[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 93 (Friday, June 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6728-S6761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOND:

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


                      THE SAFE BRIDGES ACT OF 1997

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

                                 S. 975

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 3. BRIDGE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM.

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

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

       (ii) in subsection (e)--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S6729]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

``144C. Carbon composite bridge retrofit research and demonstration 
              program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 977. A bill to amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
Planning Act of 1974 and related laws to strengthen the protection of 
native biodiversity and ban clearcutting on Federal lands, and to 
designate certain Federal lands as Ancient Forests, Roadless Areas, 
Watershed Protection Areas, Special Areas, and Federal Boundary Areas 
where logging and other intrusive activities are prohibited; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     THE SAVE AMERICA'S FORESTS ACT

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

[[Page S6730]]

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

                                 S. 977

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

          TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING LAND MANAGEMENT LAWS

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

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

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

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

          TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING LAND MANAGEMENT LAWS

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

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

[[Page S6731]]

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

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

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

[[Page S6732]]

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

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

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

[[Page S6733]]

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

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

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

[[Page S6734]]

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 2694. CONSERVATION OF NATIVE BIODIVERSITY.

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

[[Page S6735]]

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

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 202. DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS.

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

[[Page S6736]]

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

[[Page S6737]]

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

[[Page S6738]]

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

[[Page S6739]]

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

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

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

[[Page S6740]]

       (2) No extractive logging shall be permitted.
       (3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging 
     shall be permitted.
       (b) Restriction of Management Activities in Roadless 
     Areas.--With respect to Roadless Areas on Federal lands 
     except military installations, the following prohibitions 
     shall apply:
       (1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
       (2) No extractive logging shall be permitted.
       (3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging 
     shall be permitted.
       (c) Restriction of Management Activities in Watershed 
     Protection Areas.--With respect to Watershed Protection Areas 
     on Federal lands except military installations, the following 
     prohibitions shall apply:
       (1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
       (2) No extractive logging shall be permitted.
       (3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging 
     shall be permitted.
       (d) Restriction of Management Activities in Special 
     Areas.--With respect to Special Areas on Federal lands, the 
     following prohibitions shall apply:
       (1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
       (2) No extractive logging shall be permitted, and
       (3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging 
     shall be permitted.
       (e) Restriction of Management Activities in Federal 
     Boundary Areas.--With respect to Federal Boundary Areas on 
     Federal lands, the following prohibitions shall apply:
       (1) No roads shall be constructed or reconstructed.
       (2) No extractive logging shall be permitted, and
       (3) No improvements for the purpose of extractive logging 
     shall be permitted.
       (f) Maintenance of Existing Roads.--The above restrictions 
     on the reconstruction of roads on Federal lands in Ancient 
     Forests, Roadless, Areas, Watershed Protection Areas, Special 
     Areas, and Federal Boundary Areas does not prohibit the 
     maintenance of an improved road, or any road accessing 
     private inholdings, with the exception that any roads which 
     the Secretary concerned determines to have been abandoned 
     before the enactment of this act shall not be maintained or 
     reconstructed.
       (g) Enforcement.--
       (1) Purpose and finding.--The purpose of this subsection is 
     to foster the widest possible enforcement of this section. 
     Congress finds that all people of the United States are 
     injured by actions on lands to which this section applies.
       (2) Federal enforcement.--The provisions of this section 
     shall be enforced by the Secretary concerned and the Attorney 
     General of the United States against any person who violates 
     this section.
       (3) Citizen suits.--Any citizen harmed by a violation of 
     this Act may enforce any provision of this section by 
     bringing an action for declaratory judgment, temporary 
     restraining order, injunction, statutory damages, and other 
     remedies against any alleged violator including the United 
     States, in any district court of the United States.
       (4) Standard of proof.--The standard of proof in all 
     actions brought under this subsection shall be the 
     preponderance of the evidence and the trial shall be de novo.
       (5) Damage award.--The court, after determining a violation 
     of this section, shall impose a damage award of not less than 
     $5,000, shall issue one or more injunctions and other 
     equitable relief, and shall award to the plaintiffs 
     reasonable costs of litigation including attorney's fees, 
     witness fees and other necessary expenses. The damage award 
     shall be paid by the violator of violators designated by the 
     court to the U.S. Treasury. The damage award shall be paid 
     from the U.S. Treasury, as provided by Congress under section 
     1304 of title 31, United States Code, within 40 days after 
     judgment to the person or persons designated to receive it, 
     to be applied in protecting or restoring native biodiversity 
     in or adjoining Federal land. Any award of costs of 
     litigation and any award of attorney fees shall be paid 
     within 40 days after judgment.
       (6) Waiver.--The United States, including its agents and 
     employees waives its sovereign immunity in all respects in 
     all actions under this subsection. No notice is required to 
     enforce this subsection.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 978. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
employers a credit for a portion of the expenses of providing dependent 
care services to employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                     the affordable child care act

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

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

[[Page S6741]]

1996, was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 20, 1996. 
This act included a $5,000 adoption tax credit for qualified adoption 
expenses and a $6,000 tax credit for special needs adoptions, and was 
much like our legislation. I recently reintroduced legislation to 
increase the tax credit for special needs adoptions for $7,500, and 
permit penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts up 
to $2,000 for adoption expenses.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, encouraging businesses to provide 
affordable child care for their employees will help provide peace of 
mind to those in our Nation struggling to balance career and family. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 979. A bill to provide a tax credit to families with elderly 
family members living in the family home; to the Committee on Finance.


                         tax credit legislation

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

  Today, millions of American families face a no-win situation when an 
elderly family member is no longer able to live independently. Taking a 
loved one into the family home may be much desired instead of having to 
see a person impoverished by the Medicaid eligibility rules and left a 
ward of the State, living in a nursing home. Obviously, on the other 
hand, very few families can afford to pay for private nursing home care 
themselves. But, bringing an elderly relative into the family home is 
costly. Our public policy should recognize this dilemma and support 
those loving families seeking to care for the elderly with their own 
resources in their own homes.
  Currently, there are more than 33.5 million Americans who are 65 
years of age and older. In my own State of Pennsylvania, there are 2 
million individuals 65 years of age and older. Many of these seniors 
live independent lives. However, nationwide approximately 3.9 million 
of our elderly citizens live with relatives other than their spouse and 
an additional 1.7 million seniors live in nursing homes. My amendment 
would provide a $2,500 tax credit to individuals or families who care 
for an elderly family member in the family home. In order to qualify 
for this tax credit, the elderly family member would have to be at 
least 65 years old, would have to reside with their family at least 
half of the taxable year, and must have been eligible under current law 
to be claimed as a dependent on the family's tax return.
  With this amendment, families will be given the vital assistance 
necessary to provide care to seniors in their homes. It will also 
provide flexibility to families who would like to provide care to 
family members in their home rather than place these seniors in 
institutionalized care facilities, but are otherwise unable to afford 
this financial commitment. In Congress, we have made many speeches 
about strengthening the American family and about providing support for 
our Nations senior citizens. This bill would accomplish both of these 
important goals. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of 
this bill to find real solutions to the real problems faced by the 
growing numbers of caregivers and senior citizens in America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 980. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to close the U.S. 
Army School of the Americas; to the Committee on Armed Services.


             the school of the americas closure act of 1997

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

[[Page S6742]]

SOA from 1982 to 1991. These manuals contained instruction in torture 
and extortion techniques. These manuals are inconsistent with U.S. 
policy and democratic ideals. I am concerned that there might be other 
former students, trained with these manuals and guilty of human rights 
abuses but who have not as yet come to public attention.
  Some have suggested that if SOA is revamped and reorganized that it 
could still serve a useful purpose. I disagree. SOA cannot be salvaged. 
Its reputation is too tarnished and its name is too closely linked to 
the assassins and rapists who were trained there. The United States 
cannot deny the human rights violations inflicted by the graduates of 
SOA. But, we still need to find a resolution for these terrible events. 
I believe that closing SOA is the only way to finally break with this 
chapter in U.S. history.
  Our South American neighbors need to know that human rights and 
democratic values are held in high esteem in the United States. We are 
hampered in making this claim as long as the School of the Americas 
remains open. The continued funding of SOA does not fit into the United 
States long-term strategy for the Latin American region and undermines 
our credibility on human rights issues in this hemisphere. I call upon 
my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support the closure of 
the School of the Americas.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original 
cosponsor of the legislation being introduced today by the Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas 
[SOA] located at Fort Benning, GA.
  SOA was created in 1946 to train Latin American military officers in 
combat and counterinsurgency skills, with the goal of professionalizing 
Latin American armies and strengthening democracies. Originally located 
in Panama, the SOA moved to Fort Benning in 1948. There has been a 
great deal of controversy surrounding the types of leaders that have 
graduated from the SOA, leading it to be called the School for 
Dictators. Some of SOA's graduates include Manuel Noriega, at least 19 
Salvadorean officers implicated by El Salvador's Truth Commission in 
the murder of 6 Jesuit priests, and officers who participated in the 
coup against former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
  In 1991, following an internal investigation, the Pentagon removed 
certain SOA training manuals from circulation. On September 22, 1996, 
the Pentagon released the full text of those training manuals and 
acknowledged that some of those manuals provided instruction in 
techniques that, in the Pentagon's words, were ``clearly objectionable 
and possibly illegal.'' The techniques in question included torture, 
extortion, false arrest, and execution. I and other Senators have 
written the Department of Defense several times to request additional 
disclosure of SOA policies, curriculums, training manuals and other 
materials so that the history of the school can be fully understood.
  The horrendous record of the SOA has inspired hundreds of Wisconsin 
residents to contact my office to express their support for closing 
this school. Numerous organizations, including Public Citizen, the 
Washington Office on Latin America and Human Rights Watch also support 
the elimination of SOA.
  As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I am 
committed to promoting human rights throughout the world. In my view, 
our Government cannot continue to support the existence of a school 
that counts so many murderers among its alumni. While I do not doubt 
that it can be in our national interest to conduct military training 
with our friends and partners, it is unexcusable that such military 
training should take place at an institution with the reputation of the 
School of the Americas. This bill gives Members of the Senate an 
opportunity to separate the legitimate training exercises conducted by 
the U.S. military from the sordid acts of many individuals who have 
been trained at SOA. We must lift the cloud of suspicion that has 
fallen on these programs by closing SOA once and for all.
  Not only are the human costs of this training program unjustifiable, 
but so are its monetary costs. With a national debt in excess of $5 
trillion, every Federal program needs to be carefully scrutinized to 
ensure that Federal tax dollars are wisely spent. Given the end of the 
cold war, and in light of documents indicating the SOA training program 
provided instruction in techniques which violate human rights 
standards, I feel that the School of Americas is an unwise expenditure, 
and I support eliminating it as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Abraham, 
        Mr. Robb, Mr. Roth, Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 981. A bill to provide for analysis of major rules; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                 The Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997

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

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

[[Page S6743]]

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

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

[[Page S6744]]

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

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

                                 S. 981

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 3. REGULATORY ANALYSIS.

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

                  ``SUBCHAPTER II--REGULATORY ANALYSIS

     ``Sec. 621. Definitions

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

[[Page S6745]]

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

     ``Sec. 622. Applicability

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

     ``Sec. 623. Regulatory analysis

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

     ``Sec. 624. Principles for risk assessments

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

[[Page S6746]]

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

     ``Sec. 625. Peer review

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

     ``Sec. 626. Deadlines for rule making

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

     ``Sec. 627. Judicial review

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

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

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

[[Page S6747]]

     months after the date of enactment of this section.

     ``Sec. 629. Comparative risk analysis study

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

                   ``SUBCHAPTER III--REVIEW OF RULES

     ``Sec. 631. Definitions

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

     ``Sec. 632. Advisory committee on regulations

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

     ``Sec. 633. Agency regulatory review

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

                  ``SUBCHAPTER IV--EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

     ``Sec. 641. Definitions

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

     ``Sec. 642. Presidential regulatory review

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

[[Page S6748]]

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

     ``Sec. 643. Public disclosure of information

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

     ``Sec. 644. Judicial review

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

           ``CHAPTER 6--THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

           ``SUBCHAPTER I--ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

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

                  ``SUBCHAPTER II--REGULATORY ANALYSIS

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

                   ``SUBCHAPTER III--REVIEW OF RULES

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

                  ``SUBCHAPTER IV--EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

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

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

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

           Summary of the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997

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

[[Page S6749]]

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

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

[[Page S6750]]

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

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

[[Page S6751]]

Congress and the public are better informed about regulatory impacts.

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

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

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

[[Page S6752]]

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

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

  The bill broadly defines ``benefits'' and ``costs,'' which provides 
agencies with vast discretion. ``Benefits'' are defined as ``the 
reasonably identifiable significant favorable effects, quantifiable and 
nonquantifiable, including social, health, environmental, economic and 
distributional effects, that are expected to result directly or 
indirectly from implementation of, or compliance with, a rule.'' The 
term ``costs'' is similarly defined.
  As I stated at the beginning of my comments, this has been a long, 
evolutionary process. But I think this legislation we are introducing 
today represents a responsible approach to improving the regulatory 
process. And I think it demonstrates what we can accomplish when we set 
aside partisan wrangling and rely on reason rather than rhetoric to 
solve complex problems such as this. Once again, I've been pleased to 
be involved in this process, and I commend both Senators Levin and 
Thompson for their determination to see this through to conclusion. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to improving the product and 
moving this legislation through the process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 983. A bill to prohibit the sale or other transfer of highly 
advanced weapons to any country in Latin America; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


              THE LATIN AMERICAN ARMS CONTROL ACT OF 1997

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

[[Page S6753]]

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

[[Page S6754]]

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

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

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

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION.

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

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

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION OF HIGHLY ADVANCED WEAPONS

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



                                            The Carter Center,

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

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from 
Connecticut in sponsoring legislation aimed at preventing the 
commencement of an arms race in Latin America.
  For the past two decades, the United States has prohibited the sale 
or transfer of advanced military equipment to the region. The ban, 
instituted by President Carter, has been generally maintained since the 
late 1970's, including during the administrations of Presidents Reagan 
and Bush. The lone exception occurred in 1982, in response to a 
perceived Cuban military buildup, when the United States sold F-16 
fighter aircraft to the Government of Venezuela.
  The ban was instituted during a different era, when many nations of 
the region were under the rule of military dictators. To be sure, the 
nations of Latin America have made important advances since that 
period. Politically, dictatorship has given way to democracy. Every 
nation of the hemisphere--with the glaring exception of Cuba--is now 
governed by a democratically chosen leader. Additionally, after the 
lost decade of the 1980's--a period of negative economic growth in many 
nations of the region--the region is beginning to recover economically. 
Indeed, the nations of the region have made tremendous progress in the 
past few years, shedding the statist policies of past decades and 
embracing free markets and free trade.
  Although the times have changed, the need for restraint in the sale 
of arms has not. First, although the region is advancing economically, 
it is abundantly clear that few nations of the region can afford the 
high costs that an arms race would impose. Second, an arms race in the 
region would be destabilizing--not only among nations of Latin America, 
but within those nations where civilian control of the military is not 
yet fully consolidated. The Armed Forces remain important institutional 
actors in many nations of the region; the increased emphasis on arms 
procurement and arms budgets could undermine the priorities and powers 
of the civilian leadership.
  In the past year, there has been considerable discussion within the 
Clinton administration, and among the nations of the region, about the 
wisdom of lifting the U.S. ban on the sale of advanced weapons. In this 
respect, it is important to note that many senior figures in Latin 
America have come down on the side of restraint. In April of this year, 
for example, the Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government--an 
organization consisting of current and former hemispheric leaders from 
leading countries in the region--called on Latin American governments 
to ``accept a moratorium of two years before purchasing any 
sophisticated weapons.'' In the interim, the Council urged governments 
of the region to ``explore ideas to restrain such arms,'' and urged 
governments that sell arms, including the United States, ``to affirm 
their support for such a moratorium.''
  This legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduce today would heed 
that request by expressing support for such a moratorium, and banning 
the transfer to the region of highly advanced weapons by the United 
States, unless such transfer conforms to an international agreement 
governing sales to, or purchases by, nations of the region. In other 
words, if a regional arms control agreement is negotiated permitting 
some sales but prohibiting others, arms transfers by the United States 
would be allowed, provided such transfers conform to the arms control 
agreement then in place.
  It should be emphasized that this bill would not ban all sales of 
military equipment to Latin America. Rather, it would merely continue, 
in law, the policy and practice adhered to by the executive branch for 
the past two decades: to not sell sophisticated military equipment such 
as advanced combat aircraft and attack helicopters to the nations of 
Latin America. It would permit U.S. firms to continue to sell other 
military equipment to Latin America--a market in which the United 
States now holds the largest share, and in which U.S. firms have sold a 
total of nearly $800 million over the past 4 fiscal years.
  Mr. President, it is the policy of the United States to promote 
greater hemispheric integration--an objective pursued in the process 
initiated at the Summit of the Americas, which was hosted by President 
Clinton in 1994. The policy set forth in this bill advances that 
objective by honoring the request of several Latin American nations 
that they pursue a regional arms control approach before advanced 
weapons are introduced into the region. I urge my colleagues and the 
administration to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, and 
        Ms. Moseley-Braun) (by request):
  S. 984. A bill to promote the growth of free enterprise and economic 
opportunity in the Caribbean Basin region, increase trade and 
investment between the Caribbean Basin region and the United States, 
and encourage the adoption by Caribbean Basin countries of

[[Page S6755]]

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


        the united states-caribbean basin trade enhancement act

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

[[Page S6756]]

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

                                 S. 984

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

      SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

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

      SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(iii) Tariff treatment.--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S6757]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S6758]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S6759]]

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

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

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

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

      SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 212(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and 
     Canada on December 17, 1992.
       ``(E) The terms `WTO' and `WTO member' have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
        Hollings):
  S. 985. A bill to designate the post office located at 194 Ward 
Street in Paterson, NJ, as the ``Larry Doby Post Office''; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   larry doby post office legislation

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

                                 S. 985

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF LARRY DOBY POST OFFICE.

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

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

[[Page S6760]]

  Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator 
Torricelli and me in celebrating Larry Doby by gracing the post office 
located at 194 Ward Street in Paterson, NJ with his name.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S.J. Res. 34. A joint resolution suspending the certification 
procedures under section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1991 
in order to foster greater multilateral cooperation in international 
counternarcotics programs; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a joint resolution 
on behalf of myself and Senator John McCain which we believe will lead 
to more cooperative and effective efforts to meet the international 
threat posed by international drug trafficking.
  The resolution that we are introducing today calls upon the President 
to establish a high level, interdisciplinary task force under the 
direction of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, to develop a comprehensive strategy for 
dealing with the supply and demand side of the drug problem.
  It also urges the President to encourage other drug producing and 
transit countries to undertake similar efforts. Within a year's time it 
calls for an international summit to be held, at which time, the 
efforts of all the parties would be merged into a multilateral battle 
plan to engage the illegal drug trade on every front.
  In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual 
respect that must be present if this effort is to produce results, the 
resolution would also suspend the annual drug certification procedure 
for a period of 2 years, while efforts are ongoing to develop and 
implement a new strategy.
  As you know, Mr. President, the issue of how best to construct and 
implement an effective counter narcotics policy has been the subject of 
much debate in this Chamber, and I would add much disagreement.
  My intention in introducing this resolution today is to try to see if 
there is some way to end what has become a stale annual event that has 
not brought us any closer to mounting a credible effort to eliminate or 
even contain the international drug mafia.
  We all can agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We can 
agree as well that the international drug trade poses a direct threat 
to the United States and to international efforts to promote democracy, 
economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the 
world, but most especially in our own hemisphere.
  While the international impact is serious and of great concern, of 
even greater concern to me personally are effects it is having here at 
home. Today, approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs, 
including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, and 
9,800,000 smokers of marijuana. This menace isn't just confined to 
inner cities or the poor. Illegal drug use occurs among members of 
every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States.
  The human and economic costs are enormous: Drug related illness, 
death, and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion in 
1996, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and 
incarceration.
  This is an enormously lucrative business--drug trafficking generates 
estimated revenues of $400 billion annually.
  The United States has spent more than $25 billion for foreign 
interdictions and source country counter narcotics programs since 1981, 
and despite impressive seizures at the border, on the high seas, and in 
other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily available 
in the United States today than two decades ago.
  So, despite the fact that we have had this drug certification 
procedure in place since 1986--more than 10 years--drugs continue to 
pour into this country and to wreak havoc on our families and 
communities.
  I think it is time to be honest and admit our international drug 
strategy isn't working and that means the entire certification process. 
Nor are efforts to revise the certification process to make it easier, 
politically, for the U.S. Congress to stick a finger in the eye of 
other governments by unilaterally grading them, likely to materially 
improve the situation--especially when we are not prepared to subject 
ourselves to similar unilateral grading by others.
  Rather, I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who 
share our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the very fabric 
of their societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the 
only Nation that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and 
figure out what each of us can do better to make it harder for drug 
traffickers to ply their trade. It is in that spirit that I commend the 
resolution that Senator McCain and I are introducing today to our 
colleagues.
  Together, working collectively we can defeat the traffickers. But if 
we expend our energies playing the blame game, we are certainly not 
going to effectively address this threat.
  We aren't going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked 
on drugs, or one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by 
some drug crazed thief.
  I would urge my colleagues to give some thought and attention to our 
legislative initiative. We believe it is worthy of support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 34

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

     SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DRUG CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

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

[[Page S6761]]

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

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

                          ____________________