning up the environment.
We also have to ask if we are focusing on the most important
priorities. For example, Superfund imposes extremely stringent
standards for cleaning up lead in groundwater. Now, this is a good rule
in many cases, because lead can be very toxic to children. The problem
is that we may be overlooking more direct threats to children from
lead. For example, lead paint in old houses can be a greater threat to
children's health than lead that may be under some industrial site
where there are no children. Last congress, our committee heard
testimony about how the Superfund law requires groundwater in a Newark
railyard to be cleaner than drinking water--at enormous cost. Now, if
land is going to be used for industrial purposes, and no children will
be there, does this make sense? The answer may be no--those
requirements may not improve the environment much, but they may drive
businesses out of Newark. Nobody wants to open a business near a
Superfund site and risk being sued. No wonder our inner cities are
starved for jobs. In the end, we may be hurting the very people we
should be concerned about--the inner-city poor, those who already have
to live with many risks in their daily lives, those who do not have
clout here in Washington.
Virtually every serious student of the regulatory process agrees we
can do better. One study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found
that if agencies simply set their priorities in a smarter way, we could
save an additional 60,000 lives per year at no additional cost. Mr.
President, we don't have a moment to lose when we could save more
lives. We can set aside partisan politics, and we all can agree this is
the right thing to do.
Since I became chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have
been working closely with Senator Levin to forge bipartisan legislation
with three major purposes:
First, to promote the public's right to know how and why agencies
make

[[Page S6750]]

regulatory decisions. This legislation helps the public to understand
agency decisions by directing agencies to--
Allow the public to comment and participate as rules are developed;
disclose the benefits and burdens of major rules; disclose any
environmental, health and safety risks a rule is designed to reduce,
and make those risks understandable by comparing them with other risks
familiar to the public; and identify major assumptions and
uncertainties considered in creating rules.
Second, to improve the quality of government decisionmaking. Careful
thought, grounded in science, will help us to target problems and to
find better solutions. We must carefully craft new rules to be
effective and efficient. Agencies will carefully consider the benefits
and burdens of rules and use good scientific and technical information.
Agencies will seek out smarter ways to regulate, including flexible
approaches such as outcome-oriented performance standards and market
mechanisms. We must modernize and improve rules already on the books.
Independent committees will advise agencies how to revise rules to
substantially increase the benefits to the public.

And finally, to increase Government accountability to the people it
serves. The Act will require agencies to--
Clearly present regulatory proposals so the public, the Congress, and
the President can understand the problem at hand and help find a
solution; explain any legal impediment or other factor hindering the
agency from issuing cost-effective and sensible regulations, and
describe any superior alternatives; disclose realistic estimates of any
risks addressed; document changes made to proposed rules when the rules
are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]; disclose
contacts from persons outside the executive branch with OMB when it is
reviewing proposed rules, since such contacts may represent outside
influence.
Mr. President, while it is important to review what this legislation
will accomplish, it also is important to note that this proposal avoids
the contentious issues that thwarted agreement on legislation last
Congress.
First, this legislation does not contain a supermandate. That is,
while we believe that cost-benefit analysis is an important tool to
inform agency decisionmaking, the results of the cost-benefit analysis
do not trump existing law. The bill explicitly recognizes that
sometimes an agency will issue a rule that would not pass a cost-
benefit test. We only ask the agency to explain why it selected such a
rule, including any legal impediment that hindered the agency from
issuing a cost-justified rule.
Second, this bill does not contain a petition process that would
allow outside parties to sue agencies in court to change particular
rules that the litigant does not like. While we believe there are
fruitful opportunities to update and improve old rules, we do not want
to set up a review process that could create a litigation morass.
Instead of a petition process, agencies will use independent advisory
committees that would recommend a list of rules that could be improved
to substantially increase net benefits to the public. The agency would
defer to the recommendations of the advisory committee, but they could
not be dragged into court if someone wanted a different rule to be
reviewed.
Finally, this bill strikes a balanced approach to judicial review. We
allow limited judicial review under the deferential arbitrary and
capricious standard to ensure that agencies issue reasonable
regulations using the tools of cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment. But this legislation does not provide a series of trip
wires that could hinder agencies from performing their missions. In
other words, we realize the agencies may not be perfect in complying
with this law. They may make mistakes from time to time. We won't
imperil important regulations because the agency made honest mistakes.
We just ask the agency to make reasonable and honest decisions, and the
public deserves no less.
Mr. President, we are devoting vast resources to achieve our
regulatory goals. By some estimates, the annual regulatory burden is
nearly $700 billion per year--almost $7,000 for the average American
household. Our regulatory goals are too important, and our resources
are too precious, to spend this money unwisely.
The Regulatory Improvement Act will ensure that agencies conduct
better economic and scientific analysis before they issue regulations.
Government will be more open to the public, will better explain the
problem, and will consider the best available information to solve the
problem. Agencies will consider the benefits and burdens of different
regulatory alternatives so we can reach the most sensible solutions.
And agencies will modernize old rules on the books to increase the
benefits to the public. In the process, we won't sacrifice our
important national goals and values. We can make our Government more
effective, more open, and more accountable than ever.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to cosponsor the
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation, introduced today
by my colleagues Senator Carl Levin and Senator Fred Thompson, reflects
a bipartisan effort to establish a balanced, comprehensive
governmentwide standard for Federal rulemaking.
As former chairman and current ranking member of the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, I have worked for over a decade to improve the
Federal regulatory process. I must note that with me at every step has
been my good friend and colleague, Senator Carl Levin. Now, we are
joined by our new Committee Chairman, Senator Fred Thompson. I am very
happy to take part in this bipartisan effort.
Regulatory reform has seen many forms in Congress over the years,
from S. 1080 over 15 years ago, to several bipartisan bills in the
104th Congress--S. 291, our unanimous Governmental Affairs Committee
bill introduced by Senator Roth and me, the Dole-Johnston S. 343, and
the Glenn-Chafee S. 1001. While these bills differed in many ways, they
all had one thing in common, a bipartisan resolve to reform the Federal
regulatory process.
The regulatory process is important because in our system of
government, Congress relies on agency regulations to ensure the
effective implementation of the laws we enact. Improved public health
and safety and environmental protection are some of the successes
provided by this process.
Unfortunately, despite these successes, congressional oversight has
shown there are too many instances where agencies have regulated
without sufficiently analyzing the costs and benefits of regulation.
Individuals, businesses, and State and local governments pay too high a
price for such thoughtless rules. They also are often burdened by
statutory requirements that force agencies to impose overly
prescriptive requirements, unnecessary unfunded mandates, or
unjustified costs.
So, while I have supported many programs to improve health and safety
and the environment, I have also worked to improve the regulatory
process. This has involved legislation and oversight in several
different areas. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act, which we
strengthened in 1995, requires Federal agencies to reduce burdensome
information collection activities, such as forms and regulatory
reporting requirements. The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1994, which I
introduced with Senator Dirk Kempthorne, requires Congress and Federal
agencies to account for unfunded legislative and regulatory
requirements imposed on State and local governments. Most recently, I
supported enactment of the Congressional Review Act, which provides for
expedited congressional review of new regulations, so that we, as
politically accountable public representatives, can take responsibility
for implementation of the laws we enact.
These initiatives addressed several parts of the administrative
process. Still lacking is a comprehensive statutory framework for
regulatory analysis. The search for the right mix of these regulatory
analysis requirements was at the heart of the regulatory reform debate
in the early 1980's, in the last Congress, and now again, in the
legislation introduced today.
I believe that this legislation would establish the needed reforms in
a balanced and fair manner. It would require cost/benefit analysis and
risk assessment of major rules, and require periodic review of existing
rules. These basic requirements will improve regulatory decisionmaking
and ensure that

[[Page S6751]]

Congress and the public are better informed about regulatory impacts.

I believe that such regulatory reform can improve our Government and
reduce regulatory burdens without harming important public protections.
As I said many times during the debate in the last Congress, true
regulatory reform must strike a balance between the public's concern
over too much government and the public's strong support for
regulations to protect the environment, public health and safety. The
legislation developed by Senator Levin and Senator Thompson strikes
this balance. It requires:
Cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules; An agency
cost justification statement to explain whether a rule's benefits
justify its costs and whether it is more cost-effective or has more net
benefits than other alternatives. If the agency cannot make that
determination, it must explain why not, and if feasible describe an
alternative that would, if permitted, be cost justified; peer review of
cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments; OMB regulatory review, with
sunshine protections for fairness and accountability; judicial review
of relevant regulatory analyses, but only in the context of review of
the final rule and the rulemaking record; and periodic review of
existing rules.
All in all, I believe these are the necessary core elements of an
effective regulatory reform bill. Nonetheless, past debates have shown
that the devil is in the details. This legislation will be no
exception. There are several areas, in fact, that I believe should be
examined closely in committee hearings to ensure that the regulatory
process is improved and not impeded by this reform effort.
First, the legislation's most fundamental provision is the
requirement that all agency major rules must have a cost-benefit
analysis. I believe that given 16 years experience with regulatory
review under Presidential Executive order, it is appropriate to
establish a statutory bottom line that all major rules must be
accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis. While a cost-benefit analysis
should not control decisionmaking, it is a very useful tool for
decision-making, and should be used to the extent both practical and
permitted.
We need to be sure, however, that this requirement is not used to
undermine program-specific statutory requirements that may, for
example, preclude consideration of certain costs or alternatives. While
I believe that a cost-benefit analysis should be done to inform every
major rulemaking decision, if a statute requires a certain approach to
decisionmaking, the agency has to be bound by that requirement.
I think it will be very important to discuss this issue during
committee hearings and decide whether the bill's formulation is
sufficient. A more explicit savings clause may be needed. While we want
to improve decision-making, we do not want paralysis by analysis. And
we do not want to create new avenues for litigation to undermine
statutory requirements. If there is a problem with a statute, Congress
should be informed and Congress should correct the problem.
The bill's second basic requirement is for evaluating the risks that
would be addressed by a major rule. This is also a fundamental
provision, but here too, I believe it will be very important to explore
the bill's specific risk assessment language in more detail during
committee hearings. For example, while science can provide critical
data with which to inform a rulemaking decision, often times general
observations cannot be reliably reduced to single point conclusions.
Thus, I am concerned that the bill's use of the phrase ``most plausible
estimate of risk'' could lead to the arbitrary selection of a single
risk figure, when a range of risks is all that the scientific evidence
would support. I agree that agencies should not be led by speculation,
but we must not lose sight of the fact that caution is always in order
when it comes to protecting public health and safety, and the
environment.
Finally, committee hearings will also be needed to explore the
practical impact of the legislation's requirements for agency advisory
panels, both for peer review of regulatory analyses and identifying
current rules for review. These panels can provide a fair and effective
means of providing important information to agencies. But they can also
be used to unfairly sway decision-makers and obscure behind-the-scenes
lobbying. Care must be taken to ensure that such panels are broadly
representative and do not introduce undue delay or waste agency
resources. Again, our committee hearings will be important to discuss
these issues.
Senator Levin and Senator Thompson are to be commended for the work
they have done to sift through the contentious regulatory reform record
and draw out the core requirements and many of the needed details for
effective regulatory analysis. I believe we are very close to having a
bill that should pass the Senate unanimously. I support this
legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of comprehensive,
responsible reform of our regulatory process. It has been a long and
tortuous journey. Many thought it could not be done. But I'm pleased
that it has been done, and I'm pleased to join Senators Levin and
Thompson as an original sponsor of the Regulatory Improvements Act of
1997.
Efforts to reform the regulatory process began long before this
Congress, and the legislation we're introducing today is a testament to
the tenacity of Senator Levin, who has worked untiringly for
responsible changes in the regulatory process for a long time. Senator
Bumpers, as well as our former colleagues Senators Johnston, Nunn and
Heflin, toiled in these vineyards for many years.
The reason for this continued effort is clear. Regulations produce
enormous benefits for society, protecting workers, conserving our
environment, and promoting public health. But regulations also impose a
tremendous cost on society. The purpose of regulatory reform is to make
sure the benefits of the regulations warrant the costs.
According to the GAO, expenditures relating to pollution abatement
alone exceeded $110 billion in 1992. While this represents only a
portion of the costs of regulation, it provides some guidance regarding
the magnitude of regulation. If we can maintain the level of pollution
abatement, but increase the efficiency in how we attain it, consumers
will ultimately reap the benefits. And of course every dollar that a
business spends beyond what is necessary to protect us and our
resources is one less dollar that could otherwise be used to hire an
employee, or fund a pay raise, or pay for a plant expansion. Not only
will consumers benefit, but so will the economy.
Regulating in a cost-effective fashion simply makes sense. If we can
achieve the same environmental benefit for less money, or even better,
achieve more environmental benefit for the same money, then it makes
sense to do so.
While the debate over regulatory reform has in the past been
presented as a choice between the economy and the environment, there is
a responsible middle ground. If done wrong, regulatory reform could
harm the environment, but if done right, both the economy and the
environment benefit.
As noted by Vice President Gore in November 1995, in announcing one
of the administration's regulatory reform initiatives:

For decades, the American political system pitted the
economy against the environment in a false conflict.
America's business leaders were pitted against America's
environmentalists. It seemed that too often for one side to
get its way, the other side had to lose ground, and you had
to decide which side you were on, business or the
environment. Most people didn't like that choice, because
most people, in their hearts, really are on both sides and
don't see them as being in conflict.

I share the Vice President's view that we can protect both the
environment and the economy. The benefits of regulatory reform will
come primarily from relieving consumers from unnecessary costs and
strengthening people's respect for government. In addition, by
developing a responsible approach to regulatory reform, we will be able
to prove what most of us having been saying for years--that we can be
true to our principles to protect people and preserve our natural
resources without being antibusiness and antigrowth.
At the same event in 1995, President Clinton reiterated that growing
the economy and preserving our health and environment are compatible
goals. The President stated that ``protecting the

[[Page S6752]]

health and safety of our citizens doesn't have to come at the expense
of the bottom line,'' and that ``strengthening the economy doesn't have
to come at the expense of the air we breathe, the food we eat, the
water we drink.''
During the last Congress, we witnessed a massive effort to pass an
extremely broad regulatory reform bill, offered by former Senator Dole.
Whether intentional or not, that bill could have lowered the
standards regulating our health, our safety and our national resources.
In addition, that bill was too reliant on litigation to challenge the
enforcement process. For example, the process for reviewing existing
rules was driven largely by individual petitions each of which were
subject to review by a court. That bill also raised the specter that
agency rules could be overturned in court for minor procedural errors
that were unlikely to have affected the outcome of the decisionmaking
process.
The amount of litigation which would have been created by the
original bill, coupled with excessive paperwork requirements, would
have led to agency overload. Rather than focusing on producing and
enforcing regulations to benefit society, the agencies would have been
tied up in court or processing paper. And this problem would only have
been exacerbated by deep cuts proposed for many of the affected
agencies.
After the original bill failed cloture for the third time, former
Senator Johnston, Senator Levin and I and our staffs spent a great deal
of time and energy trying to find common ground. Many Senators from
both sides of the aisle were committed to reforming the regulatory
process, and we tried to use the synergy of the expertise of Senators
Levin and Johnston to develop an acceptable package. Ideas and drafts
were frankly exchanged during the many hours of meetings we held. In
between meetings, we talked to interested parties, including labor
groups, environmental groups, business groups and the administration.
The purpose of this excercise of listening and drafting was to
determine whether we could craft a responsible middle ground on
regulatory reform.
The three of us came very close to settling on a middle ground, but
eventually the Presidential campaign made it impossible to complete
action. But what evolved from that process last year laid the
groundwork for the efforts which began this Congress. With Presidential
politics safely behind us, and with a substantially lowered decibel
level, Senators Thompson and Levin were able to focus on the critical
elements and develop responsible reform. The scope of the legislation
has been narrowed to address only those issues which are essential to
improving our regulatory process.

By focusing on the essential requirements of reform, we've avoided
many of the pitfalls found in the Dole bill. By narrowing the scope,
we've also been able to concentrate our attention on those elements
which belong in a regulatory reform bill but which were not resolved
satisfactorily in the earlier bill.
For example, we improved the ``look-back process'' which provides for
the review of existing rules. The Dole bill allowed rules to be placed
on the schedule for review either through agency action or a
petitioning process reviewable by the courts. The petition process was
for those who could show that a rule would fail to meet the decisional
criteria. Each petition denied would have been separately reviewed by a
court.
The bill we're introducing today eliminates the courts from the
agency review process altogether. The question of which rules should be
reviewed will not be the subject of litigation. In my view, this is one
of the major improvements in this new version. Rather than having
courts decide, through an adversary process, which rules should be
reviewed, the bill takes a more rational approach. Under the new bill,
an advisory committee made up of a cross-section of public and private
interests affected by an agency's regulations will recommend to the
agency which rules to review. Agencies are required to give deference
to the committee's list, and undertake a review of the rules selected.
This will allow agencies to spend more of their time reviewing rules
and less of their time in court.
The most important aspect of a regulatory reform bill is how it will
change agency behavior prospectively. We want to encourage agencies to
choose the most cost-effective method for achieving the regulatory goal
and to select a rule where the benefits justify its costs whenever
possible.
Under current law, agencies are not directed to take those factors
into account. In fact, agencies are given broad discretion under
current law when developing rules to implement statutes. The only guide
an agency must use to develop rules is the language of the statute upon
which the rule is based. That is the standard against which an agency's
action will be judged if challenged in court. The agency must be able
to demonstrate that the rule satisfies the statutory requirement.
This legislation requires agencies to consider additional criteria in
developing major rules. The rule would not only have to meet the
standard contained in the statute upon which the rule is based, as
required under current law, but would also have to consider whether the
rule is the most cost-effective approach and meets a cost-benefit test.
If the agency adopts a rule which is not the most cost-effective, or
where the benefits do not justify the costs, the agency must explain
why it chose that approach. We think consumers, taxpayers, and
those subject to regulation have a right to know what benefits a
proposed rule is likely to provide, and what the costs will be to
achieve those benefits. We also think people have a right to know why
an agency would select a rule other than the most cost-effective for
meeting the objective of the statute.

The bill broadly defines ``benefits'' and ``costs,'' which provides
agencies with vast discretion. ``Benefits'' are defined as ``the
reasonably identifiable significant favorable effects, quantifiable and
nonquantifiable, including social, health, environmental, economic and
distributional effects, that are expected to result directly or
indirectly from implementation of, or compliance with, a rule.'' The
term ``costs'' is similarly defined.
As I stated at the beginning of my comments, this has been a long,
evolutionary process. But I think this legislation we are introducing
today represents a responsible approach to improving the regulatory
process. And I think it demonstrates what we can accomplish when we set
aside partisan wrangling and rely on reason rather than rhetoric to
solve complex problems such as this. Once again, I've been pleased to
be involved in this process, and I commend both Senators Levin and
Thompson for their determination to see this through to conclusion. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to improving the product and
moving this legislation through the process.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Biden):
S. 983. A bill to prohibit the sale or other transfer of highly
advanced weapons to any country in Latin America; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

THE LATIN AMERICAN ARMS CONTROL ACT OF 1997

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I come to the Senate floor to
introduce legislation designed to send a signal to the Clinton
administration that the current United States policy of banning the
sale or transfer of sophisticated fighter aircraft and other armaments
to Latin American countries--which has by and large been United States
policy for some 20 years--should not be altered.
The bill I am introducing today would call upon the President to
respect the requests of a number of Latin American leaders and
prominent political figures to maintain a moratorium on the export of
United States advanced weapons to that region. It would also prohibit
the issuances of the necessary licenses for such exports unless the
President first certificated that such sale was in the national
security interest of the United States and the Congress concurred with
that finding.
The Clinton administration is currently in the process of reviewing
that policy predominantly as a result of heavy lobbying by those who
are seeking to open up a new front for high dollar sales of state-of-
the-art defense

[[Page S6753]]

technology to countries in the Western Hemisphere--particularly those
in South America.
Mr. President, President Clinton has a record he can be proud of with
respect to the Western Hemisphere. The 1994 Summit of the Americas,
hosted by the United States, to which all but one head of state in the
hemisphere was invited, was hugely successful.
Since that time, the President, together with his colleagues
throughout the region, has endeavored to pursue the hemispheric agenda
that the region's leaders agreed to during the course of that summit--
namely to strengthen democracy, increase trade, bolster national
security and combat drug trafficking.
I would respectfully assert that were the United States to alter our
policy of arms restraint with respect to the region, we would be
undermining efforts to implement those important hemispheric
objectives. Heretofore, the President had been on the record in support
of arms restraint, particularly with respect to sales to developing
countries.
Last year, President Clinton joined with other members of the so
called G-7 countries at the Lyon Summit to underscore the importance of
developing and transition countries giving priority to avoiding
unproductive expenditures, in particular excessive military spending.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is responsible for
monitoring economic policies and balance of payments throughout the
world, has also given high priority to warning against the dangers of
arms purchases.
Most recently, on June 19, during the Article IV consultations with
the United States, where the performance of the United States economy
was reviewed, the IMF staff, ``urged the United States, together with
other major countries, to administer their policies on military sales
to developing and transition economy countries in a way that avoids
encouraging unproductive expenditures and heightening security
tensions.''
It would be the ultimate irony, after all the time and effort that
the President and his administration has expended in helping to plant
the seeds of democracy in our own hemisphere, and in so carefully
nurturing those seeds as they have germinated and bloomed, if he were
to make a decision that would undermine all of those efforts.
I believe that a decision to alter our current policy to permit the
export of highly advanced weaponry to the region would do just that.
Over the medium term it could only serve to disturb the delicate
regional military balance and thereby pose a serious threat to regional
peace and economic prosperity.
Mr. President, if you were to listen to American defense contractors
you would think that our current policy has prevented them from earning
even 1 dollar on arms sales to Latin America. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Between 1992-1995 the United States was the single
largest supplier of weapons to Latin America, capturing more than 25
percent of that market. According to the Congressional Research Service
during fiscal years 1993-1996, U.S. arms sales to Latin American
nations averaged nearly $200 million annually.
No one is suggesting that Latin American countries, or that Latin
American militaries do not have legitimate defense and national
security requirements that can only be met from foreign sources. I
would strongly argue that our current policy is absolutely compatible
with those countries being able to fulfill their legitimate
requirements.
Sales of appropriate U.S. defense articles and equipment have and
should continue.
But, collective arms restraint should also be a part of any effort by
regional leaders to prepare their armed forces for their role in the
21st century.
In that regard, I believe that the Governments of Argentina and
Brazil deserve special recognition for the very significant progress
they have made in this area.
Mr. President, the region is at peace. Democracy is the order of the
day. The demands on governments throughout the region to meet pressing
economic and social needs have never been greater while government
resources are severely constrained. Now would seem a perfect
opportunity to make real progress in reaching a regional arms control
agreement to deter future arms races, and thereby better marshal scarce
resources.
The entire region has just recently recovered from a decade of
negative growth. And, while growth is now on the upswing in many
countries, more than half of them currently have per-capita income
levels below those achieved by them 10 years ago. The educational
systems throughout the region need major infusions of resources to
prepare the children of the Americas for the next decade. Currently,
less than half of those children who enter the first grade remain in
school through the fifth grade. This is a staggering statistic and one
that needs to be changed. However, that isn't going to happen unless
government resources are devoted to this objective.
Perhaps that is why there has been no drumbeat from governments
throughout the hemisphere that President Clinton abandon our policy of
arms restraint. In fact, heads of state from Argentina, Brazil,
Uruguay, and Paraguay have publicly expressed their concerns about our
altering the current United States policy.
They know better than we do, the kinds of pressures that they will
confront from their own militaries once this proverbial cat is out of
the bag.
One military instititution after another will seek to justify demands
for more and more costly defense expenditures in order to maintain
parity with neighboring militaries--in some cases militaries that they
have been in conflict within the last 20 years--Peru and Ecuador as
recently as 1995.
I am strongly supportive of efforts designed to improve U.S. export
performance. Certainly we all want to see U.S. exports continue to
grow--exports are critical to the health of our own economy and are a
primary source of jobs for hard working American men and women.
However, I would argue that it is shortsighted on our part to push
countries in the hemisphere to divert scarce resources for
nonproductive, one-time, arms purchases.
These resources could be more wisely spent repairing badly eroded
infrastructures and on other productive investments that will reduce
unemployment in these countries and generate domestic purchasing power
that will provide for a more stable and sustainable market for U.S.
nondefense exports.
Mr. President, it is my hope that the legislation I am introducing
today will call attention to the issues and concerns I have raised
today, and hopefully will provoke a serious debate on the wisdom of
altering a policy that has worked so well to promote U.S. interests in
this hemisphere.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from former President Jimmy Carter in support of this
legislation, along with the text of the bill.
There being no objection, the bill and letter were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Latin American Arms Control
Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It has been United States policy since the Presidential
directive of May 19, 1977, to refrain from making sales or
other transfers to governments of Latin American countries of
highly advanced weapons systems that could undermine regional
military balances or stimulate an arms race.
(2) There has only been one exception to that policy, the
sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Venezuela in 1982, in
response to a perceived Cuban military buildup, including the
acquisition by Cuba of Soviet-made MIG-23 fighters.
(3) While United States defense companies have not been
able to sell highly advanced weapons to Latin America, they
are a major supplier of military equipment to the region and
hold the largest share of that market.
(4) From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1996 the
United States Government sold $789,000,000 in arms to Latin
America.
(5) In August 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher
stated that his ``strong conviction is that we should be very
careful about raising the level of competition between
countries with respect to arms sales''.
(6) There are historic hostilities and mistrust in Latin
America that can flare into serious conflict, as evidenced
most recently

[[Page S6754]]

by the 1995 border war between Peru and Ecuador that required
international efforts to resolve.
(7) For the first time in modern history, all but one
country in the Western Hemisphere is governed by
democratically elected leaders.
(8) Latin America has just recovered from a decade of
negative growth, as measured on a real per capita basis, and
18 of the countries in the Western Hemisphere currently have
per capita income levels below those achieved by them ten
years ago.
(9) Poverty and insufficient educational opportunities
continue to be a major challenge to democratic governments in
the Western Hemisphere, with less than one-half of the
children entering first grade remaining in school until grade
five, and with more than 100,000 street children in cities
throughout Latin American countries.
(10) At the meeting of the Council of Freely Elected Heads
of Government on April 29, 1997, representatives of Latin
American governments on the Council discussed the issue of
arms sales to Latin American countries, pledged to accept a
two-year moratorium on the purchase of highly advanced
weapons, called upon countries in the Western Hemisphere to
explore ideas to restrain future purchases, and called upon
the United States and other governments that sell arms to
affirm their support for such a moratorium.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

It is the sense of the Senate that the President should
respect the request of Latin American heads of government for
a two-year moratorium on the sale or other transfer of highly
advanced weapons to Latin American countries while proposals
for regional arms restraint are studied.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, under the Arms Export Control Act or any other Act--
(1) no sale or other transfer may be made of any highly
advanced weapon to any Latin American country,
(2) no license may be issued for the export of any highly
advanced weapon to any Latin American country, and
(3) no financing may be extended with respect to a sale or
export of any highly advanced weapon to a Latin American
country,

unless the requirements of subsection (b) are satisfied and
except as provided in subsection (c).
(b) Requirements.--The requirements of this subsection are
satisfied if--
(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress in
advance that the sale, transfer, or financing, as the case
may be, is necessary to further the national security
interests of the United States; and
(2) Congress has enacted a joint resolution approving the
Presidential determination.
(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any sale,
sales, financing, or license permitted by an international
agreement that provides for restraint--
(1) in the purchase of highly advanced weapons by countries
in Latin America; or
(2) in the sale or other transfer of highly advanced
weapons to countries in Latin America.

SEC. 5. DEFINITION OF HIGHLY ADVANCED WEAPONS

In this Act, the term ``highly advanced weapons'' includes
advanced combat fighter aircraft and attack helicopters but
does not include transport helicopters.
____

The Carter Center,

Atlanta, GA, June 25, 1997.
Hon. Christopher Dodd,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC.
To Senator Christopher Dodd: I have read the draft, Latin
American Arms Control Act, that you plan to introduce in the
Senate. It is a far-sighted statement, which I hope your
colleagues will endorse. Regrettably, the momentum for an
arms race in South America seems to be increasing at the very
moment that the Cold War is over and democracy has taken
root. Your bill offers an alternative to an arms race in a
way that respects Latin America.
I sincerely hope your colleagues join you in this important
endeavor at discouraging an arms race in Latin America. I
commend you for your leadership in Congress on this issue.
Let me know if there is anything else I can do to further our
shared goal.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from
Connecticut in sponsoring legislation aimed at preventing the
commencement of an arms race in Latin America.
For the past two decades, the United States has prohibited the sale
or transfer of advanced military equipment to the region. The ban,
instituted by President Carter, has been generally maintained since the
late 1970's, including during the administrations of Presidents Reagan
and Bush. The lone exception occurred in 1982, in response to a
perceived Cuban military buildup, when the United States sold F-16
fighter aircraft to the Government of Venezuela.
The ban was instituted during a different era, when many nations of
the region were under the rule of military dictators. To be sure, the
nations of Latin America have made important advances since that
period. Politically, dictatorship has given way to democracy. Every
nation of the hemisphere--with the glaring exception of Cuba--is now
governed by a democratically chosen leader. Additionally, after the
lost decade of the 1980's--a period of negative economic growth in many
nations of the region--the region is beginning to recover economically.
Indeed, the nations of the region have made tremendous progress in the
past few years, shedding the statist policies of past decades and
embracing free markets and free trade.
Although the times have changed, the need for restraint in the sale
of arms has not. First, although the region is advancing economically,
it is abundantly clear that few nations of the region can afford the
high costs that an arms race would impose. Second, an arms race in the
region would be destabilizing--not only among nations of Latin America,
but within those nations where civilian control of the military is not
yet fully consolidated. The Armed Forces remain important institutional
actors in many nations of the region; the increased emphasis on arms
procurement and arms budgets could undermine the priorities and powers
of the civilian leadership.
In the past year, there has been considerable discussion within the
Clinton administration, and among the nations of the region, about the
wisdom of lifting the U.S. ban on the sale of advanced weapons. In this
respect, it is important to note that many senior figures in Latin
America have come down on the side of restraint. In April of this year,
for example, the Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government--an
organization consisting of current and former hemispheric leaders from
leading countries in the region--called on Latin American governments
to ``accept a moratorium of two years before purchasing any
sophisticated weapons.'' In the interim, the Council urged governments
of the region to ``explore ideas to restrain such arms,'' and urged
governments that sell arms, including the United States, ``to affirm
their support for such a moratorium.''
This legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduce today would heed
that request by expressing support for such a moratorium, and banning
the transfer to the region of highly advanced weapons by the United
States, unless such transfer conforms to an international agreement
governing sales to, or purchases by, nations of the region. In other
words, if a regional arms control agreement is negotiated permitting
some sales but prohibiting others, arms transfers by the United States
would be allowed, provided such transfers conform to the arms control
agreement then in place.
It should be emphasized that this bill would not ban all sales of
military equipment to Latin America. Rather, it would merely continue,
in law, the policy and practice adhered to by the executive branch for
the past two decades: to not sell sophisticated military equipment such
as advanced combat aircraft and attack helicopters to the nations of
Latin America. It would permit U.S. firms to continue to sell other
military equipment to Latin America--a market in which the United
States now holds the largest share, and in which U.S. firms have sold a
total of nearly $800 million over the past 4 fiscal years.
Mr. President, it is the policy of the United States to promote
greater hemispheric integration--an objective pursued in the process
initiated at the Summit of the Americas, which was hosted by President
Clinton in 1994. The policy set forth in this bill advances that
objective by honoring the request of several Latin American nations
that they pursue a regional arms control approach before advanced
weapons are introduced into the region. I urge my colleagues and the
administration to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, and
Ms. Moseley-Braun) (by request):
S. 984. A bill to promote the growth of free enterprise and economic
opportunity in the Caribbean Basin region, increase trade and
investment between the Caribbean Basin region and the United States,
and encourage the adoption by Caribbean Basin countries of

[[Page S6755]]

policies necessary for participation in the free trade area of the
Americas; to the Committee on Finance.

the united states-caribbean basin trade enhancement act

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to introduce the
United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, and I am proud to
be joined by my colleagues Senators DeWine, Mack, McCain, and Moseley-
Braun.
This bill will enhance both our economic and national security, while
at the same time strengthening that of some of our closest and most
loyal neighbors and allies--the nations of the Caribbean Basin.
Over the last decade, the United States has played a vital role in
the spread of democracy and the growth of free enterprise throughout
the Western Hemisphere.
Today, every nation in the Western Hemisphere--with the notable,
lamentable exception of Cuba, where despotism and communism are taking
their last gasps of life--has a democratic government and is opening
its economy in unprecedented ways.
Democratic elections have become the norm rather than the exception,
and hemispheric trade integration is a common goal.
But we in the United States must not allow success to breed neglect.
Now is not the time to turn away from Latin America and Caribbean or
to turn our back on our backyard, something, unfortunately, that we
have done all too often in the past.
Continued attention is required to consolidate and institutionalize
these democratic and economic gains.
As we have seen recently in Haiti, economic and political instability
in the Caribbean region can have tragic consequences and impose
enormous costs to the United States.
We must remain vigilant and engaged to ensure that other nations of
the Caribbean Basin do not experience similar turmoil and tragedy.
The United States-Carribean Basin Trade Enhancement Act is part of
our effort to consolidate democracy and economic stability in the
region.
This act will bring tremendous benefits to the United States as well.
It is in both our economic and our national security interests to
enact this legislation.
It will enhance our economic security both by opening new markets for
American goods, and by strengthening the economies of our closest
neighbors.
Increased economic growth among the nations of the region will
provide growing markets for U.S. products.
The United States enjoys a trade surplus with the Caribbean Basin.
Historically, our economy has been the chief beneficiary of a
lowering of trade barriers between the Caribbean Basin and the United
States.
The United States' trade position relative to the Caribbean Basin
countries improved dramatically following the implementation of the
1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, from a deficit of $700 million in 1985
to a surplus of $2.0 billion in 1993.
On a per capita basis, our surplus with the Caribbean has
consistently outplaced our surplus with any other region of the world.
In the past 3 years alone, U.S. exports to the Caribbean Basin
countries have increased by 22.8 percent.
This act also provides incentives for continued legal and regulatory
reform that will make it easier for U.S. products to compete in the
markets of the Caribbean Basin.
By conditioning full benefits on the progress of economic reform,
this act will benefit Americans as well as the people of the Caribbean.
It will open Caribbean markets to U.S. goods and services, and expand
opportunities for U.S. businesses to enjoy the fruits of economic
expansion that is occurring in the region.
Let me give a couple of examples of ways that the incentives in this
legislation will help increase U.S. exports to the Caribbean.
First, in order to receive any benefits, a country must demonstrate
its commitment to undertake its World Trade Organization obligations on
or ahead of schedule, and it must participate in negotiations toward
the completion of a hemispheric free-trade agreement. Those are
requirements for initial participation in this program.
Second, Caribbean nations must meet certain economic requirements to
receive the full benefits of our legislation, which are only available
after the initial 3-year period.
These full benefits include equitable and reasonable market access to
U.S. companies, protection of intellectual property rights, protection
to investors and investments, aggressive action against corruption,
transparent and competitive procedures in government procurement, and
the adoption of internationally established rules on customs valuation.
This legislation also encourages our trading partners to enhance
U.S.-Caribbean cooperation in fighting drug trafficking.
Mr. President, this legislation is not a free ride. It is a two-way
street.
We are providing these nations with economic benefits, while at the
same time expecting them to take steps that will be good for American
economic interests.
This act will strengthen Caribbean economies while providing
incentives to implement reforms that will open new markets, and reduce
risk, for U.S. companies who wish to compete in the Caribbean market.
It will protect U.S. trademarks from piracy, permit U.S. companies to
compete fairly for government procurement contracts, and help to
eliminate corruption.
This is a good deal for both the United States the countries of the
Caribbean Basin.
Our security interests are also at stake here. We have seen time and
again how economic instability can foment political turmoil, which in
turn can require American political or military involvement.
In the past, as the citizens of my home State of Florida know all too
well, economic and political instability has also resulted in massive
refugee flows to the United States, which place an unfair burden on
U.S. taxpayers.
Second, the Caribbean has been one of the principal transit regions
for drug traffickers moving their poisonous cargo from the source
countries of South America.
Several years ago, our efforts at reducing drug trafficking in the
Caribbean were so successful that we diverted the traffickers to the
Southwest border.
Unfortunately, recent law enforcement efforts along the Southwest
border have resulted in intensified relocated, re-energized narcotics
trafficking in the Caribbean.
It is critical that the people of the Caribbean Basin have real
opportunities in the legal economy so they are not forced to turn to
drug trafficking to feed their families.
In addition, the recent World Trade Organization decision on bananas
could have a devastating effect on the economies of several countries
in the region, thereby exacerbating the potential for people to turn to
illegal activities.
Strengthening Caribbean economies through enhanced trade and economic
activity will help keep drugs off the streets of America, and out of
the hands of America's children.
Mr. President, trade integration will occur in this hemisphere,
whether we choose to be part of it or not.
It is in our interest to bring more countries into bilateral and
multilateral trade agreements with the United States.
If we fail to seize this opportunity, others will take our place of
leadership, and our economy will be the loser.
This legislation gives us an opportunity to set the parameters of
trade agreements, so that we can ensure that United States' interests
are secured, and that truly fair trading relationships are established.
There is no region in the world in which the United States has a
stronger and more mutually beneficial relationship than the Caribbean
Basin.
This bill will enhance our trading relationship with our neighbors
and have tremendous benefits for the United States.
I urge my colleagues to consider and support the United States-
Caribbean Trade Enhancement Act as a demonstration of our commitment to
encouraging economic and political stability and to furthering the
democratic progress that has been made in our hemisphere, and around
the world.
Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask for its
appropriate referral, and I ask unanimous consent that

[[Page S6756]]

the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 984

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``United States-Caribbean
Basin Trade Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (referred to
in this Act as ``CBERA'') represents a permanent commitment
by the United States to encourage the development of strong
democratic governments and revitalized economies in
neighboring countries in the Caribbean Basin.
(2) Thirty-four democratically elected leaders agreed at
the 1994 Summit of the Americas to conclude negotiation of a
Free Trade Area of the Americas (referred to in this Act as
``FTAA'') by the year 2005.
(3) The economic security of the countries in the Caribbean
Basin will be enhanced by the completion of the FTAA.
(4) Offering temporary benefits to Caribbean Basin
countries will enhance trade between the United States and
the Caribbean Basin, encourage development of trade and
investment policies that will facilitate participation of
Caribbean Basin countries in the FTAA, preserve the United
States commitment to Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries,
help further economic development in the Caribbean Basin
region, and accelerate the trend toward more open economies
in the region.
(5) Promotion of the growth of free enterprise and economic
opportunity in the Caribbean Basin will enhance the national
security interests of the United States.
(6) Increased trade and economic activity between the
United States and Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries will
create expanding export opportunities for United States
businesses and workers.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
(1) offer Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries willing to
prepare to become a party to the FTAA or a comparable trade
agreement, tariff treatment essentially equivalent to that
accorded to products of NAFTA countries for products not
currently eligible for duty-free treatment under the CBERA;
and
(2) seek the participation of Caribbean Basin beneficiary
countries in the FTAA or a trade agreement comparable to the
FTAA at the earliest possible date, with the goal of
achieving full participation in such agreement not later than
2005.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Beneficiary country.--The term ``beneficiary country''
has the meaning given the term in section 212(a)(1)(A) of the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C.
2702(a)(1)(A)).
(2) CBTEA.--The term ``CBTEA'' means the United States-
Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act.
(3) NAFTA.--The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American
Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States,
Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
(4) NAFTA country.--The term ``NAFTA country'' means any
country with respect to which the NAFTA is in force.
(5) WTO and wto member.--The terms ``WTO'' and ``WTO
member'' have the meanings given those terms in section 2 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).

SEC. 4. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRADE
BENEFITS TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES.

(a) Temporary Provisions.--Section 213(b) of the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) Import-Sensitive Articles.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5),
the duty-free treatment provided under this title does not
apply to--
``(A) textile and apparel articles which were not eligible
articles for purposes of this title on January 1, 1994, as
this title was in effect on that date;
``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective
date of this title as eligible articles for the purpose of
the generalized system of preferences under title V of the
Trade Act of 1974;
``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in
airtight containers;
``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum,
provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets,
and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to,
mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches
or watch parts contain any material which is the product of
any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty
apply; or
``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under
subsection (h).
``(2) Transition period treatment of certain textile and
apparel articles.--
``(A) Preferential tariff and quota treatment.--During the
transition period--
``(i) Goods originating in beneficiary country.--Clause
(iii) applies with respect to a textile or apparel article
that is a CBTEA originating good.
``(ii) Certain other goods.--Clause (iii) applies with
respect to a textile or apparel article that is imported into
the United States from a CBTEA beneficiary country and that--

``(I) is assembled in a CBTEA beneficiary country from
fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States from yarns
formed in the United States, and is imported into the United
States--

``(aa) under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
``(bb) under chapter 61, 62, or 63 of the HTS, if after
such assembly the article would have qualified for entry
under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS but for the fact the
article was subjected to stone-washing, enzyme-washing, acid-
washing, perma-pressing, oven-baking, bleaching, embroidery,
or garment-dyeing; or

``(II) is identified under subparagraph (C) as a
handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of such country and
is certified as such by the competent authority of such
country.

``(iii) Tariff treatment.--

``(I) In general.--The President shall proclaim--

``(aa) with respect to an article described in clause (i)
imported into the United States from a CBTEA beneficiary
country, a rate of duty equal to the lesser of `x' or the
amount determined by using the formula `.5(x-y) + y', in
which the terms `x' and `y' have the meanings given such
terms in subclause (IV); and
``(bb) with respect to an article described in clause (ii),
imported into the United States from a CBTEA beneficiary
country, a rate of duty equal to 50 percent of the amount of
duty that otherwise would apply to such article.

``(II) Additional reductions.--On or after the date on
which the President submits to Congress the first report
required under section 212(f), the President may proclaim
further reductions in duty for an article described in clause
(i) or (ii) that is a product of a CBTEA beneficiary country
if the President determines that the performance of the
country is satisfactory under the criteria listed in
paragraph (5)(C)(ii). The rate of duty proclaimed by the
President shall be no less than--

``(aa) with respect to an article described in clause (i),
the amount determined under subclause (III); and
``(bb) with respect to an article described in clause (ii),
zero.

``(III) Rate of duty for articles described in clause
(i).--For purposes of subclause (II)(aa), the amount of duty
that the President may proclaim under such subclause with
respect to an article described in clause (i) shall be the
lesser of--

``(aa) the rate of duty that would apply to an article at
the time of importation from a CBTEA beneficiary country but
for the enactment of the CBTEA, or
``(bb) the tariff treatment that is accorded to a like
article of Mexico under section 2 of the Annex as implemented
pursuant to United States law.

``(IV) Certain definitions.--For purposes of this clause,
the term `x' means the rate of duty described in subclause
(III)(aa) and the term `y' means the tariff treatment
described in subclause (III)(bb).

``(iv) No quantitative restrictions.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (E), no quantitative restriction or consultation
level may be applied to the importation into the United
States of any textile or apparel article that--

``(I) is a CBTEA originating good, or
``(II) qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under
clause (ii)(I) or (II).

``(B) Transition period treatment of certain nonoriginating
textile and apparel articles.--
``(i) Request for preferential tariff treatment.--At any
time during the transition period, an interested United
States person may submit in writing to the President a
request that the President proclaim preferential tariff
treatment described in clauses (iii) and (iv) with respect to
any eligible textile or apparel article described in clause
(ii). Upon receiving the request, the President shall
determine promptly whether the article is eligible for
preferential tariff treatment. If the President determines
that the article is eligible for preferential treatment, the
President shall proclaim such treatment with respect to the
article. If the President does not make a determination
within 120 days after the date a request is received, the
request shall be treated as approved and all articles listed
in the request that are described in clause (ii) shall be
accorded the preferential treatment described in clauses
(iii) and (iv).
``(ii) Eligible articles.--An article is described in this
clause if it is an apparel article provided for in chapter 61
or 62 of the HTS and if--

``(I) it is a product of a CBTEA beneficiary country but
does not qualify as a CBTEA originating good;
``(II) it is an article described in the same 8-digit
subheading of the HTS as an article that would be eligible
for the preferential tariff treatment under Appendix 6.B of
the Annex, as implemented pursuant to United States law, if
the article were imported from Mexico in quantities that are
less than or equal to the quantities specified in Schedule
6.B.1; and
``(III) the President determines that--

``(aa) the fabric from which the article is made is not
commercially available from producers in the United States,
or

[[Page S6757]]

``(bb) if the article is knit-to-shape in a CBTEA
beneficiary country, the yarn from which it is knit is not
commercially available from producers in the United States.
``(iii) Preferential tariff treatment.--The amount of duty
imposed during the transition period on an article receiving
preferential tariff treatment under this subparagraph shall
be identical to the tariff treatment that would apply to the
article under subparagraph (A)(iii) if the article were a
CBTEA originating good.
``(iv) Quantity of eligible articles receiving preferential
treatment.--In any 12-month period, the quantity of eligible
articles in any category imported from a CBTEA beneficiary
country that may receive the preferential tariff treatment
described in clause (iii) may not exceed ten percent of the
quantity of articles in such category imported from such
country under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS, excluding
articles that qualified for preferential tariff treatment
under subparagraph (A)(ii) (or would have qualified for such
treatment if that paragraph had been in effect with respect
to imports of such articles from such country), in the
preceding 12-month period.
``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the President, after
consultation with the CBTEA beneficiary country concerned,
shall determine which, if any, particular textile and apparel
goods of the country shall be treated as being handloomed,
handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described in section
2.3 (a), (b), or (c) or Appendix 3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
``(D) Transition period adjustment of existing quantitative
restrictions.--
``(i) In general.--During the transition period, the
President, after negotiating with the CBTEA beneficiary
country concerned, may reduce the quantities of textile and
apparel articles that can be imported into the United States
from that country under existing quantitative restrictions to
reflect the quantities of textile and apparel articles from
such country that are exempt from quota restrictions pursuant
to subparagraph (A)(iv).
``(ii) Transshipments.--Whenever the President finds, based
on sufficient evidence, that transshipment within the meaning
of clause (iii) has occurred, the President, after
consultations with the CBTEA beneficiary countries through
whose territories the President finds transshipment to have
occurred, may reduce the quantities of textile and apparel
articles that can be imported into the United States from
each such country by such amount as the President determines.
``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the
meaning of this clause has occurred when preferential tariff
treatment for a textile or apparel article under subparagraph
(A) or (B) has been claimed on the basis of material false
information concerning the country of origin, manufacture,
processing, or assembly of the article or any of its
components. For purposes of this clause, false information is
material if disclosure of the true information would mean or
would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for
preferential tariff treatment under subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
``(i) In general.--The President may take--

``(I) bilateral emergency tariff actions of a kind
described in section 4 of the Annex with respect to any
textile or apparel article imported from a CBTEA beneficiary
country if the application of tariff treatment under
subparagraph (A) to such article results in conditions that
would be cause for the taking of such actions under such
section 4 with respect to a like article described in the
same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is imported from
Mexico; or
``(II) bilateral emergency quantitative restriction actions
of a kind described in section 5 of the Annex with respect to
imports of any textile or apparel article of a CBTEA
beneficiary country, including articles eligible for
preferential tariff treatment under subparagraph (A), if the
importation of such an article into the United States results
in conditions that would be cause for the taking of such
actions under such section 5 with respect to a like article
described in the same 8-digit subheading of the HTS that is
imported from Mexico.

``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For
purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this
subparagraph--

``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the
Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
``(II) the term `transition period' in sections 4 and 5 of
the Annex shall have the meaning given that term in paragraph
(5)(G) of this subsection;
``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4
or 5 of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the
President requests consultations with the beneficiary country
in question and the country does not agree to consult within
the time period specified under section 4 or 5, whichever is
applicable;
``(IV) during the first 14 months after imports commence
from a CBTEA beneficiary country under paragraph (2)(A) (or
recommence because of a redesignation of such country), the
minimum quantity of any textile or apparel article from such
country subject to quantitative restrictions may be
determined under paragraph 7 of section 5 of the Annex based
on a reasonable estimate (using available data where
possible) of the quantity of such articles imported from such
country during the relevant period (as defined in such
paragraph 7) that did not qualify or would not have qualified
as originating goods; and
``(V) after the 14-month period described in subclause
(IV), the minimum quantity of articles subject to such
quantitative restrictions shall be determined under paragraph
7 of section 5 of the Annex based on the most recently
available Bureau of the Census import statistics.

``(3) Preferential tariff treatment of certain other
articles originating in cbtea beneficiary countries.--
``(A) In general.--During the transition period, the
President shall proclaim a rate of duty, with respect to any
article referred to in any of subparagraphs (B) through (F)
of paragraph (1) that is a CBTEA originating good, equal to
the lesser of--
``(i) `x', or
``(ii) the amount determined by using the formula `.5(x-y)
+ y'.

For purposes of the preceding sentence, the terms `x' and `y'
have the meanings given such terms in subparagraph (C).
``(B) Additional reductions.--
``(i) In general.--On or after the date on which the
President submits to Congress the first report required under
section 212(f), the President may proclaim further reductions
in the rate of duty for any article described in subparagraph
(A) in accordance with this subparagraph if the President
determines that the performance of the country is
satisfactory under the criteria listed in paragraph
(5)(C)(ii).
``(ii) Rate of duty.--The rate of duty proclaimed by the
President under this subparagraph shall be no less than the
lesser of--

``(I) the rate of duty that would apply to the article at
the time of importation from the country but for the
enactment of the CBTEA, or
``(II) the tariff treatment that is accorded a like article
of Mexico under Annex 302.2 of NAFTA as implemented pursuant
to United States law.

``(C) Certain definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `x' means the rate of duty described in
subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) and the term `y' means the tariff
treatment described in subparagraph (B)(ii)(II).
``(D) Exception.--Paragraphs (A) and (B) do not apply to
any article accorded duty-free treatment under U.S. Note 2(b)
to subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS.
``(E) Relationship to duty reductions under subsection
(h).--If at any time during the transition period the rate of
duty that would (but for action taken under subparagraph (A)
or (B)) apply with respect to any article under subsection
(h) is a rate of duty that is lower than the rate of duty
resulting from such action, then such lower rate of duty
shall be applied.
``(4) Customs procedures.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential
tariff treatment under paragraph (2) or (3) shall comply with
customs procedures similar in all material respects to the
requirements of Article 502(1) of the NAFTA as implemented
pursuant to United States law, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(ii) Determination.--In order to qualify for such
preferential tariff treatment and for a Certificate of Origin
to be valid with respect to any article for which such
treatment is claimed, there shall be in effect a
determination by the President that--

``(I) the CBTEA beneficiary country from which the article
is exported, and
``(II) each CBTEA beneficiary country in which materials
used in the production of the article originate or undergo
production that contributes to a claim that the article is a
CBTEA originating good, has implemented and follows, or is
making substantial progress toward implementing and
following, procedures and requirements similar in all
material respects to the relevant procedures and requirements
under chapter 5 of the NAFTA.

``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin
that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions
of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an
article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such
Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503
of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law),
if the article were imported from Mexico.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the
NAFTA.
``(B) Category.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(B)(iv),
`category' means a category that is described in the most
current edition of the Correlation: Textile and Apparel
Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States, prepared by the Department of Commerce.
``(C) CBTEA beneficiary country.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA beneficiary country'
means any `beneficiary country', as defined by section
212(a)(1)(A) of this title, which the President determines
has demonstrated a commitment to--

``(I) undertake its obligations under the WTO on or ahead
of schedule;
``(II) participate in negotiations toward the completion of
the FTAA or a comparable trade agreement; and

[[Page S6758]]

``(III) undertake other steps necessary for that country to
become a party to the FTAA or a comparable trade agreement.

``(ii) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination under clause (i), the President may consider
the criteria in sections 212(b) and (c) and other appropriate
criteria, including--

``(I) the extent to which the country follows accepted
rules of international trade provided for under the
agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;

``(II) the extent to which the country provides protection
of intellectual property rights--

``(aa) in accordance with standards established in the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights described in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act;
``(bb) in accordance with standards established in chapter
17 of the NAFTA; and
``(cc) by granting the holders of copyrights the ability to
control the importation and sale of products that embody
copyrighted works, extending the period set forth in Article
1711(6) of NAFTA for protecting test data for agricultural
chemicals to 10 years, protecting trademarks regardless of
their subsequent designation as geographic indications, and
providing enforcement against the importation of infringing
products at the border;

``(III) the extent to which the country provides
protections to investors and investments of the United States
substantially equivalent to those set forth in chapter 11 of
the NAFTA;
``(IV) the extent to which the country provides the United
States and other WTO members nondiscriminatory, equitable,
and reasonable market access with respect to the products for
which benefits are provided under paragraphs (2) and (3), and
in other relevant product sectors as determined by the
President;
``(V) the extent to which the country provides
internationally recognized worker rights, including--

``(aa) the right of association,
``(bb) the right to organize and bargain collectively,
``(cc) prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or
compulsory labor,
``(dd) a minimum age for the employment of children, and
``(ee) acceptable conditions of work with respect to
minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and
health;

``(VI) the extent to which the country adopts, maintains,
and effectively enforces laws providing for high levels of
environmental protection;
``(VII) whether the country has met the counter-narcotics
certification criteria set forth in section 490 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for eligibility for United
States assistance;
``(VIII) the extent to which the country becomes a party to
and implements the Inter-American Convention Against
Corruption, and becomes party to a convention regarding the
extradition of its nationals.
``(IX) the extent to which the country enters into and
implements an agreement with the United States for the
exchange of tax information, as described in section
274(h)(6)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code;
``(X) the extent to which the country--

``(aa) supports the multilateral and regional objectives of
the United States with respect to government procurement,
including the negotiation of government procurement
provisions as part of the FTAA and conclusion of a WTO
transparency agreement as provided in the declaration of the
WTO Ministerial Conference held in Singapore on December 9-
13, 1996, and
``(bb) applies transparent and competitive procedures in
government procurement equivalent to those contained in the
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (described in section
101(d)(17) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act);

``(XI) the extent to which the country follows the rules on
customs valuation set forth in the WTO Agreement on
Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (described in
section 101(d)(8) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act);
``(XII) the extent to which the country affords to products
of the United States which the President determines to be of
commercial importance to the United States with respect to
such country, and on a nondiscriminatory basis to like
products of other WTO members, tariff treatment that is no
less favorable than the most favorable tariff treatment
provided by the country to any other country pursuant to any
free trade agreement to which such country is a party, other
than the Central American Common Market or the Caribbean
Community and Common Market.

``(D) CBTEA originating good.--
``(i) In general.--The term `CBTEA originating good' means
a good that meets the rules of origin for a good set forth in
chapter 4 of the NAFTA as implemented pursuant to United
States law, and, in the case of a good described in Appendix
6.A of the Annex, the requirements stated in Appendix 6.A as
implemented pursuant to United States law.
``(ii) Application of chapter 4 and annex 6.a.--In applying
chapter 4 and Appendix 6.A with respect to a CBTEA
beneficiary country for purposes of this subsection--

``(I) no country other than the United States and a CBTEA
beneficiary country may be treated as being a party to the
NAFTA;
``(II) any reference to trade between the United States and
Mexico shall be deemed to refer to trade between the United
States and a CBTEA beneficiary country;
``(III) any reference to a party shall be deemed to refer
to a CBTEA beneficiary country or the United States; and
``(IV) any reference to parties shall be deemed to refer to
any combination of CBTEA beneficiary countries or to the
United States and a CBTEA beneficiary country (or any
combination thereof).

``(E) Interested united states person.--For purposes of
paragraph (2)(B)(i), the term 'interested United States
person' means--
``(i) a person doing business in the United States as--

``(I) an importer of wearing apparel or fabric piece goods,
or
``(II) a producer of wearing apparel, or

``(ii) a labor union representing workers employed in the
United States in the production of wearing apparel.
``(F) Textile or apparel article.--The term `textile or
apparel article' means any article referred to in paragraph
(1)(A) that is a good listed in Appendix 1.1 of the Annex.
``(G) Transition period.--The term `transition period'
means, with respect to a CBTEA beneficiary country, the
period that begins on the date of enactment of the CBTEA and
ends on the earlier of--
``(i) September 30, 2005, or
``(ii) the date on which the FTAA or a comparable trade
agreement enters into force with respect to the United States
and the CBTEA beneficiary country.
``(H) CBTEA.--The term `CBTEA' means the United States-
Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act.
``(I) FTAA.--The term `FTAA' means the Free Trade Area of
the Americas.''.
(b) Determination Regarding Retention of Designation.--
Section 212(e) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(19 U.S.C. 2702(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(B) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
(C) by striking ``would be barred'' and all that follows
through the end period and inserting: ``no longer satisfies
one or more of the conditions for designation as a
beneficiary country set forth in subsection (b) or such
country fails adequately to meet one or more of the criteria
set forth in subsection (c).''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The President may, after the requirements of
subsection (a)(2) and paragraph (2) have been met--
``(i) withdraw or suspend the designation of any country as
a CBTEA beneficiary country, or
``(ii) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of
preferential tariff treatment under section 213(b)(2) and (3)
to any article of any country, if, after such designation,
the President determines that as a result of changed
circumstances, the performance of such country is not
satisfactory under the criteria set forth in section
213(b)(5)(C).''; and
(2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) If preferential treatment under section 213(b)(2) and
(3) is withdrawn, suspended, or limited with respect to a
CBTEA beneficiary country, such country shall not be deemed
to be a `party' for the purposes of applying section
213(b)(5)(D) to imports of articles for which preferential
treatment has been withdrawn, suspended, or limited with
respect to such country.''.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--Section 212(f) of the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(f)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(f) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than December 15,
2000, and at the end of each 3-year period thereafter, the
President shall submit to Congress a report regarding the
operation of this title, including--
``(1) with respect to subsections (b) and (c), the results
of a general review of beneficiary countries based on the
considerations described in such subsections; and
``(2) the performance of each CBTEA beneficiary country
with respect to the criteria set forth in section
213(b)(5)(C)(ii).''.
(d) International Trade Commission Reports.--
(1) Section 215(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section referred to as the `Commission')
shall submit to Congress and the President, biennial reports
regarding the economic impact of this title on United States
industries and consumers.
``(2) First report.--The first report shall be submitted
not later than September 30 of the year following the year in
which the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act is enacted.
No report shall be required under this section after
September 30, 2005.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.--For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(2) Section 206(a) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3204(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Reporting Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The United States International Trade
Commission (in this section

[[Page S6759]]

referred to as the `Commission') shall submit to Congress and
the President, biennial reports regarding the economic impact
of this title on United States industries and consumers, and,
in conjunction with other agencies, the effectiveness of this
title in promoting drug-related crop eradication and crop
substitution efforts of the beneficiary countries.
``(2) Submission.--During the period that this title is in
effect, the report required by paragraph (1) shall be
submitted on September 30 of each year that the report
required by section 215 of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act is not submitted.
``(3) Treatment of puerto rico, etc.-- For purposes of this
section, industries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the insular possessions of the United States are considered
to be United States industries.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--Section 213(a)(1) of the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)(1))
is amended by inserting ``and except as provided in
subsection (b) (2) and (3)'' after ``Tax Reform Act of
1986,''.

SEC. 5. ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Section 212(c) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(19 U.S.C. 2702(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following flush sentence:

``Notwithstanding any other law, the President may determine
that a country is not providing adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights under paragraph
(9), even if the country is in compliance with the country's
obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights described in section 101(d)(15)
of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3511(d)(15)).''.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

Section 212(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(D) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade
Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and
Canada on December 17, 1992.
``(E) The terms `WTO' and `WTO member' have the meanings
given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).''.
______

By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr.
Hollings):
S. 985. A bill to designate the post office located at 194 Ward
Street in Paterson, NJ, as the ``Larry Doby Post Office''; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.

larry doby post office legislation

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Lautenberg
to jointly recognize Larry Doby, the first African-American player in
the American League. Mr. Doby's lifelong dedication to major league
baseball, his community, and his country is truly remarkable and must
be recognized. As an ambassador for baseball, Mr. Doby has served the
league for nearly 20 years as a player, as a coach, and currently as a
special assistant to the president of the American League.
Mr. Doby, born in Camden, SC, later moved to Paterson, NJ, where he
starred in four sports and ultimately garnered numerous offers for
athletic scholarships toward his higher education. Although Larry Doby
accepted an offer to play basketball for Long Island University, his
collegiate athletic career was shortened as he enlisted in the U.S.
Navy to serve our country in World War II. Following World War II, Doby
played for the Negro League Newark Eagles, where he led the league with
a batting average of .458 and 13 home runs.
Some of Larry Doby's major league baseball accomplishments include
being the first African-American player in the American League, the
first African-American player on a world series team, and the second
African-American to manage in the major leagues. Mr. Doby will be
recognized by major league baseball at the all-star game in Cleveland.
The naming of this post office in Larry Doby's honor in his hometown of
Paterson would be a fitting tribute to this great American.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 985

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Larry Eugene Doby was born in Camden, South Carolina,
on December 12, 1923, and moved to Paterson, New Jersey, in
1938.
(2) After playing the 1946 season in the Negro League for
the Newark Eagles, Larry Doby's contract was purchased by the
Cleveland Indians of the American League on July 3, 1947.
(3) On July 5, 1957, Larry Doby became the first African-
American to play in the American League.
(4) Larry Doby played in the American League for 13 years,
appearing in 1,533 games and batting .283, with 253 home runs
and 969 runs batted in.
(5) Larry Doby was voted to 7 all-star teams, led the
American League in home runs twice, and played in 2 World
Series. He was the first African-American to play in the
World Series and to hit a home run in a World Series game,
both in 1948.
(6) Larry Doby was recognized for his remarkable
achievements in baseball with his induction into the Baseball
Hall of Fame in 1987.
(7) After his stellar playing career ended, Larry Doby
continued to make a significant contribution to his
community. He has been a pioneer in the cause of civil rights
and has received honorary doctorate degrees from Long Island
University, Princeton University, and Fairfield University.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF LARRY DOBY POST OFFICE.

(A) In General.--The post office located at 194 Ward Street
in Paterson, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the
``Larry Doby Post Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
post office referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to
be a reference to the ``Larry Doby Post Office''.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join with my friend and
colleague, Senator Bob Torricelli, in introducing a bill to name a U.S.
post office in my hometown of Paterson, NJ after a true American hero,
Larry Eugene Doby.
Mr. President, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the breaking of
major league baseball's color barrier. In April 1947, Jackie Robinson
played his first game with the National League's Brooklyn Dodgers and
ended segregation in our national pastime; simultaneously, he entered
America's pantheon of heroes.
While we rightfully honor Mr. Robinson, we cannot forget that heroes
rarely fight their battles alone. Larry Doby is one of those heroes.
Only 11 weeks after Jackie Robinson first graced a major league
diamond, Larry Doby of Paterson, NJ took the field with the Cleveland
Indians, becoming the first African-American player in the American
League. Once on the team, he brought an ability and level of
consistency to the game that few could match. He was the first African-
American player to hit a home run in the world series, and he was named
to six straight American League all-star teams. During his 13 year
career, he attained a .283 lifetime batting average and hit 253 home
runs.
Mr. President, the day Larry Doby first took the field was definitely
a great day for baseball enthusiasts. Millions of fans were able to
enjoy the excitement he brought to the plate and the skill he brought
to the field.
But it was also a great day for every American. Along with Robinson's
earlier integration of the National League, Doby's joining the American
League was a double play against racism and inequality. And in the
early years it wasn't easy. Doby had to meet the challenges of the
game, while also facing sometimes angry opponents. But whether he was
faced with a curve ball hurled by an opposing pitcher, or a foul remark
hurled by a bigoted fan, he handled it with dignity, grace, and skill.
Because of the manner in which he handled such adversity, he not only
tore down the walls of exclusion, he also opened the windows of
opportunity for many other African-American players, who followed him
into the major leagues. Thanks to his example, we all learned that, in
the words of Martin Luther King, ``We must judge a person on the
content of his character, and not the color of his skin.''
Mr. President, Larry Doby is rightfully called a legend for his
consistency on the field and a hero for his character off the field.
But I have the privilege of also calling him a friend. We grew up
together on the working class streets of Paterson. As a baseball fan,
an American and a friend, I admire the contributions that Larry made to
both the game of baseball and to the struggle for equality.
When it comes to Larry, others may have filled his uniform, but no
one will ever be able to fill his shoes. Above all, Larry Doby proves
that good and great can exist in the same individual.

[[Page S6760]]

Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator
Torricelli and me in celebrating Larry Doby by gracing the post office
located at 194 Ward Street in Paterson, NJ with his name.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S.J. Res. 34. A joint resolution suspending the certification
procedures under section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1991
in order to foster greater multilateral cooperation in international
counternarcotics programs; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a joint resolution
on behalf of myself and Senator John McCain which we believe will lead
to more cooperative and effective efforts to meet the international
threat posed by international drug trafficking.
The resolution that we are introducing today calls upon the President
to establish a high level, interdisciplinary task force under the
direction of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, to develop a comprehensive strategy for
dealing with the supply and demand side of the drug problem.
It also urges the President to encourage other drug producing and
transit countries to undertake similar efforts. Within a year's time it
calls for an international summit to be held, at which time, the
efforts of all the parties would be merged into a multilateral battle
plan to engage the illegal drug trade on every front.
In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual
respect that must be present if this effort is to produce results, the
resolution would also suspend the annual drug certification procedure
for a period of 2 years, while efforts are ongoing to develop and
implement a new strategy.
As you know, Mr. President, the issue of how best to construct and
implement an effective counter narcotics policy has been the subject of
much debate in this Chamber, and I would add much disagreement.
My intention in introducing this resolution today is to try to see if
there is some way to end what has become a stale annual event that has
not brought us any closer to mounting a credible effort to eliminate or
even contain the international drug mafia.
We all can agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We can
agree as well that the international drug trade poses a direct threat
to the United States and to international efforts to promote democracy,
economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the
world, but most especially in our own hemisphere.
While the international impact is serious and of great concern, of
even greater concern to me personally are effects it is having here at
home. Today, approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs,
including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, and
9,800,000 smokers of marijuana. This menace isn't just confined to
inner cities or the poor. Illegal drug use occurs among members of
every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States.
The human and economic costs are enormous: Drug related illness,
death, and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion in
1996, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and
incarceration.
This is an enormously lucrative business--drug trafficking generates
estimated revenues of $400 billion annually.
The United States has spent more than $25 billion for foreign
interdictions and source country counter narcotics programs since 1981,
and despite impressive seizures at the border, on the high seas, and in
other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily available
in the United States today than two decades ago.
So, despite the fact that we have had this drug certification
procedure in place since 1986--more than 10 years--drugs continue to
pour into this country and to wreak havoc on our families and
communities.
I think it is time to be honest and admit our international drug
strategy isn't working and that means the entire certification process.
Nor are efforts to revise the certification process to make it easier,
politically, for the U.S. Congress to stick a finger in the eye of
other governments by unilaterally grading them, likely to materially
improve the situation--especially when we are not prepared to subject
ourselves to similar unilateral grading by others.
Rather, I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who
share our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the very fabric
of their societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the
only Nation that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and
figure out what each of us can do better to make it harder for drug
traffickers to ply their trade. It is in that spirit that I commend the
resolution that Senator McCain and I are introducing today to our
colleagues.
Together, working collectively we can defeat the traffickers. But if
we expend our energies playing the blame game, we are certainly not
going to effectively address this threat.
We aren't going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked
on drugs, or one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by
some drug crazed thief.
I would urge my colleagues to give some thought and attention to our
legislative initiative. We believe it is worthy of support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 34

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DRUG CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The international drug trade poses a direct threat to
the United States and to international efforts to promote
democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of
law.
(2) The United States has a vital national interest in
combating the financial and other resources of the
multinational drug cartels, which resources threaten the
integrity of political and financial institutions both in the
United States and abroad.
(3) Approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs,
including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts,
and 9,800,000 marijuana users.
(4) Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic
and socioeconomic group in the United States.
(5) Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the United
States approximately $67,000,000,000 in 1996, including costs
for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
(6) Worldwide drug trafficking generates revenues estimated
at $400,000,000,000 annually.
(7) The United States has spent more than $25,000,000,000
for drug interdiction and source country counternarcotics
programs since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the
border, on the high seas, and in other countries, illegal
drugs from foreign sources are cheaper and more readily
available in the United States today than 20 years ago.
(8) The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971
Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances form the legal framework for
international drug control cooperation.
(9) The United Nations International Drug Control Program,
the International Narcotics Control Board, and the
Organization of American States can play important roles in
facilitating the development and implementation of more
effective multilateral programs to combat both domestic and
international drug trafficking and consumption.
(10) The annual certification process required by section
490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j),
which has been in effect since 1986, has failed to foster
bilateral or multilateral cooperation with United States
counternarcotics programs because its provisions are vague
and inconsistently applied and fail to acknowledge that
United States narcotics programs have not been fully
effective in combating consumption or trafficking in illegal
drugs, and related crimes, in the United States.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) existing United States domestic and international
counternarcotics program have not reduced the supply of
illegal drugs or significantly reduced domestic consumption
of such drugs;
(2) The President should appoint a high level task force of
foreign policy experts, law enforcement officials, and drug
specialists to develop a comprehensive program for addressing
domestic and international drug trafficking and drug
consumption and related crimes, with particular attention to
fashioning a multilateral framework for improving
international cooperation in combating illegal drug
trafficking, and should designate the Director of the Office
of National Drug Policy to chair the task force;

[[Page S6761]]

(3) the President should call upon the heads of state of
major illicit drug producing countries, major drug transit
countries, and major money laundering countries to establish
similar high level task forces to work in coordination with
the United States; and
(4) not later than one year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the President should call for the convening of an
international summit of all interested governments to be
hosted by the Organization of American States or another
international organization mutually agreed to by the parties,
for the purpose of reviewing the findings and recommendations
of the task forces referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) and
adopting a counternarcotics plan of action for each country.
(c) Suspension of Drug Certification Process.--(1) Section
490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j),
relating to annual certification procedures for assistance
for certain drug-producing and drug-transit countries, shall
not apply in 1998 and 1999.
(2) The President may waive the applicability of that
section in 2000 if the President determines that the waiver
would facilitate the enhancement of the United States
international narcotics control programs.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and friend,
Senator Dodd, in introducing a joint resolution calling on the
President to take concrete steps to increase the level of international
cooperation in combating the flow of narcotics into this country, and
to lead America toward coming to grips with the domestic demand that is
tearing this country apart while enriching the drug cartels of Latin
America and our own organized crime groups.
This legislation acknowledges the problems endemic in waging the war
on drugs while domestic demand continues to remain high. It further
recognizes the failure of numerous previous efforts at stemming the
flow of illegal narcotics. It consequently expresses the sense of
Congress that the President should appoint a high level task force, to
be chaired by the Director of the Office of National Drug Policy, to
establish a framework for improving international cooperation in these
efforts. Finally, and of particular importance, it suspends for 2 years
the process by which countries are certified as cooperating in the war
on drug.
The drug problem in this country dates at least as far back as the
Civil War, when wounded soldiers were turned into morphine addicts as
the only way to deaden the horrific pain caused from battle and
disease. The problem grew to such an extent that President Nixon felt
compelled to establish the Drug Enforcement Administration in order to
better coordinate the antidrug effort. President Reagan assigned Vice
President Bush to oversee a major escalation in the war on drugs, a war
carried on at considerable monetary cost throughout the Bush
administration. President Clinton, to his credit, appointed perhaps our
finest ``drug czar'' in Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has waged the drug
war as valiantly as he led troops in combat during Desert Storm.
And still, the flow of illegal narcotics continues virtually
unimpeded. Record-breaking seizures serve mainly to remind us of how
much more is getting through our porous borders undetected. Street
prices alert us to the failure of our best efforts at putting a dent in
the problem of drug trafficking. To the extent that one area, for
example, cocaine, is tackled with any degree of success, another bigger
problem--the resurgence of heroin abuse comes to mind--rises up in its
place. Clearly, it is time to step back again and look more critically
at every facet of the problem.
I do not believe ``chicken-and-egg'' debates about which problem,
supply or demand, should take higher priority serve any useful purpose.
The bill we are offering today addresses both problems. Nor I believe
the certification process has accomplished its intended goal any more
than such processes ever really do irrespective of the subject matter.
In fact, the decision by the White House to decertify Colombia, which
has waged a valiant and costly--in both lives and treasure--struggle
against extremely powerful and ruthless cartels while recertifying
Mexico, whose law enforcement agencies are so rife with corruption that
that country's equivalent of General McCaffrey was arrested for drug-
related crimes, illuminates all too well the impracticality of the
current process.
It is easy to argue that the drug problem has been studied to death.
It has not, however, been examined from the perspective, and at the
level, recommended in this resolution. If I believed for a second that
this resolution represented just another attempt at studying the
problem of drugs, I would not have attached my name to it. The
recommended steps, however, combined with the suspension of the drug
certification process, constitute a real and meaningful effort at
focusing the Nation's attention on one of our most serious problems.
Drugs are, in every sense of the word, a scourge upon our society. We
must take a comprehensive, sober look at the scale of the problem and
what realistically can be done about it. We must do this domestically
and internationally. We must, once and for all, wage the war on drugs
as though we intend to prevail. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate
and the House of Representatives will support this legislation.

____________________