[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 136 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10319-S10332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself and Mr. Reed):
  S. 1249. A bill to allow depository institutions to offer negotiable 
order of withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the 
prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


                 the small business banking act of 1997

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small 
Business Banking Act of 1997. I'm joined in this effort by my 
distinguished colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is the 
principal cosponsor of this important legislation.

  Passage of this bill will remove one of the last vestiges of the 
obsolete interest rate control system. Abolishing the statutory 
requirement that prohibits incorporated businesses from owning interest 
bearing checking accounts will provide America's small business owners, 
farmers, and farm cooperatives with a funds management tool that is 
long overdue.
  Passage of this bill will ensure America's entrepreneurs can compete 
effectively with larger businesses. My experience as a businessman has 
shown me, firsthand, that it's extemely important for anyone trying to 
maximize profits to be able to invest funds wisely for maximum 
efficiencies.
  During President Ronald Reagan's first term, one of his early actions 
was to abolish many provisions of the antiquated interest rate control 
system the banking system was required to use. With this change to the 
laws, Americans were finally able to earn interest on their checking 
accounts deposited in banks. Unfortunately, one aspect of the old 
system left untouched by the change in law was not allowing America's 
businesses to share in the good fortune.
  Complicating matters is the growing impact of nonbanking institutions 
that offer deposit-like money accounts to individuals and corporations 
alike. Large brokerage firms have long offered interest on deposit 
accounts they maintain for their customers.
  While I support business innovation, I don't believe it's fair when 
any business gains a competitive edge over another due to government 
interference through overregulation. This is exactly the case we have 
with banking laws that stifle bankers, especially America's small 
community bankers, and give an edge to another segment of the

[[Page S10320]]

financial community. The Small Business Banking Act of 1997 seeks to 
correct this imbalance and allow community banks to compete fairly with 
brokerage firms.
  I'm pleased to say our bill has the strong support of America's 
Community Bankers and the American Farm Bureau Federation. In my home 
State of Nebraska, this bill has the support of the Nebraska Bankers 
Association and the Independent Bankers Association. These important 
organizations represent a crosscurrent of the type of support Senator 
Reed and I have for our bill. Senator Reed and I also have the support 
of the Federal regulators. In their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining 
of Regulatory Requirements'', the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office 
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, stated they believe the statutory prohibition against 
payment of interest on business checking accounts no longer serves a 
public purpose. I heartily agree.
  Mr. President, this is a straightforward bill that will do away with 
an unnecessary regulation that burdens American business. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator 
Hagel in introducing the Small Business Banking Act of 1997, 
legislation that eliminates a Depression-era Federal law prohibiting 
banks from paying interest on commercial checking accounts. This 
legislation represents an important victory for small business and the 
banking industry because it eliminates a costly and burdensome Federal 
prohibition that has outlived its usefulness.
  The prohibition against the payment of interest on commercial 
accounts was originally part of a broad prohibition on the payment of 
interest on any deposit account. At the time of enactment, it was the 
popular view that payment of interest on deposits created an incentive 
for rural banks to shift deposits of excess funds to urban money center 
banks that made loans that fueled speculation. Moreover, it was 
believed that such transfers created liquidity crises in rural 
communities. However, a number of changes in the banking system since 
enactment of the prohibition have called into question its usefulness.
  First, with the passage of the Depository Institutions Deregulatory 
and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Congress allowed financial 
institutions to offer interest-bearing accounts to individuals--a 
change which has not adversely affected safety and soundness. Second, a 
number of banks have developed complex mechanisms called sweep accounts 
to circumvent the interest rate prohibition. Because of the costs 
associated with developing sweep accounts, however, large banks have 
become the primary offerors of these accounts. As a result, many 
smaller banks are at a competitive disadvantage with larger banks that 
can offer their commercial depositors interest-bearing accounts. Most 
important, the vast majority of small businesses cannot afford to 
utilize sweep accounts because the cost of opening these accounts is 
relatively high and most small businesses do not have a large enough 
deposit base to justify these costs.
  In light of these developments, it has become clear that the 
prohibition on interest-bearing commercial accounts is nothing more 
than a relic of the Depression era that has effectively disadvantaged 
small businesses and small banks, and led large banks to dedicate 
significant resources to circumventing the prohibition. I am, 
therefore, pleased to cosponsor this legislation that will eliminate 
this prohibition and level the playing field for small banks and small 
business.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Burns, and Mr. 
        Stevens):
  S. 1250. A bill to authorize appropriations for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


the national aeronautics and space administration fiscal years 1998 and 
                         1999 authorization act

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the authorization bill 
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 
1998 and 1999. I would like to thank the cosponsors of this bill, 
Senator Rockefeller, Senator Burns, and Senator Stevens, as well as 
others who support this bill, for their hard work and dedication to 
making this bill a possibility.
  NASA's unique mission of exploration, discovery, and innovation has 
preserved the U.S. role as both a leader in world aviation and as the 
preeminent spacefaring nation. It is NASA's mission to: Explore, use 
and enable the development of space for human enterprise; advance 
scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the Solar System, 
and the Universe and use the environment of space for research; and 
research develop, verify and transfer advanced aeronautics, space and 
related technologies.
  This bill, which authorizes NASA for $13.6 billion in fiscal year 
1998 and $13.8 billion in fiscal year 1999, provides for the continued 
development of the international space station, space shuttle 
operations and safety and performance upgrades, space science, life and 
micro gravity sciences and applications, the Mission to Planet Earth 
Program, aeronautics and space transportation technology, mission 
communications, academic programs, mission support, and the office of 
the inspector general.
  With this authorization the committee puts in place a sound plan 
under which NASA can provide assurances to the Congress that the cost 
and schedule difficulties of the international space station have been 
contained. In addition, the bill has been crafted to protect to the 
maximum extent possible the balance between manned and unmanned flight 
as well as the balance between development activities and science.
  Therefore, I, along with my cosponsors urge the Members of this body 
to support this bill and allow NASA to continue its mission of support 
for all space flight, for technological progress in aeronautics, and 
for space science.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the NASA 
authorization bill for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, introduced by 
Senator Frist, chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 
Space and Senator Rockefeller, the ranking minority member. I would 
like to take this opportunity to thank both Senator Frist and Senator 
Rockefeller for helping to craft a bipartisan bill which balances the 
goals and missions of our space agency within fiscal responsibility.
  This bill authorizes the full $1.4 billion requested by NASA for 
Mission to Planet Earth. As many of you know, I'm a strong supporter of 
this program because it is about using satellite technology to help 
average citizens in their everyday activities. The goal of this program 
is to provide farmers, land planners, foresters, scientists and others 
with cost-effective tools to help them do their work. This program 
provides the scientific foundation for weather forecasting on a year-
to-year basis, land-use management, and to protect people, property, 
and the environment from natural disasters. To accomplish this goal, 
Mission to Planet Earth supports scientists in Montana and in other 
U.S. States, to carry out the experiments necessary to expand our 
frontier of understanding Earth.
  This bill also provides authorization for $10 million for the 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] 
Program. This funding will allow NASA to carry out a new competition to 
help NASA develop a stronger presence in the vital academic research 
programs in institutions in rural States like Montana.
  Finally, I would like to note that the bill contains a new provision, 
section 317, which provides insurance, indemnification and liability 
for coverage for the X-33 and X-34 experimental aerospace vehicle 
tests. It draws upon provisions in the Space Act as well as the 
commercial Space Launch Act to provide the necessary coverage to 
continue innovative research and technology development in aerospace. 
It also provides the infrastructure needed to allow NASA to work with 
industry to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The X-33 program 
partners NASA with industry to develop a single-stage-to-orbit reusable 
launch vehicle. The goal is to decrease the cost of getting to space 
while making it safer and

[[Page S10321]]

more accessible. I'm proud that Montana is part of this program. 
Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls has been selected as one of 
the preferred landing sites for the X-33 prototype. Landing at 
Malmstrom will be the longest flight for this 136-ton wedge-shaped 
prototype. Knowledge from these tests will be used to create the next 
generation launch vehicle.
  I believe that we have a bill that provides NASA with the funding 
authorization and policy direction it will need to maintain our world 
leadership in space and aeronautics.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1251. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the amount of private activity bonds which may be issued in 
each State, and to index such amount for inflation; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                   private activity bonds legislation

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Breaux, to introduce long overdue legislation to 
increase the private activity tax-exempt bond cap to $75 per capita or 
$250 million, if greater, and index the cap to inflation. The current 
cap, which has not been adjusted in over a decade--not even to account 
for inflation--is severely restricting the ability of States and 
localities to meet pressing housing, economic development, and other 
needed investments in their citizens and communities.
  This cap, imposed in 1986, is now $50 per capita or $150 million, if 
greater. It applies to issuers of tax-exempt bonds for affordable 
single and multifamily housing, redevelopment of blighted areas, 
student loans, manufacturing, municipal service, and hazardous waste 
disposal facilities.
  Cap growth is limited to State population increases, but not 
inflation. As a result, inflation has severely eroded capped bonds' 
purchasing power. The 1987 bond cap, adjusted for the current limit, 
would have been $14.3 billion. Ten years later, the 1997 cap is $15 
billion a mere 5-percent increase--due to population--over a period of 
far greater inflation.
  Mr. President, Congress never intended to restrict the growth of this 
program. In fact, Congress never intended the cap to shrink at all. It 
allowed the cap to grow with State populations and imposed the cap in 
the same legislation, the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which terminated by 1989 
the two heaviest cap users: mortgage revenue bonds [MRB's] for housing, 
and industrial revenue bonds [IDB's] for manufacturing. That left 
plenty of room for the remaining capped bonds. Congress then extended 
MRB's and IDB's several times past the 1989 expiration dates and 
finally made them permanent in 1993.
  What Congress did not do at that time was adjust the cap to 
accommodate these additional uses. Accordingly, demand for capped bonds 
now exceeds supply in most States. One example is the overwhelming 
demand in many States for MRB's, issued primarily by State Housing 
Finance Agencies [HFA's] to finance modestly-priced first-time homes 
for lower income families. In 1996, State HFA's issued almost $8 
billion in MRB's for nearly 100,000 mortgages, according to the 
National Council of State Housing Agencies [HCSHA].
  Since January 1, 1995, the State of New York Mortgage Agency [SONYMA] 
has financed more than 1 billion dollars' worth of affordable first-
time home mortgage loans with MRB's. SONYMA's Construction Incentive 
Program has allocated $250 million in MRB funding which will create 
2,400 new homes and 6,000 full-time jobs in New York.
  The State of New York also relies heavily on tax-exempt bond 
authority for multifamily housing. In 1997 alone, the New York State 
Housing Finance Agency expects to finance $420 million worth of 
multifamily mortgage loans with multifamily housing bonds. 
This investment will create, 2,150 new, privately owned and managed 
apartments, 430 of which will be affordable to low-income families. In 
addition to providing desperately needed housing, this investment will 
promote economic integration in many neighborhoods.

  Unfortunately, home ownership and a decent apartment remain out of 
reach for thousands more families whom the MRB and multifamily housing 
bond programs could serve better than any other. State HFA's could have 
used an estimated additional $2.4 billion in bond cap authority in 
1996, according to NCSHA. SONYMA could have used another $100 million 
last year.
  The private activity volume cap also includes tax-exempt bond 
authority to assist small and midsized companies finance the expansion 
of manufacturing facilities. These companies often do not have 
reasonable access to the capital markets and cannot easily finance 
construction of manufacturing facilities. I used these bonds in my 
capacity as town supervisor of Hempstead to allow existing businesses 
to grow and to attract new business. Without this financing, these 
companies, and their employees, would not be in New York State. 
Nationwide, over $2.612 billion of tax-exempt manufacturing bonds were 
issued in 1996. In 1996 alone, New York State issues over $96 million 
of tax-exempt bonds for manufacturing facilities. The Council of 
Development Finance Agencies reported that bond issuance increased 32 
percent in 1996 from the prior year. In New York, demand for this low-
cost financing greatly exceeded the almost $100 million of bonds 
issued. The Empire State Development Corp., a public agency, reported 
that demand for tax-exempt bonds to support manufacturing was about 30 
percent higher than the over $96 million of bonds actually issued in 
1996.
  Over the years, these bonds created literally thousands of 
construction and permanent jobs in my home State, and tens of thousands 
nationwide. It is critical to raise the bond cap to facilitate job 
creation by small and midsized manufacturing companies. In many cases, 
these companies cannot obtain reasonable financing to expand, but for 
tax-exempt financing.
  Mr. President, nationwide, demand for all bonds under the cap 
outstripped supply by almost $7 billion last year, according to NCHSA. 
New York alone faced unmet demand of more than $1 billion for all the 
investments strangled by the cap.
  The Nation's Governors have adopted a policy calling for a cap 
increase. The Nation's State treasurers, National Association of 
Counties, and Association of Local Housing Financing Agencies [ALHFA] 
also support raising the cap.
  One-third of the House Ways and Means Committee and nearly 100 House 
Members overall already have cosponsored companion legislation--H.R. 
979--to increase the bond cap $75 per capita or $250 million, if 
greater, and index the cap to inflation.
  The current cap is severely restricting the ability of States and 
localities from making much-needed investments in their citizens and 
communities. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Breaux and me in a 
bipartisan effort to increase the bond cap.
  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. 1251

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN STATE CEILING ON PRIVATE ACTIVITY 
                   BONDS.

       (a) Repeal of Post-1987 Reduction.--Subsection (d) of 
     section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     State ceiling) is amended by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Adjustment of State Ceiling for Increases in Cost-of-
     Living.--Subsection (d) of section 146 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after 
     1998, each of the dollar amounts contained in paragraph (1) 
     shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
     `calendar year 1997' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
     (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase under subparagraph (A) is 
     not a multiple of the applicable dollar amount, such increase 
     shall be rounded to the nearest applicable dollar amount. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the applicable dollar 
     amount is--
       ``(i) $1 in the case of an adjustment of the $75 amount in 
     paragraph (1)(A), and
       ``(ii) $5 in the case of an adjustment of the $250 amount 
     in paragraph (1)(B).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years after 1997.


[[Page S10322]]


  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my 
colleague, Senator D'Amato, an important bill that will assist States 
and localities in working with private industry to foster economic 
development and provide home ownership opportunities to low-income 
Americans. Specifically, our bill will increase the private activity 
tax-exempt bond cap to $75 per capita or $250 million, if greater, and 
index the cap to inflation. Congress created the private activity-
exempt bond decades ago to apply to mortgage revenue bonds and other 
bonds for multifamily housing, redevelopment of blighted areas, student 
loans, manufacturing, and hazardous waste disposal facilities. However, 
Congress unintentionally restricted the growth of this program by 
imposing a cap on the bond volume of $50 per capita or $150 million, if 
greater, which has meant States cannot meet the demand for these bonds.
  Tax-exempt bonds are issued by State and local governments to provide 
below market interest rates to fund authorized programs and projects. 
Revenue bond investors accept lower interest from these bonds because 
the interest income is tax-exempt. Mortgage revenue bonds are issued to 
help lower income working families buy their first homes with low 
interest loans from private investment in State and local bonds, 
significantly lowering the cost of owning a home.
  In my own State, the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency has issued over 
$1.1 billion in mortgage revenue bonds for almost 16,000 affordable 
home mortgages since the program began. In 1996 alone, the agency 
issued over $112 million in mortgage revenue bonds for nearly 1,200 
home loans. That's 1,200 Louisiana families who now know the pride of 
owning their own home--Louisiana families that earned, on average, less 
than $28,000 last year. The Louisiana Housing Finance Agency estimates 
that it alone could have used another $50 million in bond authority. 
Nationwide, States could have used an additional $7 billion in bond cap 
for mortgage revenue bonds, student loan bonds, industrial revenue 
bonds, pollution control bonds, and other worthy investments.
  Student loan bonds are issued to raise a pool of money at tax-exempt 
interest rates to fund college loans at lesser interest rates. In my 
State, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority has issued $745 
million in student loan bonds since 1984. These bonds have funded over 
80,000 college loans for deserving Louisiana students--students who 
otherwise might not have been able to afford to attend college.
  In Louisiana, the roughly $40 million of remaining 1997 volume cap 
will not come close to fulfilling the $330 million of demand for these 
bonds. The total 1997 volume cap for Louisiana was $217,500,000. After 
funding minimal housing and student loan needs, little volume cap 
remains available for industrial development bonds for manufacturing 
purposes. Many of the industrial and manufacturing facilities create 
substantial employment opportunities that are not possible due in part 
to a deficiency in volume cap.
  Our bill will correct this woeful situation and improve the ability 
of States and localities to provide home ownership opportunities to 
low-income families throughout the United States, to help fund student 
loans for college students and to help finance industrial and 
manufacturing facilities. These facilities will, in turn, increase 
employment and the tax base of local governments. I urge my colleagues 
to join me and Senator D'Amato in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1252. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the amount of low-income housing credits which may be 
allocated in each State, and to index such amount for inflation; to the 
Committee on Finance.


           THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT CAP ACT OF 1997

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, to introduce long overdue 
legislation to increase the cap on State authority to allocate low-
income housing tax credits--housing credits--to $1.75 per capita, and 
to index the cap to inflation. The current cap of $1.25 per capita has 
not been adjusted--not even to account for inflation--since the program 
was created over a decade ago. This cap is strangling a State's 
capacity to meet pressing low-income housing needs.

  Annual cap growth is limited to the increase in State population, 
which has only been 5 percent nationwide over the past decade. During 
the same time period, inflation has eroded the housing credit's 
purchasing power by approximately 45 percent, as measured by the 
Consumer Price Index.
  Mr. President, as you may know, housing credits are the primary 
Federal-State tool for producing affordable rental housing across the 
country. Since 1987, State agencies have allocated more than $3 billion 
in housing credits to help finance nearly 900,000 apartments for low-
income families, including 75,000 apartments in 1996. In my own State 
of New York, the credit is responsible for helping finance 44,000 
apartments for low-income New Yorkers, including 4,450 apartments in 
1996.
  Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office issued a 
comprehensive report giving the housing credit a clean bill of health. 
That report documents that the program in fact exceeds a number of 
important congressional objectives. For example, though the law allows 
housing credit apartment renters to earn up to 60 percent of the area 
median income, GAO documented the average tenant's income at just 37 
percent, and found that more than three out of four renters have 
incomes under 50 percent of the area median income. GAO also found that 
rents in housing credit apartments are well below market rents, up to 
23 percent less than the maximum permitted, and 25 percent below HUD's 
national fair market rent.
  The GAO report also documents that States are giving preference to 
apartments serving low-income tenants longer than the 15 years the law 
requires. In fact, two-thirds of the apartments GAO studied were set 
aside for low-income use for 30 years or more.
  A second major assessment of the credit has been objectively 
completed by Ernst & Young, reiterating many of the positive findings 
of the GAO report, demonstrating a tremendous need for additional 
affordable housing, and documenting the devastating effect of the 
current cap on States' ability to finance this critically needed 
housing.
  Despite the success of the housing credit in meeting affordable 
rental housing needs, the apartments it helps finance can barely keep 
pace with the nearly 100,000 low cost apartments which are demolished, 
abandoned, or converted to market rate use each year. Increasing the 
housing credit cap, as Senator Graham and I propose, would allow States 
to finance approximately 25,000 more critically needed low-income 
apartments each year.
  Nationwide, demand for housing credits outstrips supply by more than 
3 to 1. In 1996, States received applications requesting more than $1.2 
billion in housing credits--far surpassing the $365 million in credit 
authority available to allocate that year.
  In New York, the New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
received applications requesting more than $104 million in housing 
credits in 1996--nearly four times the $29 million in credit authority 
it already had available. When I think of the immense need for 
affordable housing within my State, I can only characterize this 
decade-old limit on State credit authority as an overwhelmingly lost 
opportunity.
  Mr. President, in 1993, Congress made the housing credit permanent 
with unprecedented, overwhelmingly bipartisan cosponsorship. In 
addition, the Nation's Governors have adopted a policy calling for an 
increase in the housing credit cap.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join my colleague Senator D'Amato 
as we introduce legislation to increase the amount of low income 
housing tax credits allocated to the States and to index the low-income 
housing credit for inflation.
  In a time of fiscal austerity, housing credits encourage private 
investment in economically sound, privately owned, affordable homes for 
low-income working families in all 50 States. By helping families that 
get up and go to work every day to earn their rent and mortgage 
payments, the low-income housing credit provides families with an 
important stake in maintaining self-sufficiency.
  Mr. President, the low-income housing tax credit was created in the 
1986

[[Page S10323]]

tax reform bill in the wake of decreasing appropriations for federally-
assisted housing and the elimination of other tax incentives for rental 
housing production. The housing credit encourages the construction and 
renovation of low-income housing by reducing the tax liability placed 
on the developers of affordable homes. The credit is based on the costs 
of development as well as the percentage of units devoted to low-income 
families or individuals.
  The current formula used in determining a State's housing credit 
allocation is $1.25 multiplied by the State's population. Unlike other 
provisions in the Tax Code, this formula has not been adjusted since 
the credit was created in 1986. During the same period, inflation has 
eroded the credit's purchasing power by nearly 45 percent, as measured 
by the Consumer Price Index.
  The bipartisan bill Senator D'Amato and I introduce today proposes to 
increase the annual limitation on State authority to allocate low 
income housing tax credits to $1.75 per capita and index the cap for 
inflation. By freeing the 10-year-old cap on housing credits from its 
current limitation, as requested by the Nation's Governors, our bill 
will liberate States' capacity to help millions of Americans who still 
have no decent, safe, affordable place to live.
  A brief look at the history of the housing credit provides ample 
evidence of why our legislation is needed. In the State of Florida, for 
example, the LIHTC has used more than $187 million in tax credits to 
produce approximately 42,000 affordable, rental units, valued at over 
$2.2 billion. Tax credit dollars are leveraged at an average of $18 to 
$1. Nevertheless, in 1996, nationwide demand for the housing credit 
greatly out paced supply by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. In Florida, 
credits are distributed based upon a competitive application process 
and many worthwhile projects are denied due to a lack of tax credit 
authority.
  This spring, the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], Congress' main 
investigative agency, released a national audit of the Low-Income 
Housing Tax Credit Program. The GAO found that the average housing 
credit apartment renter earns only 37 percent of the local area median 
income. Further, surveyed properties--more than 450--appeared to be in 
good condition and well-maintained. Additionally, the GAO reported that 
housing credit properties ``overwhelmingly comply with statutory and 
regulatory requirements.''
  Mr. President, I'd like to draw attention to one example of how the 
low-income housing tax credit has benefited American families. I am 
referring to the Holly Cove housing community developed by Vestcor 
Equities near Jacksonville, FL. Vestcor provides clean, safe and 
affordable living environments for low- to moderate-income residents by 
developing, renovating, and operating multifamily communities.
  In addition to affordable housing, Vestcor, through developments such 
as Holly Cove provides community services to improve the quality of 
life of their residents. Through counseling, education, and resident 
involvement, Vestcor energizes its community and provides residents 
with the tools they need for success. Activities and educational 
programs offered include: budgeting and credit counseling, resume 
writing assistance, GED classes, substance abuse counseling, and after 
school homework assistance. In short, with the help of the low-income 
housing tax credit, Vestcor Equities strengthens the community by 
investing in children and families.
  Vestcor Equities provides first-hand evidence of the important role 
the low-income housing tax credit offers as a catalyst of private 
sector investment in our communities.
  Mr. President, as we struggle to balance the budget and restore 
fiscal responsibility in Washington, the housing credit allows 
bureaucrats to step aside and let the free market fill an important 
need in America's communities. I hope my colleagues will embrace this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1253. A bill to provide to the Federal land management agencies 
the authority and capability to manage effectively the Federal lands in 
accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          THE PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

  S. 1254. A bill to provide a procedure for the submission to Congress 
of proposals for, and permit upon subsequent enactment of law, 
assumption of management authority over certain Federal lands by States 
and nonprofit organizations; to encourage the development and 
application to Federal lands of alternative management programs that 
may be more innovative, less costly, and more reflective of the 
neighboring communities' and publics' concerns and needs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


              THE FEDERAL LANDS MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT ACT

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this week marked the 21st anniversary of 
the congressional passage of the 1976 National Forest Management Act. 
It is, therefore, a particularly appropriate time to discuss revisions 
to modernize NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act also 
passed in 1976. Today, I am introducing a revised version draft of a 
legislative proposal I first circulated for comments and review last 
December.

  Actually, as I will explain shortly, I am introducing two bills 
today. The first bill, called the Public Lands Improvement Act of 1997, 
provides a series of reforms to the management programs of the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The second bill, called the 
Federal Lands Management Adjustment Act of 1997, provides an 
opportunity for the States or other parties to seek certain management 
responsibilities for Federal, multiple-use lands.
  These two bills were bound together as one proposal in my December 
draft. But they have changed significantly as a consequence of six 
workshops sponsored by the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land 
Management, as well as a foot-thick pile of comments provided by 
individuals and groups who took the time and effort to review the 
December proposal, offer us their views, and suggest many helpful 
changes.
  The proposal that I am introducing today has been shared with the 
Clinton administration. We reviewed the proposal with them earlier this 
week. In the very near future, we will hear their formal comments on 
the proposal. But I think it is fair to say that, at this point, the 
administration still embraces the proposition that no statutory changes 
are needed to the confusing and conflicting mandates that govern the 
Forest Service and BLM. A number of serious observers and students of 
these two agencies--most notably the General Accounting Office in a 
series of research efforts conducted on behalf of myself and Senator 
Murkowski--disagree strongly.
  Nevertheless, the administration's present posture is to inveigh 
against any changes to the law. This position makes it very difficult 
for this bill, or any bill, to be introduced with the kind of 
bipartisan support that will be needed to eventually secure passage of 
legislation in this area. Consequently, I am introducing this bill 
alone, even though there are numerous Senators on our side of the aisle 
who would like to be cosponsors. I have asked the full committee 
chairman, Senator Murkowski, to join me.
  I point out this reality not to pick a fight with the administration. 
Rather, I want to make it clear that I am introducing it by myself--
without political cover--so that a spirit of bipartisan cooperation can 
have a chance to grow as we move into the formal hearings process. Any 
significant changes in this area of law will, by both design and 
necessity, be the product of bipartisan collaboration between the 
Congress and the administration. I not only accept this--I welcome it.
  At the same time, if you look closely at the Interior and related 
agencies appropriations bill reported by the Senate, you will see a 
number of instances where Senator Gorton and I have made it clear to 
the administration that--absent clarifying legislative changes to 
confusing and expensive statutory mandates--we are not prepared to 
continue to spend money to no particular end. At this point, we are 
sending good money after bad.
  These existing statutes--NFMA and FLPMA--are 21 years old. Their 
implementation today conjures the image of

[[Page S10324]]

a sullen 21-year-old without a job, that's moved back home, is cleaning 
out the refrigerator and is draining cash without contributing much to 
the family. In my single year as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I have seen how many exceptionally worthy efforts are 
denied funds. I cannot, in good conscience, condone further spending 
for things like the RPA Program and NFMA plan revisions.

  I hope the administration takes the message here seriously, but 
constructively. That is the fashion in which is being sent. And, 
obviously I hope that they will review the proposal that we shared with 
them last week, and provide us their ideas on the statutory changes 
that should be made.
  With that, I would like to highlight a few of the changes that we 
made in response to reviewers that have provided us their comments 
since last December.
  First and foremost, as I indicated, I am introducing two bills today. 
We have separated title VI of the December draft and made it a separate 
bill dealing with increased opportunities for the State--and now 
others--to take on a larger role in Federal land management. I will 
treat this idea separately as we move through the hearing process. I'm 
doing this because a number of middle-of-the-road groups and thoughtful 
individuals suggested that it is impossible to focus on Federal land 
law reform if we are simultaneously, that is, in the same piece of 
legislation, looking at alternatives to Federal land management. 
Considering alternatives to Federal management of nationally owned 
lands is an intellectual ``bridge too far'' for many. It became an 
impediment to their participation and, I hope, ultimately their support 
for Federal land management reform.
  I can accept this, even though it does suggest a certain timidity of 
spirit. I will note that the most timid of spirit, by far, were those 
interest groups, which self-identified by their rhetoric, that 
vigorously opposed all discussion of this concept in any form.
  At the same time, I remain convinced that we ought to be looking at 
alternatives to Federal land management in a thoughtful and organized 
way. That is why I have introduced both bills today. We may take up the 
bills at somewhat different times as we move forward. But we will 
eventually pursue them both.
  The former Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, and the 
General Accounting Office felt that both the BLM and the Forest Service 
need a much clearer statement of mission. Our December draft focused 
largely upon improved procedures. The GAO emphasized that any attempt 
to change resource management procedures would not, by itself, be 
sufficient to cut through the morass of confusion that currently 
infects Federal agency management. Therefore, we have included a 
discrete mission statement for both the BLM and the Forest Service in 
the new proposal.
  Additionally, over the past 9 months we have heard a lot from locally 
base, consensus groups working of Federal land management problems. I 
have become convinced that we ought to encourage these efforts. 
Therefore, this bill provides greater opportunity and encouragement to 
local consensus groups. Also, we provide a greater opportunity for the 
Forest Service and BLM to seek out local advice from interested 
elements of the public. I am optimistic that, if we can forge consensus 
at the local level, many of the national land management conflicts can 
be diminished in their intensity.
  In response to numerous comments, we have also made some significant 
changes to part B of title I dealing with administrative appeals and 
judicial review of Forest Service and BLM decisions. We still codify--
for the first time--an administrative appeals process for the Forest 
Service. The existing appeals process is without statutory basis, and 
could be eliminated by administrative fiat.

  We have, however, removed the provision allowing the executive 
agencies the opportunity to dismiss and penalize frivolous appeals. In 
the December draft, we tried to use existing jurisprudential standards 
for discouraging frivolous legal action. Many reviewers were, however, 
uncomfortable with the notion of providing this authority to the 
executive branch agencies under any standard.
  We also removed a provision in the December draft which stated that, 
upon injunction of a land and resource management plan, the previous 
plan would apply. As with frivolous actions, we will now leave to the 
judiciary the case-by-case determination of an appropriate course of 
action after the issuance of a broad-scale injunction.
  One of the more contentious issues in the December draft was whether 
the land managing agencies should assure their own compliance with 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Many groups were unwilling to 
trust the Forest Service and the BLM to do this on their own. Here, we 
were guided by the thoughtful comments of the Wildlife Management 
Institute. The Institute suggested that, with some review and 
certification of their program capabilities, the land managing agencies 
could be so trusted. Therefore, this provision has been modified to 
allow the land managing agencies to do their own section 7 compliance, 
but only after their programs have been certified by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service--in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service--as competent to carry out this responsibility.
  You may recall that, in title IV of the December draft, we created 
some new funding streams to increase land management activities. We 
received a number of comments that allowing resource managers to keep 
these funds locally could create perverse incentives that would result 
in more intensive land management--whether or not such management is 
appropriate in individual circumstances. At the same time, we heard 
from GAO and others that one of the most crying needs for additional 
funding is monitoring of plan implementation. The GAO emphasized that 
this is where the Forest Service and BLM often fall short.
  In response to both sets of concerns, we are retaining these new 
funding streams, but channeling any additional revenues into increased 
monitoring activity. It is our hope that, with better monitoring, we 
will get more effective plan implementation, and more projects 
accomplished on the ground.
  During the past few months as we have worked on this proposal, we 
have also been captivated by a separate discussion underway between the 
administration and groups who wish to bid on timber sales for the 
purpose of preserving--rather than harvesting--the trees. To date, the 
administration has correctly interpreted existing law as not providing 
the authority to entertain such bidders. Section 14(c) of the National 
Forest Management Act is specific that the purpose of timber sales is 
to promote the orderly harvesting of the timber.
  At the same time, where the sale is for the sole purpose of disposing 
of a commodity, we believe that the taxpayers should be afforded the 
best price--whether it is being offered by someone who wants to 
harvest, or someone who wants to preserve the trees. Therefore, we have 
added a provision in title IV of the bill which provides the 
administration authority which it now lacks, to allow nonharvesting 
bidders to participate in the auction of commodity timber sales that 
have no land stewardship function associated with them.

  Now let me spend a few moments on the second bill dealing with 
transfer of management responsibilities for Federal lands. As I 
indicated, this has been split into a separate bill to accommodate 
those who could not consider alternatives to Federal management at the 
same time they were proffering their views about how to make Federal 
management more effective. With regard to the State transfer bill, it 
is in many respects similar to title VI of our December draft. We do, 
however, clarify that nothing in the transfer of management 
responsibility is designed to infringe on Indian tribal or treaty 
rights.
  Additionally, we have been moved by the views of a number of free 
market environmentalists and scholars who have argued that there should 
be an opportunity for nonprofit trusts to assume a larger role in 
Federal land management. We have added this concept to the transfer 
bill.
  These are a few of the changes that we made. As I indicated, the 
changes are numerous and substantive. My staff indicated that, at last 
count, we had made some 80 changes in the December

[[Page S10325]]

draft. It's now time to review these changes, and continue a 
constructive discussion on how this bill can be improved further.
  In that regard, I want to thank a number of individuals and groups 
who have been instrumental in providing us ideas for the improvements 
that we have already made. First and foremost, I want to thank former 
Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, for his advice and participation in our 
workshops. I also would like to thank a group of retired Forest Service 
Deputy Chiefs and Regional Foresters led by George Leonard for their 
thoughtful and detailed comments.
  I appreciate the assistance provided by a number of professional 
societies and other middle-of-the-road conservation groups who assisted 
us by forming committees made up of their members to review the bill 
and offer us formal comments. These groups include, among others, the 
Wildlife Management Institute, the Society of American Foresters, the 
National Association of State Foresters, and the Association of State 
Land Commissioners. In each case, their participation has been 
instrumental in guiding us toward some of the changes I have described.
  Now I suppose the next question is: where we will head from here? We 
will try to convene a first hearing before we recess this session of 
Congress. At this hearing, I hope to hear from those groups that have 
taken the extra step of forming committees of their members to review 
the December proposal. I would like to hear from them how responsive 
they think we have been to their constructive suggestions.
  Then, when we reconvene next year I will hold additional hearings to 
receive testimony from national interest groups, as well as from the 
administration. I will endeavor to be as inclusive as possible in 
soliciting testimony from as wide a range of groups as are interested.
  I hope that, by early next year, the administration will see its way 
clear to sit down with us and suggest constructive changes to this 
proposal. I would welcome the opportunity to work with them to see if 
there is a list of changes that we can agree are necessary and 
meaningful to pursue.
  With or without the administration's cooperation, I will nevertheless 
endeavor to produce a third version of this bill to have ready for 
committee markup sometime next spring.
  I urge all groups involved in reviewing this legislation to take the 
time to: first, read it; second, reflect on it; third, come in and 
discuss it with us if they wish; and fourth, commit themselves to 
moving forward to work with us to develop a land management planning 
process that is equitable, efficient, and sensitive to environmental, 
economic, and fiscal concerns.
  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:

Section-by-Section Description--Public Lands Management Improvement Act 
                                of 1997

       Sec. 1. Short title: table of contents. This legislation--
     ``Public Lands Management Improvement Act of 1997''--provides 
     new authority and gives greater responsibility and 
     accountability to the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department 
     of the Interior, for planning and management of federal lands 
     under their jurisdiction. The two statutes governing the 
     agencies' land planning and management--National Forest 
     Management Act (NFMA) and Federal Land Policy and Management 
     Act (FLPMA)--are now more than two decades old; this 
     legislation preserves those laws' policies and requirements 
     while it updates those laws to reflect the agencies' 
     subsequent performance and experience.
       Sec. 2. Findings. This section contains numerous findings 
     which explain the need for this legislation. The findings--
       Note the widespread public support for the twin principles 
     of federal land management--multiple use and sustained 
     yield--imposed on Forest Service lands in NFMA and on BLM 
     lands in FLPMA.
       Recognize that NFMA and FLPMA, enacted in 1976, established 
     resource management planning processes as the means to apply 
     these land management principles to the federal lands.
       State that, in the 2 decades since the enactment of NFMA 
     and FLPMA, fundamental flaws in the planning processes have 
     been exposed, to the dissatisfaction of all stakeholders.
       Find that these flaws threaten the planning and 
     decisionmaking processes and undermine the agencies' ability 
     to fulfill their statutory land management responsibilities 
     and accomplish management that is well grounded in science.
       Note that Congress' desire for planning to be completed 
     within discrete time frames and to provide secure management 
     guidance has not been achieved.
       Describe how planning has yet to be completed 2 decades 
     after the enactment of NFMA and FLPMA, and how the Forest 
     Service and BLM are now engaged in an apparently perpetual 
     planning cycle that deprives both the agencies and the public 
     of stable and predictable management of federal lands.
       State that the two levels of planning contemplated and 
     required by NFMA and FLPMA have been expanded by the agencies 
     and the courts to include various planning exercises on 
     multiple, often conflicting planning levels that in many 
     cases are focused narrowly on only one resource, are 
     conducted without the procedural and public participation 
     safeguards in the planning required by statute, and result in 
     guidance that conflicts with the planning that is conducted 
     in accordance with statutory direction.
       Find that the procedures and requirements of NFMA and FLPMA 
     often are not compatible, and even conflict, with procedures 
     and requirements of other, more generally applicable 
     environmental laws. The result is often the de facto transfer 
     of planning and management decisionmaking authority from the 
     land management agencies--the Forest Service and BLM--to 
     other environmental agencies--the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries 
     Service, etc.--that do not possess comparable land management 
     expertise.
       Find ``without doubt'' that Congress has failed to 
     reconcile the procedures and requirements of other 
     environmental laws with the planning and management processes 
     established by NFMA and FLPMA.
       Describe how, even when the Forest Service and BLM retain 
     planning and management authority, they are often paralyzed 
     by an escalating number of administrative appeals and 
     lawsuits.
       Note that existing law does not recognize, nor integrate 
     into planning, important new land management concepts such as 
     ecosystem management and adaptive management which are being 
     imposed or incorporated in federal land planning and 
     management without statutory authority.
       State that new processes developed by stakeholders to 
     better participate in federal land planning and 
     decisionmaking, such as the community-based collaborative 
     deliberations of the Quincy Library Group and Applegate 
     Partnership, are not recognized or encouraged by NFMA and 
     FLPMA.
       Find that these flaws in planning and plan implementation, 
     including the administrative and judicial challenges, have 
     escalated Forest Service and BLM land management costs and 
     thereby reduced land management capability.
       State that these flaws in planning and subsequent inability 
     to secure plan implementation have injured--both 
     environmentally and economically--all stakeholders, but 
     particularly local resource-dependent communities which have 
     no protection nor recourse under NFMA and FLPMA.
       Find that NFMA, FLPMA, and their implementing regulations 
     provide much guidance on planning, but virtually none on plan 
     implementation, thereby devaluing the term ``Management'' 
     common to both Act's titles.
       Report the finding of the United States General Accounting 
     Office that the statutory flaws and public distrust discussed 
     in these findings have contributed to, and been compounded 
     by, the agencies' lack of a clear mission statement.
       And find that additional statutory direction for planning 
     and plan implementation is needed to secure stable and 
     predictable federal land management and to free the Forest 
     Service and BLM to exercise fully their professionalism in 
     making management decisions.
       Sec. 3. Definitions. This section defines the terms used in 
     this legislation. For the purpose of this section-by-section 
     description only two terms need definitions. ``Federal 
     lands'' means all federal lands managed by the BLM (excluding 
     Outer Continental Shelf lands) and Forest Service (including 
     national grasslands). The four ``Committees of Congress'' are 
     the authorizing committees with jurisdiction over the Forest 
     Service and BLM: the Committee on Resources and Committee on 
     Agriculture in the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources and Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry in the United States Senate.
       Sec. 4. Supplemental authority. This section makes clear 
     that this legislation supplements the NFMA, FLPMA, and other 
     applicable law. It also provides that, except for units of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation, National Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers, and National Trails Systems, this legislation 
     will prevail whenever it is in conflict with other applicable 
     law. On the other hand, the laws governing those Systems will 
     prevail whenever this legislation conflicts with them.
       Sec. 5. Transition. This section makes clear that existing 
     plans, policies, and other guidance concerning the federal 
     lands that are in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     legislation remain valid until they are revised, amended, 
     changed, or terminated in accordance with this legislation.

[[Page S10326]]

   title i--ensuring the effectiveness of federal land planning and 
                             implementation

       Sec. 101. Purposes. The purposes of Title I are to provide 
     a mission statement for the Forest Service and BLM and 
     provide Congressional direction to those agencies on the 
     preparation and implementation of resource management plans 
     for, and the planning of management activities on, the 
     federal lands. This mission and direction are intended to 
     avoid the environmental, economic, and social injuries caused 
     by the existing flaws and past absence of mission and 
     direction in federal land planning. Most importantly, this 
     mission and direction are expected to achieve stable, 
     predictable, timely, sustainable, and cost-effective 
     management of federal lands.

                           Part A. In general

       Sec. 102. Mission of the land management agencies. This 
     section provides a new mission for the Forest Service and 
     BLM. It is to manage the federal lands to furnish a 
     sustainable flow of multiple goods, services, and amenities 
     while protecting and providing a full range and diversity of 
     natural habitats of native species in a dynamic manner over 
     the landscape.
       Sec. 103. Scientific basis for Federal land decisions. To 
     ensure that federal land planning and management is well 
     grounded in science, this section requires the Forest Service 
     and BLM to use in all federal land decisions the best 
     ``scientific and commercial data available.'' This standard 
     for scientific data is adopted from the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973.

      Part B. Resource management and management activity planning

       Sec. 104. Levels of planning. To reduce the proliferating 
     number of federal land planning exercises, this section 
     limits the levels of Forest Service and BLM planning to two--
     multi-use resource management planning for designated 
     planning units and site-specific planning for management 
     activities. The two agencies are given complete discretion to 
     designate planning units of whatever size and number they 
     consider appropriate in which to conduct the resource 
     management planning.
       The agencies may also conduct analyses or assessments for 
     geographical areas other than the planning units (including 
     ecoregion assessments as provided in Title III). However, the 
     results of these analyses or assessments can be applied to 
     the federal lands only by amending or revising the applicable 
     resource management plans.
       This section establishes a 3-year deadline for amending or 
     revising existing resource management plans to include 
     policies developed in planning conducted outside of the two 
     prescribed planning levels. That non-complying planning will 
     no longer apply to the federal lands at the end of the 3-year 
     period.
       Sec. 105. Contents of planning and allocation of decisions 
     to each planning level. To eliminate redundant planning that 
     is time-consuming and costly, this section assigns specific 
     analyses to the two levels of planning established in section 
     104 and clarifies that the analyses may not be repeated 
     elsewhere in the planning process. This section requires that 
     resource management plans contain 4 basic elements: (1) 
     statement of management goals and objectives; (2) allocation 
     of land uses to specific areas in the planning unit; (3) 
     determination of outputs of goods and services from the 
     planning unit; and (4) environmental protection policies. The 
     agencies are admonished to tailor the environmental 
     protection policies, to the maximum extent feasible, not to 
     be prescriptive requirements generally applicable to the 
     entire planning unit but rather to provide guidance for 
     determining specific requirements tailored to identified 
     sites during the planning of individual management 
     activities.
       Additionally, the resource management plans are required to 
     contain: (1) a statement of historical uses, and trends in 
     conditions of, the resources covered by the plans; (2) a 
     schedule and procedure for monitoring plan implementation, 
     management of the covered federal lands, and trends in the 
     covered resources' uses and conditions as required by section 
     115, and (3) criteria for determining when circumstances on 
     the covered federal lands warrant adaptive management of the 
     resources as required by section 115.
       This section requires the agencies to assign by a notice-
     and-comment rulemaking specific analyses and decisions to 
     each of the two planning levels. The agencies may not conduct 
     or reconsider those analyses or decisions in the planning 
     level to which they are not assigned. This section also makes 
     a number of analyses and decision assignments. In addition to 
     the 4 basic elements discussed previously in this section, 
     assigned to resource management planning are resource 
     inventories, cumulative effects analyses, discussion of 
     relationship to State and local plans, identification of 
     federal lands which might be exchanged or otherwise disposed 
     of, and decisions on wilderness, unsuitability of lands for 
     certain uses (e.g., coal mining as required by section 522 of 
     the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and timber 
     harvesting as required by section 6 of the National Forest 
     Management Act), and visual objectives. Assigned to 
     management activity planning are analyses of site-specific 
     resources and environmental effects, and decisions concerning 
     the design of, and requirements for, the activity, including 
     decisions related to water quality, method for harvesting 
     forest products, revenue benefits and a schedule and 
     procedures for monitoring the effects of the activity.
       Sec. 106. Planning deadlines. To break the cycle of 
     perpetual planning, this section would set deadlines for 
     conducting the two-level planning. These deadlines are: (1) 
     for resource management planning--30 months for plan 
     preparation, 12 months for amendments defined as significant 
     by regulations, 9 months for amendments defined as non-
     significant by regulations, and 24 months for revisions; and 
     (2) for management activity planning--9 months for planning 
     significant activities and 6 months for planning non-
     significant activities.
       Sec. 107. Plan amendments and revisions. This section 
     ensures that the 4 basic elements of the resources management 
     plans are accorded equal dignity and that one element is not 
     arbitrarily sacrificed or ignored to achieve another. It 
     prohibits the Forest Service and BLM from applying a policy 
     to, or making a decision on, resource management plan or a 
     management activity which is inconsistent with one of the 
     basic elements. Instead, this section requires that the 
     resource management plan must be awarded to alter or 
     reconcile conflicting basic elements. This decision to amend 
     would be made whenever the inconsistency is discovered, 
     usually during either the planning for a specific 
     management activity or the monitoring of plan 
     implementation required by section 115. The agencies are 
     given the authority to waive an inconsistency without 
     amending the resource management plan on a one-time basis 
     for a single specific management activity if the 
     inconsistency does not violate a nondiscretionary 
     statutory requirement and the determination is made that 
     the waiver is in the public interest.
       This section also requires that any change in federal land 
     management that is imposed by new law, regulation, or court 
     order or that is warranted by new information must be 
     effected by amending or revising the appropriate resource 
     management plans. Further, unless the agency determines that 
     the law or court order requires otherwise and publishes that 
     determination, the change in management does not become 
     effective until the amendment or revision is adopted.
       This section directs, that when resource management plans 
     are revised, all provisions of those plans are to be 
     considered and analyzed in the environmental analysis 
     (environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental 
     assessment (EA)) and decision documents. This ensures that 
     the agency does not consider only those portions of the plans 
     that are particularly important to the most vociferous 
     advocates for a particular land use or management policy or 
     are of particular interest to the officials involved in the 
     planning exercise.
       Finally, this section clarifies that, while a resource 
     management plan is being amended or revised, management 
     activities are to continue and not be stayed in anticipation 
     of changes that might be made by the amendment or revision. 
     Exceptions to this stay prohibition include whenever a stay 
     is required by this Act, court order, or a formal declaration 
     by the Secretary (without delegating the authority). However, 
     the agencies can stay particular activities for purposes that 
     are unrelated to the purpose or the likely effect of the 
     amendment or revision. To ensure that de facto stays do not 
     occur, this section provides that, except as described above, 
     a plan amendment or revision may not become effective until 
     final decisions on management activities that are scheduled 
     to be made during the plan amendment or revision process have 
     been made.
       To avoid tunnel-visioned decisionmaking that focuses on one 
     issue to the exclusion of all others, this section directs 
     the agencies to consider in the environmental analysis 
     documents on any amendment or revision of a resource 
     management plan what effect the amendment or revision may 
     have on the 4 basic elements required for each plan by 
     section 105. The decision document on the amendment or 
     revision must include a discussion of the reasons why the 
     effect is necessary and what steps were taken in the planning 
     process and decisionmaking, or will be taken thereafter, to 
     ameliorate any adverse economic or social consequences which 
     will or could result from the effect.
       Sec. 108. Disclosure of funding constraints on planning and 
     management. To ensure that planning decisions are not based 
     on overly optimistic funding expectations and are not 
     rendered irrelevant by enactment of differing appropriations, 
     this section requires that the EIS or EA on each resource 
     management plan, or plan amendment or revision, contain a 
     determination on how the 4 basic elements (goals and 
     objectives, land use allocations, outputs of goods and 
     services, and environmental protection policies) will be 
     implemented within a range of funding levels (with at least 
     one level which provides less funds annually, and one level 
     which provides more funds annually, then the level of funding 
     for the fiscal year in which the EIS or EA is prepared).
       Sec. 109. Consideration of Federal lands-dependent 
     communities. This section requires that, in preparing, 
     amending, or revising each resource management plan, the 
     Forest Service and BLM must consider if, and explain whether, 
     the plan will maintain to the maximum extent feasible the 
     stability of any community that has become dependent on the 
     resources of the federal lands to which the plan applies.
       The procedure for meeting this mandate is to include in the 
     EIS or EA on the plan,

[[Page S10327]]

     amendment, or revision a discussion of: the impact of each 
     plan alternative on the revenues and budget, public services, 
     wages, and social conditions of each federal lands-dependent 
     community; how the alternatives would relate to historic 
     community expectations; and how the impacts were considered 
     in the final plan decision.
       This section defines a federal lands-dependent community as 
     one which is located in proximity to federal lands and is 
     significantly affected socially, economically, or 
     environmentally by the allocation of uses of one or more of 
     the lands' resources. The Secretaries are to consult with the 
     Secretaries of Commerce and Labor in establishing by 
     rulemaking criteria for identifying these communities.
       Sec. 110. Participation of local, multi-interest 
     committees. To encourage local solutions to federal land 
     management issues developed by neighboring citizens of 
     diverse interests, this section provides for the 
     establishment of two types of local, matter-interest 
     committees. The first is the ``independent committee of local 
     interests'' established without the direction, intervention, 
     or funding of the agencies and including at least one 
     representative of a non-commodity interest and one 
     representative of a commodity interest. Prototypes for this 
     type of committee are the Quincy Library Group and Applegate 
     Partnership. This section encourages these independent 
     committees to prepare planning recommendations for the 
     federal lands by imposing the requirement on the agencies 
     that they include those recommendations as alternatives in 
     the EISs or EAs which accompany the preparation, amendment, 
     or revision of resource management plans. If more than two 
     independent committees are established and submit planning 
     alternatives for the same federal lands, the Forest Service 
     or BLM will include the alternatives of the two committees it 
     determines to be most broadly representative of the interests 
     to be affected by the plan, amendment, or revision, and will 
     attempt to consolidate for analysis or otherwise discuss the 
     other committees' alternatives. Finally, the section 
     authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to provide to any 
     independent committee whose planning alternative is adopted 
     sufficient funds to monitor the alternative's implementation. 
     These independent committees would be exempt from the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.
       Second, the agencies are empowered to establish local 
     committees corresponding to the federal land's planning 
     units. The membership of these committees must be broadly 
     representative of interests affected by planning for the 
     planning units for which they were formed. The agencies must 
     seek the advice of the committees prior to adopting, 
     amending, or revising the relevant resource management plans 
     and provide the committees with funding to monitor plan 
     implementation.
       Sec. 111. Ecosystem management principles. This section 
     ensures that the relatively new ecosystem management concept 
     is incorporated into planning in a fashion which does not 
     supersede other statutory mandates. It requires that the 
     Forest Service and BLM consider and discuss ecosystem 
     management principles in the EISs or EAs for resource 
     management plans, amendments, and revisions. It also states 
     that these principles are to be applied consistent with, and 
     may not be used as authority for not complying with, the 
     other requirements of this legislation, FLPMA, NFMA, and 
     other environmental laws applicable to resource management 
     planning.
       Sec. 112. Fully allocated costs analysis. To ensure that 
     the costs of all uses are revealed, this section directs the 
     Forest Service and BLM to disclose in the EISs and EAs on 
     resource management plans, amendments, and revisions the 
     fully allocated cost including foregone revenues, expressed 
     as a user fee or cost-per-beneficiary, of each non-commodity 
     output from the federal lands to which the plans apply.
       Sec. 113. Citizen petitions for plan amendments or 
     revisions. Section 116 establishes deadlines for challenging 
     resource management plans, amendments, and revisions. This 
     section provides a procedure for citizens who believe a plan 
     has become inadequate after the deadlines have passed to seek 
     change in the plan and, if unsuccessful in obtaining change, 
     to challenge the plan. This section authorizes any person to 
     challenge a plan after the deadline solely on the basis of 
     new information, law, or regulation. The mechanism for 
     challenge is a petition for plan amendment or revision. The 
     Forest Service or BLM must accept or deny the petition within 
     90 days of receiving it. If the agency fails to respond to or 
     denies the petition, the petitioner may file suit immediately 
     against the plan. If the agency accepts the petition, the 
     process of amending or revising the plan begins immediately. 
     The agency's decision to accept or deny the petition is 
     subject to the consultation requirement of the Endangered 
     Species Act, but not subject to the environmental analysis 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
       Sec. 114. Budget and cost disclosures. To better relate the 
     agencies' planning process with Congress' appropriations 
     process, this section requires that the President's budget 
     request to Congress include an appendix that discloses the 
     amount of funds that would be required to achieve 100% of the 
     annual outputs of goods and services in, and otherwise 
     implement fully, each Forest Service and BLM resource 
     management plan.
       In the face of escalating planning costs, particularly 
     those associated with ecoregion assessments, this section 
     also requires the agencies to submit to Congress each year 
     an accounting of the total costs and cost per function of 
     procedure for each plan, amendment, revision or assessment 
     published in the preceding year.
       Sec. 115. Monitoring and maintenance of planning. This 
     section contains several procedures intended to ensure that 
     the resource management plans are implemented. First, each 
     agency is required to include in each decision on a 
     management activity a statement that the decision contributes 
     to, or at a minimum does not preclude, achievement of the 4 
     basic elements (goals, land allocations, outputs, and 
     environmental protection policies) of the applicable resource 
     management plan.
       Second, this section requires use of funds from the 
     Monitoring Funds established by section 502 to monitor the 
     implementation of each resource management plan at least 
     biennially. The monitoring is to ensure that no goal, land 
     allocation, output, or policy of the plan is constructively 
     changed through a pattern of incompatible management 
     activities or of failures to undertake compatible management 
     activities. Whenever the agency finds such change has 
     occurred, it must take corrective management actions to 
     restore compliance with the plan, or amend or revise the plan 
     to accommodate the change. The monitoring also is to 
     determine whether circumstances or the federal lands have 
     changed and warrant adaptive management. If so, the agencies 
     are required to undertake the adaptive management--
     immeidately if no elements would be changed thereby or after 
     amending or revising the plan if any element would be 
     changed.

                     Part C. Challenges to planning

       The purposes of this part are to ensure that challenges--
     both administrative and judicial--of resource management 
     plans and management activities are brought more timely and 
     by those who truly participate in the agencies' processes. It 
     does not eliminate challenges or insulate agency decisions 
     from challenges.
       Sec. 116. Administrative appeals. This section directs the 
     Forest Service and BLM to promulgate rules to govern 
     administrative appeals of decisions to approve resource 
     management plans, amendments, and revisions, and of decision 
     to approve, disapprove, or otherwise take final action on 
     management activities. While allowing the agencies 
     considerable discretion in rulemaking, this section does 
     provide that the rules must: (1) require that, in order to 
     bring an appeal, the appellant must have commented in writing 
     during the agency process on the issues or issues to be 
     appealed; (2) provide that administrative appeals of plans 
     may not challenge analyses or decisions assigned to 
     management activities under section 105 and administrative 
     appeals of management activities may not challenge analyses 
     or decisions assigned to plans under section 105; (3) provide 
     deadlines for bringing the administrative appeals (not more 
     than 120 days after a plan or revision decision, 90 days 
     after an amendment decision, and 45 days after a management 
     activity decision); (4) provide deadlines for agency 
     decisions on the appeals (not more than 180 days for appeal 
     of a plan or revision, 120 days for appeal of a plan 
     amendment, 90 days for appeal of a management activity, with 
     possible 15 days extension for each) and bar additional 
     levels of administrative appeal; (5) provide that in the 
     event of failure to render a decision by the applicable 
     deadline, the decision on which the appeal is based is to be 
     deemed a final agency action which allows the appellant to 
     file suit immediately; (6) require the agency to consider and 
     balance environmental and/or economic injury in deciding 
     whether to issue a stay pending appeal (or petition); (7) 
     provide that no stay may extend more than 30 days beyond a 
     final decision on an appeal of a plan, amendment, or revision 
     or on a petition or 15 days beyond a final decision on a 
     appeal of a management activity; and (8) establish categories 
     of management activities excluded from administrative appeals 
     (but not lawsuits) because of emergency, time-sensitive, or 
     exigent circumstances. This section is more comphrensive than 
     the section of the Fiscal Year 1993 Interior Appropriations 
     Act which concerned appeals only of management activities 
     (not management plans, amendments, and revisions) of the 
     Forest Service (not BLM). As this section supplants that more 
     limited provision, it repeals that provision when the new 
     Forest Service appeals rules required by this section become 
     effective.
       Sec. 117. Judicial review. This section establishes venue 
     and standing requirements in, sets deadlines for, and 
     otherwise governs lawsuits over resource management plans, 
     amendments, revisions, and petitions and management 
     activities.
       The venue for plan-related litigation is the U.S. Circuit 
     Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the lands (or the 
     largest portion of the lands) to which the plan applies are 
     located. The venue for litigation over a management activity, 
     or petition for plan amendment or revision is the U.S. 
     District Court in the district where the lands (or the 
     largest portion of the lands) on which the activity would 
     occur or to which the plan applies are located.
       This section also clarifies that standing and intervention 
     of right is to be granted to the fullest extent permitted by 
     the Constitution. This means those who are economically 
     injured cannot be barred by the non-constitutional, 
     prudential ``zone of interest''

[[Page S10328]]

     test developed by the judiciary. This section also limits 
     standing to those who make a legitimate effort to resolve 
     their concerns during the agency's decisionmaking process and 
     do not engage in ``litigation by ambush'' by withholding 
     their concerns until after the agency decision is made. 
     Specifically, this section requires that the plaintiff must 
     have participated in the agency's decisionmaking process and 
     submitted a written statement on the issue or issues to be 
     litigated, and must have exhausted opportunities for 
     administrative review.
       Deadlines for bringing suit are 90 days after the final 
     decision on the administrative appeal of a resource 
     management plan, amendment, or revision, and 30 days after a 
     final decision on the administrative appeal of a management 
     activity or final disposition of a petition for plan 
     amendment or revision. If the challenge involves a statute 
     (e.g., Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act) which 
     requires a period of notice before filing a citizen suit, the 
     notice must be filed by the applicable deadline and suit must 
     be filed 7 days after the end of that notice period.
       This section bars suits brought on the basis of new 
     information, law, or regulation until after a petition for 
     plan amendment or revision is filed and a decision is made on 
     it.
       This section also clarifies that suits concerning resource 
     management plans and management activities are to be decided 
     on the administrative record.


  TITLE II--COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

       Sec. 201. Purposes. The purposes of this title are to 
     eliminate primarily procedural conflicts among, and 
     coordinate, the various land management and environmental 
     laws without reducing--indeed enhancing--environmental 
     protection.
       Sec. 202. Environmental analysis. This section describes 
     how compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA) will occur in resource management planning and 
     planning for management activities. It requires that an EIS 
     be prepared whenever a resource management plan is developed 
     or revised. (Plan amendments may have either an EIS or EA 
     depending on their significance.) This section also provides 
     that, for management activities, an EA ordinarily is 
     prepared. The EA for the management activity is to be tiered 
     to the EIS for the applicable resource management plan. The 
     agency may prepare a full EIS on a management activity if it 
     determines the nature or scope of the activity's 
     environmental impacts in substantially different from, or 
     greater than, the nature or scope of impacts analyzed in the 
     EIS on the applicable resource management plan.
       Sec. 203. Wildlife protection. This section addresses the 
     relationship of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to federal 
     land planning and management. First, it provides a 
     certification procedure by which the Forest Service and BLM 
     can become certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
     conduct the consultation responsibilities normally assigned 
     to the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 
     Fisheries Services by section 7 of the ESA. If they are 
     certified, the two land management agencies will have the 
     authority to prepare the biological opinions under the ESA 
     just as they now prepare EISs under NEPA.
       Second, this section addresses situations in which the 
     resource management plan may have to undergo consultation 
     because of a new designation of an endangered or threatened 
     species or of a species' critical habitat, or new information 
     about an already designated species or habitat. This section 
     requires that a decision be reached as to whether 
     consultation is required on the plan within 90 days of the 
     new designation, and that any amendment to or revision of the 
     plan be completed within 12 or 18 months, respectively, after 
     the new designation. It also allows individual management 
     activities to continue under the plan while it is being 
     amended or revised, if those activities either separately 
     undergo consultation concerning the newly designated species 
     or habitat or are determined not to require consultation.
       Sec. 204. Water quality protection. This section addresses 
     the relationship of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to federal land 
     planning and management. It provides that any management 
     activity that constitutes a non-point source of water 
     pollution is to be considered in compliance with applicable 
     CWA provisions if the State in which the activity will occur 
     certifies that it meets best management practices or that 
     functional equivalent. The agency, however, may choose not 
     to seek State certification and satisfy the separate 
     applicable CWA requirements.
       Sec. 205. Air quality protection. This section addresses 
     the relationship of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to federal land 
     planning and management. It provides that, when a Forest 
     Service forest supervisor or BLM district manager finds that 
     a prescribed fire will reduce the likelihood of greater 
     emissions from a wildfire, and will be conducted in a manner 
     that minimizes impact on air quality to the extent 
     practicable, the prescribed fire is deemed to be in 
     compliance with applicable CAA provisions.
       Sec. 206. Meetings with users of the Federal lands. This 
     section addresses the relationship of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (FACA) to federal land planning and management. 
     It clarifies that the agencies may meet without violating 
     FACA with one or more: holders of, or applicants for, federal 
     permits, leases, contracts or other authorizations for use of 
     the federal lands; other persons who conduct activities on 
     the federal lands; and persons who own or manage lands 
     adjacent to the federal lands.


            title iii--development of ecoregion assessments

       Sec. 301. Purpose. The purpose of this title is to 
     authorize the new practice of preparing ecoregion 
     assessments, and to prescribe how those assessments will be 
     integrated into federal land planning and management.
       Sec. 302. Authorization and notice of assessments. This 
     section authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to prepare 
     ecosystem assessments, which may include non-federal lands if 
     the Governors of the affected States agree. It requires the 
     agency to give the four Committees of Congress 90 days 
     advance notice before initiating an ecoregion assessment. The 
     notice must include: (1) a description of the land involved; 
     (2) the agency officials responsible; (3) the estimated costs 
     of and the deadlines for the assessment; (4) the charter for 
     the assessment; (5) the public, State, local government and 
     tribal participation procedures; (6) a thorough explanation 
     of how the ecoregion was identified and the attributes which 
     establish the ecoregion; and (7) detailed reasons for the 
     decision to prepare the assessment.
       Sec. 303. Status, effect and application of assessment. 
     This section provides that the assessments must not contain 
     any decisions concerning resource management planning or 
     management activities. It then provides a procedure for 
     applying information or analysis contained in ecoregion 
     assessments to such planning and activities. It directs the 
     relevant agency to make a decision within 6 months of 
     completion of an ecoregion assessment whether any information 
     or analyses in the assessment warrants amendments to, or 
     revisions of, a resource management plan for the federal 
     lands to which the assessment applies. If the decision is 
     made for an amendment or revision, no management activity on 
     federal lands may be delayed or altered on the basis of the 
     assessment while the amendment or revision is prepared. 
     Finally, no federal official may use an assessment as an 
     independent basis to regulate non-federal lands.
       Sec. 304. Applicability of other laws. As the ecoregion 
     assessments are nondecisional, this section provides that 
     they will not be subject to the consultation requirements of 
     the Endangered Species Act or the environmental requirements 
     of the National Environmental Policy Act.
       Sec. 305. Report to Congress. This section directs the 
     agencies to report biennially to the four Committees of 
     Congress on ecosystem assessments, their implications for 
     federal land management, and any resource management plan 
     amendments or revisions based on assessments. The report also 
     must include the agencies' views of the benefits and 
     detriments of, and recommendations for improving, ecosystem 
     assessments.
       Sec. 306. Pacific Northwest forest plan review. This 
     section provides for an independent review of the basis for, 
     and implementation of, President Clinton's Pacific Northwest 
     Forest Plan. It authorizes the appropriation of $5 million 
     for the Consortium of Regional Forest Assessment Centers, 
     through the University of Washington, to conduct the reviews 
     over a 6-month period. The review must include: (1) 
     assessments of the scientific information, assumptions, and 
     modeling both used and not used in the preparation of the 
     Plan; (2) an evaluation of whether the Plan will achieve both 
     its resource protection and resource production purposes, 
     goals, and objectives; (3) a review of the operational and 
     cost effectiveness of the Plan and any alternative 
     approaches; and (4) any recommendations for administrative or 
     legislative changes in the Plan. The Consortium's review is 
     to be submitted to the four Committees of Congress, without 
     submission (of it or any Consortium testimony) to any 
     federal officer or agency for prior approval, comments, or 
     review.


    title iv--development of a global renewable resources assessment

       Sec. 401. Purposes. The purpose of this title is to replace 
     the Renewable Resource Assessment and Renewable Resource 
     Program administered by the Forest Service under the Forest 
     and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 with a 
     Global Renewable Resources Assessment administered by an 
     independent National Council on Renewable Resources Policy.
       Sec. 402. Global renewable resources assessment. This 
     section emphasizes the vital importance of renewable 
     resources to national and international social, economic, and 
     environmental well-being, and of the need for a long-term 
     perspective in the use and conservation of renewable 
     resources. To achieve that perspective, this section directs 
     that a Global Renewable Resources Assessment be prepared 
     every 5 years. The Assessment must include: (1) an analysis 
     of national and international renewable resources supply and 
     demand; (2) an inventory of national and international 
     renewable resources, including opportunities to improve their 
     yield of goods and services; (3) an analysis of environmental 
     constraints and their effects on renewable resource 
     production in the U.S. and elsewhere; (4) an analysis of the 
     extent to which the renewable resources management programs 
     of other countries ensure sustainable use and production of 
     such resources; (5) a description of national and 
     international research programs on renewable resources; (6) a 
     discussion of policies, laws, etc. that are

[[Page S10329]]

     expected to affect significantly the use and ownership of 
     public and private renewable resource lands; and (7) 
     recommendations for administrative or legislative 
     initiatives.
       Sec. 403. National Council on Renewable Resources Policy. 
     This section establishes the National Council on Renewable 
     Resources Policy. Its functions are the preparation and 
     submission to Congress of the Global Renewable Resources 
     Assessment and the periodic submission to the Forest Service, 
     BLM, and four Committees of Congress of recommendations for 
     administrative and legislation changes or initiatives.
       The Council has 15 members, 5 each appointed by the 
     President, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker 
     of the House. The Chair is to be selected from the members. 
     This section has typical provisions for filling vacancies, 
     appointment of an Executive Director, compensation of the 
     members and the Executive Director, appointment of personnel, 
     authority to contract with federal agencies, and rulemaking 
     and other powers of the Council.
       This section strives to ensure the independence of the 
     Council in two ways. First, it requires that the Council 
     submit its budget request concurrently to both the President 
     and the Appropriations Committees of Congress. Second, it 
     requires concurrent submission of the Assessment, analyses, 
     recommendations, and testimony to Executive Branch officials 
     or agencies and the four Committees of Congress. Finally, it 
     prohibits, and requirees the reporting of, any attempt by a 
     federal official or agency to require prior submission of the 
     Assessment, analyses, recommendations, or testimony for 
     approval, comments, or review.
       Sec. 404. Repeal of certain provisions of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. This section 
     repeals those provisions of the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Planning Act that direct the Forest 
     Service to prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment and 
     Renewable Resource Program.


                        title v--administration

                           Part A. In general

       Sec. 501. Confirmation of the Chief of the Forest Service. 
     This section provides for Senate confirmation of appointments 
     to the office of Chief of the Forest Service, thereby 
     establishing the same appointment procedures as those 
     applicable to the Director of the BLM. This section also sets 
     certain minimum qualifications for the appointee: (1) a 
     degree in a scientific or engineering discipline that is 
     revelant to federal land management; (2) 5 years or more 
     experience in decisionmaking concerning management, or 
     research concerning the management, of federal lands or other 
     public lands; and (3) 5 years or more experience in 
     administering an office or program with a number of employees 
     equal to, or greater than, the average number of employees in 
     national forest supervisors' offices.
       Sec. 502. Monitoring funds. To encourage effective 
     management of the federal lands and provide a supplemental 
     funding source for important monitoring activities, this 
     section establishes a Public Lands Monitoring Fund for BLM 
     lands and Forest Lands Monitoring Fund for Forest Service 
     lands. The Funds would receive all monies collected from 
     federal lands in any fiscal year that are in excess of 
     federal land revenues projected in the President's baseline 
     budget (minus the State's and local government's share as 
     required by law). The monies in the Funds may be used, 
     without appropriations, to conduct the monitoring required by 
     section 115 or to fund the monitoring of the local, multi-
     interest committees under section 110.
       Sec. 503. Interagency transfer and interchange authority. 
     This section authorizes the BLM and Forest Service to 
     transfer between them adjacent lands not exceeding 5,000 
     acres or exchange adjacent lands not exceeding 10,000 acres 
     per transaction. These transactions are: (1) to occur without 
     transfer of funds; (2) to be effective 30 days or more after 
     publication of Federal Register notice; (3) not to affect any 
     legislative designation for the lands involved; and (4) 
     subject to valid existing rights.
       Sec. 504. Fees for processing records requests. To 
     discourage inordinately broad ``fishing expedition'' requests 
     under the Freedom of Information Act that severely tax agency 
     funding and personnel, this section prohibits the waiver or 
     reduction of fees under that Act for any records request to 
     the Forest Service or BLM that will cost in excess of $1000 
     for a single request or for multiple requests of any one 
     party within a 6-month period.
       Sec. 505. Off-Budget study. This section tasks the U.S. 
     General Accounting Office with the responsibility to conduct 
     a study for Congress of the feasibility of making the Forest 
     Service and BLM self-supporting by taking the agencies off-
     budget (no appropriated funds) and returning to them all 
     revenues generated on federal lands (with mineral revenues 
     from national forest lands allocated to the Forest Service), 
     except revenues which by other laws are paid to States and 
     local governments.

                       Part B. Non-Federal lands

       This part seeks to increase the timeliness and cost 
     efficiency of Forest Service and BLM decisionmaking which 
     directly affects private lands.
       Sec. 506. Access to adjacent or intermingled non-Federal 
     lands. This section establishes procedures for processing 
     applications for access to nonfederal land across federal 
     land as guaranteed by section 1323 of the Alaska National 
     Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). First, this 
     section requires that the application processing be completed 
     within 180 days and, if it is not, the access be deemed 
     approved. It sets a 15-day deadline for notifying the 
     applicant whether the application is complete. This section 
     makes clear that the analyses conducted under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act are to 
     consider the effects of the construction, maintenance and use 
     of the access across the federal lands and not the use of the 
     nonfederal lands to be accessed. Finally, it clarifies that 
     any restrictions imposed on the access grant pursuant to 
     section 1323 of ANILCA may limit or condition the 
     construction, maintenance, or use of the access across the 
     federal lands, but not the use of the nonfederal lands to be 
     accessed.
       Sec. 507. Exchanges of Federal lands for non-Federal lands. 
     This section establishes procedures for exchanges under, and 
     amends, section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976. As any management activity on any 
     federal lands or interests in lands newly acquired under an 
     exchange will be required to undergo full National 
     Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act review, 
     this section provides that on the exchange itself an EA 
     satisfies the environmental analysis requirements of section 
     102(2) NEPA and any consultation required under ESA will be 
     completed within 45 days instead of the 90-day period 
     provided by section 7 of ESA. Further, this section provides 
     that any exchange mandated by Congress requires no NEPA 
     documentation. This section also explicitly states that no 
     management activity may be undertaken on the newly acquired 
     federal lands or interests in land until NEPA and ESA are 
     fully complied with and, if necessary, the applicable 
     resource management plan is amended or revised. This section 
     requires that processing of the exchange must be completed 
     within one year of the date of submission of the exchange 
     application. Further, the nonfederal land or interests in 
     land in the exchange are to be appraised without restrictions 
     imposed by federal or State law to protect an environmental 
     value or resource if protection of that value or resource is 
     the very reason why the land is being acquired by the federal 
     government.
       This section also allows the Forest Service and BLM to 
     offer for competitive bid the exchange of federal lands or 
     interests in land that meets certain conditions. It also 
     authorizes the agencies to identify early or ``prequalify'' 
     federal lands or interests in land for exchange. Further, 
     when an exchange involves school trust lands, the agency is 
     excused from conducting a cultural assessment under section 
     106 of the National Historic Preservation Act if it enters 
     into an agreement with the State that ensures State 
     protection after the exchange of archeological resources or 
     sites to the maximum extent practicable. Further, this 
     section authorizes the Forest Service to exchange federally 
     owned subsurface resources within the National Forest System 
     or acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937.
       This section establishes special funds with a cap of 
     $12,000,000 for the agencies to use, subject to 
     appropriations, for processing land exchanges (including 
     making cash equalization payments where required to equalize 
     values of exchange properties). Finally, the maximum value of 
     lands in an exchange which may be undertaken on the basis of 
     approximately equal value (rather than strictly equal value) 
     is raised from $150,000 to $500,000.

                      Part C. The forest resource

       This part contains 3 sections concerning sales of forest 
     products on federal lands, expediting and linking such sales 
     to forest health management activities.
       Sec. 508. Forest health credits in sales of forest 
     products. This section provides the Forest Service and BLM 
     with an optional approach to undertaking forest health 
     management activities that would be impractical for the 
     agencies to accomplish under existing procedures or within 
     existing programs. Modelled on the provision for road 
     construction credits for purchasers of forest products sales 
     in the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (16 U.S.C. 
     535(2)), this approach permits the agencies to include new 
     provisions in the standard contract provisions for any 
     salvage sale of forest products or any sale of forest 
     products constituting a forest health enhancement project 
     under section 509. These new provisions would obligate the 
     purchaser to undertake certain forest health management 
     activities which could logically be performed as part of the 
     sale. In return, the purchaser receives ``forest health 
     credits'' to offset the cost of performing the activities 
     against the purchaser's payment for the forest products. 
     These forest health management activities are subject to the 
     same contractual requirements as all other harvesting 
     activities. Sale contracts with these forest health credits 
     provisions are to have terms of no more than 3 years.
       Before forest health credits provisions can be included in 
     a contract of sale of forest products, the agency concerned 
     has to identify and select the specific forest health 
     management activities. Forest health activities would be 
     eligible for forest health credits if the agency concerned 
     finds that: (1) they would address the effects of the 
     operation of the sale or past sales, or involve vegetation 
     management within the sale area;

[[Page S10330]]

     and (2) they could be accomplished most effectively when 
     performed as part of the sale contract, and would not likely 
     be performed otherwise. Forest health management activities 
     are defined to include thinning, salvage, stand improvement, 
     reforestation, prescribed burning or other fuels management, 
     insect or disease control, riparian or other habitat 
     improvement, or other activity which has any of 5 purposes: 
     improve forest health; safeguard human life, property, and 
     communities; protect other forest resources threatened by 
     adverse forest health conditions; restore the integrity of 
     ecosystems, watersheds, and habitats damaged by adverse 
     forest health conditions; or protect federal investments in 
     forest resources and future federal, State, and local 
     revenues.
       Once the determination is made to add forest health 
     management activities requirements to a sale of forest 
     products, the specific activities are identified, and their 
     costs are appraised, the required activities and the forest 
     health credits assigned to those activities are identified in 
     the sale's advertisement and prospectus. (After the sale, the 
     agency, with the concurrence of a sale purchaser, can alter 
     the scope of the forest health management activities or 
     amount of credits when warranted by changed conditions.) This 
     section provides that sales with forest health credits need 
     not return more revenues than they cost and are not to be 
     considered in determining the revenue effects of individual 
     forest, Forest Service region, or national forest products 
     sales programs.
       Appropriated funds can be used to offset the costs of 
     forest health management activities prescribed in a forest 
     products sale contract (typically when the total cost of such 
     activities would otherwise exceed the value of the offered 
     forest products materials or likely dampen competitive 
     interest in the sale), but only if those funds are derived 
     from the resource function or functions which would directly 
     benefit from the performance of the activities and are 
     appropriated in the fiscal year in which the sale is offered. 
     The amount of any appropriated funds to be paid for forest 
     health management activities under a sale contract also 
     must be announced in the sale's advertisement and 
     prospectus.
       In order to provide for a smooth introduction of sale 
     contracts with forest health credits provisions, the agencies 
     are urged to employ, wherever feasible, the already developed 
     and tested Forest Service procedures and requirements for 
     sales of forest products providing purchaser credits for road 
     construction under the National Forest Roads and Trails Act. 
     However, unlike those road construction credits, the forest 
     health credits issued under this section could not become 
     ineffective. All forest health credits earned by the 
     purchaser are redeemable. Earned forest health credits can be 
     transferred to any other sale of forest products held by the 
     purchaser which is located in the same region of the Forest 
     Service or same jurisdiction of the BLM State office, as the 
     case may be. The credits are considered ``earned'' when the 
     purchaser satisfactorily performs the forest health 
     management activity to which the credits are assigned in the 
     sale advertisement. If the purchaser normally would be 
     required to pay for all the forest products materials prior 
     to completion of a forest health management activity or 
     activities assigned forest health credits, the purchaser 
     could elect to defer a portion of the final payment for the 
     harvested materials equal to the forest health credits 
     assigned to the activity.
       This section sunsets in 5 years, but previously awarded 
     contracts for sale of forest products with forest health 
     credits provisions remain in effect under the terms of this 
     section after that time. To assist the Congress in 
     determining whether this section should be reenacted, the 
     Forest Service and BLM are required to monitor the 
     performance of sales contracts with forest health credits and 
     submit a joint report to Congress assessing the contracts' 
     effectiveness and whether continued use of such contracts is 
     advised.
       Sec. 509. Special funds. This section gives permanent 
     status to funds for salvage sales of forest products of the 
     Forest Service and BLM and expands their purposes to allow 
     use of the fund monies for a full array of forest health 
     enhancement projects.
       Sec. 510. Private contractors. To ensure that processing of 
     sales of forest products is accomplished in a timely manner 
     in an era of severe budget and personnel constraints, this 
     section encourages that the agencies, to the maximum extent 
     possible, use private contractors to prepare the sales. To 
     ensure the integrity of sale decisionmaking, this section 
     also requires the agencies to review the contract's work 
     before making any decisions on the sales and bars the 
     contractors from commenting on or participating in the sales' 
     decisions.
       Sec. 511. Non-harvested forest product sales. This section 
     eliminates statutory barriers to those who wish to bid on 
     sales of forest products with the intention of preserving the 
     trees in place instead of harvesting them. For those opposed 
     to particular sales, this provides another avenue besides 
     litigation to challenge them.
       Any sales of forest products may be purchased by parties 
     who elect not to harvest the trees (``election sales'') 
     except sales involving forest health credits under section 
     508, sales funded under the Special Funds established by 
     section 509, and sales which have as their primary purpose 
     ``vegetative management of lands management other than the 
     disposal of forest products,'' as defend by regulation. In 
     other words, when sales are offered in situations where 
     removal of trees is necessary for environmental protection 
     reasons, the purchaser must not have the option to leave the 
     trees in place; but, in situations where the sales are 
     offered principally for commodity purposes, that option 
     should be available.
       The length of term of an election sale will correspond to 
     the expected silvicultural rotation in a sale designed to 
     generate even-aged stands or the period prior to the next 
     schedule entry for a sale designed to develop and maintain 
     uneven-aged stands. Upon payment of the prorata share of the 
     purchase price, with interest, the Forest Service or BLM can 
     terminate an election sale contract during the contract term 
     if the trees subject to the sale are substantially damaged by 
     fire, windthrow, disease, insect infestation, or other 
     natural event and the determination is made that harvesting 
     is necessary to avoid damage to adjacent areas.
       The sale notice must notify prospective bidders if the sale 
     qualifies as an election sale and any bidder who intends to 
     elect non-harvesting must notify the Forest Service or BLM 
     with the bid submission. To ensure that all bids in an 
     election sale that has specifications for road construction 
     or reconstruction are equivalent for purposes of determining 
     the winning bidder, the Forest Service or BLM must deduct 
     from any bid which contains a non-harvesting notice the 
     estimated cost of such construction or reconstruction.
       Sec. 512. Exemption from strict liability for recovery of 
     fire suppression costs. Section 504 of FLPMA directed the 
     Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations governing 
     liability of users of rights-of-way granted under that Act. 
     The subsequent regulations imposed liability without fault 
     for, among other things, the recovery of fire suppression 
     costs of up to $1 million (43 C.F.R. Sec. 2803.1-5). This 
     section would amend section 504 to relieve non-profit 
     entities, particularly entities that use the rights-of-way 
     for electrical transmission to parties who own equity 
     interests in the entities, from strict liability for such 
     costs. This provision does not relieve these entities from 
     liability for fire suppression costs when they are at fault.


                        title vi--miscellaneous

       Sec. 601. Regulations. This section requires the Forest 
     Service and BLM to promulgate rules to implement this 
     legislation within a year and a half of its enactment.
       Sec. 602. Authorization of appropriations. This section 
     authorizes appropriations to implement this legislation for 
     10 fiscal years after enactment. It also sunsets at the same 
     time all other statutory authorizations for appropriations to 
     the Forest Service and BLM for management of the federal 
     lands.
       Sec. 603. Effective date. This section provides that this 
     legislation will take effect upon its enactment and 
     admonishes that no decision or action authorized by this 
     legislation is to be delayed pending rulemaking.
       Sec. 604. Savings clauses. This section ensures that 
     nothing in this legislation conflicts with the law pertaining 
     to the BLM's O&C lands in Oregon. Further, this section bars 
     construing any provision of this legislation as terminating 
     any valid lease, permit, right-of-way, or other right or 
     authorization of use of the federal lands, including any 
     Native American treaty right, existing upon enactment. 
     Finally, this section provides that all actions under this 
     legislation are subject to valid existing rights.
       Sec. 605. Severability. This final section contains the 
     standard severability clause.

Section-by-Section Description--Federal Lands Management Adjustment Act

       Sec. 1. Short title. The short title of this bill is 
     ``Federal Lands Management Adjustment Act.''
       Sec. 2. Purposes. The bill has two purposes. The first is 
     to encourage the development of alternative management 
     programs for federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management (BLM) and Forest Service that are more innovative, 
     less costly, and more reflective of neighboring communities' 
     and publics' concerns and needs than the agencies' current 
     programs. The second purpose is to provide a procedure that 
     would grant authority to the States and nonprofit 
     organizations to implement those alternative management 
     programs on certain of those federal lands.
       Sec. 3. Definitions. This section defines the terms used in 
     this legislation. For example, ``Committees of Congress'' 
     means the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Resources and Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
       Most important are the definitions of ``federal lands'' and 
     ``eligible federal lands'' for which temporary management 
     authority may be granted under procedures established by this 
     legislation. ``Federal lands'' are defined as lands managed 
     by the BLM (other than Outer Continental Shelf lands) and 
     lands in the National Forest System (including national 
     grasslands) managed by the Forest Service. All ``federal 
     lands'' are eligible for temporary management by nonprofit 
     organizations under applicable federal laws. Only 
     ``eligible federal lands'' are eligible for temporary 
     management by the States under State law. ``Eligible 
     federal lands'' are defined to include federal lands 
     within the National Wilderness Preservation System, 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and National 
     Trails System, but only if they are

[[Page S10331]]

     managed in accordance with the federal laws establishing 
     those systems. To prevent fragmented management or 
     ``cherry picking'' of only the most economically 
     remunerative of federal lands by the States, this 
     definition excludes from ``eligible federal lands'' any 
     area that constitutes less than all the federal lands 
     within a BLM district or national forest and any BLM 
     district or national forest which generates the most 
     revenues in a State (unless the State has less than 2 BLM 
     districts or 2 national forests, or chooses to assume 
     jurisdiction over all BLM-managed federal lands or all 
     Forest Service-managed federal lands in the State).
       Sec. 4. Transfer of management authority to States. This 
     section authorizes the transfer of temporary management 
     authority for eligible federal lands under the conditions, 
     and in accordance with the procedures, established in this 
     legislation.
       Sec. 5. State application. This section provides the 
     procedure by which the States may initiate the process of 
     transferring temporary management authority over eligible 
     federal lands. The governor of a State (or, if another State 
     entity has authority under State law to acquire and convey 
     State land, then that agency, after consultation with the 
     governor) may submit an application to manage all or certain 
     eligible federal lands within the State to the four 
     Committees of Congress, to the Secretary of the Interior (for 
     BLM lands) and/or Secretary of Agriculture (for Forest 
     Service lands), and to any affected Indian tribes. Each State 
     is limited to one application every 2 years because, once the 
     State has submitted an application, it is prohibited from 
     submitting another application during the 2-year application 
     review period established by section 6. After the review 
     period is completed, however, the State can submit another 
     application regardless of whether the first application was 
     approved or denied by Congress in accordance with section 6. 
     The application must describe the eligible federal lands for 
     which management authority is sought, provide a summary and 
     the text of State laws under which the lands would be 
     managed, and describe the personnel and funding available for 
     managing the lands (including procedures to identify and 
     employ Forest Service or BLM personnel who are knowledgeable 
     about the specific lands and may seek employment if the 
     management authority is transferred).
       Sec. 6. Procedures for granting State management authority. 
     This section provides the procedures to be performed by the 
     federal government to grant State management authority over 
     eligible federal lands. First, within 10 days of receiving a 
     State application, the Secretary or Secretaries must publish 
     notice of availability of the application in the Federal 
     Register. Second, within 90 days of receiving the 
     application, the Secretary or Secretaries must submit to the 
     four Committees of Congress and any affected Indian tribe an 
     advisory report on the application which assesses the 
     adequacy of the State law to manage the lands, the 
     qualifications of the State personnel assigned to manage the 
     lands, the adequacy of the State funding for managing the 
     lands, and any effect State management may have on Indian 
     tribes. The report must also provide any recommendations 
     which the Secretary or Secretaries have concerning the 
     application. Any affected Indian tribe is invited to submit 
     its own advisory report on the application within 60 days 
     after the submission of the Secretarial advisory report.
       This section also makes it clear that no State can assume 
     temporary management authority over eligible federal lands 
     without an act of Congress. It further states that, if 
     Congress does not enact a law authorizing a State to assume 
     management authority over eligible federal lands identified 
     in a State application within 2 years from the date of 
     receipt of the application by the four Committees of 
     Congress, the application is deemed denied.
       Sec. 7. State management of Federal lands. This section 
     provides the minimum general condition for State management. 
     (Of course, the individual acts authorizing State assumption 
     of management authority may contain further conditions.)
       This section declares that the eligible federal lands are 
     to be managed by the State subject to valid existing rights 
     in accordance with applicable State law, the federal law 
     authorizing transfer of management authority, and other 
     federal law applicable to State (not federal) lands. The 
     exception is lands within the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 
     and National Trails System; those lands must be managed in 
     accordance with the federal laws which established those 
     Systems. The State assumes all rights and responsibilities of 
     the United States under and for federal grazing permits, 
     mineral leases, contracts for sale of forest products, and 
     other authorizations for use of the affected federal lands in 
     existence on the date the management authority is 
     transferred. Those use authorizations will continue under 
     their provisions and applicable federal law until the end of 
     their terms (except the revenues will be paid to the States). 
     At the end of the term of the use authorization it will not 
     be extended or renewed; instead, the holder will be given 
     right-of-first-refusal for the issuance of an authorization 
     for the same use under State law.
       Valid existing mining claims, however, remain under federal 
     authority until the mining claims are patented, abandoned, 
     declared invalid, or, at the election of the claimants, 
     converted to State leases or other disposition under State 
     law. The BLM and Forest Service must consult with the States 
     on federal minerals management decisions concerning valid 
     mining claims, and the States have authority to manage the 
     surface estate and dispose of rights and collect any revenues 
     from other minerals and rights.
       The State would collect the revenues and fees that were 
     previously imposed by federal law from those federal permits, 
     licenses, etc., which remain in effect after State assumption 
     of management authority over eligible federal lands. 
     Otherwise, the State is free to impose its own revenue and 
     fee collection requirements for those lands under State law. 
     The State also may determine how the revenues and fees are to 
     be used and distributed in accordance with State law.
       Other federal land law that continues to apply to the 
     eligible federal lands under State management is the access 
     provisions of section 1323, and the Alaska subsistence use 
     provisions of Title VIII, of the Alaska National Interests 
     Lands Conservation Act. Federal land law that ceases to apply 
     is the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act and any other law that 
     provides payments to State or local governments to offset 
     declining revenues from federal lands.
       Sec. 8. Authorization for transition appropriations. To 
     facilitate the transfer of management authority, this section 
     provides that amounts may be appropriated to a State which 
     has assumed management authority in the first, second, and 
     third fiscal years of State management equal to 75%, 50%, and 
     25%, respectively, of the appropriated funds expended in 
     managing the lands in the last fiscal year of federal 
     management. These funds must be reimbursed by the State to 
     the federal Treasury within 7 years after the State receives 
     them.
       Sec. 9. Transition. This section provides for the transfer 
     of federal records, federal personal property, and unexpended 
     balances of federal appropriations and other funds to the 
     State upon enactment of a management authority transfer law. 
     It also authorizes the detailing to the State of federal 
     personnel for a year or less.
       Sec. 10. Term of the State management. This section defines 
     the temporary nature of any transfer of management authority 
     for eligible federal lands to the States. It limits the term 
     of transfer to 10 years, unless provided otherwise in the 
     specific management authority transfer law. A State may seek 
     management authority for additional 10-year terms by filing 
     new applications which would be processed in accordance with 
     section 5. The State also may apply for ownership of eligible 
     federal lands after the initial 10-year management period. 
     The application for either continued State management or 
     State ownership of the eligible federal lands must include a 
     detailed report on the State's management performance on 
     those lands during the terminating 10-year period. Congress 
     would have to enact a law for ownership to pass, and this 
     legislation provides no guidance for that process.
       Sec. 11. Return to Federal management. This section 
     provides guidance and procedures for the transfer of 
     management authority for federal lands back to the federal 
     government whenever a State chooses not to apply for, or 
     Congress fails to grant, continued management authority. The 
     guidance and procedures for reassumption of federal 
     management authority are the mirror-image of the guidance and 
     procedures provided in sections 7 and 9 for the transfer of 
     management authority to the States.
       Sec. 12. Transfer of management authority to nonprofits. 
     This section provides authority to transfer temporary 
     management authority over federal lands to nonprofit 
     organizations. The conditions and procedures for transfer to 
     nonprofits are similar to those established in prior sections 
     for transfer to States, but with three significant 
     differences: First, all federal lands (not ``eligible 
     federal lands'' as in the case of the States) are eligible 
     for nonprofit management, with three limitations (not less 
     than all federal lands in any BLM district or national 
     forest, and not more than three BLM districts or three 
     national forests in the same general area). Second, the 
     applicable law remains federal law (not State law as in 
     the case of transfer to the States). The nonprofit, 
     however, need not comply with federal agency regulations 
     or policies if it otherwise complies with the applicable 
     federal laws. Furthermore, in its application for 
     management authority transfer, the nonprofit may identify 
     any provisions of federal law which it desires an 
     exemption or exception. And, if Congress grants the 
     exemption or exception in the legislation authorizing 
     transfer, the nonprofit need not adhere to those 
     particular provisions. Third, no opportunity to assume 
     ownership of federal lands is offered to nonprofits.
       To qualify as a nonprofit organization which may submit a 
     management authority transfer application, the organization 
     must be a corporation or other entity that is organized under 
     the laws of the State in which all or a majority of the 
     relevant federal lands is located, has as its express purpose 
     the managing those lands, and is described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
       The application for transfer must describe the federal 
     lands for which management authority is sought, document the 
     nonprofit's eligibility to submit an application and 
     qualifications to manage those federal lands, identify the 
     federal law exemptions or exceptions sought by the nonprofit, 
     describe the relationship the nonprofit intends to have

[[Page S10332]]

     with BLM and Forest Service personnel then managing those 
     federal lands, and identify any personnel changes the 
     nonprofit expects to make in the first year it has management 
     authority. In addition to the entities to which the State 
     application must be sent, the nonprofit's application must 
     also be submitted to any affected local government.
       As in the case of the States, Secretarial advisory reports 
     and Congressional enactment of legislation are required 
     before transfer of management authority occurs. If the 
     legislation is not enacted within two years of the submission 
     of the application, the application is deemed denied.
       This section provides for payment to each nonprofit in the 
     first 3 years it manages the federal lands of 75%, 50%, and 
     25% of the funds that were appropriated for management of 
     those lands by the federal agency in the last fiscal year 
     prior to transfer. Although section 8 provides for identical 
     payments to States which have assumed management authority, 
     the State payments are authorized while the nonprofit 
     payments are required.
       The nonprofit receives all revenues and fees from the 
     federal lands over which it has management authority. The 
     nonprofit will make all employment and compensation 
     decisions, subject to applicable federal law, concerning BLM 
     or Forest Service personnel who manage those lands. Personnel 
     from either agency on the date of transfer or newly employed 
     from either agency after the date of transfer will remain 
     federal employees. Additional personnel employed from outside 
     either agency after the date of transfer will be employees of 
     the nonprofit.
       The provisions for length of management term, renewal for 
     another term, and return to federal management are 
     substantively the same as for the States.
       Sec. 13. Venues. This section sets the venues for 
     litigation related to transfer of federal land management 
     authority under this legislation. Any litigation concerning 
     any action, other than actions concerning valid mining 
     claims, on eligible federal lands for which a State has 
     assumed management authority must be brought in the 
     appropriate State court. Any litigation concerning the 
     validity or Constitutionality of this legislation must be 
     brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
     Columbia and any litigation concerning any law transferring 
     management authority to either a State or a nonprofit 
     organization enacted pursuant to section 6 or section 12 must 
     be brought in the U.S. District Court for the district in 
     which all or a majority of the lands to which the law applies 
     is situated. This litigation must be brought within 60 days 
     of the date of enactment of this legislation or the 
     management authority transfer law, or be barred.
       Sec. 14. Effect on other laws. This section makes it clear 
     that State or nonprofit assumption of management authority 
     over federal lands will not trigger changes in federal 
     policies, resource management plans, etc. applicable to other 
     federal lands in the State or region.

                          ____________________