[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.
____________________