[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1598-S1605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1591. A bill to prohibit campaign expenditures for services of 
lobbyists, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


                   CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES LEGISLATION

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, recently the Congress was 
successful in passing legislation that would ban gifts from Members and 
staff and put a wall between lobbyists who seek to curry special favor 
by the giving of gifts. Unfortunately, recent news articles have 
exposed a loophole that some have sought to exploit. Specifically, some 
lobbyists have served as fundraisers for Members of Congress and sought 
to increase their influence by means of coordinating campaign 
contributions
  Mr. President, this practice must stop. Registered lobbyists who work 
for campaigns as fundraisers clearly represent a conflict of interest. 
When a campaign employs an individual who also lobbies that Member, the 
perception of undue and unfair influence is raised. This legislation 
would stop such practices.
  This bill would ban a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee 
from paying registered lobbyists. Additionally, the bill would mandate 
that any contributions made by a registered lobbyist be reported by 
such individual when he or she files his or her lobbying disclosure 
report as mandated by the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  Mr. President, this bill is not aimed at any individual, but instead 
at a practice that has come to light. It is also not meant in any way 
to impugn anyone's integrity or good name. But it does seek to end a 
practice that is giving the Congress as a whole a bad name.
  These two small changes in law represent a substantial effort to 
close any loopholes that exist in our lobbying and gift laws. The 
Congress has begun to make great strides to restore the public's 
confidence in this institution. We must continue that good work.
  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. 1591

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF FECA.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a 
     candidate and the candidate's authorized committees shall not 
     make disbursements for any services rendered by, any 
     individual if such individual, was required to register as a 
     lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1601 et seq.).''.
       (b) Reporting.--Section 304(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) for an authorized committee, an identification, 
     including the name and address, of any lobbyist (as that term 
     is defined in section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602)) who provided services to the authorized 
     committee, regardless of whether disbursements were made for 
     such services.''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995.

       Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the amount and date of each contribution by the 
     registrant to a candidate, or an authorized committee (as 
     that term is defined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) of a candidate, for the 
     office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs, Boxer, 
        Ms. Snowe, Mr. Simon, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1592. A bill to strike the prohibition on the transmission of 
abortion-related matters, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                   the comstock clean-up act of 1996

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Snowe, 
Moseley-Braun, Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Simon, and myself, today I am 
introducing legislation, the Comstock Clean-up Act, to repeal a law 
that prohibits the transmission of abortion-related information over 
the Internet and through the mail.
  Mr. President, freedom of speech is among the most fundamental of 
democratic rights. Yet the recently-enacted telecommunications bill 
include a little-noticed provision that directly violates this basic 
principle.
  The provision applies to the Internet an archaic law known as the 
Comstock Act. The Comstock Act prohibits the interstate transport of 
materials that provide information about abortion, or the interstate 
transport of drugs or devices that are used to perform abortions. These 
prohibitions were first enacted in 1873, and they have been on the 
books ever since. Under the law, first-time violators are subject to a 
fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison.
  Mr. President, these prohibitions almost certainly are 
unconstitutional. And, fortunately, President Clinton has said that his 
Justice Department will not enforce them.

[[Page S1599]]

  Yet many users of the Internet are concerned, and understandably so. 
After all, Bill Clinton is a pro-choice President. But what if Pat 
Buchanan wins the Presidency? Or Bob Dole? Zealous prosecutors in their 
administrations might well use the new law to harass people who are 
pro-choice, and to chill speech about abortion over the Internet.
  In other words, if you distribute information about abortion over the 
Internet today, there's no assurance that you won't be prosecuted next 
year.
  Mr. President, anyone prosecuted under this law almost certainly 
would be able to successfully challenge its constitutionality. Yet who 
wants to be the one innocent American who's forced to defend hereself 
against the power of the U.S. Government? The costs of defending 
oneself in a criminal case often are enormous. And many Internet users 
will be unwilling to risk being a test case. Current law therefore 
threatens to have a severe chilling effect on abortion-related speech.
  Over the past few years, numerous pro-choice groups, such as the 
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and Planned 
Parenthood, have established home pages on the world wide web. These 
home pages provide important information about birth control, women's 
health, and abortion.
  Women can also obtain information about clinics in their area over 
the Internet. Within the last month and a half alone, over 1,500 people 
have accessed such an Internet site. Under this new law, these 1,500 
persons potentially could have been arrested, fiend up to $250,000, or 
sent to prison for five years.
  Mr. President, this law adversely affects people on both sides of the 
abortion issue. Groups opposed to abortion are at risk when they mail 
information about abortion providers, just as are those who support 
abortion rights. All Americans should be able to freely discuss 
abortion-related matters, no matter how they might feel about this 
issue.
  So this bill would repeal the prohibition against the interstate 
transportation of drugs and articles that produce abortions and the 
dissemination of abortion-related information across State lines. It 
also would repeal a prohibiton against mailing information about 
abortions, abortion providers and articles or drugs that produce 
abortions.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 
both sides of the abortion debate join me in support of this 
legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, and 
related materials, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1592

       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 ``Comstock Clean-up Act of 
     1996''.

     SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN ABORTION-
                   RELATED MATTERS.

       Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (c).

     SEC. 3. MAILING OF ABORTION-RELATED MATTERS.

       Section 1461 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``; and--'' and all that follows through ``Is 
     declared'' and inserting ``is declared''.
                                                                    ____



                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                Washington, DC., February 9, 1996.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: On February 7, 1996, a lawsuit was filed 
     challenging the constitutionality of a provision of 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1462, as amended by section 507(a)(1) of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996. Sanger, et al. v. Reno, Civ. 
     No. 96-0526 (E.D.N.Y.). Yesterday, a second lawsuit was 
     filed, raising the same challenge to Sec. 1462 along with 
     claims that several other provisions of the 
     Telecommunications Act are unconstitutional. American Civil 
     Liberties Union, et al. v. Reno, Civ. No. 96-963 (E.D. Pa.). 
     This letter relates solely to the claims regarding Sec. 1462, 
     as amended. Plaintiffs in both cases allege that Sec. 1462, 
     as amended, violates the First Amendment insofar as it 
     prohibits the interstate transmission of certain 
     communications regarding abortion via common carrier or via 
     an interactive computer service.
       This is to inform you that the Department of Justice will 
     not defend the constitutionality of the abortion-related 
     speech provision of Sec. 1462 in those cases, in light of the 
     Department's longstanding policy to decline to enforce the 
     abortion-related speech prohibitions in Sec. 1462 (and in 
     related statutes, i.e., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1461 and 39 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3001) because they are unconstitutional under the First 
     Amendment.
       In 1981, Attorney General Civiletti informed the Speaker of 
     the House and the President of the Senate that it was the 
     policy of the Department of Justice to refrain from enforcing 
     similar speech prohibitions in two cognate statutes--39 
     U.S.C. Sec. 3001 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1461--with respect to 
     ``cases of truthful and non-deceptive documents containing 
     information on how to obtain a lawful abortion.'' Letter to 
     Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti to the Hon. Thomas P. 
     O'Neill, Jr., at 2 (Jan. 13, 1981). According to the Attorney 
     General, there was ``no doubt'' that those statutes were 
     unconstitutional as applied to such speech. Id. at 1. The 
     Attorney General left open the possibility that the two 
     statutes might still be applied to certain abortion-related 
     commercial speech. Id. at 3. Two years later, the Supreme 
     Court held that Sec. 3001 cannot constitutionally be applied 
     to commercial speech concerning contraception, at least not 
     where the speech in question is truthful and not 
     misleading. Bolger v. Youngs Drug products Corp., 463 U.S. 
     60 (1983). The holding in Bolger would apply equally with 
     respect to abortion-related commercial speech. See Bigelow 
     v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975).
       Section 1462 is subject to the same constitutional defect 
     as Sec. Sec. 1461 and 3001 with respect to its application to 
     abortion-related speech and information.\1\ As a result of 
     the Department's conclusion that prosecution of abortion-
     related speech under Sec. 1462 and related statutes would 
     violate the First Amendment, the Department's longstanding 
     policy has been to decline to enforce those statutes with 
     respect to that speech. What is more, we are not aware of any 
     reported decision reflecting a prosecution of abortion-
     related speech under Sec. 1462.
       Nothing in the Telecommunications Act provides any reason 
     to alter the Department of Justice's nonenforcement policy. 
     In his signing statement yesterday, the President stated:

       I . . . object to the provision in the Act concerning the 
     transmittal of abortion-related speech and information. 
     Current law, 18 U.S.C. 1462, prohibits transmittal of this 
     information by certain means, and the Act would extend that 
     law to cover transmittal by interactive computer services. 
     The Department of Justice has advised me of its longstanding 
     policy that this and related abortion provisions in current 
     law are unconstitutional and will not be enforced because 
     they violate the First Amendment. The Department has reviewed 
     this provision of S. 652 and advises me that it provides no 
     basis for altering that policy. Therefore, the Department 
     will continue to decline to enforce that provision of current 
     law, amended by this legislation, as applied to abortion-
     related speech.

       The principal function of Sec. 1462 is to prohibit the 
     interstate carriage of ``obscene, lewd, lascivious, . . . 
     filthy . . . [and] indecent'' materials. See Sec. 1462(a). 
     The Supreme Court has construed this prohibition to be 
     limited to materials that meet the test of ``obscenity'' 
     announced in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).\2\ 
     Congress's express purpose in enacting the amendment to 
     Sec. 1462 in Telecommunications Act Sec. 507 was to 
     ``clarify[]'' that obscene materials cannot be transmitted 
     interstate via interactive computer services.\3\ In this 
     respect, Sec. 1462 and its amendment in Sec. 507 are 
     constitutionally unobjectionable, and the Department will 
     continue to enforce Sec. 1462 with respect to the transmittal 
     of obscenity.
       However, Sec. 1462 also prohibits the interstate 
     transmission of certain communications regarding abortion. As 
     amended by Sec. 507 of the Telecommunications Act, Sec. 1462 
     provides, in pertinent part, that it shall be a felony to:

     knowingly use[] any express company or other common carrier 
     or interactive computer service . . .  for carriage in 
     interstate or foreign commerce [of] . . .
       (c) any . . . written or printed card, letter, circular, 
     book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving 
     information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, 
     or by what means any [drug, medicine, article, or thing 
     designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion] may be 
     obtained or made.

     Thus, on its face, Sec. 1462 prohibits the use of an 
     interactive computer service for ``carriage in interstate . . 
     . commerce'' of any information concerning ``any drug, 
     medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended 
     for producing abortion.'' \4\
       It plainly would be unconstitutional to enforce Sec. 1462 
     with respect to speech or information concerning abortion, 
     because the restriction on abortion-related speech is 
     impermissibly content-based. This conclusion is confirmed 
     by the judicial and Executive Branch treatment of similar 
     prohibitions on speech concerning abortion and 
     contraception, contained in two cognate statutes, 39 
     U.S.C. Sec. 3001 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1461. Section 3001 
     provides that abortion and contraception-related speech is 
     ``nonmailable''; and Sec. 1461 makes such mailing subject 
     to criminal sanctions. In 1972, a district court declared 
     that Sec. 3001 was unconstitutional insofar as it rendered 
     abortion-related speech ``nonmailable.'' Atlanta Coop. 
     News Project v. United States Postal Serv., 350 F. Supp. 
     234, 238-39 (N.D. Ga. 1972).\5\ The next year, another 
     district court declared both Sec. 3001 and Sec. 1461 
     unconstitutional as applied to noncommercial

[[Page S1600]]

     speech concerning abortion and contraception. Associated 
     Students for Univ. of California at Riverside v. Attorney 
     General, 368 F.Supp. 11, 21-24 (C.D. Calif. 1973). As the 
     Attorney General later explained to the Congress, the 
     Solicitor General declined to appeal the decisions in 
     Atlanta Coop. News Project and Associated Students ``on 
     the ground that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1461 and 39 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3001(e) were constitutionally indefensible'' as 
     applied to abortion-related speech. See Letter of Attorney 
     General Benjamin R. Civiletti to the Hon. Thomas P. 
     O'Neill, Jr., at 2 (Jan. 13, 1981). And, as explained 
     above, in 1981 the Attorney General informed the Congress 
     that the Department of Justice would decline to enforce 
     Sec. Sec. 1461 and 3001 in cases of truthful and non-
     deceptive documents containing information on how to 
     obtain a lawful abortion.
       Nothing in recent Supreme Court law respecting the First 
     Amendment has affected the conclusions reached by the 
     district courts in Atlanta Coop. News Project and Associated 
     Students, the 1981 opinion of Attorney General Civiletti, or 
     the Supreme Court's decision in Bolger. Indeed, the Supreme 
     Court on several recent occasions has strongly reaffirmed the 
     principle that the First Amendment, subject only to narrow 
     and well-understood exceptions not applicable here, ``does 
     not countenance governmental control over the content of 
     messages expressed by private individuals.'' Turner 
     Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 2458-59 
     (1994) (citing R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 
     (1992); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)).
       In the Sanger case, Judge Sifton yesterday denied 
     plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order after 
     the United States Attorney represented that the Department's 
     policy is to decline to enforce the pertinent provision of 
     Sec. 1462. Judge Sifton further ruled that a three-judge 
     court hearing on any dispositive motions will be convened 
     next month, after briefing. In the ACLU case before Judge 
     Buckwalter, the Government is due to respond to a motion for 
     a TRO on February 14, 1996. In accordance with the practice 
     of the Department, I am informing the Congress that in 
     neither case will the Department of Justice defend the 
     constitutionality of the provision of Sec. 1462 that 
     prohibits speech concerning abortion.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

                               Footnotes

       \1\ The only material difference between Sec. 1462 and the 
     cognate prohibitions in Sec. Sec. 1461 and 3001 is that 
     Sec. 1462 regulates interstate ``carriage'' of information by 
     common carrier, rather than dissemination of that information 
     through the mail. This distinction is not material to the 
     constitutional issue in this context.
       \2\ See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 114 (1974); 
     United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 145 (1973), United 
     States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm Film, 413 U.S. 123, 
     130 n.7 (1973).
       \3\ The Conference Committee on the Telecommunications Act 
     noted that Sec. 507 is intended to address the use of 
     computers to sell or distribute ``obscene'' material. Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference at 77, 
     reprinted in 142 Cong. Rec. H1130 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 1996).
       \4\ The Conference Committee Report on the 
     Telecommunications Act explicitly notes that the prohibitions 
     in Sec. 1462 apply regardless of whether the purpose for 
     distributing the material in question is commercial or non-
     commercial in nature. Joint Explanatory Statement of the 
     Committee of Conference at 77, reprinted in 142 Cong. Rec. 
     H1130 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 1996).
       \5\ That court did not reach the merits of the challenge to 
     the criminal prohibition in Sec. 1461 because the plaintiffs 
     in that case were not threatened with prosecution. Id. at 
     239.
                                                                    ____

                                                   NARAL Promoting


                                         Reproductive Choices,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg. I am writing to lend NARAL's 
     strong support to legislation your introducing today which 
     seeks to delete the ban on abortion-related speech from the 
     1873 Comstock Law governing the importation or transportation 
     of obscene matters. A little noticed provision in the 
     recently passed 1996 Telecommunications Act resurrects and 
     expands the 123 year old law, making it a federal crime to 
     use interactive computer systems to provide or receive 
     information about abortion.
       As an organization committed to ensuring that American 
     women have access to all information relating to reproductive 
     health care services, we and other pro-choice organizations 
     have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York to 
     block this criminal ban on abortion related speech on the 
     Internet.
       Millions of Americans use the Internet to communicate with 
     other Americans and to read information on a wide range of 
     topics. The Internet provides an unprecedented opportunity to 
     provide critical information about women's reproductive 
     rights and health. Without swift passage of your legislation, 
     millions of American women could lose access to vital 
     information they need to make informed, responsible decisions 
     about their reproductive health. I applaud your efforts to 
     remove this anachronistic ban on abortion-related speech and 
     your commitment to ensuring that American women have access 
     to vital reproductive health care information.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kate Michelman,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                       The Center for Reproductive


                                               Law and Policy,

                                      New York, NY, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     Senate Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the Center for 
     Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP), I am writing to support 
     your effort to repeal the ban on abortion information on the 
     Internet found in 18 U.S.C. 1462(c). CRLP, an independent 
     non-profit legal organization dedicated to preserving and 
     ensuring women's access to reproductive health and rights, 
     represents the plaintiffs in Sanger v. Reno, a federal case 
     challenging this ban.
       18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462(c) is an affront to the First Amendment 
     rights of our plaintiffs, as well as all reproductive health 
     care professionals, women's civil rights activists, students, 
     and particularly women seeking information in order to make 
     comprehensive reproductive health care decisions. 18 U.S.C. 
     1462(c)'s ban on abortion information on the Internet is 
     broad enough to encompass a wide range of activities, 
     including advertisement of abortions services; transmission 
     of chemical formulas for drugs that can be used to induce 
     abortion; purchase or sale of medical equipment used in 
     abortion procedures; and computer bulletin boards or World 
     Wide Web sites that tell women where they can obtain 
     abortions.
       While anti-choice forces promote coercive so-called 
     ``informed consent'' laws requiring health care professionals 
     to recite a litany of unwanted and misleading information to 
     women seeking abortions, they simultaneously enact provisions 
     such as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462(c) which deny women access to 
     real health care information about abortion.
       18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462(c) must be repealed. Not only does it 
     threaten the First Amendment, jeopardize free flow of medical 
     information, and exclude issues critical to women from new 
     communications technology, it also reflects a broader agenda 
     to drive abortion underground by characterizing this health 
     care as an illicit procedure.
       For these reasons, we applaud your efforts to repeal 
     Sec. 1462(c) as a necessary step toward safeguarding women's 
     health and providing women the information they need to make 
     thoughtful and responsible health care decisions.
           Sincerely,
     Kathryn Kolbert.
                                                                    ____

                                                Planned Parenthood


                                       of New York City, Inc.,

                                  New York, NY, February 27, 1996.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We thank you for introducing 
     critical legislation to repeal the ``abortion gag rule'' 
     portion of the Telecommunications Act.
       We are gratified that pro-choice leaders like you are 
     battling this misguided attempt to turn back the clock 80 
     years--to 1916, when the Comstock Law was used to jail my 
     grandmother and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. 
     It is shocking to realize that I, too, could be jailed for 
     violating the same law, having published on the Internet our 
     brochure ``How to Find A Safe Abortion Clinic.'' At times 
     like these it is reassuring to know that we can count on some 
     voices of reason in Congress: those who understand that the 
     freedom to speak about sexual and reproductive health issues, 
     including information on safe abortion services are rights 
     protected by our Constitution.
       Planned Parenthood of New York City deeply appreciates your 
     courageous stance to protect and advance the rights of all 
     Americans. We stand ready to help you in any way we can, and 
     hope you will call on us to do so.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alexander C. Sanger,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                           California Abortion and


                            Reproductive Rights Action League,

                             San Francisco, CA, February 26, 1996.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the California 
     Abortion and Reproductive Rights League-North (CARAL-North), 
     I am writing in support of legislative efforts to amend the 
     Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. 1462, by striking subsection (c) 
     dealing with the transportation of certain abortion-related 
     matters.
       CARAL-North is one of the plaintiffs in Sanger v. Reno, the 
     lawsuit challenging recently enacted restrictions on the 
     dissemination of information and material about abortion. 
     CARLA-North maintains a site on the World Wide Web and uses 
     the Internet to provide information about abortion and 
     reproductive rights--activities proscribed under the Comstock 
     Act as amended by the telecommunications bill recently passed 
     by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
       CARAL-North believes that the protection of women's health 
     and women's rights requires the greatest possible 
     availability of information about where, when and how women 
     can obtain safe and legal abortions. Legislation like 18 
     U.S.C. 1462(c)--which restricts or prohibits the spread of 
     such information and the transport of materials used

[[Page S1601]]

     in performing legal, accepted medical procedures--has no 
     place in this society.
       CARAL-North commends your work to protect women's rights 
     and health by removing this barrier to reproductive health, 
     and thanks you.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ann G. Daniels,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                        The Feminist Majority,

                                     Arlington, VA, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, 506 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the Feminist 
     Majority, I am writing to support your effort to repeal the 
     ban on abortion information on the Internet found in 18 
     U.S.C. 1462(c). The Feminist Majority is one of the 
     plaintiffs in the Sanger v. Reno case, a federal case 
     challenging this ban.
       Use of 18 U.S.C. 1462(c) is an affront to the First 
     Amendment rights of the Feminist Majority and the other 
     plaintiffs, as well as all reproductive health care 
     professionals, women's civil rights activists, students, and 
     particularly women seeking information in order to make 
     comprehensive reproductive health care decisions. 18 U.S.C. 
     1462(c) is broad enough to encompass a wide range of 
     activities, including advertisement of abortion services over 
     the Internet; Internet transmission of chemical formulas for 
     drugs that can be used to induce abortion; purchase or sale 
     of medical equipment used in abortion procedures over the 
     Internet; and computer bulletin boards or World Wide Web 
     sites that tell women where they can obtain abortions.
       While anti-choice forces promote coercive so-called 
     ``informed consent'' laws requiring health care professionals 
     to recite a litany of unwanted and misleading information to 
     women seeking abortions, they simultaneously promote 
     provisions such as 18 U.S.C. 1462(c) which deny women access 
     to real health care information about abortion. The ban must 
     be repealed not only because it threatens the First 
     Amendment, jeopardizes the free flow of medical information, 
     and excludes issues critical to women from new communications 
     technology, but also because it is part of a broader agenda 
     to drive abortion underground by characterizing this health 
     care as an illicit procedure.
       For these reasons, we applaud your efforts to repeal 
     Section 1462(c) with the Freedom to Choose Internet 
     Information Act of 1996 as a necessary step toward 
     safeguarding women's health and providing women the 
     information they need to make thoughtful and responsible 
     health care decisions. Thank you for your courage in 
     undertaking this repeal effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Eleanor Smeal,
                                                President.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 1593. A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide 
for the appointment of two Deputy Directors of Central Intelligence, to 
strengthen the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence over 
elements of the Intelligence Community, and for other purposes; to the 
Select Committee on Intelligence.


               the intelligence organization act of 1996

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition, reasonably briefly, 
to introduce legislation proposed by the Brown Commission on the 
reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community.
  The Brown Commission, which filed its report last Friday, March 1, 
today testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I 
chair, and, as a courtesy, Senator Kerrey, the distinguished vice 
chairman of the committee, and I are introducing their legislative 
package.
  The Brown Commission came to some very important conclusions, many of 
which I agree with, some of which I do not agree with.
  I think they made an important statement on the need for continuing 
U.S. intelligence activities because there are still many dangers in 
the world, notwithstanding the demise of the Soviet Union. They have 
taken a step to eliminate secrecy by their recommendation on the 
disclosure of the total Intelligence Committee budget, a position 
adopted on the floor of this body several years ago but overturned in 
conference. The suggestion, I think, is very, very important as a start 
on declassification. My sense has been, in so many documents that 
crossed my desk as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, many are 
classified that need not be classified. As we have seen from the recent 
slush fund in the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, there is a 
need for public scrutiny, investigative reporting, so we have a better 
idea as to what is going on in the intelligence community. Where there 
is a need for secrecy--and I think the presumption ought to be in favor 
of secrecy, but it ought not to be absolute--if there is a need for 
secrecy, then let us maintain that secrecy, but let us not do so as a 
matter of rote, only as a matter of reason.
  The Brown Commission came to the conclusion that the Director of 
Central Intelligence needs to have his or her hand strengthened. 
Senator Kerrey and I agree with that. But there is considerable feeling 
on the Intelligence Committee that we need to go further on that 
particular line.
  When the Brown Commission says that an enormous amount of 
intelligence community work ought to stay in the Department of Defense, 
I have grave reservations about that. It is true that the Department of 
Defense is the customer and the Department of Defense provides a great 
deal of the resources. But, if you have agencies like NRO, NSA, and so 
much of HUMINT--human intelligence--remaining under the Department of 
Defense, it does not give the Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency the authority that he needs to really be able to operate.
  One of the very serious problems in the intelligence community today 
is an attitudinal problem. We saw that in the Aldrich Ames matter. We 
have seen it in the investigation on Guatemala, where, in a hearing, 
one of our Members, Senator Cohen, was very blunt in an open hearing 
saying that the CIA had lied in withholding information from the 
oversight committee.
  Testimony was taken by the committee from a veteran of the CIA on the 
issue of Soviet domination in sending tainted material back to the CIA, 
which the CIA had known to be tainted, controlled by Soviet sources, 
and yet that information was passed on to the highest levels, one key 
bit of information going to the White House in January of 1993 for both 
the President and the President-elect.
  When questioned by the Intelligence Committee, this ranking, ex-CIA 
official said, ``Well, we pass it on. We know better than the 
customers. If we told them it was tainted, they wouldn't use it.'' 
Really, an incomprehensible sort of a situation.
  I think Director Deutch has done a very good job in his few months at 
the CIA. He faces a very, very difficult situation. When he concurred 
in testimony before the commission as to a Guatemala incident, that 
there had been willful failure to disclose, he later changed that view 
in a letter to the Intelligence Committee a few days later, showing the 
difficulties of being the Director of the CIA compared with a more 
independent role or at least a different role than the Senate 
Intelligence Committee has.
  We also heard testimony today from former Senator, former majority 
leader Howard Baker of a very important nature, including Senator 
Baker's recommendation that there be a combination of the Senate and 
the House Intelligence Committees, a recommendation that at least 
preliminarily I agree with. We will have to pursue it and have 
hearings. But it is more than worth considering. It is something that 
really is an idea whose time, probably, has come. I am just limiting 
the final decision until we do have a hearing process and collaborate 
with our counterparts in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, today Senator Robert Kerrey and I are 
introducing legislation as a courtesy to the Commission on the Roles 
and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community. In August 
1994, the Senate adopted a provision establishing this Commission to 
``review the efficacy and appropriateness of the activities of the 
United States Intelligence Community in the post-cold-war global 
environment.'' On March 1, 1996, the Commission submitted its report, 
entitled ``Preparing for the 21st Century, An Appraisal of U.S. 
Intelligence.'' In addition, the Commission submitted proposed 
legislation to implement some of its proposals. We are introducing the 
Commission's proposed legislative package today at their request. It is 
our hope that other Members of the Senate and the public at large can 
participate fully in the upcoming debate on this important issue. 
Moreover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence intends to use 
this legislation, and other Commission recommendations, as a basis for 
additional proposals of the committee.
  The legislation proposed by the Commission would make a number of

[[Page S1602]]

changes in the way the intelligence community is organized and managed. 
First, it replaces the current Deputy Director of Intelligence with two 
new Deputies: one to manage the community and one to manage the Central 
Intelligence Agency. In addition, it amends the National Security Act 
to require DCI concurrence with respect to the appointment by the 
Secretary of Defense of the heads of the National Security Agency 
[NSA], the Central Imagery Office [CIO], and the National 
Reconnaissance Office [NRO]. In addition, its requires consultation 
with the DCI by the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Energy, as well 
as the Director of FBI, before the appointment of the heads of the 
intelligence elements within these agencies. This bill also mandates 
that the DCI provide to the Secretary of Defense an evaluation of the 
performance of the heads of NSA, NRO and the proposed National Imagery 
and Mapping Agency. The Commission's legislation also replaces the 
National Intelligence Council with a National Assessments Center that 
would remain under the purview of the DCI but would be located outside 
the CIA to take advantage of a broader range of information and 
expertise.
  The most extensive aspect of this legislation is that which addresses 
personnel issues. The Commission is proposing new legislative authority 
for the most severely affected intelligence agencies, for 1 year, to 
``rightsize'' their work forces to the needs of their organization. 
Agencies wishing to downsize by at least 10 percent over and above the 
current congressionally mandated levels would identify positions to be 
eliminated ``in order to achieve more effectively and efficiently the 
mission of the agencies concerned.'' The incumbents of such positions, 
if close to retirement, would be allowed to retire with accelerated 
eligibility. If not close to retirement, they would be provided 
generous pay and benefits to leave the service of the agency concerned, 
or, with the concurrence of the agency affected, exchange positions 
with an employee not in a position identified for elimination who was 
close to retirement and would be allowed to leave under the accelerated 
retirement provisions. This bill also creates a single ``senior 
executive service'' for the intelligence community under the overall 
management of the DCI.
  The Commission did an excellent job identifying the key issues and 
the Vice Chairman and I agree with some of their recommendations, 
particularly regarding institutional mechanisms for getting the 
policymakers more involved in identifying and prioritizing their 
information needs and for addressing transnational threats, ways to 
improve intelligence analysis, and the need to enhance accountability 
and oversight--to include declassifying the aggregate amount 
appropriated for the intelligence budget. The committee also will 
consider the Commission's recommendation to make the Select Committee 
on Intelligence a standing committee. However, I believe that the 
Commission did not go far enough in some areas.
  The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union have 
dramatic implications for U.S. intelligence efforts. The demands for 
rapid responses to diverse threats in a rapidly changing world 
necessitate a steamlined intelligence community and a DCI with clear 
lines of authority. This is lacking in the intelligence bureaucracy 
that emerged during the bipolar world of the cold war.
  As the Commission noted: ``The Intelligence Community * * * has 
evolved over nearly 50 years and now amounts to a confederation of 
separate agencies and activities with distinctly different histories, 
missions, and lines of command.'' Recognizing the pitfalls of 
decentralized intelligence--less attention devoted to non-Defense 
requirements, waste and duplication, the absence of objective 
evaluation of performance and ability to correct shortcomings, and loss 
of synergy--the Commission supported centralized management of the 
intelligence community by the DCI. The Commission concluded, however, 
that the DCI has all the authority needed to accomplish this objective 
of centralized management, if only he spent less time on CIA matters 
and had the budget presented to him in a clearer fashion.
  It is my sense that the current disincentives for intelligence to 
operate as a community, reduce unnecessary waste and duplication, and 
become more effective and efficient in meeting the Nation's needs can 
only be overcome by enhancing the DCI's statutory authority over the 
budget and administration of all nontactical intelligence activities 
and programs. A key issue for congressional oversight of the 
intelligence community is accountability. It has become increasingly 
clear that a single manager, the DCI, must be accountable for the 
success or failure of the intelligence community. Therefore, the DCI 
must be given the authorities he needs to carry out this 
responsibility.
  For example, the Commission recommends that the DCI concur in the 
appointment or recommendation of the heads of national intelligence 
elements within the Department of Defense, and be consulted with 
respect to the appointment of other senior officials within the 
intelligence community. We believe the DCI should recommend the 
appointment of all national agency heads, with concurrence from the 
heads of the parent organizations. Along these lines, the heads of the 
major collection agencies should be confirmed to that position; today 
they are confirmed only with respect to their promotion to the rank 
designated for each position.
  The Commission noted in its report: ``The annual budgets for U.S. 
intelligence organizations constitute one of the principal vehicles for 
managing intelligence activities, * * *. How effectively and 
efficiently the intelligence community operates is to a large degree a 
function of how these budgets are put together and how they are 
approved and implemented.'' I agree with this assessment and conclude 
that the DCI must have ultimate control over the formulation and 
execution of these budgets if he or she is to effectively manage the 
intelligence community.
  The Select Committee on Intelligence will consider these and other 
alternative proposals over the upcoming weeks as we move toward mark-up 
of legislation to renew and reform the U.S. intelligence community to 
meet the challenges of our changing world.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Chairman Specter 
to introduce legislation. We are embarking on a course to change the 
U.S. intelligence community, and this legislation is the chart upon 
which we will be marking that course.
  Over a year ago, Congress created a Presidential commission to 
evaluate the intelligence community's ability to respond to a rapidly 
changing world. Sadly, the commission's first chairman, the Honorable 
Les Aspin, passed away after he had ably established the Commission and 
they had started their work. We owe many debts of gratitude to Les 
Aspin, and this legislation is one more example of the fine work he did 
in the service of his country.
  Chairman Harold Brown and our former colleague, Vice Chairman Warren 
Rudman, quickly took the helm, and the Commission embarked on almost a 
year's evaluation of the U.S. Government's intelligence needs and the 
intelligence community's ability to meet those needs. We are especially 
grateful to our able colleagues, Senator John Warner and Senator Jim 
Exon, who played important and active roles in the Commission's work. 
Their broad base of experience coupled with the other Commission 
members' outstanding credentials permitted a wide variety of views and 
ideas to come together. There are no assumptions here. They looked wide 
and deep. They interviewed over 200 experts and received formal 
testimony from 84 witnesses. It was a remarkable effort which has 
produced a significant report. I do not concur with all their 
recommendations, and there are some areas in which they do not go as 
far as I would. I look on their report as a solid base upon which 
Congress and the administration can build.
  For me, one of the most important results of their evaluation is 
their reaffirmation of the need for intelligence. Intelligence 
contributes heavily to most of our national decisions about foreign 
policy, law enforcement, and military matters. I am convinced 
intelligence is the edge we must have in the face of stiff global 
competition for leadership, and as our Government fulfills its 
responsibility to protect Americans in an increasingly dangerous world. 
The Brown Commission clearly explains why this is so.

[[Page S1603]]

  The Brown Commission recognized the world today is very different 
from the world which existed while the Intelligence Community was 
growing up. Confronted with the overwhelming military threat of the 
Soviet Union, the intelligence community responded by organizing itself 
to examine every part of that military threat as best as it could. 
While some critics argue that the intelligence community missed the big 
ones--the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet economy--
there is no question the United States was ably informed on the 
Soviet Union's military threat. But that threat, while still capable of 
attacking us, is receding.

  Today, the threats, facing the United States do not initially present 
themselves as military threats--although if we fail to recognize them 
in time, we have to deploy our military when nothing else works. The 
erosion of nation-state power in many places, the rise of transnational 
movements and global crime, and the fierce economic competition we 
face, have together created a new set of threats that are not military 
soluble.
  Insight and predictive analysis is as important in charting the 
American course in this new world as it was in the old world of 
superpower military confrontation. We must make sure the intelligence 
community is optimally organized for this new world. That is why I urge 
consideration of the Brown Commission report, and why the Intelligence 
Committee will take up these and other reform proposals in the months 
ahead.
  The Brown Commission establishes three recurring themes about 
intelligence: The need to better integrate intelligence into the policy 
community; the need for intelligence agencies to operate as a 
community; the need to create greater efficiency. These themes are 
clearly discernible and they also are quite consistent with a large 
segment of the public's view on intelligence: Something is wrong. If 
everything was all right, we wouldn't have a heinous spy like Aldrich 
Ames; we wouldn't have missed the fall of the wall or the collapse of 
the Soviet Union; we wouldn't have a palace for an NRO headquarters 
building; we wouldn't have unspent billions of NRO dollars sitting 
around unused and waiting for a rainy day. I agree that we need to 
better integrate intelligence with policy, enhance the effectiveness of 
the community and improve its efficiency. The time for reorganization 
is upon us.
  The Brown Commission has made many important recommendations that 
address each of these themes. The Intelligence Committee will evaluate 
them closely. But I have already concluded that in some areas the 
Commission did not go far enough to ensure intelligence is integrated, 
effective, and efficient in a world continuing to evolve. In my view, 
the authorities of the Director of Central Intelligence need to be 
strengthened beyond what the Commission recommended, and the many 
agencies of the Intelligence Community need to be pulled into a closer 
relationship. There is no other way to make sure both the national and 
military customer get what they need, and there is also no other way to 
wring redundancy and excess cost out of the system.
  I do not want leave the impression that U.S. intelligence is broken. 
Something is wrong, but the Nation is well-served by the men and women 
of the intelligence agencies serving around the world. Their patriotism 
and technical competence is unquestioned. Moreover, the director of 
Central Intelligence, John Deutch, has brought outstanding leadership 
to the community. Working closely with Secretary Perry, he already has 
set a new course for intelligence. The corporate culture which allowed 
an Aldrich Ames to continue is being dismembered. Congressional 
notification of significant intelligence activities has never been more 
prompt and complete. We need to institutionalize these changes and the 
superb cooperative relationship that exists between Director Deutch and 
Secretary Perry. Intelligence must and will serve all of its customers 
with timely, comprehensive, and hard-hitting analysis. The Brown 
Commission's recommendations have provided us with the basis to make 
this happen.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Chairman Specter for his leadership on 
this issue. His close attention to the challenges facing the 
intelligence community and their solutions has created an environment 
where the committee can draft this legislation in a thoughtful, 
informed environment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Simon, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Pell, Ms. Moseley-Braun, 
        and Mr. Kerry):

  S. 1595. A bill to repeal the emergency salvage timber sale program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


 THE RESTORATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAWS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 
                                  1996

 Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to repeal the emergency salvage timber provisions that Congress enacted 
as part of last year's rescissions bill. I believe that the salvage 
rider is one of the biggest mistakes that Congress has made in natural 
resource management in the last 25 years. We need to admit our error 
and correct it as soon as possible with new legislation.
  Both consciously and unwittingly, last Spring this body endorsed a 
program of logging without laws which undermines environmental 
protections for precious resources and has slight economic 
justification. Even worse, we passed the original rider with little 
understanding of its potential impact, without holding hearings, and 
based on an ``emergency'' that may not exist.
  Members thought they were voting to remove dead and dying trees from 
our national forests in order to protect forest health and capture the 
remaining value of trees which had been damaged in a series of 
devastating forest fires. However, the rationale on which the rider was 
based, deteriorating forest health conditions, the rationale on which 
the rider was based, is supported by very little data. We lack even 
basic information to justify cutting trees on the scale endorsed by the 
rider and under conditions which effectively suspend environmental 
laws, and terminate almost all avenues for administrative and judicial 
appeal.
  Members were surprised to find that the courts have interpreted the 
law to mandate the cutting of some of America's most valuable trees, 
including the healthy, old growth forests of western Oregon and 
Washington which have been off-limits to timber sales for years due to 
environmental concerns. These forests support a rich mix of fish and 
wildlife, from endangered bird species to commercially important salmon 
and are valuable as well for their own beauty and uniqueness. Yet under 
the rider these majestic trees might be sold at bargain prices under 
outdated contracts and using outdated environmental terms.
  This is not just an issue for the Northwest. The rider also requires 
that the Forest Service offer salvage sales in all regions of the 
country including sales that would otherwise be rejected for legitimate 
environmental reasons. Although agencies such as the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental 
Protection Agency have objected to many of these sales, courts have 
held that they must go forward, no matter how devastating, because they 
are required by the letter of the law.
  In addition, the rider undermines President Clinton's consensus 
Northwest forest plan which took many months to produce and gave some 
hope for settling the region's longstanding timber wars. Instead, under 
the rider, the timber wars have resumed at full force.
  Now we have a chance to reverse the mistakes we made last year and 
take a more measured approach to timber salvage sales. First, my bill 
returns forestry law to where it was before the rider was passed. Trees 
can still be cut but environmental laws must be obeyed. I believe it is 
appropriate to completely repeal the salvage rider, not just modify it 
around the edges and invite further confusion from the courts.
  Second, my bill calls for a study of the forest health issue by the 
National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office in order 
to determine the extent of the problem and how it can best be 
addressed, both financially and ecologically.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in reversing last year's mistake. It 
is time

[[Page S1604]]

to restore lawful logging on our national forests.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1595

       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 ``Restoration of Natural 
     Resources Laws on the Public Lands Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EMERGENCY SALVAGE TIMBER SALE PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Secretary Concerned.--In this section, 
     the term ``Secretary concerned'' means--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to an 
     activity involving land in the National Forest System; and
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to an 
     activity involving land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
     of Land Management.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 2001 of Public Law 104-19 (109 Stat. 
     240; 16 U.S.C. 1611 note) is repealed.
       (c) Suspension.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any outstanding judicial 
     order or administrative decision interpreting section 2001 of 
     Public Law 104-19 (109 Stat. 240; 16 U.S.C. 1611 note) (as in 
     existence prior to the date of enactment of this Act), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall suspend each activity that was being undertaken in 
     whole or in part under the authority provided in the section, 
     unless the Secretary concerned determines that the activity 
     would have been undertaken even in the absence of the 
     subsection.
       (2) Resumption of an activity.--The Secretary concerned may 
     not resume an activity suspended under paragraph (1) until 
     the Secretary concerned determines that the activity 
     (including any modification after the date of enactment of 
     this Act) complies with environmental and natural resource 
     laws.

     SEC. 3. STUDIES.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     factual information useful to the President and Congress in 
     setting funding and operational levels for the public forests 
     in order to ensure that the public forests are operated so 
     that the health of forest resources is secured with 
     ecological and financial effectiveness.
       (b) Nature and Extent of the Situation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, through the 
     research branch of the Forest Service, shall undertake a 
     study to report on the nature and extent of the forest health 
     situation in the National Forest System.
       (2) Nature.--The nature of forest health shall be 
     categorized into types of situations, including--
       (A) overstocked stands of unmerchantable-size trees;
       (B) stands with excessive fuel loads;
       (C) mixed conifer stands with an inappropriate mix of tree 
     species; and
       (D) combinations of the situations described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C).
       (3) Extent.--The extent of forest health shall include 
     acreage estimates of each situation type and shall 
     distinguish variations in severity.
       (4) Representative sample measurements.--If feasible, the 
     Secretary shall use representative sample measurements with a 
     specified degree of confidence in extending the measurements 
     to the whole population.
       (5) Presentation.--The report shall present data at the 
     national forest or a comparable level and shall be displayed 
     geographically and tabularly.
       (6) Review.--The report shall be properly reviewed by the 
     scientific community prior to transmission under paragraph 
     (7).
       (7) Transmission.--The report shall be transmitted to 
     Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Ecological Efficacy of Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences 
     for the purpose of conducting a study of the ecological and 
     forest health consequences of various activities intended, at 
     least in part, to improve forest health.
       (2) Activities examined.--The activities examined under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) site preparation for reforestation, artificial 
     reforestation, natural regeneration, stand release, 
     precommercial thinning, fertilization, other stand 
     improvement activities, salvage harvesting, and brush 
     disposal;
       (B) historical as well as recent examples and a variety of 
     conditions in ecological regions; and
       (C) a comparison of various activities within a watershed, 
     including activities conducted by other Federal land 
     management agencies.
       (3) Transmission.--The report shall be transmitted to the 
     Chief of the Forest Service and to Congress not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Economic Efficacy of Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States, through the General Accounting Office, shall conduct 
     a study of the Federal, State, and local fiscal and other 
     economic consequences of activities intended, at least in 
     part, to improve forest health.
       (2) Coordination.--The study conducted under this 
     subsection shall be coordinated with the study conducted 
     under subsection (c)--
       (A) to ensure that the same groups of activities in the 
     same geographic area are examined; and
       (B) to develop historic as well as recent effects that 
     illustrate financial and economic trends.
       (3) Federal fiscal effects.--In assessing the Federal 
     fiscal effects, the Comptroller General shall distinguish the 
     net effects on the Treasury of the United States from changes 
     in the balances in the various special accounts and trust 
     funds, including appropriated funds used to conduct the 
     planning, execution, sale administration, support from other 
     programs, regeneration, site restoration, agency overhead, 
     and payments in lieu of taxes associated with timber cutting.
       (4) Transmission.--The study shall be transmitted to the 
     Chief of the Forest Service and to Congress not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (e) Improvement of Activities.--In response to the findings 
     of the National Academy of Sciences and the Comptroller 
     General under subsections (c) and (d), the Chief of the 
     Forest Service shall assess opportunities for improvement of, 
     and progress in improving, the ecological, economic, and 
     fiscal consequences and efficacy for each national forest.
       (f) Forest Service Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Chief of the Forest Service shall 
     conduct a study of alternative systems for administering 
     forest health-related activities, including, modification of 
     special account and trust fund management and reporting, land 
     management service contracting, and government logging.
       (2) Similarities and differences.--The study shall compare 
     and contrast the various alternatives with systems in 
     existence on the date of the study, including--
       (A) ecological effects;
       (B) forest health changes;
       (C) Federal, State, and local fiscal and other economic 
     consequences; and
       (D) opportunities for the public to be involved in 
     decisionmaking before activities are undertaken.
       (3) Requirements of study.--To ensure the validity of the 
     study, in measuring the effect of the use of contracting, the 
     study shall specify the costs that contractors would bear for 
     health care, retirement, and other benefits afforded public 
     employees performing the same tasks.
       (4) Transmittal.--The report shall be transmitted to 
     Congress not later than 1 year after the studies conducted 
     under subsections (c) and (d) are transmitted to Congress.
       (g) Public Availability.--The reports conducted under this 
     section shall be published in a form available to the public 
     at the same time the reports are transmitted to Congress. 
     Both a summary and a full report shall be published.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Senator Bill Bradley in 
introducing legislation to repeal the timber salvage rider, a law that 
has permitted destructive logging of ancient forests because it waives 
important environmental safeguards.
  Let me first say that I do not oppose responsible logging on public 
or private lands, as long as it is done in compliance with our 
environmental statutes. The fundamental problem with the timber salvage 
provision as it is currently written, is that it does not comply with 
current Federal protection laws.
  During debate of the 1995 Rescissions Act, proponents of the 
emergency timber measure stressed the need to remove dead and dying 
trees to protect the health of our forests in the Pacific Northwest. We 
were told that the rider would not cost the federal treasury one dime; 
in fact it would make money. We were told that the measure would not 
harm fish and wildlife and that it was needed only to expedite a small 
number of outstanding timber sales.
  In other words, we were told that this rider would be a simple fix to 
a small problem and should be added without a congressional hearing or 
review to an entirely unrelated bill that was moving quickly through 
congress. As are all too aware, this was the way many anti-
environmental statutes were being sold by the Republican leadership 
during the 1995 congressional term.
  Regrettably, we know of the severe environmental damage that this 
statute has wrought on some of our most beautiful and oldest forest 
lands.
  We now know that this statute is being used to clearcut healthy 
forests across the Nation including ancient forests as old as 500 
years.
  We know that this statute will cost American taxpayers billions of 
dollars by requiring them to subsidize bargain basement logging of our 
national forests.
  We know that timber is being clearcut on steep slopes next to

[[Page S1605]]

streams of spawning endangered salmon.
  And we now know that the Federal Government is being forced to enter 
into far more than just a small number of contracts, and in fact, that 
the effect of this rider will be felt in the logging of national 
forests across the country.
  I commend the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership on this 
issue, and I hope that the Senate will act expeditiously to enact the 
bill being introduced today and thereby repeal this extremely harmful 
so-called timber salvage rider.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we need our environmental laws back. Old-
growth trees that have stood for 400 years are falling today, and it 
will the year 2400 before we get them back. We need to restore the 
laws.
  To achieve this goal, I have cosponsored two efforts. One is a 
straight, fundamental attempt to overturn the salvage law, and one that 
is a practical attempt to stop the lawless logging. No one has worked 
harder than Patty Murray to restore economic and ecological balance to 
the hoax of a ``jobs versus the environment'' campaign. I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor of her effort.
  Senator Bradley, ranking Democrat on the Forests and Public Land 
Management Subcommittee, has taken the lead to simply overturn one of 
the worst environmental laws Congress has considered in years. As soon 
as the so-called salvage law passed, industry sued to cut the big old-
growth trees. This will be a difficult bill to overturn, especially 
since we still have the same Congress through which it originally 
passed. Nonetheless, I am a proud original cosponsor of Senator 
Bradley's bill to repeal the salvage rider.
  Proponents of logging without laws say that they must cut, build 
roads, risk mudslides, threaten fisheries, and scar the forest to 
create jobs. The facts don't support this twisted rationale. There were 
more than 14,200 new jobs in the Rocky Mountain-Pacific Northwest 
timber industry from 1992 until Congress forced through the rider, and 
the sector was still growing. Oregon had the lowest unemployment in a 
generation. We did not need to derail steady responsible growth with a 
return to the conflicts of the 1980's. Unfortunately, some groups have 
bought into the gluttony of the salvage rider, but have forgotten about 
putting food on the table for working families when the salvage free-
for-all days are over.
  Our No. 1 priority should be to restore stability to working families 
in rural communities. No one can tolerate another short-term logging 
binge. The current rider is bringing conflict. When it is repealed or 
expires, workers face another round of economic instability while we 
struggle with environmental triage on the forest resource.
  But most importantly, we need to restore the environmental laws that 
this Congress suspended. The Forest Service is poised to release 
hundreds of millions of board feet of timber, and we must not leave the 
door open for such abuse. Both bills are steps in the right direction, 
and I hope we can unsaddle the salvage rider very soon.

                          ____________________