```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7498-S7528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S7498]]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Breaux, Mr. 
        Pressler, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Lott, Mr. Dole, Mr. Murkowski, and 
        Mr. Heflin)
  S. 851. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
reform the wetlands regulatory program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

               the wetlands regulatory reform act of 1995

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce, along 
with several of my colleagues, the Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 
1995. I am particularly pleased to have as the lead cosponsor Senator 
Faircloth, the chairman of the subcommittee of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee that has jurisdiction over wetlands. Our bill 
will reform the section 404 ``wetlands'' permitting program under the 
Clean Water Act by introducing balance, common sense, and reason to a 
Federal program that is causing unnecessary problems for my 
constituents--and I believe for many of our citizens around the Nation.
  In the closing days of the last Congress, I introduced a wetlands 
bill, S. 2506, so that my colleagues and other interested persons could 
review the legislation and recommend improvements prior to 
reintroduction in the 104th Congress. I appreciate the efforts of those 
who took the time over the last few months to provide suggestions, many 
of which are reflected in the current bill.
  Mr. President, the current section 404 regulatory program has been 
designed less by the elected representatives of the people than by 
officials of the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 
Agency and by Federal judges. In 1972, the Congress enacted the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. Section 404 of that Act prohibited 
``discharges of dredged or fill material'' into ``waters of the United 
States;'' without a permit from the Secretary of the Army. At the time 
of passage, ``waters of the United States'' was thought to be limited 
to the navigable waters of the Nation.
  From this narrow beginning has come a rigid regulatory program that 
is devaluing property and preventing the construction of housing, the 
extension of airport runways, the construction of roads--often on lands 
that rarely, if ever, have water on the surface but which, 
nevertheless, are viewed as ``wetlands'' within the definition of 
``waters of the United States''. And I might add, Mr. President, that 
75 percent of the land that is being regulated through the Section 404 
program as ``wetlands'' or ``waters of the United States'' is 
privately-owned property.
  I do not believe that we, in Congress, intended for the Section 404 
program to become a rigid, broad Federal land use program that affects 
primarily privately-owned property. Yet, the evidence is clear to me 
that the Section 404 program has become just that. Therefore, Mr. 
President, I believe that the time has come for the Congress to reform 
this program to focus Federal regulatory authority on those wetlands 
that are truly important functioning wetlands, to ensure that our 
citizens can obtain permits through a reasonable process within a 
reasonable period of time, and to ensure that this program is not 
denying people the use of their property unless there is an overriding 
reason to do so.
  Mr. President, the Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 proposes 
several key changes to the current 404 program:
  First, the bill provides a statutory definition of a jurisdictional 
wetland. This is, of course, the crucial threshold question: what 
wetlands are subject to Federal regulation? And yet, one can read the 
entire Clean Water Act without finding the answer to this question. 
Instead, the answer currently lies only in a manual prepared by the 
Corps of Engineers in 1987. I think it is high
 time that Congress make an explicit judgment on this matter and set 
forth a definition in the statute itself.

  The definition in our bill is essentially this: there must be water 
on or above the surface of the ground for at least 21 consecutive days 
during the growing season. This is virtually the same as the definition 
in H.R. 961, which passed the House last week.
  During the debate in the House, it was claimed by opponent of the 
bill that this definition excludes a huge portion of the wetlands that 
are currently regulated. However, the claims varied widely, and did not 
appear to be based on solid evidence. Although I think that these 
claims are exaggerated I want to make sure that our definition does not 
exclude wetlands that are truly important. Therefore, I intend to write 
to the Clinton administration to ask them to provide the best evidence 
available regarding the effect of our definition on the amount and 
nature of wetland regulated, both nationwide and in Louisiana.
  Second, this legislation will require that Federal jurisdictional 
wetlands be classified into three categories: high, medium, and low 
valued wetlands, based on the relative wetlands functions present. 
Today, the Section 404 program regulates all wetlands equally rigidly, 
whether the wetland is a pristine, high-value wetland, a wet spot in a 
field, or a ``wetland'' in the middle of an industrial area. This 
treatment of wetlands defies logic and common sense.
  My legislation will require the Corps of Engineers to classify 
wetlands based on their functions, and then regulate them accordingly. 
Class A, high-value, wetlands will be regulated under the current 
``sequencing'' methodology, which first seeks to avoid adverse effects 
on wetlands, then attempts to minimize those adverse effects that 
cannot be avoided, and finally calls for mitigation of any adverse 
effects that cannot be avoided or minimized. Class B, medium-value, 
wetlands will be regulated under a balancing test, which does not 
require the avoidance step. Finally, Class C, low-value, wetlands will 
not be regulated by the Federal Government, but may be regulated by the 
State if they so choose.
  Third, this legislation removes the dual agency implementation of 
this program, an aspect of the program that is particularly confusing 
and troublesome to our constituents. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers 
issues Section 404 permits, but the Environmental Protection Agency may 
veto the decision of the Corps to issue the permit. Although EPA 
actually exercises its veto power infrequently, I understand that veto 
is threatened often, causing undue delays and repeated multi-agency 
consultations. My legislation removes the EPA veto, and instead simply 
requires the Corps to consult with EPA before acting.
  Similarly, current law allows the EPA to veto permit decisions made 
by State that have assumed responsibility for the section 404 program. 
Our bill makes two changes to this regime. First, the Corps, instead of 
the EPA, becomes responsible for overseeing States that have assumed 
responsibility for the program. This is done in order to consolidate 
responsibility in a single Federal agency. Second, the bill deletes the 
veto authority as an unnecessary interference with State administration 
of the program. If the Corps determines that the State is
 not implementing the program appropriately, the Corps has the 
authority, which my bill does not change, to withdraw approval of the 
State program and return the program to Federal hands. But as long as 
the State is in charge, its individual permit decisions should not be 
subject to veto from Washington.

  Fourth, mitigation banking is authorized and encouraged by the bill 
as a sound means to return wetlands functions to the environment. There 
are a number of mitigation banking projects now around the Nation. The 
experience with these projects is proving that mitigation banking holds 
great promise as a means of restoring, enhancing, reclaiming, and even 
creating wetlands to offset the wetlands disturbances that are 
permitted under the section 404 program. Mitigation banking is the type 
of market driven mechanism that I believe we must incorporate in our 
national environmental laws if we are to achieve our national 
environmental goals.
  Finally, this legislation will require that steps be taken to provide 
notice to our citizens regarding the location of Federal jurisdictional 
wetlands. Remarkably, Mr. President, the Federal Government is 
regulating over 100 million acres of land, over 75 million acres of 
which is privately owned, yet there are no maps posted to inform 
citizens about the location of these lands. Perhaps this would not be a 
problem if [[Page S7499]] Federal jurisdictional wetlands were only 
swamps, marshes, bogs, and other such areas that are wet at the surface 
for a significant portion of the year, and therefore relatively easy 
for our citizens to identify. But land that is dry at the surface all 
year long can also be a Federal jurisdictional wetland.
  Without maps and other notices, only the most highly trained 
technicians among our citizens can identify the subtle differences 
between lands that are not subject to the section 404 program and those 
that are. Thus, many people have bought land for home sites, only to 
find out later that they have bought a Federal jurisdictional wetland 
and cannot obtain a permit to build their house. We owe our citizens 
better than that.
  My legislation will require the Corps of Engineers to immediately 
post notices about the section 404 program near the property records in 
the courthouses around the Nation, and to post maps of Federal 
jurisdictional wetlands as those maps become available, including the 
National Wetlands Inventory maps that are being developed by the 
National Biological Survey.
  Mr. President, there are many other improvements of the current 
program in my legislation, including time limits on the issuance of 
section 404 permits, an administrative appeal process, and the 
designation of the Secretary of Agriculture to delineate wetlands on 
agricultural lands.
  As I mentioned, our bill has virtually the same definition of wetland 
as the House-passed clean water bill, H.R. 961. Although there are 
several other comparable provisions in the two bills, our legislation 
varies from the House-passed bill in at least one important respect. 
Our legislation does not provide a mechanism for obtaining compensation 
from the Federal Government when private property is taken through the 
operation of the 404 program. I believe that the impact of the section 
404 program on private property rights is a very important issue. 
However, I also believe that compensation is an extraordinarily
 complex and controversial issue that overarches all environmental 
regulations, not just those relating to wetlands. Thus, rather than 
attempting to resolve the compensation issue in this bill, we have 
chosen to include provisions in the legislation that will help ensure 
that the Section 404 Program does not result in takings of private 
property in the first place. Therefore, in addition to the many 
provisions of the bill that will make the wetlands program more 
balanced and rational, it also directs Federal officials to implement 
the program in a manner that minimizes the adverse effects on the use 
and value of privately-owned property.

  I would be remiss if I did not comment on the recently-issued study 
of wetlands by the National Academy of Sciences. The report reaches 
several conclusions that are reflected in this legislation. 
Specifically, it recommends the consolidation of all wetlands 
regulatory functions into a single Federal agency, a change that is 
central to our legislation. It also recommends that regional variations 
in wetlands be taken into account, which our bill does.
  Some have suggested that the NAS study recommends against a 
classification scheme such as is included in our bill, but I do not 
read it that way. The report states that:

       Some groups have suggested the creation of a national 
     scheme that would designate wetlands of high, medium, or low 
     value based on some general guidelines involving size, 
     location, or some other factor that does not require field 
     evaluation. It is not possible, however, to relate such 
     categories in a reliable way to objective measures of 
     wetlands functions, in part because the relationships between 
     categories and functions are variable and in part because we 
     still have insufficient knowledge of wetlands functions. 
     (Emphasis added.)

  I read the report to warn against nationwide classification schemes 
that do not take into account site-specific considerations, a point on 
which I heartily agree. That is why our classification process is 
initiated only in connection with the consideration of a permit 
application or upon a request for classification of a specific piece of 
property. The particular piece of property is classified after 
considering site-specific factors, such as the significance of the 
wetland ``to the long-term conservation of the aquatic system of which 
the wetland is a part,'' and the ``scarcity of functioning wetlands 
within the watershed or aquatic system.'' Thus, I do not see an 
inconsistency between the NAS report and our bill with respect to 
classification.
  Even if the NAS study could be interpreted as expressing concern 
about any classification scheme for wetlands, I would suggest that 
those concerns should not be dispositive. Scientists and lawmakers 
necessarily approach matters differently. Scientists are in the 
business of achieving a more perfect state of knowledge, while 
lawmakers are in the business of drawing regulatory lines and 
allocating societal resources based on the information available. While 
a scientist might prefer to wait for more information before 
distinguishing among wetlands, Congress cannot wait because the present 
regulatory scheme, which makes no distinctions among wetlands, is so 
clearly ineffective at balancing wetlands protection against other 
policy considerations.
  Mr. President, reforming the wetlands regulatory program will be one 
of my highest priorities in this Congress. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues and others in an effort to make the program work 
both for the environment and for our constituents.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Louisiana, 
Senator J. Bennett Johnston, in introducing legislation today which 
makes major reforms in Sec. 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, also known a the Clean Water Act.
  We all know Sec. 404 to be the wetlands regulatory program which has 
caused so much controversy and so many problems. I have heard countless 
complaints that the program has been implemented in an excessive and 
restrictive manner for years, imposing unfair hardship on landowners, 
businesses and local governments.
  It is long overdue that the Sec. 404 program be reformed. It is long 
overdue that the program be balanced, reasonable and fair. This bill 
attempts to achieve those objectives.
  One of the major features of the bill is its wetlands classification 
system. I wholeheartedly endorse classifying and regulating wetlands by 
the their value and function.
  All wetlands are not equal in value and function, yet for years they 
have been regulated that way. That way is wrong and we intend to change 
it.
  We do not have a wetlands classification system in current law. To be 
fair and to strike balance and reason in wetlands regulation we must 
identify and regulate according to the very real differences in 
wetlands value and function.
  For the first time, wetlands would be divided into three classes of 
critical significance, Class A, significant, Class B, and marginal 
value, Class C. Each class is defined to distinguish the different 
values and functions found in wetlands.
  Classes A and B wetlands would be regulated because they provide the 
most valuable functions. A public interest test would have to be met 
when regulating these two classes. Class C wetlands would not be 
regulated because they are of marginal value.
  Other major provisions of the bill include a definition of 
jurisdictional wetlands, expansion of wetlands regulatory exemptions 
and an expansion of regulated activities. Single agency program 
jurisdiction and administration by the Corps of Engineers is 
established.
  Also included in the bill are exclusion of prior converted cropland 
from Sec. 404 regulation, USDA delineation of wetlands on agricultural 
land, and authorization of State permitting programs, and 
administrative appeals program and a mitigation banking program. Public 
information is required to be published about wetlands and their 
regulation at the Federal and local levels.
  The bill's policies attempt to strike a very simple and sound premise 
in regulatory policy, that is, balance, reason and, most importantly, 
fairness shall prevail.
  These policies attempt to balance respect for the environment with 
respect for property owners, in whose possession lies an estimated 75 
percent of our wetlands in the lower 48 states.
  In all that we do with regard to wetlands policy, we must always be 
mindful and respectful of the fact that most [[Page S7500]] of our 
wetlands in the lower 48 States are privately owned.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for this time to announce my support for 
and sponsorship of the Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.
  I hope the Senate can begin hearings on the legislation and hear 
solid testimony so that a final bill can be crafted.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I join Senator Faircloth and 
Senator Johnston and others, in introducing legislation that addresses 
a major concern of landowners, farmers, businesses, and average 
citizens throughout the United States. The concern is wetlands.
  Just last week, during consideration of the Clean Water Act, the 
House of Representatives passed major revisions to our Federal wetlands 
laws. It is now the Senate's turn to address this major issue. As 
Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Wetlands, Senator Faircloth will 
direct Senate efforts to bring much needed common sense to our Federal 
wetlands laws. Very few Federal issues are more critical to South 
Dakota property owners. Therefore, I look forward to working with 
Senator Faircloth in making sure reforms are adopted during this 
Congress.
  Mr. President, current wetlands law is too broad. It is causing too 
many problems throughout the country. Congress has never passed a 
comprehensive law defining wetlands. Without such a definition, Federal 
agencies have been recklessly pursuing control over private property in 
the name of saving wetlands. The time to act has come.
  Earlier this year, I introduced S. 352, The Comprehensive Wetlands 
Conservation and Management Act of 1995. A number of the provisions in 
my legislation already have been adopted by the House, as part of its 
reforms on wetlands. Also, I am pleased that most of S. 352 is 
incorporated in the bipartisan bill we are introducing today.
  By introducing a bipartisan bill, one message is made clear: 
Meaningful wetlands reform must be adopted this year.
  One issue I reserve the right to address during future Senate debate 
on wetlands reform is adequate compensation for private property 
owners. Whenever the Federal Government takes land away from private 
property owners, or significantly reduces the use of private property, 
compensation is in order. There is no compensation provision in the 
bill being introduced today. However, I intend to raise this issue 
during floor debate on this subject. Compensation to private property 
owners should be included in meaningful wetlands reform.
  The primary purpose of today's legislation is to clearly define 
wetlands in law and regulation. What the Federal Government should, or 
should not be doing in this area needs to be clearly defined.
  In addition, efforts must be made to ensure that any fine or penalty 
is in line with violations. Many violations are incidental and can be 
quickly repaired. Penalties should fit the crime. The bill we are 
introducing today would set that kind of standard.
  The bill would require certain criteria to be met and verified before 
an area can be regulated as a wetland. Such an approach would be more 
reliable in identifying true wetlands. It would prevent field 
inspectors from mistakenly classifying as wetland dry, upland areas 
that drain effectively. It also would eliminate a major source of 
confusion and abuse caused by current regulations.
  This bill also would give States and local governments the authority 
to tailor the wetlands regulatory program to their own special 
circumstances. This is greatly needed.
  The bill also would clarify current agricultural exemptions and 
provide that the Secretary of Agriculture shall identify agricultural 
lands that are wetlands.
  Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to adopt wetlands 
reform. Only through the kind of commonsense and balanced approach 
proposed in this bill can the Nation's agricultural, business, 
environmental, and individual interests be properly addressed.
  Mr. President, thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or 
visited with me about the lack of definition of wetlands and the 
haphazard rules and regulatory overkill taken by the Federal 
Government. They rightly are concerned about the impact of the current 
system on their ability to run their farms and businesses. South 
Dakotans are law-abiding citizens who stand for fairness and balance in 
the enforcement of the law. South Dakotans are conscientious stewards 
of the land they have cared for and cultivated for generations. They 
believe the time has come for a fair, balanced approach that protests 
the environment as well as private property. I believe the bill we are 
introducing today responds to this call for fairness from South Dakota 
and across America.
  Action on this issue is essential. I urge my colleagues to take a 
close look at this bill and join in supporting it.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Brown, Mr. Campbell, 
        Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Burns, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Kyl, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Dole, and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 852. A bill to provide for uniform management of livestock grazing 
on Federal land, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.

                   the livestock grazing act of 1995

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, over the past several years, a series of 
legislative and administrative actions have haunted the Federal lands 
ranchers. A cloud has been hanging over their livelihoods. Today, with 
the introduction of the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 [LGA], we intend 
to roll back that cloud.
  In the wings, however, there awaits an onerous proposal that will 
jeopardize the very fabric of the Federal lands rancher's livelihood. 
On August 21, 1995, Secretary Babbitt's Rangeland Reform '94 proposal 
becomes final. Earlier this year, the Secretary agreed to provide a 6-
month window of opportunity for Congress to deliberate over the 
concerns raised during the 2-year debate on the proposed rule. LGA is 
the product of that temporary stay; it is a product that will provide 
stability for ranchers across the West.
  Many issues have been addressed in our bill. For example, issues such 
as public input into the management of our Federal lands; standards and 
guidelines that will reflect the diversity of the western rangelands; 
and incentive for permitees to contribute private dollars to betterment 
of our Federal lands; a fair method in gaining ownership and control of 
water rights; a subleasing provision that will help the elderly and 
family ranchers; and, a grazing fee formula that will generate more 
revenue for the American taxpayers.
  There are many more aspects of this legislation, nevertheless, I am 
going to focus on the new grazing fee and the formula that will 
generate an increase in revenue to the Treasury.
  Although the grazing fee does not affect the condition of our 
rangelands, I did make a commitment to increase the grazing fee during 
the October debate on Rangeland Reform '94. Today, through this 
legislation that pledge has been honored. LGA includes a grazing 
formula that will provide for a fair return for the utilization of our 
Federal lands.
  In the past, the Federal lands grazing fee was based on a formula 
that was too complex and subject to many interpretations. A simpler and 
more understandable fee formula will help ensure a greater amount of 
stability to the Federal lands ranchers.
  The LGA fee establishes a fee formula that is based on the gross 
value of production for cattle. Although this formula is based solely 
on the value of production for cattle, an adjustment has been made to 
take into consideration the differential in the production value 
between a cow and animals that are not as large. This adjustment will 
not increase the numbers of sheep and goats on the Federal lands, but 
will merely take into account the considerable differences between the 
cattle prices and the other two commodities.
  This Gross Return Fee formula is based on the premise that the 
western Federal lands rancher should pay a fair percentage of gross 
production value that is gained by use of the Federal lands. Two key 
features of this formula are that the fee approximates the value of the 
forage from the gain in production value, and that it provides a fair 
return to the Federal Government for that forage. [[Page S7501]] 
  Mr. President, this formula is simple. As I explained earlier, the 
current fee is convoluted. Establishing the grazing fee as a percentage 
of return will assure that livestock ranchers are assessed on the same 
basis of many other public lands users.se
  As you may know, forage has no readily identifiable market value 
until it is converted into beef, wool, mutton, or some other salable 
animal product. Federal lands ranchers will--and have--willingly pay 
for the opportunity to utilize this forage on Federal lands to attain a 
gross value of livestock grazing on those lands. The Gross Return Fee 
recognizes the value of the end product by establishing the grazing fee 
as a percentage of this value.
  The Gross Return Fee is critical to the continued viability of the 
western livestock industry. Ranchers are the family farmers of the 
West. The establishment of a fair and equitable grazing fee formula is 
critical to their survival.
  Additionally, the rancher is key to the rural western economy. Every 
dollar a rancher spends yields an estimated $5 in economic activity 
throughout the West. This economic activity is critical to social 
fabric west, old or new.
  In closing, Mr. President, the fee is only one component of this 
legislation. The other aspects of this bill will be addressed by the 
cosponsors of this legislation. Furthermore, a companion measure is 
currently ready for introduction in the House of Representatives. This 
will allow the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 to be examined in full by 
both bodies of Congress. I look forward to moving this legislation 
through both Houses of Congress and removing the cloud that has been 
hanging over the Federal lands rancher.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I along with 14 of my colleagues am 
introducing the Livestock Grazing Act. This bill is intended to 
establish the policy guidelines for grazing of livestock on Federal 
lands in the Western States.
  This bill is needed to resolve the ongoing debate over rangeland 
reform and the establishment of fees. I strongly believe the Congress 
must address this issue and resolve the ongoing debate over western 
rangeland management. We must assure that the extensive Federal lands 
in the West have a grazing policy that allows the families who depend 
on these lands to continue to use these lands to make their 
livelihoods.
  We have crafted a bill that addresses the numerous issues that have 
arisen on grazing on the public lands. This bill is a product of 
extensive discussions with members of the grazing and academic 
community. It addresses both rangeland reform and the fee issue.
  It is my intention to hold hearings in the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Subcommittee that I chair in the early summer and then to 
promptly move a bill. I am pleased that the other body has a similar 
schedule.
  It is my intention to resolve this long-standing issue in a way that 
strengthens the economic base of the rural ranching West. I will work 
with my colleagues to assure that such a bill is passed into law.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the introduction of 
the livestock grazing bill offered by Senator Domenici, myself, and 
others. This is a bill that will allow us to set the stage for the 
future grazing and land use access of the livestock industry. This is 
extremely important in the West, and in particular my State of Montana. 
This is a bill that will provide security and stability to the 
livestock producers--those people who live, and work 365 days a year, 
on or near the public lands.
  For years there has been debate on the purpose and scope of the 
intent of the language that a grazing bill would offer. Many people 
have attempted to make this a single issue bill. This attempt may be 
the case, to those who, do nothing more than depend upon the farmer and 
rancher for the food and fiber they enjoy in their daily lives. But to 
the rancher, or anybody or any group this is the first step to creating 
some sense of stability for them on public lands. For the rancher, this 
is the first step they have seen, that will provide them with the 
security they need to operate their grazing permits with the sense of 
purpose and a future. The purpose of this bill is to provide a future 
for those hard-working men and women that provide the best and least 
expensive food supply to this Nation and the world.
  Too many times the ability of these people to use the public lands 
has been threatened by forces who neither care about the vitality and 
well-being of the communities. People who have no idea of what the 
issue is. This is an issue of allowing producers and permit holders to 
use the land. For it is in this use that the land is made healthy, that 
our country thrives, and the public is provided an opportunity to put 
back something into the land.
  In the recent past in my State of Montana this land use has been 
threatened by special interests. Interest groups with no understanding 
of what grazing and the livestock industry are all about. In a little 
known area, called the Bitterroot Forest, history was made by the stand 
that the permit holders made in defending their rights to use and graze 
public lands. However, this action cost the Federal Government 
thousands of dollars and strained the relations between the land use 
groups and the Government. All this action was brought on, due to the 
requirements of the land managers to complete certain environmental 
requirements. Requirements set forth under the provisions in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
  This case was developed as a result of the failure of the Federal 
Government of complete NEPA compliance on permit holders allotments. As 
a result, it threatened the ability of this particular group of 
ranchers to work, to graze cattle, and provide for their families. The 
permit holders, in this example and many more like it, were held 
hostage to the whims and of the special interest groups and the Federal 
courts. Held hostage by the very laws that were designed to protect 
them and their way of living. I find it ironic that those permit 
holders suffered financial loss and mental anguish. They were the only 
ones who did. All other interests including the Forest Service 
personnel who were charged to do the required work, did not lose a pay 
check.
  Under the language in this bill we have provided for the security of 
the permit holders, and the health and future of the land. In this bill 
we continue to use the land management plans as a way to protect the 
land, and at the same time give the permit holders an opportunity to 
have access to the land for their use.
  Mr. President, this bill is the first step to developing working 
arrangements between the Government and the people on the land. It is 
an opportunity to have all parties working together to set the 
standards for what is best for the land and the people of this country.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
Livestock Grazing Act introduced by my colleague and good friend, 
Senator Domenici. He and his staff--especially Marron Lee--have done an 
outstanding job leading the charge for responsible grazing fee reform. 
I commend them for working so doggedly to produce the best bill 
possible.
  Mr. President, I say ``best bill possible'' because there cannot be a 
perfect bill. With the number of diverse interests represented 
throughout our great American West, no legislation in this area will 
satisfy everyone. But truly, the widespread support for this bill has 
been impressive.
  Of course, I have heard some rumblings of discontent from those 
wishing to modify specific portions of this legislation. I ask those 
individuals to work with us, to let us know your thoughts as this bill 
moves through the committee process. We will do our best to attend to 
your concerns. There are, however, certain things we must all bear in 
mind. First, this bill is by far better than the alternative of having 
no bill, and second, we must not turn this bill into a ``Christmas wish 
list.'' Doing so could spell defeat for this legislation and, in turn, 
subject our western livestock industry to an uncertain future.
  I am most pleased by a number of provisions contained in this 
legislation that will benefit the Wyoming ranching industry. I would 
like to quickly address a few of these.
  First, the bill will allow ranchers to own, in proportion to their 
investment in the overall cost, title to improvements located on 
Federal lands. This is far more fair than the administration's 
regulations requiring ranchers to pay for the improvement, while 
cedingownership with the Government. Mr. 

[[Page S7502]]

President, that alternative is wrongly conceived. It amounts simply to 
a form of tax on our ranchers, taking their scarce assets and 
transferring them to the Federal Government.
  We also address the critical issue of water rights. The Western 
States are not blessed with the almost unlimited supply of water that 
our Eastern neighbors enjoy. Western water law was created to manage 
this precious resource. Much of this law predates the birth of many of 
our Western States and works very well without the help of the Federal 
Government, thank you. This legislation directs Federal agencies to 
respect established State water law.
  This legislation, unlike the administration's regulations, will leave 
certain aspects of rangeland management in the hands of those who have 
been responsible stewards of the public lands for over 100 years--the 
permittees, lessees, and landowners. Additionally, the new resource and 
grazing advisory council structure will allow other interests 
representing recreation and the environment to be adequately 
represented in the management process.
  Finally, this legislation addresses the ever-contentious fee issue. 
Recall that not too long ago, many in this distinguished body were 
concerned that the ranching community was not paying a fair price for 
the opportunity to graze livestock on the public lands. This 
legislation will fairly increase that fee but keep it short of levels 
that would quickly bankrupt many hard-working families.
  Mr. President, our American ranching industry has been a unique way 
of life for well over 100 years. Through the enactment of responsible 
legislation we can ensure that this industry, while still facing a 
number of significant challenges, will at least have a chance to remain 
viable well into the next century.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Americans rely on Federal lands for a 
wide variety of purposes. Among them is rangeland for livestock 
grazing. As we look to the future use of these lands, it is incumbent 
upon us to implement commonsense policies that allow ranchers to graze 
livestock on these public rangelands while managing them in a manner 
that is consistent with long-term, sustainable use.
  During the last 2 years, debate has raged over the appropriate 
regulation of Federal grazing lands. Environmentalists and those 
ranchers who graze on private land have argued for a more realistic fee 
system, one that links the grazing fee to the private land lease rate. 
Some have advocated stronger stewardship requirements. Meanwhile, as 
grazing policy remains unresolved, we have seen cattle prices drop and 
too many ranchers teetering on the edge of financial viability.
  There needs to be some fair and reasonable ground upon which 
agreement can be reached that ensures public confidence in the 
management and use of the Federal lands, while allowing ranchers the 
certainty that, by working hard and playing by the rules, the Federal 
lands will provide an opportunity to earn a decent living. In short, 
the time has come to conclude this long debate and establish realistic 
grazing standards once and for all.
  Secretary Babbit's Rangeland Reform proposals have called attention 
to this important issue and, at the same time, generated considerable 
controversy. While an open discussion of grazing reform is needed, a 
rising tide of misunderstanding and distrust has hampered the 
development of a broadly supportable solution.
  Today, Senator Domenici is introducing the Livestock Grazing Act, 
which is intended to provide much needed closure to this debate as well 
as certainty for the many ranchers who rely on the Federal lands for 
grazing. I commend Senator Domenici for investing the hard work and 
energy in meeting with the ranching community and fashioning a bill 
that enjoys their support. His bill represents an essential step in 
moving grazing reform to closure.
  I support much of the Domenici bill. It provides a valuable framework 
for addressing the critical issues of the fee, range management, and 
oversight, and, ultimately, I expect it to provide the foundation for 
the development of a balanced and reasonable approach to stewardship 
that addresses legitimate concerns of all interested groups.
  For example, I call attention to the provision in the bill that 
establishes separate management of the national grasslands under the 
Department of Agriculture. This initiative will help ensure that 
management of those lands is as sensitive as possible to the unique 
needs of ranchers.
  Currently, grasslands are subjected to rules and procedures that make 
sense for large expanses of national forests but not necessarily for 
grazing. In South Dakota, most ranchers who graze cattle on Federal 
lands do so on Forest Service lands. Ranchers in my home State feel a 
separate management unit for grasslands will allow them to ranch 
better. This legislation will accomplish that important objective.
  Congress' challenge is to strike a balance between the recognition of 
regional environmental differences and the need to ensure a basic level 
of environmental protection. It is to reform the grazing fee, without 
putting an untenable financial squeeze on hard-working ranchers. And it 
is to strike a balance between the desire to provide an opportunity for 
input into range management decisions from the general public and the 
recognition that these decision have special ramifications for the 
economic security of those using the land.
  We have not yet achieved that balance. But I am optimistic that we 
can, and I will devote my energies to working with Senator Domenici and 
others toward that goal.
  This is one of the reasons I have invited Secretary of Agriculture 
Dan Glickman to visit with South Dakota ranchers next week in Rapid 
City. I want Secretary Glickman to hear first hand how those whose 
livelihoods are affected by Federal land management policies feel about 
the grazing issue. Their experience must be part of the solution sought 
in this debate.
  Senator Domenici has expressed a desire to move grazing reform 
legislation with bipartisan support. While some initial concern has 
been raised that the Livestock Grazing Act, as currently drafted, may 
not yet achieve the balance needed to ensure consideration of all 
legitimate interests in the management of the range, he has given 
Congress a solid place to start. I hope that, in the weeks to come, any 
contentious issues can be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of all 
interested parties, and that we can move to enact legislation with 
broad-based support.
  My goal is to pass Federal grazing reform. I am confident this 
Congress can achieve that goal.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation introduced by Senator Domenici, the Livestock Grazing Act. 
This bill is a reasonable proposal that will allow livestock producers 
in the West to continue to operate on public lands and will protect the 
public range for multiple-use purposes.
  Today, western livestock producers are encountering many challenges. 
In addition to struggling because of low market prices for many 
products and fighting losses from predators, livestock producers in the 
West are now faced with regulations proposed by Interior Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt that will put them out of business. Secretary Babbitt's 
so-called ``Rangeland Reform '94'' proposal to reform public land 
grazing practices is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to end 
livestock grazing on these areas.
  The people of Wyoming and the West rely on having access to public 
lands for their livelihood. Over the last 100 years, this process has 
worked well. Westerners were able to use these lands for multiple uses 
such as grazing, oil and gas exploration, and recreation and in turn 
provided the rest of the Nation with high quality food products and 
other commodities. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has 
now taken a number of actions that will destroy the concept of multiple 
use of public lands and will cost jobs and harm local economies across 
Wyoming and the West.
  The Livestock Grazing Act is designed to reverse this disturbing 
trend. This legislation will provide western livestock producers with a 
lifeline to survive the Clinton administration's efforts to destroy 
their way of life. The measure is a reasonable attempt to solve the 
long-standing dispute over grazing fees on public lands and many other 
issues which have caused great discontent in Congress and across the 
country. [[Page S7503]] 
  Let me focus on a few provisions in the bill which are particularly 
important to the people of my State. First, the legislation establishes 
a grazing fee formula that will be tied to market values. This is a 
fair and equitable approach to resolving the fee formula dispute and 
will end the unfair comparison between private and public fee rates on 
Federal lands.
  Second, the legislation will provide permittees with the assurance 
that they will be allowed to graze a certain number of livestock on 
their allotment. For over 50 years, BLM grazing permittees have known 
they had a priority position for a specific number of Federal animal 
unit months [AUM's] on their allotments. These so-called preference 
levels are attached to the private lands of the lessee and influence 
the value of the privately owned base property. Preference levels are 
particularly important to folks in my State where there is a large 
amount of checkerboard land, which is commingled Federal and private 
property.
  Unfortunately, Secretary Babbitt's ``Rangeland Reform '94'' proposal 
attempts to radically revised the concept of grazing preference by 
giving Federal agents the authority to determine the appropriate number 
of AUM's attached to a lease. The Secretary wants to set AUM's for 
permittees on an arbitrary basis at the whim of the local Federal 
officials. This would cause instability throughout western livestock 
communities and threaten the economic value of western family ranches. 
The Livestock Grazing Act would stop the Secretary's misguided efforts 
by codifying the concept of grazing preference and giving western 
ranchers the surety they need to continue operating on Federal lands.
  Mr. President, these are just two examples of the important actions 
taken by Senator Domenici in this bill that support western livestock 
producers. The time has come for Congress to assert itself regarding 
the issue of grazing on public lands in the West and stop Secretary 
Babbitt's unending assault on western communities and our western way 
of life. Although the Clinton administration and Secretary Babbitt 
would like folks to believe ranchers in the West are simply welfare 
cowboys, nothing could be further from the truth. These people are not 
taking advantage of the Government, but simply trying to make a 
reasonable living and raise their families.
  I strongly support the Livestock Grazing Act and hope that we can 
take quick action on this measure in order to allow western livestock 
producers to continue their important work.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the sponsor of this bill, the Senator from 
New Mexico, has made a sincere attempt to draft a good management plan 
for our western public lands, and I have agreed to cosponsor it.
  Although I want to see changes in several areas of this bill, overall 
it is a good plan for responsible management of our huge public trust 
in the West, imposing reasonable rules for the grazing of livestock and 
rangeland improvement while safeguarding the natural environment.
  Senator Domenici has indicated his intent to work with Senators of 
both parties toward a consensus on this legislation. I appreciate his 
flexibility, but I particularly appreciate the Senator's addition to 
his bill of title II, provisions I and others from the Northern Plains 
have submitted dealing specifically with the national grasslands.
  In fact, the Grasslands provisions are the primary reason that I am 
cosponsoring this bill.
  Let me explain. Except for the grasslands provisions, this bill deals 
exclusively with lands supervised by the Department of the Interior. In 
North Dakota, however, land managed by Interior amounts to about two 
townships out of a State of 46 million acres. On the other land, North 
Dakota is host to 1.2 million acres of the national grasslands, which 
are managed by the U.S. Forest Service of USDA.
  The main purpose of the grasslands provisions is to give the 
Secretary of Agriculture more flexibility in shaping the administration 
of the Grasslands.
  I have worked with the ranchers in North Dakota and with the Forest 
Service in recent years, searching for ways the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Forest Service could reorder the bureaucratic 
framework under which the Grasslands are managed. The Forest Service 
has been cooperative in that search, but I finally had to conclude that 
the Forest Service and USDA are legally prevented from the kind of 
change I believe is needed.
  In the 1970's the grasslands were joined by statute to the entire 
National Forest System, managed by the Forest Service. That means the 
grasslands are enmeshed in the mounds and reams of paper that prescribe 
the layers of procedure, planning, management, and so forth, for the 
national forests.
  Let me note here that land ownership in the grasslands areas of my 
state is much different than what you find among most of the great 
expanses of Federal lands in the West.
  Most of the grasslands were owned earlier in this century by private 
farmers and ranchers, but were abandoned or lost to debt, and taken 
over by the Federal Government. Today this is not a region of big 
ranches. It is an area of small, and mid-sized ranchers where land 
ownership is extensively interspersed among individual families, the 
Forest Service, the State of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  The proper approach in management of such rangeland, it seems to me, 
must be a cooperative venture between the ranchers and the Forest 
Service, drawing upon the best expertise of range scientists, wildlife 
specialists, and others who can help maintain and improve conditions in 
the grasslands.
  The main focus of such a cooperative venture must be how to best 
manage and nurture the grasslands so they remain healthy and productive 
for the benefit of future generations of people and wildlife.
  Somehow, that focus is lost in the reams of Forest System rules and 
regulations and planning documents that are supposed to address the 
grasslands. In reading those documents you would hardly know that there 
are cows on the grasslands when, in fact, ranching is the main human 
activity there by a long shot.
  So, the grasslands provisions of this bill give the Secretary 
important latitude in changing the administrative structure under which 
the grasslands are managed. The provisions essentially restate the 
intent of the 1937 Federal act that set aside the grasslands: A call 
for conscientious range management that would build and preserve a 
healthy grassland resource.
  And, where soil conservation and general range health are considered, 
title II also tries to return grasslands management to a more 
cooperative venture between the Forest Service and our State-chartered 
grazing associations.
  The grasslands provisions do not dictate a specific administrative 
structure the Secretary must adopt for the grasslands. So, to a large 
extent, those provisions of the bill speak mostly to what can happen 
for the grasslands under a new design of Forest Service management, and 
do not say specifically what must happen.
  The grasslands provisions will, I believe, help harvest the expertise 
and enthusiasm of grasslands area residents, including ranchers, for 
better local input into managing this critical natural area in my 
State.
  The provisions are certainly not a step back from responsible 
management and protection of the natural resources. All Federal 
environmental laws, including the National Environmental Protection 
Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, still apply. If anything, 
the grasslands provisions will encourage better attention to the spirit 
of our environmental laws because more people who live in the 
grasslands region, particularly those with expertise in areas of 
conservation and grassland agriculture, will be participating in how 
the lands are managed.
  This is the kind of approach to public lands management that the 
people of North Dakota want. I should note that the 1995 North Dakota 
Legislature unanimously recommended the change we have proposed in the 
grasslands law.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to print the proposed grassland 
provisions here in the Record as a means of distributing them for 
comment and discussion.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record; as follows:

[[Page S7504]]

                          TITLE II--GRASSLANDS

     SEC. 201 REMOVAL OF GRASSLANDS FROM NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that the inclusion of the 
     national grasslands (and land utilization projects 
     administered under Title III of the Bankhead Jones Farm 
     Tenant Act) within the Forest System contrains the Secretary 
     in managing the national grasslands as intended under the 
     Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act.
       (b) Amendment of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974.--Section 11(a) of the Forest 
     and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 
     U.S.C. 1609(a)) is amended in the second sentence by striking 
     ``the national grasslands and land utilization projects 
     administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm 
     Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012)''.
       (c) Amendment of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act.--
     Section 31 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1010) is amended by designating current Sec. 31 as subsection 
     (a) to read as follows:
       Sec. 1010. Land conservation and land utilization
       To accomplish the purposes stated in the preamble of this 
     act, the Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a 
     program of land conservation and utilization as a basis for 
     grassland agriculture, to promote secure occupancy and 
     economic stability of farms, and thus assist in controlling 
     soil erosion, preserving natural resources, protecting fish 
     and wildlife, developing and protecting recreational 
     facilities, mitigating flood damages, preventing impairment 
     of dams and reservoirs, developing energy resources, 
     protecting the watersheds of navigable streams, conserving 
     surface and subsurface moisture, and protecting the public 
     lands, health, safety, and welfare, but is not authorized to 
     build industrial parks or establish private industrial or 
     commercial enterprises. The Secretary, in cooperation and 
     partnership with grazing associations, is authorized and 
     directed to issue renewable livestock grazing leases to 
     achieve the land conservation and utilization goals of this 
     section.
       And adding a new subsection (b) as follows:
       National Grasslands Fee Adjustments for Conservation 
     Practices to be Retained as Implemented by the Secretary.--A 
     reduction in grazing fees for national grasslands will be 
     allowed for conservation practices and administrative duties 
     performed by grazing associations.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Craig, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Packwood, 
        and Mr. Hatfield):
  S. 853. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to divide the 
ninth judicial circuit of the United States into two circuits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

     the ninth circuit court of appeals reorganization act of 1995

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my purpose today is to introduce the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1995, which is similar 
to measures I introduced in 1983, 1989, and 1991. This measure has the 
cosponsorship of Senators Burns, Murkowski, Stevens, Kempthorne, Craig, 
Baucus, Packwood, and Hatfield, who represent all the States forming 
the new proposed circuit. This proposal will divide the ninth circuit, 
the largest circuit in the country, into two separate circuits of more 
manageable size and responsibility. This division would leave the ninth 
circuit composed of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, and the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and would create a new twelfth circuit 
composed of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Personally, 
I believe that the ninth circuit should be divided into three new 
circuits, but the composition for the two southern circuits should be 
determined by the elected representatives of those States, to whose 
judgment I will defer.
  Today the ninth circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen 
judicial circuits, measured both by number of judges and by caseload. 
It has 28 active judges, 11 more than any other. Last year it had an 
astounding 8,092 new filings, almost 2,000 more than the next busiest 
circuit. It serves over 45 million people, almost 60 percent more than 
are served by the next largest circuit. Moreover, the population in the 
States and territories that comprise the ninth circuit is the fastest-
growing in the Nation.
  Mr. President, the deplorable consequence of the massive size of this 
circuit is a marked decrease in the consistency of justice provided by 
ninth circuit courts. Judges are unable to keep abreast of legal 
developments even within their own jurisdiction--to say nothing of lay 
citizens' inability to keep abreast. The large number of judges 
scattered over a large area inevitably results in difficulty in 
reaching consistent circuit decisions. These judges have nearly 
unmanageable caseloads with little time to review the voluminous case 
law within the jurisdiction or to consult with their fellow circuit 
colleagues. As a result, legal opinions tend to be very narrow with 
little precedential value, merely exacerbating the problem. As a former 
attorney general for the State of Washington, I personally have 
experienced the unique frustrations and difficulties of practicing 
before the ninth circuit.
  Compounding the problem for the Northwest is that 55 percent of the 
case filings in the ninth circuit are from California alone. 
Consequently, the remaining States in the ninth circuit, including my 
State of Washington and our Northwest neighbors, are dominated by 
California judges and California judicial philosophy. That trend cannot 
help but persist as the number of cases filed by California's litigious 
and exploding population continues to rise. The Northwestern States 
confront issues that are fundamentally unique to that region, issues 
that are central to the lives of citizens in the Northwest, but which 
are little more than one of many newspaper articles in California. In 
sum, the interests of the Northwest cannot be fully appreciated or 
addressed from a California perspective.
  This initiative, Mr. President, is long overdue. As early as 1973, 
the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court 
Appellate System recommended that the ninth circuit be divided. In 
addition, the U.S. Judicial Conference found that increasing the number 
of judges in any circuit court beyond 15 would create an unworkable 
situation. The American Bar Association also adopted a resolution 
expressing the desirability of dividing the ninth circuit to help 
realign the U.S. appellate courts. Earlier bills on the ninth circuit 
reorganization that I introduced during the 101st and 102d Congresses--
and which were virtually identical to this bill--earned the support of 
practitioners and judges in the ninth circuit, attorneys general of the
 western States, the Department of Justice, and the former Chief 
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger.

  The leadership of the ninth circuit has not donned blinders to the 
difficulties inherent in a circuit court of this size and workload. It 
has responded, however, by adopting a number of innovative but 
ultimately ineffectual approaches to these problems. For example the 
ninth circuit has divided itself into three administrative divisions: 
the northern unit consists of the five Northwestern States that would 
comprise the proposed twelfth circuit, and the combined middle and 
southern units is identical to the restructured ninth circuit. This 
method, however, does little more than recognize the problem without 
solving it.
  Another innovation of the ninth circuit is the limited en banc court, 
for which a panel of 11 of the 28 judges will be chosen by lot to hear 
an individual case. Such panels, however, further contribute to the 
inherent unpredictability of a jurisdiction as large as the ninth 
circuit. Lawyers often must tell their clients that they cannot begin 
to predict the likely outcome of an appeal until the panel has been 
identified. Mr. President, justice should not be determined by lot. 
Moreover, I have serious reservations about any method which would 
permit a small minority--as few as six of the sitting judges--to 
dictate the outcome of a case contrary to the judgment of a large 
majority, solely depending on the luck of the draw.
  Despite these attempts to solve the problem, the performance of the 
ninth circuit has gotten worse, not better. Its judges are falling 
further and further behind. Despite only a moderate increase in new 
filings for appeal, the number of pending cases swelled by almost 20 
percent in the last year. The ninth circuit now is the slowest of 12 
regional circuits in hearing and deciding appeals, on average taking a 
full 16 months. Mr. President, justice delayed is justice denied.
  The 45 million residents within the ninth circuit continue to pay the 
high costs of an unpredictable body of case law and an overburdened 
court system. They wait years before cases are heard and decided, 
prompting many to forego their rights to judicial redress. Residents in 
the Northwest, in particular, [[Page S7505]] are concerned about the 
growing inability of the ninth circuit to handle the boom in criminal 
cases stemming from stepped-up enforcement of our drug laws.
  The swift and sure administration of justice is a right that should 
no longer be compromised in the ninth circuit. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the complete text of my bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 853

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals Reorganization Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

       Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before the table, by striking out 
     ``thirteen'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``fourteen'';
       (2) in the table, by striking out the item relating to the 
     ninth circuit and inserting in lieu thereof the following new 
     item:

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands.'';

       and
       (3) between the last 2 items of the table, by inserting the 
     following new item:

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington.''..........................
     SEC. 3. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       The table in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking out the item relating to the ninth circuit 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following new item:

``Ninth.......................................................19'';....

       and
       (2) by inserting between the last 2 items at the end 
     thereof the following new item:

``Twelfth......................................................7''.....
     SEC. 4. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

       The table in section 48 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out the item relating to the ninth circuit 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following new item:

San Francisco, Los Angeles.'';.........................................

       and
       (2) by inserting between the last 2 items at the end 
     thereof the following new item:

Portland, Seattle.''...................................................
     SEC. 5. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       Each circuit judge in regular active service of the former 
     ninth circuit whose official station on the day before the 
     effective date of this Act--
       (1) is in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, or the 
     Northern Mariana Islands is assigned as a circuit judge of 
     the new ninth circuit; and
       (2) is in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Washington is 
     assigned as a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit.

     SEC. 6. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.

       Each judge who is a senior judge of the former ninth 
     circuit on the day before the effective date of this Act may 
     elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or to the 
     twelfth circuit and shall notify the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such 
     election.

     SEC. 7. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.

       The seniority of each judge--
       (1) who is assigned under section 5 of this Act; or
       (2) who elects to be assigned under section 6 of this Act;

     shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a 
     judge of the former ninth circuit.

     SEC. 8. APPLICATION TO CASES.

       The provisions of the following paragraphs of this section 
     apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective 
     date of this Act, an appeal or other proceeding has been 
     filed with the former ninth circuit:
       (1) If the matter has been submitted for decision, further 
     proceedings in respect of the matter shall be had in the same 
     manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.
       (2) If the matter has not been submitted for decision, the 
     appeal or proceeding, together with the original papers, 
     printed records, and record entries duly certified, shall, by 
     appropriate orders, be transferred to the court to which it 
     would have gone had this Act been in full force and effect at 
     the time such appeal was taken or other proceeding commenced, 
     and further proceedings in respect of the case shall be had 
     in the same manner and with the same effect as if the appeal 
     or other proceeding had been filed in such court.
       (3) A petition for rehearing or a petition for rehearing en 
     banc in a matter decided before the effective date of this 
     Act, or submitted before the effective date of this Act and 
     decided on or after the effective date as provided in 
     paragraph (1) of this section, shall be treated in the same 
     manner and with the same effect as though this Act had not 
     been enacted. If a petition for rehearing en banc is granted, 
     the matter shall be reheard by a court comprised as though 
     this Act had not been enacted.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``former ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial 
     circuit of the United States as in existence on the day 
     before the effective date of this Act;
       (2) ``new ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial circuit 
     of the United States established by the amendment made by 
     section 2(2) of this Act; and
       (3) ``twelfth circuit'' means the twelfth judicial circuit 
     of the United States established by the amendment made by 
     section 2(3) of this Act.

     SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATION.

       The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted 
     on the day before the effective date of this Act may take 
     such administrative action as may be required to carry out 
     this Act. Such court shall cease to exist for administrative 
     purposes on July 1, 1997.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on October 1, 1995.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, as an original cosponsor of the legislation 
to split the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and create a new 12th 
Circuit. This legislation is long overdue in my opinion. It is my hope 
that we can act to create a new 12th circuit court this Congress.
  The ninth circuit court is by far the largest of all the circuit 
courts, both in terms of the number of judges and caseload. In fact, 
the Judicial Conference of the United States stated in 1971 that ``to 
increase the number of judges in a circuit beyond 15 would create an 
unworkable situation.''
  The ninth circuit court currently has 28 judges. That is nearly twice 
the maximum workable number in the opinion of the Judicial Conference, 
12 more than the next largest circuit court and 16 more than the 
average circuit court.
  In terms of caseload, the 9th circuit had 7,597 appeals pending at 
the end of fiscal year 1993. In 1988 when I was first elected to the 
U.S. Senate, there were 6,342 appeals pending. That is an increase of 
nearly 20 percent in just 5 years.
  No other circuit court carries a heavier caseload. In fact, no other 
circuit even comes close. Each year, the ninth circuit has 
approximately twice as many appeals pending as the next largest 
circuit. It only makes sense that a Federal appeals court with a 
caseload that heavy should be split up.
  The prospect for relief is not promising, either. In fact, the 
Committee on Long Range Planning for the Judicial Conference of the 
United States has projected that by the year 2000, over 15,000 
petitions and appeals will be filed annually. and by the year 2020, 
over 60,000 will be filed annually.
  What does all this mean in terms of our judicial process? It means 
that a case is pending in the ninth circuit for an average of 14\1/2\ 
months. That means some cases may be there 29 months while others whiz 
through in 7 or 8 months. The costs to those in Montana or Washington 
who are victims of this backlog continues to accrue. Not only are they 
continuing to pay their legal counsel during that time, but in the case 
of suits against economic activities such as timbering, mining, and 
water developments, employment is jeopardized, seriously threatening 
local economic stability.
  It is also disturbing to me to see convicted murderers bringing 
lawsuits against the State claiming cruel and unusual punishment 
because they've been sitting on death row for a number of years. What 
is cruel and usual punishment is that families of victims have to wait 
such a long time to see justice finally carried out.
  One such Montana family is State Senator Ethel Harding of Polson. 
Senator Harding's daughter, Lana, was brutally murdered by Duncan 
McKenzie over 20 years ago. It was not until 2 weeks ago that McKenzie 
was finally put to death and the Harding family could finally put this 
horrendous chapter of their lives behind them.
  McKenzie's appeals ended up at the 9th Circuit 3 times over this 20 
year period. Certainly part of the delay of justice may be attributed 
to the heavy caseload of the circuit and the inefficient system that 
the burdensome caseload has created. [[Page S7506]] 
  Senator Harding has written a very moving letter to me and I would 
ask that it be submitted into the record in its entirety immediately 
following my remarks. ``Justice delayed is justice denied,'' writes 
Senator Harding, and I could not agree more.
  As a result of her own ordeal, Senator Harding has been a strong 
advocate of splitting the Ninth Circuit. During the 1995 Montana State 
Legislature, she introduced Senate Joint Resolution No. 10, calling 
upon Congress to divide the Ninth Circuit court. The resolution passed 
overwhelmingly and is an accurate reflection on the wishes of 
Montanans.
  Perhaps the most compelling argument for splitting the Ninth Circuit 
is precedent. The division of the 8th Circuit creating the 10th Circuit 
took place in 1929. In addition, the Fifth Circuit was also divided in 
1981, creating the 11th Circuit. In fact, a commission which studied 
the revision of the Federal appellate court system recommended in 1973 
that both the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit courts be split.
  Those involved with the Fifth Circuit had the sense to make the 
division. Unfortunately, the division of the Ninth Circuit has been 
held up to be political maneuvering. So now we have to be here arguing 
for something that should have been done 14 years ago.
  Granted, the division of the Ninth Circuit is more complicated since 
one State, California, generates a majority of the cases in that 
circuit. However, I think it is in the best interest of California, 
Montana, and the other States under the court's jurisdiction to make 
the split. The caseload for the Ninth Circuit will remain high no 
matter what, due to the population dynamics in a State like California. 
Thus, the split will bring much needed caseload relief to the Ninth 
Circuit while providing overall relief to States like my own Montana.
  I just do not think it is fair, or in the best interest of the 
judicial process, that Montana businesses and individual citizens 
suffer because California continues to experience an economic and 
population boom. I find myself arguing this case everyday--the case of 
middle America battling to hold its own against the population centers 
on both coasts. There is a bias in the legislative branch, the 
executive branch, and now in the judicial branch.
  I am here to see that States like Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, 
and Alaska get a fair shake. I think that splitting the Ninth Circuit 
is a good place to start and I intend to see that it happens. Until it 
does, it is my intention to prevent any future nominations to the Ninth 
Circuit court of Appeals from going through the Senate for it makes no 
sense to continue to perpetuate a system that is not working.
  I hope that my colleagues from all nine States currently under the 
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit court will join us in our efforts to 
quickly pass this legislation so that we can put justice back into our 
judicial system.
  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:

                                          The Big Sky Country,

                                                     May 17, 1995.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: I am enclosing a copy of Senate Joint 
     Resolution No. 10 which passed in the 1995 session in 
     Montana. I am also enclosing a copy of the 9th judicial 
     circuit map and workload for your perusal.
       The 9th Circuit covers nine states and two territories, 
     totaling approximately 14 million square miles; serves a 
     population of almost 44 million people 15 million more than 
     the next largest circuit court and about 20 million more than 
     all other courts of appeals; has 28 judges, 12 more than the 
     next largest circuit court and 16 more than the average 
     circuit court; and has a caseload of more than 6,000 appeals, 
     2,000 larger than the next largest court of appeals and 
     nearly one- sixth of the total appeals in all the 12 regional 
     courts of appeals; and projections are, that at the current 
     rate of growth, the 9th Circuit's 1980 docket of cases will 
     double before the year 2000.
       The enclosed statistics on U.S. Court of Appeals--Judicial 
     work load profile shows Montana is last or 12th in numerical 
     standing from filing Notice of Appeal to Disposition. That is 
     top long. Montana deserves better than that. We should not 
     have to wait until California or any other state is served in 
     in the judicial process but at least we should not have to be 
     considered last. If the Circuit is divided and we were last 
     it could at least cut the time in half.
       I am also enclosing a copy of the History of Appeals in the 
     McKenzie case which has haunted me personally for 20 years 
     because he killed my daughter on January 21, 1974. It is for 
     this reason I sponsored SJR 10 and why I am urging you to 
     work in behalf of Montana having a quicker response and turn 
     around on these criminal appeals. The families of victims 
     should not have to suffer 20 years while the system works. 
     ``JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED''.
       I am enclosing an excerpt from ``Rationing Justice on 
     Appeal'' by Thomas E. Baker, Justice Research Institute which 
     clearly presents the problem and urges Congress to do 
     something about it besides study. I also urge Congress to act 
     now and to prevent the misuse of the judicial system as my 
     family has personally experienced for twenty years.
       Thank you, Senator Burns, for your help in this most 
     important matter of dividing the 9th Circuit to a better 
     advantage for Montana and the other smaller populated states 
     and territories in the 9th circuit.
       I will be anxiously watching for a good report.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Ethel M. Harding,
     State Senator, District 37.
                                                                    ____

                     Senate Joint Resolution No. 10

       Whereas, under Article III, section 1, of the United States 
     Constitution, the Congress of the United States has plenary 
     power to ordain and establish the federal courts below the 
     Supreme Court level; and
       Whereas, in 1988, the 100th Congress created the Federal 
     Courts Study Committee as an ad hoc committee within the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States to examine the 
     problems facing the federal courts and to develop a long-term 
     plan for the Judiciary; and
       Whereas, the Study Committee found that the federal 
     appellate courts are faced with a crisis of volume that will 
     continue into the future and that the structure of these 
     courts will require some fundamental changes; and
       Whereas, the Study Committee did not endorse any one 
     solution but served only to draw attention to the serious 
     problems of the courts of appeals; and
       Whereas, the Study Committee recommended that fundamental 
     structural alternatives deserve the careful attention of 
     Congress and of the courts, bar associations, and scholars 
     over the next 5 years; and
       Whereas, the problems of the circuit court system and the 
     alternatives for revising the system represent a policy 
     choice that requires Congress to weigh costs and benefits and 
     to seek the solution that best serves the judicial needs of 
     the nation; and
       Whereas, there are 13 judicial circuits of the United 
     States courts of appeals; and
       Whereas, Montana is in the Ninth Circuit, which consists of 
     Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
     Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands; 
     and
       Whereas, in 1990, it was estimated that the Ninth Circuit: 
     covers nine states and two territories, totaling 
     approximately 14 million square miles; serves a population of 
     almost 44 million people, 15 million more than the next 
     largest circuit court and about 20 million more than all 
     other courts of appeals; has 28 judges, 12 more than the next 
     largest circuit court and 16 more than the average circuit 
     court; and has a caseload of more than 6,000 appeals, 2,000 
     larger than the next largest court of appeals and nearly one-
     sixth of the total appeals in all the 12 regional courts of 
     appeals; and
       Whereas, projections are that at the current rate of 
     growth, the Ninth Circuit's 1980 docket of cases will double 
     before the year 2000; and
       Whereas, statistics reveal that, because of the number of 
     judges in the Ninth Circuit, there are numerous opportunities 
     for conflicting holdings--one legal scholar has estimated 
     that on a 28-judge court there are over 3,000 combinations of 
     panels that may decide an issue, without counting senior 
     judges, district judges, and judges sitting by designation; 
     and
       Whereas, legal scholars have suggested that because the 
     United States Supreme Court reviews less than 1% of appellate 
     decisions, the concept of regional state decisis, or 
     adherence to decided cases, results, in effect, in each court 
     of appeals becoming a junior supreme court with final 
     decision power over all issues of federal law in each circuit 
     (unless and until reviewed by the Supreme Court); and
       Whereas, the Ninth Circuit has been described as an 
     experiment in judicial administration and a laboratory in 
     which to test whether the values of a large circuit can be 
     preserved; and
       Whereas, some legal scholars have opposed its division on 
     the grounds that to divide the Ninth Circuit would be to lose 
     the benefit of an experiment in judicial administration that 
     has not yet run its course; and
       Whereas, the problems of the Ninth Circuit are immediate 
     and growing and maintaining the court in its present state is 
     a disservice to the citizens of Montana and other Ninth 
     Circuit states and territories; and
       Whereas, it is generally understood that an essential 
     element of a federal appellate system must include 
     guaranteeing regionalized and decentralized review when 
     regional concerns are strongest; and
       Whereas, because of the problems of the Ninth Circuit 
     related to its dimensions of geography, population, 
     judgeships, docket, and [[Page S7507]] costs, it is desirable 
     for the Northwest states to be placed in a separate circuit, 
     consisting mainly of contiguous states which common 
     interests; and
       Whereas, the existing circuit boundary lines have been 
     called arbitrary products of history; and
       Whereas, Congress at least twice divided circuits: in 1929, 
     to separate the new Tenth Circuit from the Eighth Circuit, 
     and in 1981, to separate the new Eleventh Circuit from the 
     Fifth Circuit; and
       Whereas, Congress, in 1989, considered and is expected, in 
     1995, to again consider a bill to divide the Ninth Judicial 
     Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals into two 
     circuits--a new Ninth Circuit, composed of Arizona, 
     California, and Nevada, and a new Twelfth Circuit, composed 
     of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, 
     and the Northern Mariana Islands; and
       Whereas, it is the proper function of Congress to determine 
     circuit boundaries and it is desirable that Montana be 
     included in a regional circuit that will allow relief for its 
     citizens from the problems occasioned by its inclusion in the 
     present Ninth Circuit: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Montana:
       That the Legislature of the State of Montana urge Congress 
     to turn its thoughtful attention to the passage of 
     legislation that will split the existing Ninth Judicial 
     Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals into two 
     circuits and that will include Montana in a circuit composed 
     in large part of other Northwest states with similar regional 
     interests.
       Be it further resolved, that the President of the United 
     States be urged to place a Montana judge on the Federal 
     Circuit court for Montana.
       Be it further resolved, that Congress grant this relief and 
     pass this legislation immediately, regardless of 
     considerations of long-term changes to the appellate system 
     in general.
       Be it further resolved, that the Secretary of State send 
     copies of this resolution to the Secretary of the United 
     States Senate, the Clerk of the United States House of 
     Representatives, the President of the United States, and the 
     members of Montana's Congressional Delegation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 854. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to improve the 
agricultural resources conservation program, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

          the agricultural resources conservation act of 1995

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today the 
Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1995. In this bill, Senator 
Leahy and I have developed the boldest concepts for protecting our 
agricultural resource base and the environment since the 1985 farm 
bill.
  This legislation is based on simple but pivotal principles:
  First, we need to preserve stable funding to help farmers and 
ranchers meet environmental challenges.
  Second, the initiatives must be voluntary for producers and simple 
for them to participate in.
  Third, we must maximize the environmental benefits produced by each 
federal dollar expended.
  Fourth, conservation programs must be consistent with a more market-
oriented farm economy. Specifically, we prefer land management options 
over land retirement. And within our land retirement initiative, the 
Conservation Reserve Program, we want to stress more tactical partial-
field enrollments.
  Fifth, we need to address the breadth of contemporary environmental 
challenges--such as water quality--in addition to soil erosion.
  Our bill advances each of these principles. It will be the foundation 
of the conservation title of the 1995 farm bill.
  Let me address some specifics, beginning with the question of 
funding. Our bill calls for substantial, stable funding for 
conservation programs into the next century. We take the current 
funding levels for the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands 
Reserve Program and the various conservation incentive and cost-share 
initiatives--about $2.1 billion--and extend it annually through 2005. 
We also would make these programs mandatory in a budget sense and fund 
them through the Commodity Credit Corporation with strict annual caps. 
To ensure budget neutrality, we make offsetting reductions in 
discretionary accounts.
  Maintaining the conservation fund throughout the next 10 years will 
require a shift in budget priorities. My preference is to preserve 
conservation assistance while reducing costs of crop subsidy programs 
in order to meet our deficit reduction requirement.
  The Conservation Reserve Program has been successful and this bill 
would continue and improve it over the next 10 years. We allocate the 
entire Congressional Budget Office baseline,
 which declines from the current level of $1.8 to $1.2 billion in 2000, 
for the CRP.

  Successful as it is, the CRP has several shortcomings. Too much land 
that can be farmed without harming the environment is currently idled. 
Annual payments too often exceed local rental rates. And the CRP can be 
utilized much more fully to improve water quality. Our bill corrects 
these weaknesses.
  We direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enroll at least 4 million 
acres of land--primarily buffer strips along permanent water bodies and 
intermittent streams--for water quality purposes. We target only the 
most highly erodible land that cannot be farmed profitably using 
necessary management practices and is not eligible for incentive or 
cost-share assistance. And we impose new discipline on rental rates.
  Much has been made of the significant wildlife benefits of the CRP. 
While the CBO baseline and our stricter enrollment standards points to 
a small CRP in the future, I believe our bill will result in a program 
that, acre for acre, is actually more beneficial for wildlife. Among 
equivalent eligible offers to enroll land under the soil erosion and 
water quality criteria, preference will be given to offers that give 
greater wildlife benefits. And all CRP contract holders will receive 
guidance on management methods to promote beneficial stands of cover.
  I mentioned earlier that our conservation strategies must stress land 
management as opposed to land retirement. This legislation takes the 
best of our existing cost-share and incentive programs and combines 
them into a new, strengthened effort: The Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, or EQIP. This will streamline the process for 
farmers and ranchers to apply for assistance. It will eliminate 
overlaps between our current hodgepodge of assistance programs. And by 
making EQIP a mandatory budget initiative, it will end the year-to-year 
uncertainly that producers must face under the current discretionary 
funding process.
  The EQIP Program will also offer new incentives to livestock 
producers. Currently, less than a quarter of our conservation spending 
goes for livestock, even though there is a high correlation between 
agriculturally sourced water quality impairments and livestock 
operations. A 1993 report of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Feedlot Workgroup indicates that feedlots are a more significant source 
of river impairments than storm sewers or industrial sources. Under 
EQIP, assistance for both crop and livestock producers would increase 
significantly and livestock would be eligible for half of the total 
funding. This is sound environmental policy that benefits all of 
agriculture.
  Let me list a few things we do not do in this bill. First, we create 
no new environmental mandates for farmers. It is very important that, 
as crop support levels decline, we not add any more compliance 
provisions to the commodity programs. In fact, farmers and ranchers 
need not participate in the programs to be eligible for our 
conservation programs.
  In addition, we do not permit any new economic use of Conservation 
Reserve Program lands. We can enroll all the land that truly deserves 
to be in the CRP with the budget baseline we have. As a result, we can 
avoid adverse effects to the cattle and forage industries that might 
result from expanded haying and grazing of CRP acres.
  Finally, this initial proposal does not make changes to our current 
wetland compliance provisions. Although Senator Leahy and I were able 
to agree on an overwhelming majority of conservation issues, we were 
unable to reach consensus on this front. I am fully aware of the 
controversy surrounding the swampbuster program and I recognize the 
need to improve it. I am committed to working with members of the 
Agriculture Committee to make wetlands regulation less burdensome. We 
must make swampbuster a fair and flexible program that can be described 
the same way as conservation compliance: A program that works and is 
supported by farmers. [[Page S7508]] 
  Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today. It makes 
winners of both agriculture and the environment. I hope all Senators 
will agree that it builds on the substantial conservation gains made by 
farmers and ranchers in the last decade and helps them answer the 
environmental challenges of the new millennium.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 854

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural Resources 
     Conservation Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE PROGRAM.

       Section 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3830) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1230. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 1996 through 2005 calendar 
     years, the Secretary shall establish an environmental 
     conservation acreage reserve program to be implemented 
     through contracts and the acquisition of easements to assist 
     owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve and 
     enhance soil, water, and related natural resources, including 
     grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.
       ``(2) Means.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     environmental conservation acreage reserve program by--
       ``(A) providing for the long-term protection of 
     environmentally sensitive lands; and
       ``(B) providing technical and financial assistance to 
     farmers and ranchers to--
       ``(i) improve the management of the operations of the 
     farmers and ranchers; and
       ``(ii) reconcile productivity and profitability with 
     protection and enhancement of the environment.
       ``(3) Programs.--The environmental conservation acreage 
     reserve program shall consist of--
       ``(A) the conservation reserve program established under 
     subchapter B;
       ``(B) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C; and
       ``(C) the environmental quality incentives program 
     established under chapter 2.
       ``(b) Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out the environmental 
     conservation acreage reserve program, the Secretary shall 
     enter into contracts with owners and operators and acquire 
     interests in lands through easements from owners, as provided 
     in this chapter and chapter 2.
       ``(2) Prior enrollments.--Acreage enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve program or wetlands reserve program 
     prior to the effective date of this paragraph shall be 
     considered to be placed in the environmental conservation 
     acreage reserve program.
       ``(c) Conservation Priority Areas.--
       ``(1) Designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall designate watersheds 
     or regions of special environmental sensitivity, including 
     the Chesapeake Bay region (located in Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
     and Virginia), the Great Lakes region, and the Long Island 
     Sound region, as conservation priority areas that are 
     eligible for enhanced assistance through the programs 
     established under this chapter and chapter 2. A designation 
     shall be made under this subparagraph if an application is 
     made by a State agency and agricultural practices within the 
     watershed or region pose a significant threat to soil, water, 
     and related natural resources, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Assistance.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall designate a watershed or region of special 
     environmental sensitivity as a conservation priority area to 
     assist agricultural producers within the watershed or region 
     to comply with nonpoint source pollution requirements 
     established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and other Federal and State 
     environmental laws.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, designate a watershed or region as a 
     conservation priority area that conforms to the functions and 
     purposes of the conservation reserve program established 
     under subchapter B, the wetlands reserve program established 
     under subchapter C, or the environmental quality incentives 
     program established under chapter 2, as applicable, if 
     participation in the program is likely to result in the 
     resolution or amelioration of significant soil, water, and 
     related natural resource problems related to agricultural 
     production activities within the watershed or region.
       ``(3) Expiration.--A conservation priority area designation 
     shall expire on the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     the designation, except that the Secretary may--
       ``(A) redesignate the area as a conservation priority area; 
     or
       ``(B) withdraw the designation of a watershed or region as 
     a conservation priority area if the Secretary finds that the 
     area is no longer affected by significant soil, water, and 
     related natural resource problems related to agricultural 
     production activities.''.

     SEC. 3. CONSERVATION RESERVE.

       Subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) is amended 
     to read as follows:

                  ``Subchapter B--Conservation Reserve

     ``SEC. 1231. CONSERVATION RESERVE.

       ``(a) In General.--During the 1996 through 2005 calendar 
     years, the Secretary shall carry out the enrollment of lands 
     in a conservation reserve program through the use of 
     contracts to assist owners and operators of lands specified 
     in subsection (b) to conserve and improve soil, water, and 
     related natural resources, by taking environmentally 
     sensitive lands out of production.
       ``(b) Eligible Lands.--The Secretary may include in the 
     program established under this subchapter--
       ``(1) highly erodible cropland that--
       ``(A) if permitted to remain untreated could substantially 
     impair soil, water, or related natural resources; and
       ``(B) cannot be farmed in accordance with a conservation 
     plan implemented under section 1212;
       ``(2) marginal pasture land converted to a wetland or 
     established as wildlife habitat;
       ``(3) marginal pasture land in or near riparian areas that 
     could enhance water quality;
       ``(4) cropland or pasture land to be devoted to the 
     production of hardwood trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts, or 
     wildlife corridors; and
       ``(5) cropland that is otherwise not eligible for inclusion 
     in the program--
       ``(A) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the land contributes to the degradation of water 
     quality or soil erosion, or would cause on-site or off-site 
     environmental degradation if permitted to remain in 
     agricultural production; and
       ``(ii) water quality, soil erosion, or environmental 
     objectives with respect to the land cannot be achieved under 
     the environmental quality incentives program established 
     under chapter 2;
       ``(B) if the cropland is newly created, permanent grass sod 
     waterways, or are contour grass sod strips established and 
     maintained as part of an approved conservation plan under 
     this subchapter;
       ``(C) if the cropland will be devoted to newly established 
     living snow fences, permanent wildlife habitat, windbreaks, 
     or shelterbelts;
       ``(D) if the land will be devoted to filterstrips that are 
     contiguous to permanent bodies of water or intermittent 
     streams;
       ``(E) if the Secretary determines that the land poses an 
     off-farm environmental threat, or pose a threat of continued 
     degradation of productivity due to soil salinity, if 
     permitted to remain in production; or
       ``(F) if the land is highly erodible cropland that will be 
     used to restore wetlands and--
       ``(i) the land is prior converted wetland;
       ``(ii) the owners or operators of the land agree to provide 
     the Secretary with a long-term or permanent easement under 
     subchapter C;
       ``(iii) there is a high probability that the prior 
     converted wetland can be successfully restored to wetland 
     status; and
       ``(iv) the restoration of the areas otherwise meets the 
     requirements of subchapter C.
       ``(c) Certain Land Affected by Secretarial Action.--For the 
     purpose of determining the eligibility of land to be placed 
     in the conservation reserve established under this 
     subchapter, land shall be considered planted to an 
     agricultural commodity during a crop year if an action of the 
     Secretary prevented the land from being planted to the 
     commodity during the crop year.
       ``(d) Enrollment.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Not more than 36,400,000 acres 
     (including acreage subject to contracts extended by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 16 
     U.S.C. 3831 note)) may be enrolled in the conservation 
     reserve in any of the 1996 through 2005 calendar years.
       ``(2) Priorities.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, with each periodic enrollment of acreage 
     (including acreage subject to contracts extended by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 16 
     U.S.C. 3831 note)), enroll acreage in the conservation 
     reserve that meets the priority criteria for water quality, 
     soil erosion, and wildlife habitat provided in subsection 
     (e), and, to the maximum extent practicable, maximize 
     multiple environmental benefits.
       ``(e) Priority Functions.--
       ``(1) In general.--During all periodic enrollments of 
     acreage (including acreage subject to contracts extended by 
     the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note)), the Secretary shall evaluate 
     all offers to enter into contracts under this subchapter in 
     light of the priority criteria stated in paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (4), and accept only the offers that meet the criteria 
     stated in paragraph (2) or (3), maximize the benefits stated 
     in paragraph (4), and maximize environmental benefits per 
     dollar expended. If an offer meets the criteria stated in 
     paragraph (4) and paragraph (2) or (3), the offer shall 
     receive higher priority, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Water quality.--
       ``(A) Targeted lands.--Not later than December 31, 2000, 
     the Secretary shall enroll in [[Page S7509]] the conservation 
     reserve narrow strips of cropland or pasture, as filterstrips 
     that are contiguous to--
       ``(i) permanent bodies of water;
       ``(ii) tributaries or smaller streams; or
       ``(iii) intermittent streams that the Secretary determines 
     significantly contribute to downstream water quality 
     degradation.
       ``(B) Purposes.--The lands may be enrolled by the Secretary 
     in the conservation reserve to establish--
       ``(i) contour grass strips;
       ``(ii) grassed waterways; and
       ``(iii) other equivalent conservation measures that have a 
     high potential to ameliorate pollution from crop and 
     livestock production.
       ``(C) Required enrollment.--Not later than December 31, 
     2000, the Secretary shall enroll in the conservation reserve 
     at least 4,000,000 acres under this paragraph.
       ``(D) Partial and whole fields.--Enrollments under this 
     paragraph may include partial and whole fields, except that 
     the Secretary shall accord a higher priority to partial field 
     enrollments.
       ``(3) Soil erosion.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall accept offers to 
     enroll highly erodible land only on fields that cannot be 
     farmed by using the best economically attainable conservation 
     system without high potential for degradation of soil or 
     water quality, and such potential degradation cannot be 
     alleviated through other Federal or State conservation 
     assistance programs.
       ``(B) Best economically attainable conservation system.--In 
     this paragraph, the term `best economically attainable 
     conservation system' means a practice or practices designed 
     to significantly reduce soil erosion on highly erodible 
     fields in a cost-effective manner, as specified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(C) Partial field enrollments.--A portion of a highly 
     erodible field is eligible for enrollment if the partial 
     field segment would provide a significant reduction in soil 
     erosion.
       ``(4) Wildlife habitat benefits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, ensure that offers to enroll acreage 
     under paragraphs (2) and (3) are accepted so as to maximize 
     wildlife habitat benefits.
       ``(B) Maximizing benefits.--An offer that satisfies 
     paragraph (2) or (3) shall be accepted by the Secretary if 
     the offer also maximizes wildlife habitat benefits, as 
     determined by the Secretary. For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     maximize wildlife habitat benefits through--
       ``(i) consultation with State technical committees 
     established under section 1261(a) as to the relative habitat 
     benefits of each offer, and accepting the offers that 
     maximize benefits; and
       ``(ii) providing higher priority to offers that would be 
     contiguous to--

       ``(I) other enrolled acreage;
       ``(II) a designated wildlife habitat; or
       ``(III) a wetland.

       ``(C) Cover crop information.--The Secretary shall provide 
     information to owners or operators about cover crops that are 
     best suited for area wildlife.
       ``(f) Duration of Contract.--For the purpose of carrying 
     out this subchapter, the Secretary shall enter into contracts 
     of not less than 10, nor more than 15, years.
       ``(g) Multiyear Grasses and Legumes.--For the purpose of 
     this subchapter, alfalfa and other multiyear grasses and 
     legumes planted in a rotation practice approved by the 
     Secretary, shall be considered agricultural commodities.

     ``SEC. 1232. DUTIES OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS.

       ``(a) In General.--If required by the Secretary as a term 
     of a contract under this chapter, an owner or operator of a 
     farm or ranch shall agree--
       ``(1) to implement a conservation plan approved by the 
     local conservation district (or in an area not located within 
     a conservation district, a conservation plan approved by the 
     Secretary) for converting eligible lands normally devoted to 
     the production of an agricultural commodity on the farm or 
     ranch to a less intensive use (as defined by the Secretary), 
     such as pasture, permanent grass, legumes, forbs, shrubs, or 
     trees, substantially in accordance with a schedule outlined 
     in the conservation plan;
       ``(2) to place highly erodible cropland subject to the 
     contract in the conservation reserve established under this 
     subchapter;
       ``(3) not to use the land for agricultural purposes, except 
     as permitted by the Secretary;
       ``(4) to establish approved vegetative cover, or water 
     cover for the enhancement of wildlife, on the land, except 
     that the water cover shall not include ponds for the purpose 
     of watering livestock, irrigating crops, or raising fish for 
     commercial purposes;
       ``(5) in addition to the remedies provided under section 
     1236(d), on the violation of a term or condition of the 
     contract at any time the owner or operator has control of the 
     land--
       ``(A) to forfeit all rights to receive rental payments and 
     cost-sharing payments under the contract and to refund to the 
     Secretary any rental payments and cost-sharing payments 
     received by the owner or operator under the contract, 
     together with interest on the payments as determined by the 
     Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the violation is 
     sufficient to warrant termination of the contract; or
       ``(B) to refund to the Secretary, or accept adjustments to, 
     the rental payments and cost-sharing payments provided to the 
     owner or operator, as the Secretary considers appropriate, if 
     the Secretary determines that the violation does not warrant 
     termination of the contract;
       ``(6) on the transfer of the right and interest of the 
     owner or operator in land subject to the contract--
       ``(A) to forfeit all rights to rental payments and cost-
     sharing payments under the contract; and
       ``(B) to refund to the United States all rental payments 
     and cost-sharing payments received by the owner or operator, 
     or accept such payment adjustments or make such refunds as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate and consistent with the 
     objectives of this subchapter, unless--
       ``(i) the transferee of the land agrees with the Secretary 
     to assume all obligations of the contract; or
       ``(ii) the land is purchased by or for the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, or the transferee and the 
     Secretary agree to modifications to the contract, if the 
     modifications are consistent with the objectives of this 
     subchapter as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(7) not to conduct any harvesting or grazing, nor 
     otherwise make commercial use of the forage, on land that is 
     subject to the contract, nor adopt any similar practice 
     specified in the contract by the Secretary as a practice that 
     would tend to defeat the purposes of the contract, except 
     that the Secretary may permit--
       ``(A) harvesting or grazing or other commercial use of the 
     forage on land that is subject to the contract in response to 
     a drought or other similar emergency; and
       ``(B) limited grazing on the land if the grazing is 
     incidental to the gleaning of crop residues on the fields in 
     which the land is located and occurs--
       ``(i) during the 7-month period during which grazing of 
     conserving use acreage is allowed in a State under the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.); or
       ``(ii) after the producer harvests the grain crop of the 
     surrounding field for a reduction in rental payment 
     commensurate with the limited economic value of the 
     incidental grazing;
       ``(8) not to harvest or make commercial use of trees on 
     land that is subject to the contract unless expressly 
     permitted in the contract, except that no contract shall 
     prohibit activities consistent with customary forestry 
     practice, such as pruning, thinning, or stand improvement of 
     trees, on land converted to forestry use;
       ``(9) not to adopt any practice that would tend to defeat 
     the objectives of this subchapter;
       ``(10) with respect to any contract entered into after the 
     effective date of section 3 of the Agricultural Resources 
     Conservation Act of 1995, concerning highly erodible land in 
     a county that has not reached the limitation established by 
     section 1242(c)--
       ``(A) not to produce an agricultural commodity for the 
     duration of the contract on any other highly erodible land 
     that the owner or operator has purchased after the effective 
     date of section 3 of the Agricultural Resources Conservation 
     Act of 1995, and that does not have a history of being used 
     to produce an agricultural commodity other than forage crops; 
     and
       ``(B) on the violation of subparagraph (A), to be subject 
     to the sanctions described in paragraph (5); and
       ``(11) to comply with such additional provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are necessary.
       ``(b) Conservation Plan.--The conservation plan required 
     under subsection (a)(1)--
       ``(1) shall set forth--
       ``(A) the conservation measures and practices to be carried 
     out by the owner or operator during the term of the contract; 
     and
       ``(B) the commercial use, if any, to be permitted on the 
     land during the term; and
       ``(2) may provide for the permanent retirement of any 
     cropland base and allotment history for the land.
       ``(c) Environmental Use.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, not less than \1/8\ of land that is placed in 
     the conservation reserve shall be devoted to hardwood trees.
       ``(d) Foreclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, an owner 
     or operator of land who is a party to a contract entered into 
     under this subchapter may not be required to make repayments 
     to the Secretary of amounts received under the contract if 
     the land that is subject to the contract has been foreclosed 
     on and the Secretary determines that forgiving the repayments 
     is appropriate to provide fair and equitable treatment.
       ``(2) Resumption of control.--This subsection shall not 
     void the responsibilities of the owner or operator under the 
     contract if the owner or operator resumes control over the 
     land that is subject to the contract within the term of the 
     contract. On the resumption of the control over the land by 
     the owner or operator, the provisions of the contract in 
     effect on the date of the foreclosure shall apply.

     ``SEC. 1233. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``In return for a contract entered into by an owner or 
     operator under section 1232, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) share the cost of carrying out the conservation 
     measures and practices set forth in the contract for which 
     the Secretary determines that cost sharing is appropriate and 
     in the public interest; [[Page S7510]] 
       ``(2) for a period of years not in excess of the term of 
     the contract, pay an annual rental payment in an amount 
     necessary to compensate for--
       ``(A) the conversion of cropland normally devoted to the 
     production of an agricultural commodity on a farm or ranch to 
     a less intensive use, consistent with section 1231(e); and
       ``(B) the retirement of any cropland base and allotment 
     history that the owner or operator agrees to retire 
     permanently; and
       ``(3) provide conservation technical assistance, as 
     determined necessary by the Secretary, to assist the owner or 
     operator in carrying out the contract.

     ``SEC. 1234. PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Time of Cost-Sharing and Annual Rental Payments.--The 
     Secretary shall provide payment for obligations incurred by 
     the Secretary under a contract entered into under this 
     subchapter--
       ``(1) with respect to any cost-sharing payment obligation 
     incurred by the Secretary, as soon as practicable after the 
     obligation is incurred; and
       ``(2) with respect to any annual rental payment obligation 
     incurred by the Secretary--
       ``(A) as soon as practicable after October 1 of each 
     calendar year; or
       ``(B) at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time prior 
     to October 1 during the year that the obligation is incurred.
       ``(b) Federal Percentage of Cost-Sharing Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--In making cost-sharing payments to an 
     owner or operator under a contract entered into under this 
     subchapter, the Secretary shall pay 50 percent of the cost of 
     establishing water quality and conservation measures and 
     practices required under the contracts for which the 
     Secretary determines that cost sharing is appropriate and in 
     the public interest.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not make any payment 
     to an owner or operator under this subchapter to the extent 
     that the total amount of cost-sharing payments provided to 
     the owner or operator from all sources would exceed 100 
     percent of the total actual costs.
       ``(3) Hardwood trees.--The Secretary may permit an owner or 
     operator who contracts to devote at least 10 acres of land to 
     the production of hardwood trees under this subchapter to 
     extend the planting of the trees over a 3-year period if at 
     least \1/3\ of the trees are planted in each of the first 2 
     years.
       ``(4) Other federal cost-sharing assistance.--An owner or 
     operator shall not be eligible to receive or retain cost-
     sharing assistance under this subchapter if the owner or 
     operator receives any other Federal cost-sharing assistance 
     with respect to the land under any other law.
       ``(c) Annual Rental Payments.--
       ``(1) Encouraging participation.--In determining the amount 
     of annual rental payments to be paid to owners and operators 
     for converting eligible cropland normally devoted to the 
     production of an agricultural commodity to a less intensive 
     use, the Secretary may consider, among other factors, the 
     amount necessary to encourage owners or operators of eligible 
     cropland to participate in the program established by this 
     subchapter.
       ``(2) Amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amounts payable to owners or 
     operators as rental payments under contracts entered into 
     under this subchapter shall be determined by the Secretary 
     through--
       ``(i) the submission of offers for the contracts by owners 
     and operators in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe; 
     and
       ``(ii) determination of the rental value of the land 
     through a productivity adjustment formula determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Rental payments shall not exceed local 
     rental rates, except that rental payments for partial field 
     enrollments may be made in an amount that does not exceed 150 
     percent of local rental rates, adjusted for the productivity 
     of the land, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Hardwood trees.--In the case of acreage enrolled in 
     the conservation reserve that is to be devoted to hardwood 
     trees, the Secretary may consider offers for contracts under 
     this subsection on a continuous basis.
       ``(d) Cash or In-Kind Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, payments under this subchapter--
       ``(A) shall be made in cash or in commodities in such 
     amount and on such time schedule as are agreed on and 
     specified in the contract; and
       ``(B) may be made in advance of the determination of 
     performance.
       ``(2) In-kind payments.--If the payment is made in in-kind 
     commodities, the payment shall be made by the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation--
       ``(A) by delivery of the commodity involved to the owner or 
     operator at a warehouse or other similar facility located in 
     the county in which the highly erodible cropland is located 
     or at such other location as is agreed to by the Secretary 
     and the owner or operator;
       ``(B) by the transfer of negotiable warehouse receipts; or
       ``(C) by such other method, including the sale of the 
     commodity in commercial markets, as is determined by the 
     Secretary to be appropriate to enable the owner or operator 
     to receive efficient and expeditious possession of the 
     commodity.
       ``(3) Insufficient stocks.--If stocks of a commodity 
     acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation are not readily 
     available to make full payment in kind to an owner or 
     operator, the Secretary may substitute full or partial 
     payment in cash for payment in kind.
       ``(4) Special conservation reserve enhancement program.--
     Payments to a producer under a special conservation reserve 
     enhancement program described in subsection (f)(4) shall be 
     in the form of cash only.
       ``(e) Payment on Death, Disability, or Succession.--If an 
     owner or operator who is entitled to a payment under a 
     contract entered into under this subchapter dies, becomes 
     incompetent, is otherwise unable to receive the payment, or 
     is succeeded by another person who renders or completes the 
     required performance, the Secretary shall make the payment, 
     in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
     and without regard to any other provision of law, in such 
     manner as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in 
     light of all of the circumstances.
       ``(f) Payment Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The total amount of rental payments, 
     including the value of any rental payments in in-kind 
     commodities, made to a person under this subchapter for any 
     fiscal year may not exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     that are consistent with section 1001 for the purpose of--
       ``(A) defining the term `person' as used in paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(B) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines 
     are necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of 
     the limitation contained in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Receipt of other payments not affected.--Rental 
     payments received by an owner or operator shall be in 
     addition to, and not affect, the total amount of payments 
     that the owner or operator is otherwise eligible to receive 
     under this Act, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624), or the Agricultural 
     Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.).
       ``(4) Special conservation reserve enhancement program.--
     The provisions of this subsection that limit payments to any 
     person, and section 1305(f) of the Agricultural 
     Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203; 7 U.S.C. 1308 
     note), shall not be applicable to payments received by a 
     State or political subdivision, or an agency of a State or 
     political subdivision, in connection with an agreement 
     entered into under a special conservation reserve enhancement 
     program carried out by the State, political subdivision, or 
     agency that has been approved by the Secretary. The Secretary 
     may enter into an agreement for payments to a State or 
     political subdivision, or agency of a State or political 
     subdivision, that the Secretary determines will advance the 
     objectives of this subchapter.
       ``(g) Contracts Unaffected by Certain Presidential 
     Orders.--Notwithstanding any other law, no order issued for 
     any fiscal year under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) shall 
     affect any payment under any contract entered into at any 
     time that is subject to this subchapter, including contracts 
     entered into prior to the effective date of section 3 of the 
     Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1995.
       ``(h) Cost-Sharing Payments.--In addition to any payment 
     under this subchapter, an owner or operator may receive cost-
     sharing payments, rental payments, or tax benefits from a 
     State or political subdivision of a State for enrolling lands 
     in the conservation reserve program.

     ``SEC. 1235. CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Ownership or Operation Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no contract 
     shall be entered into under this subchapter concerning land 
     with respect to which the ownership has changed during the 3-
     year period preceding the date the contract is entered into 
     unless--
       ``(A) the new ownership was acquired by will or succession 
     as a result of the death of the previous owner;
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the land was acquired 
     under circumstances that give adequate assurance that the 
     land was not acquired for the purpose of placing the land in 
     the program established by this subchapter; or
       ``(C) the ownership change occurred due to foreclosure on 
     the land and the owner of the land immediately before the 
     foreclosure exercised a right of redemption from the mortgage 
     holder in accordance with a State law.
       ``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not--
       ``(A) prohibit the continuation of a contract by a new 
     owner after a contract has been entered into under this 
     subchapter; or
       ``(B) require a person to own the land as a condition of 
     eligibility for entering into the contract if the person--
       ``(i) has operated the land to be covered by a contract 
     under this subchapter for at least 3 years preceding the date 
     of entering into the contract; and
       ``(ii) controls the land during the contract period.
       ``(b) Sales or Transfers.--If, during the term of a 
     contract entered into under this subchapter, an owner or 
     operator of land subject to the contract sells or otherwise 
     transfers the ownership or right of occupancy of the land, 
     the new owner or operator of the land may-- [[Page S7511]] 
       ``(1) continue the contract under the same terms and 
     conditions of the contract;
       ``(2) enter into a new contract in accordance with this 
     subchapter; or
       ``(3) elect not to participate in the program established 
     under this subchapter.
       ``(c) Modifications and Waivers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may modify a contract 
     entered into by an owner or operator under this subchapter 
     if--
       ``(A) the owner or operator agrees to the modification; and
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the modification is 
     desirable--
       ``(i) to carry out this subchapter;
       ``(ii) to facilitate the practical administration of this 
     subchapter; or
       ``(iii) to achieve such other goals as the Secretary 
     determines are appropriate, consistent with this subchapter.
       ``(2) Production of agricultural commodities.--The 
     Secretary may modify or waive a term or condition of a 
     contract entered into under this subchapter to permit all or 
     part of the land subject to the contract to be devoted to the 
     production of an agricultural commodity during a crop year, 
     subject to such conditions as the Secretary determines are 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate a contract 
     entered into with an owner or operator under this subchapter 
     if--
       ``(1) the owner or operator agrees to the termination; and
       ``(2) the Secretary determines that the termination is in 
     the public interest.

     ``SEC. 1236. BASE HISTORY.

       ``(a) Reductions.--A reduction, based on a ratio between 
     the total cropland acreage on the farm and the acreage placed 
     in the conservation reserve, as determined by the Secretary, 
     shall be made during the period of a contract entered into 
     under this subchapter, in the aggregate, in crop bases, 
     quotas, and allotments on the farm with respect to crops for 
     which there is a production adjustment program.
       ``(b) Base History as Basis for Participation in Other 
     Federal Programs.--Notwithstanding sections 1211 and 1221, 
     the Secretary, by appropriate regulation, may provide for 
     preservation of cropland base and allotment history 
     applicable to acreage converted from the production of 
     agricultural commodities under this subchapter, for the 
     purpose of any Federal program under which the history is 
     used as a basis for participation in the program or for an 
     allotment or other limitation of the program, unless the 
     owner and operator of the farm or ranch agree under the 
     contract to retire permanently that cropland base and 
     allotment history.
       ``(c) Extension of Preservation of Cropland Base and 
     Allotment History.--The Secretary shall offer the owner or 
     operator of a farm or ranch an opportunity to extend the 
     preservation of cropland base and allotment history pursuant 
     to subsection (b) for such time as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate after the expiration date of a contract 
     under this subchapter at the request of the owner or 
     operator. In return for the extension, the owner or operator 
     shall agree to continue to abide by the terms and conditions 
     of the original contract, except that--
       ``(1) the owner or operator shall receive no additional 
     cost-sharing, annual rental, or bonus payment; and
       ``(2) the Secretary may permit, subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may impose, haying and grazing of 
     acreage subject to the agreement, except that--
       ``(A) haying and grazing shall not be permitted during any 
     consecutive 5-month period that is established by the State 
     committee established under section 8(b) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) 
     during the period beginning April 1 and ending October 31 of 
     a year; and
       ``(B) in the case of a natural disaster, the Secretary may 
     permit unlimited haying and grazing on the acreage.
       ``(d) Additional Remedies for Violations.--In addition to 
     any other remedy prescribed by law, the Secretary may reduce 
     or terminate the quantity of cropland base and allotment 
     history preserved pursuant to subsection (c) for acreage with 
     respect to which a violation of a term or condition of a 
     contract occurs.''.

     SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       Chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.) is amended to read as 
     follows:

         ``CHAPTER 2--ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 1238. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) farmers and ranchers cumulatively manage more than 
     \1/2\ of the private lands in the continental United States;
       ``(2) because of the predominance of agriculture, the soil, 
     water, and related natural resources of the United States 
     cannot be protected without cooperative relationships between 
     the Federal Government and farmers and ranchers;
       ``(3) farmers and ranchers have made tremendous progress in 
     protecting the environment and the agricultural resource base 
     of the United States over the past decade because of not only 
     Federal Government programs but also their spirit of 
     stewardship and the adoption of effective technologies;
       ``(4) it is in the interest of the entire United States 
     that farmers and ranchers continue to strive to preserve soil 
     resources and make more efforts to protect water quality and 
     wildlife habitat, and address other broad environmental 
     concerns;
       ``(5) environmental strategies that stress the prudent 
     management of resources, as opposed to idling land, will 
     permit the maximum economic opportunities for farmers and 
     ranchers in the future;
       ``(6) unnecessary bureaucratic and paperwork barriers 
     associated with existing agricultural conservation assistance 
     programs decrease the potential effectiveness of the 
     programs; and
       ``(7) the recent trend of Federal spending on agricultural 
     conservation programs suggests that assistance to farmers and 
     ranchers in future years will, absent changes in policy, 
     dwindle to perilously low levels.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the environmental quality 
     incentives program established by this chapter are to--
       ``(1) combine into a single program the functions of--
       ``(A) the agricultural conservation program authorized by 
     sections 7 and 8 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590g and 590h) (as in effect before 
     the amendments made by section 6(a)(1) of the Agricultural 
     Resources Conservation Act of 1995);
       ``(B) the Great Plains conservation program established 
     under section 16(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590p(b)) (as in effect before the 
     amendment made by section 6(b)(1) of the Agricultural 
     Resources Conservation Act of 1995);
       ``(C) the water quality incentives program established 
     under this chapter (as in effect before the amendment made by 
     section 4 of the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 
     1995); and
       ``(D) the Colorado River Basin salinity control program 
     established under section 202(c) of the Colorado River Basin 
     Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)) (as in effect before 
     the amendment made by section 6(c)(1) of the Agricultural 
     Resources Conservation Act of 1995); and
       ``(2) carry out the single program in a manner that 
     maximizes environmental benefits per dollar expended, and 
     that provides--
       ``(A) flexible technical and financial assistance to 
     farmers and ranchers that face the most serious threats to 
     soil, water, and related natural resources, including grazing 
     lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat;
       ``(B) assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with 
     this title and Federal and State environmental laws, and to 
     encourage environmental enhancement;
       ``(C) assistance to farmers and ranchers in making 
     beneficial, cost-effective changes to cropping systems, 
     grazing management, manure, nutrient, pest, or irrigation 
     management, land uses, or other measures needed to conserve 
     and improve soil, water, and related natural resources; and
       ``(D) for the consolidation and simplification of the 
     conservation planning process to reduce administrative 
     burdens on the owners and operators of farms and ranches.

     ``SEC. 1238A. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Land management practice.--The term `land management 
     practice' means nutrient or manure management, integrated 
     pest management, irrigation management, tillage or residue 
     management, grazing management, or another land management 
     practice the Secretary determines is needed to protect soil, 
     water, or related resources in the most cost effective 
     manner.
       ``(2) Large confined livestock operation.--The term `large 
     confined livestock operation' means a farm or ranch that--
       ``(A) is a confined animal feeding operation; and
       ``(B) has more than--
       ``(i) 700 mature dairy cattle;
       ``(ii) 1,000 beef cattle;
       ``(iii) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has 
     continuous overflow watering);
       ``(iv) 100,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has 
     a liquid manure system);
       ``(v) 55,000 turkeys;
       ``(vi) 2,500 swine; or
       ``(vii) 10,000 sheep or lambs.
       ``(3) Livestock.--The term `livestock' means mature dairy 
     cows, beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine, 
     sheep, or lambs.
       ``(4) Operator.--The term `operator' means a person who is 
     engaged in crop or livestock production (as defined by the 
     Secretary).
       ``(5) Structural practice.--The term `structural practice' 
     means the establishment of an animal waste management 
     facility, terrace, grassed waterway, contour grass strip, 
     filterstrip, permanent wildlife habitat, or another 
     structural practice that the Secretary determines is needed 
     to protect soil, water, or related resources in the most cost 
     effective manner.

     ``SEC. 1238B. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 1996 through 2005 fiscal 
     years, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, 
     cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments to operators, 
     who enter into contracts with the Secretary, through an 
     environmental quality incentives program in accordance with 
     this chapter.
       ``(2) Eligible practices.--
       ``(A) Structural practices.--An operator who implements a 
     structural practice shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance or cost-sharing payments, or both. [[Page S7512]] 
       ``(B) Land management practices.--An operator who performs 
     a land management practice shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance or incentive payments, or both.
       ``(b) Application and Term.--A contract between an operator 
     and the Secretary under this chapter may--
       ``(1) apply to 1 or more structural practices or 1 or more 
     land management practices, or both; and
       ``(2) have a term of not less than 5, nor more than 10, 
     years, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, depending 
     on the practice or practices that are the basis of the 
     contract.
       ``(c) Structural Practices.--
       ``(1) Competitive offer.--The Secretary shall administer a 
     competitive offer system for operators proposing to receive 
     cost-sharing payments in exchange for the implementation of 1 
     or more structural practices by the operator. The competitive 
     offer system shall consist of--
       ``(A) the submission of a competitive offer by the operator 
     in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe; and
       ``(B) evaluation of the offer in light of the priorities 
     established in section 1238C and the projected cost of the 
     proposal, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Concurrence of owner.--If the operator making an 
     offer to implement a structural practice is a tenant of the 
     land involved in agricultural production, for the offer to be 
     acceptable, the operator shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     owner of the land with respect to the offer.
       ``(d) Land Management Practices.--The Secretary shall 
     establish an application and evaluation process for awarding 
     technical assistance or incentive payments, or both, to an 
     operator in exchange for the performance of 1 or more land 
     management practices by the operator.
       ``(e) Cost-Sharing and Incentive Payments.--
       ``(1) Cost-sharing payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal share of cost-sharing 
     payments to an operator proposing to implement 1 or more 
     structural practices shall not be less than 75 percent of the 
     projected cost of the practice, as determined by the 
     Secretary, taking into consideration any payment received by 
     the operator from a State or local government.
       ``(B) Limitation.--An operator of a large confined 
     livestock operation shall not be eligible for cost-sharing 
     payments to construct an animal waste management facility.
       ``(C) Other payments.--An operator shall not be eligible 
     for cost-sharing payments for structural practices on 
     eligible land under this chapter if the operator receives 
     cost-sharing payments or other benefits for the same land 
     under chapter 1 or 3.
       ``(2) Incentive payments.--The Secretary shall make 
     incentive payments in an amount and at a rate determined by 
     the Secretary to be necessary to encourage an operator to 
     perform 1 or more land management practices.
       ``(f) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) Funding.--The Secretary shall allocate funding under 
     this chapter for the provision of technical assistance 
     according to the purpose and projected cost for which the 
     technical assistance is provided in a fiscal year. The 
     allocated amount may vary according to the type of expertise 
     required, quantity of time involved, and other factors as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary. Funding shall not 
     exceed the projected cost to the Secretary of the technical 
     assistance provided in a fiscal year.
       ``(2) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical 
     assistance under this chapter shall not affect the 
     eligibility of the operator to receive technical assistance 
     under other authorities of law available to the Secretary.
       ``(g) Modification or Termination of Contracts.--
       ``(1) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary 
     may modify or terminate a contract entered into with an 
     operator under this chapter if--
       ``(A) the operator agrees to the modification or 
     termination; and
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the modification or 
     termination is in the public interest.
       ``(2) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate 
     a contract under this chapter if the Secretary determines 
     that the operator violated the contract.
       ``(h) Non-Federal Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may request the services 
     of a State water quality agency, State fish and wildlife 
     agency, State forestry agency, or any other governmental or 
     private resource considered appropriate to assist in 
     providing the technical assistance necessary for the 
     development and implementation of a structural practice or 
     land management practice.
       ``(2) Limitation on liability.--No person shall be 
     permitted to bring or pursue any claim or action against any 
     official or entity based on or resulting from any technical 
     assistance provided to an operator under this chapter to 
     assist in complying with a Federal or State environmental 
     law.

     ``SEC. 1238C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Regional Priorities.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive 
     payments to operators in a region, watershed, or conservation 
     priority area under this chapter based on the significance of 
     the soil, water, and related natural resource problems in the 
     region, watershed, or area, and the structural practices or 
     land management practices that best address the problems, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Maximization of Environmental Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--In providing technical assistance, cost-
     sharing payments, and incentive payments to operators in 
     regions, watersheds, or conservation priority areas under 
     this chapter, the Secretary shall accord a higher priority to 
     assistance and payments that maximize environmental benefits 
     per dollar expended.
       ``(2) National and regional priority.--The prioritization 
     shall be done nationally as well as within the conservation 
     priority area, region, or watershed in which an agricultural 
     operation is located.
       ``(3) Criteria.--To carry out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall establish criteria for implementing 
     structural practices and land management practices that best 
     achieve conservation goals for a region, watershed, or 
     conservation priority area, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) State or Local Contributions.--The Secretary shall 
     accord a higher priority to operators whose agricultural 
     operations are located within watersheds, regions, or 
     conservation priority areas in which State or local 
     governments have provided, or will provide, financial or 
     technical assistance to the operators for the same 
     conservation or environmental purposes.
       ``(d) Priority Lands.--The Secretary shall accord a higher 
     priority to structural practices or land management practices 
     on lands on which agricultural production has been determined 
     to contribute to, or create, the potential for failure to 
     meet applicable water quality standards or other 
     environmental objectives of a Federal or State law.

     ``SEC. 1238D. DUTIES OF OPERATORS.

       ``To receive technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, 
     or incentives payments under this chapter, an operator shall 
     agree--
       ``(1) to implement an environmental quality incentives 
     program plan that describes conservation and environmental 
     goals to be achieved through a structural practice or land 
     management practice, or both, that is approved by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(2) not to conduct any practices on the farm or ranch 
     that would tend to defeat the purposes of this chapter;
       ``(3) on the violation of a term or condition of the 
     contract at any time the operator has control of the land, to 
     refund any cost-sharing or incentive payment received with 
     interest, and forfeit any future payments under this chapter, 
     as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(4) on the transfer of the right and interest of the 
     operator in land subject to the contract, unless the 
     transferee of the right and interest agrees with the 
     Secretary to assume all obligations of the contract, to 
     refund all cost-sharing payments and incentive payments 
     received under this chapter, as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(5) to supply information as required by the Secretary to 
     determine compliance with the environmental quality 
     incentives program plan and requirements of the program; and
       ``(6) to comply with such additional provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the 
     environmental quality incentives program plan.

     ``SEC. 1238E. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.

       ``An environmental quality incentives program plan shall 
     include (as determined by the Secretary)--
       ``(1) a description of the prevailing farm or ranch 
     enterprises, cropping patterns, grazing management, cultural 
     practices, or other information that may be relevant to 
     conserving and enhancing soil, water, and related natural 
     resources;
       ``(2) a description of relevant farm or ranch resources, 
     including soil characteristics, rangeland types and 
     condition, proximity to water bodies, wildlife habitat, or 
     other relevant characteristics of the farm or ranch related 
     to the conservation and environmental objectives set forth in 
     the plan;
       ``(3) a description of specific conservation and 
     environmental objectives to be achieved;
       ``(4) to the extent practicable, specific, quantitative 
     goals for achieving the conservation and environmental 
     objectives;
       ``(5) a description of 1 or more structural practices or 1 
     or more land management practices, or both, to be implemented 
     to achieve the conservation and environmental objectives;
       ``(6) a description of the timing and sequence for 
     implementing the structural practices or land management 
     practices, or both, that will assist the operator in 
     complying with Federal and State environmental laws; and
       ``(7) information that will enable evaluation of the 
     effectiveness of the plan in achieving the conservation and 
     environmental objectives, and that will enable evaluation of 
     the degree to which the plan has been implemented.

     ``SEC. 1238F. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``To the extent appropriate, the Secretary shall assist an 
     operator in achieving the conservation and environmental 
     goals of an environmental quality incentives program plan 
     by--
       ``(1) providing an eligibility assessment of the farming or 
     ranching operation of the operator as a basis for developing 
     the plan;
       ``(2) providing technical assistance in developing and 
     implementing the plan; [[Page S7513]] 
       ``(3) providing technical assistance, cost-sharing 
     payments, or incentive payments for developing and 
     implementing 1 or more structural practices or 1 or more land 
     management practices, as appropriate;
       ``(4) providing the operator with information, education, 
     and training to aid in implementation of the plan; and
       ``(5) encouraging the operator to obtain technical 
     assistance, cost-sharing payments, or grants from other 
     Federal, State, local, or private sources.

     ``SEC. 1238G. ELIGIBLE LANDS.

       ``Agricultural land on which a structural practice or land 
     management practice, or both, shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance, cost-sharing payments, or incentive payments 
     under this chapter include--
       ``(1) agricultural land (including cropland, rangeland, 
     pasture, and other land on which crops or livestock are 
     produced) that the Secretary determines poses a serious 
     threat to soil, water, or related resources by reason of the 
     soil types, terrain, climatic, soil, topographic, flood, or 
     saline characteristics, or other factors or natural hazards;
       ``(2) an area that is considered to be critical 
     agricultural land on which either crop or livestock 
     production is carried out, as identified in a plan submitted 
     by the State under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1329) as having priority problems that 
     result from an agricultural nonpoint source of pollution;
       ``(3) an area recommended by a State lead agency for 
     protection of soil, water, and related resources, as 
     designated by a Governor of a State; and
       ``(4) land that is not located within a designated or 
     approved area, but that if permitted to continue to be 
     operated under existing management practices, would defeat 
     the purpose of the environmental quality incentives program, 
     as determined by the Secretary. -

     ``SEC. 1238H. LIMITATIONS ON PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Payments.--The total amount of cost-sharing and 
     incentive payments paid to a person under this chapter may 
     not exceed--
       ``(1) $10,000 for any fiscal year; or
       ``(2) $50,000 for any multiyear contract.
       ``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     that are consistent with section 1001 for the purpose of--
       ``(1) defining the term `person' as used in subsection (a); 
     and
       ``(2) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of the 
     limitations contained in subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 1238I. TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Interim Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this section and ending on the later of the 
     dates specified in paragraph (2), to ensure that technical 
     assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments 
     continue to be administered in an orderly manner until such 
     time as assistance can be provided through final regulations 
     issued to implement the environmental quality incentives 
     program established under this chapter, the Secretary shall 
     continue to provide technical assistance, cost-sharing 
     payments, and incentive payments under the terms and 
     conditions of the agricultural conservation program, the 
     Great Plains conservation program, the water quality 
     incentives program, and the Colorado River Basin salinity 
     control program, to the extent the terms and conditions of 
     the programs are consistent with the environmental quality 
     incentives program.
       ``(2) Expiration of Authority.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to carry out paragraph (1) shall terminate on the 
     later of--
       ``(A) the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section; or
       ``(B) March 31, 1996.
       ``(b) Permanent Administration.--Effective beginning on the 
     later of the dates specified in subsection (a)(2), the 
     Secretary shall provide technical assistance, cost-sharing 
     payments, and incentive payments for structural practices and 
     land management practices related to crop and livestock 
     production in accordance with final regulations issued to 
     carry out the environmental quality incentives program.''.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
                      ``Subtitle E--Administration

     ``SEC. 1241. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Mandatory Expenses.--Subject to subsection (f), the 
     Secretary shall use the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2005 to 
     carry out the programs authorized by--
       ``(1) subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D (including 
     contracts extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 
     of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note));
       ``(2) subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(3) chapter 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(b) Advance Appropriations to CCC.--The Secretary may use 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     chapter 3 of subtitle D, except that the Secretary may not 
     use the funds of the Corporation unless the Corporation has 
     received funds to cover the expenditures from appropriations 
     made to carry out chapter 3 of subtitle D.
       ``(c) Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--
       ``(1) Crop production.--Subject to subsection (f), funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation for technical assistance, 
     cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments targeted at 
     practices relating to crop production under the environmental 
     quality incentives program--
       ``(A) in the case of each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
     shall be allocated in the same proportion that existed 
     between practices relating to crop production and livestock 
     production in fiscal year 1995; and
       ``(B) in the case of each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2005, shall not be less than the total funding level for the 
     payments for fiscal year 1995.
       ``(2) Livestock production.--Subject to subsection (f) and 
     paragraph (3), for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005, 50 
     percent of the funding available for technical assistance, 
     cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments under the 
     environmental quality incentives program shall be targeted at 
     practices relating to livestock production.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The Secretary is authorized to allocate 
     less than 50 percent of the total program funding level for a 
     fiscal year for practices relating to crop or livestock 
     production under paragraphs (1) and (2), if the Secretary 
     determines that the funding level is not justified by need or 
     demand.
       ``(d) Conservation Reserve Program.--Subject to subsection 
     (f), funding for the conservation reserve program (including 
     contracts extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 
     of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note)) shall be--
       ``(1) $1,805,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $1,804,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $1,485,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(4) $1,345,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(5) $1,221,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2005.
       ``(e) Wetlands Reserve Program.--Subject to subsection (f), 
     funding to carry out the wetlands reserve program under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D shall be $150,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2005.
       ``(f) Limitation on Use of CCC Funds.--Subject to 
     subsection (c)(3) and notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary shall allocate $2,060,000,000, of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation for each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2005 to carry out the programs authorized by chapters 
     1 and 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(g) Proration of Payments.--If for any fiscal year the 
     Secretary has incurred total contractual obligations to make 
     payments under all programs authorized under subtitle D 
     (other than chapter 3 of subtitle D) that would exceed an 
     amount of $2,060,000,000, the Secretary shall prorate all 
     payments owed under subtitle D (other than chapter 3 of 
     subtitle D) for the fiscal year to ensure that actual 
     payments for the fiscal year do not exceed that amount.

     ``SEC. 1242. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Plans.--The Secretary shall, to the extent 
     practicable, avoid duplication in--
       ``(1) the conservation plans required for--
       ``(A) highly erodible land conservation under subtitle B;
       ``(B) the conservation reserve program established under 
     subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(C) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(2) the environmental quality incentives program plan 
     required under chapter 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(b) Tenants and Sharecroppers.--In carrying out the 
     programs established under subtitle D, the Secretary shall 
     provide adequate safeguards to protect the interests of 
     tenants and sharecroppers, including provision for sharing, 
     on a fair and equitable basis, in payments under a program 
     established by subtitle D.
       ``(c) Acreage Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not enroll more than 
     25 percent of the cropland in any county in the programs 
     administered under the conservation reserve and wetlands 
     reserve programs established under subchapters B and C, 
     respectively, of chapter 1 of subtitle D. Not more than 10 
     percent of the cropland in a county may be subject to an 
     easement acquired under the subchapters.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may exceed the limitations 
     in paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the action would not adversely affect the local 
     economy of a county; and
       ``(B) operators in the county are having difficulties 
     complying with conservation plans implemented under section 
     1212.
       ``(3) Shelterbelts and windbreaks.--The limitations 
     established under this subsection shall not apply to cropland 
     that is subject to an easement under chapter 1 or 3 of 
     subtitle D that is used for the establishment of shelterbelts 
     and windbreaks.
       ``(d) Regulations.--
       ``(1) Conservation reserve and wetlands reserve programs.--
     Not later than 90 days after the effective date of this 
     section, the Secretary shall issue regulations to implement 
     the conservation reserve and wetlands reserve programs 
     established under chapter 1 of subtitle D.
       ``(2) Environmental quality incentives program.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the effective date of this section, the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations to implement the 
     environmental quality incentives program under chapter 2 of 
     subtitle D.

     ``SEC. 1243. CONSERVATION OPERATIONS.

       ``It is the sense of Congress that-- [[Page S7514]] 
       ``(1) the functions performed by the Secretary pursuant to 
     the authority for Conservation Operations are valuable 
     conservation activities that should continue to be carried 
     out by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) the amount of funds made available to carry out the 
     functions of Conservation Operations for each fiscal year 
     should not be less than the amount of funds made available to 
     carry out those functions during fiscal year 1995.

     ``SEC. 1244. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.

       ``It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should 
     develop information management techniques that are necessary 
     to create--
       ``(1) individual farm or ranch natural resource databases 
     that would streamline the process by which owners or 
     operators apply to participate in a conservation program 
     administered by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) to the extent practicable, develop a common 
     application process for all conservation programs.''.
     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Agricultural Conservation Program.--
       (1) Elimination.--
       (A) Section 8 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)--

       (I) by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting 
     the following:

       ``(1) Environmental quality incentives program.--The 
     Secretary shall provide technical assistance, cost share 
     payments, and incentive payments to operators through the 
     environmental quality incentives program in accordance with 
     chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3838 et seq.).''; and

       (II) by striking paragraphs (6) through (8); and

       (ii) by striking subsections (d), (e), and (f).
       (B) The first sentence of section 11 of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590k) is 
     amended by striking ``performance: Provided further,'' and 
     all that follows through ``or other law'' and inserting 
     ``performance''.
       (C) Section 14 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 590n) is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``or 8''; and
       (ii) by striking the second sentence.
       (D) Section 15 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 590o) is amended--
       (i) in the first undesignated paragraph--

       (I) in the first sentence, by striking ``sections 7 and 8'' 
     and inserting ``section 7''; and
       (II) by striking the third sentence; and

       (ii) by striking the second undesignated paragraph.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Paragraph (1) of the last proviso of the matter under 
     the heading ``conservation reserve program'' under the 
     heading ``Soil Bank Programs'' of title I of the Department 
     of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration Appropriation 
     Act, 1959 (72 Stat. 195; 7 U.S.C. 1831a) is amended by 
     striking ``Agricultural Conservation Program'' and inserting 
     ``environmental quality incentives program established under 
     chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
       (B) Section 4 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103) is amended by striking ``as added by 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973'' each 
     place it appears in subsections (d) and (i) and inserting 
     ``as in effect before the amendment made by section 
     6(a)(1)(F) of the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 
     1995''.
       (C) Section 226(b)(4) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6932(b)(4)) is amended 
     by striking ``and the agricultural conservation program under 
     the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     590g et seq.)''.
       (D) Section 246(b)(8) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962(b)(8)) is amended 
     by striking ``and the agricultural conservation program under 
     the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     590g et seq.)''.
       (E) Section 1271(c)(3)(C) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 
     2106a(c)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``Agricultural 
     Conservation Program established under section 16(b) of the 
     Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h, 
     590l, or 590p)'' and inserting ``environmental quality 
     incentives program established under chapter 2 of subtitle D 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
       (F) Section 126(a)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) The environmental quality incentives program 
     established under chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.).''.
       (G) Section 304(a) of the Lake Champlain Special 
     Designation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-596; 33 U.S.C. 1270 
     note) is amended--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Special 
     Project Area Under the Agricultural Conservation Program'' 
     and inserting ``A Priority Area Under the Environmental 
     Quality Incentives Program''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``special project area 
     under the Agricultural Conservation Program established under 
     section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b))'' and inserting ``priority area under 
     the environmental quality incentives program established 
     under chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
       (H) Section 6 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act 
     of 1956 (70 Stat. 1033) is amended by striking subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Great Plains Conservation Program.--
       (1) Elimination.--Section 16 of the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590p) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is amended by 
     striking ``Great Plains program'' each place it appears in 
     sections 344(f)(8) and 377 (7 U.S.C. 1344(f)(8) and 1377) and 
     inserting ``environmental quality incentives program 
     established under chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
       (B) Section 246(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2).
       (C) Section 126(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively.
       (c) Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.--
       (1) Elimination.--Section 202 of the Colorado River Basin 
     Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592) is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 246(b) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962(b)) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (6).
       (d) Rural Environmental Conservation Program.--
       (1) Elimination.--Title X of the Agricultural Act of 1970 
     (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 246(b) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6962(b)) (as amended by subsections (a)(2)(D), 
     (b)(2)(B), and (c)(2)) is further amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8) 
     as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively.
       (e) Highly Erodible Land Conservation.--Section 1212(e) of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812(e)) is amended 
     by inserting after the first sentence the following:

     ``Ineligibility under section 1211 of a tenant or 
     sharecropper for benefits under section 1211 shall not cause 
     a landlord to be ineligible for the benefits for which the 
     landlord would otherwise be eligible with respect to a 
     commodity produced on lands other than the land operated by 
     the tenant or sharecropper.''.
       (f) Other Conservation Provisions.--Subtitle F of title XII 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 2005a and 2101 
     note) is repealed.
       (g) Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.--
       (1) The first sentence of section 4(g) of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(g)) is amended 
     by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     except that the total contractual obligations incurred under 
     the functions and programs established under subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 et 
     seq.) shall not exceed $2,060,000,000 for any fiscal year''.
       (2) Section 5(g) of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(g)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(g) Carry out the functions and programs established 
     under subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.) at a funding level, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, that does not 
     exceed a total of $2,060,000,000 in any fiscal year for all 
     functions and programs combined.''.
       (h) Resource Conservation.--
       (1) Elimination.--Subtitles A, B, D, E, F, G, and J of 
     title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (95 Stat. 
     1328; 16 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) are repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 739 of the Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1982 (7 U.S.C. 2272a) is 
     repealed.
       (i) Wetlands Reserve Program.--Section 1237(c) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``1991 through 2000'' and inserting ``1996 through 
     2005''.
       (j) Environmental Easement Program.--Section 1239(a) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996 through 
     2005''.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on the later of--
       (1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) October 1, 1995.
       (b) Transition Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1238I and 1242(d) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (as added by sections 4 and 5, 
     respectively, of this Act) shall become effective on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (2) 1991 through 1995 calendar years.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall not affect the authority of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to carry out a program for any of the 1991 
     through 1995 calendar [[Page S7515]] years under a provision 
     of law in effect immediately before the effective dates 
     prescribed by this section.
                                                                    ____

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Subtitles D and E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 are amended accordingly:
       Sec. 1. Subtitle D--Agricultural Resources Conservation 
     Program, is amended to read:
       Sec. 1230. Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve 
     Program.
       During the 1996 through 2005 calendar years, the Secretary 
     shall establish an Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve 
     Program to assist owners and operators of farms and ranches 
     to conserve and enhance soil, water, and related natural 
     resources including grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife 
     habitat. The Secretary shall carry out these purposes through 
     the Conservation Reserve, Wetlands Reserve, and Environmental 
     Quality Incentive Programs authorized in this Act.
       Sec. 2. Subchapter B-Conservation Reserve, is amended to 
     read:
       Sec. 1231. Conservation Reserve.
       (a) In General. The Secretary is authorized to re-enroll 
     lands currently in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) by 
     extending current contracts and to enroll new lands into the 
     CRP during the 1996-2005 calendar years. The purposes of the 
     CRP are to improve water quality, soil erosion, and related 
     natural resources, by taking environmentally sensitive lands 
     out of production that, if permitted to remain untreated, 
     could substantially impair water quality or reduce soil 
     productivity or related natural resources.
       (b) Eligible Lands. Emphasis will be place on enrolling and 
     re-enrolling lands that are 1) highly erodible croplands that 
     cannot be farmed in accordance with a conservation compliance 
     plan or are next to lakes, rivers, or streams, 2) marginal 
     pasture lands established as wildlife habitat, and 3) 
     cropland or pasture land to be devote to the production of 
     hardwood trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts.
       (c) Certain Lands Affected by Secretarial Action. Lands 
     enrolled into the CRP shall be considered to be planted to an 
     agricultural commodity during a crop year if an action of the 
     Secretary prevented land from being planted to the commodity 
     during the crop year.
       (d) Enrollment. Not more than 36.4 million acres may be 
     enrolled and re-enrolled into the CRP in any year between the 
     1996-2005 calendar years. The Secretary shall enroll acreage 
     into the CRP that meets specified water quality and soil 
     erosion criteria, and that also maximizes wildlife habitat 
     benefits, to the maximum extent practicable.
       (e) Priority Functions. All lands enrolled or re-enrolled 
     into the CRP between 1996--2000 must satisfy the priority 
     functions of water quality, soil erosion, and wildlife 
     benefits.
       Water Quality. The Secretary shall enroll by the year 2000 
     filterstrips that are contiguous to permanent bodies of 
     water, tributaries and smaller streams, or intermittent 
     streams. Contour grass strips and grassed waterways shall 
     also be enrolled. Priority shall be given to partial field 
     enrollments. Four million acres shall be enrolled by the end 
     of the year 2000.
       Soil Erosion. The Secretary shall accept offers to enroll 
     highly erodible lands that cannot be farmed through practices 
     designed to significantly reduce soil erosion on highly 
     erodible fields in a cost-effective manner without high 
     potential for degradation of soil or water quality.
       Wildlife. The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, ensure that offers to enroll acreage under the 
     water quality and soil erosion priorities also maximize 
     wildlife habitat benefits. This shall be accomplished by 
     enrolling lands that are contiguous to other CRP acreage, 
     designated wildlife habitats, or wetlands.
       (f) Duration of Contract. CRP Contracts shall be for 10 to 
     15 years.
       (g) Multi-Year Grasses and Legumes. Alfalfa and other 
     multi-year grasses and legumes used in a rotation practice 
     shall be considered agricultural commodities.
       Sec. 1232. Duties of Owners and Operators.
       (a)&(b) Conservation Plans. An owner or operator of a farm 
     or ranch must agree to implement a conservation plan approved 
     by the Secretary for converting eligible lands normally 
     devoted to the production of an agricultural commodity on the 
     farm or ranch to a less intensive use, and to establish a 
     vegetative or water cover on the land. An owner or operator 
     must also agree not to use such land for agricultural 
     purposes, or to conduct any harvesting or grazing on CRP land 
     except as allowed by the Secretary. The conservation plan 
     shall contain conservation measures and practices to be 
     carried out during the term of the contract.
       (c) Environmental Use.--To the extent practicable, not less 
     than one-eighth of the land that is placed into CRP shall be 
     devoted to hardwood trees.
       (d) Foreclosure. If land enrolled into the CRP is 
     foreclosed upon, the Secretary may waive repayment by the 
     owner or operator of amounts received under the contract.
       Sec. 1233. Duties of the Secretary. The Secretary shall 
     provide cost share and technical assistance for carrying out 
     conservation measures and practices, and pay an annual rental 
     payment.
       Sec. 1234. Payments.
       The Secretary shall provide payments for cost share 
     amounting to 50 percent of the cost of establishing water 
     quality and conservation practices. Rental payments shall be 
     paid as soon as practicable after October 1 of each calendar 
     year, and shall be determined by the Secretary through the 
     submission of offers for contracts by owners and operators 
     and establishment of
      the rental value of the land through a productivity 
     adjustment formula. Rental payments may not exceed local 
     rental rates, except that rental payments for partial 
     field enrollments may be up to 150% of local rental rates, 
     adjusted for the productivity of the land. The total 
     amount of rental payments may not exceed $50,000.
       Sec. 1235. Contracts.
       If the ownership of the land has changed within the 
     previous 3 years, the land cannot be enrolled into the CRP 
     unless the new ownership was acquired by will or succession 
     as a result of the death of the previous owner, or the 
     Secretary determines that the land was acquired under 
     circumstances that give adequate assurance that such land was 
     not acquired for the purpose of placing it in the CRP. CRP 
     contracts can be modified upon the agreement of the owner or 
     operator and the Secretary.
       Sec. 1236. Base History.
       The acreage base, quota or allotment for the farm (as 
     applicable) shall be reduced in proportion to the ratio 
     between the total cropland acreage on the farm and the 
     acreage placed into the CRP.
       Sec. 3. Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Chapter 2 
     is amended to read:
       Chapter 2--Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
       Sec. 1238. Findings and Purposes.
       This section articulates the needs and purposes of a 
     comprehensive conservation program that provides flexible and 
     cost effective technical assistance, cost share, and 
     incentive payments to farmers and ranchers engaged in crop 
     and livestock production for various conservation practices, 
     instead of retiring land from production. This program is 
     intended to assist farmers and ranchers in complying with the 
     conservation compliance and swampbuster requirements of Title 
     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, and other State and 
     Federal environmental laws. The Environmental Quality 
     Incentives Program (EQIP) combines the functions of the 
     Agricultural Conservation Program, the Great Plains 
     Conservation Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program 
     and the Colorado River Salinity Control Program into a single 
     program. Conservation assistance for livestock production is 
     significantly increased.
       Sec. 1238A. Definitions.
       (a) Livestock. The term ``livestock'' means mature dairy 
     cows, beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine, and 
     sheep or lambs.
       (b) Large Confined Livestock Operation. The term ``large 
     confined livestock operation'' means a farm or ranch that--
       (1) is a confined animal feeding operation; and
       (2) has more than--
       (A) 700 mature dairy cattle;
       (B) 1000 beef cattle;
       (C) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has 
     continuous overflow watering);
       (D) 100,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has a 
     liquid manure system)
       (E) 55,000 turkeys;
       (F) 2,500 swine; or
       (G) 10,000 sheep or lambs.
       (C) Structural Practices. The term ``structural practices'' 
     as used in this chapter means animal waste management 
     facilities, terraces, grassed waterways, contour grass 
     strips, filterstrips, permanent wildlife habitat, and other 
     structural practices the Secretary determines are needed to 
     protect soil, water, and related resources in the most cost 
     effective manner.
       (d) Land Management Practices. The term ``land management 
     practices'' as used in this chapter means nutrient and manure 
     management, integrated pest management, irrigation 
     management, tillage and residue management, grazing 
     management, and other land management practices the Secretary 
     determines are needed to protect soil, water, and related 
     resources in the most cost effective manner.
       (e) Operator. The term ``operator'' means a person who is 
     engaged in agricultural production as defined by the 
     Secretary.
       (f) Secretary. The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       Sec. 1238B. Establishment and Administration of 
     Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
       (a) Establishment. The Secretary shall, for the 1996-2005 
     fiscal years, provide technical assistance, cost share, and 
     incentive payments through EQIP to operators engaged in crop 
     or livestock production. Operators who implement structural 
     practices shall be eligible for technical assistance and/or 
     cost share. Operators who perform land management practices 
     shall be eligible for technical assistance and/or incentive 
     payments.
       (b) Duration of Assistance. Contracts between operators and 
     the Secretary may be for 5-10 years.
       (c) Structural Practices. The Secretary shall administer a 
     competitive offer (bid) system for cost share and/or 
     technical assistance for the implementation of structural 
     practices.
       (d) Land Management Practices. The Secretary shall 
     establish an application and evaluation process for awarding 
     an incentive payment and/or technical assistance for the 
     performance of land management practices.
       (e) Cost Share and Incentive Payments.
       Cost share payments for structural practices shall be not 
     greater than 75% of the [[Page S7516]] projected cost of the 
     structural practice, as determined by the Secretary. 
     Operators of large confined livestock operations are not 
     eligible for cost share for animal waste management 
     facilities. Incentive payments shall be
      in an amount and at a rate determined by the Secretary to be 
     necessary to attract operators to perform land management 
     practices. The receipt of incentive payments under EQIP 
     shall not affect the eligibility of the operator to 
     receive incentive payments under other conservation 
     programs.
       (f) Technical Assistance. The Secretary shall allocate 
     funding for technical assistance under EQIP according to the 
     purpose and projected cost for which the technical assistance 
     is provided in a fiscal year. The receipt of technical 
     assistance under EQIP shall not affect the eligibility of the 
     operator to receive technical assistance under other 
     conservation programs.
       (g) Modification or Termination of Contracts.
       The Secretary may modify a contract with an operator under 
     this chapter if the operator and Secretary agree.
       Sec. 1238C. Evaluation of Offers and Payments.
       (a) Regional Priorities. The Secretary shall provide cost 
     share, technical assistance, and incentive payments depending 
     on the significance of the soil, water and related natural 
     resource problems in the region, watershed, or conservation 
     priority area, and the structural or land management 
     practices that best address these problems.
       (b) Maximize Environmental Benefits. EQIP shall be 
     administered so as to maximize environmental benefits per 
     dollar expended.
       (c) Local or State Contributions. Priority is given to 
     operators whose agricultural operations are located within 
     watersheds, regions, or conservation priority areas in which 
     watersheds, regions, or conservation priority areas in which 
     local or state governments will, or already have already 
     provided financial or technical assistance to the operator 
     for a practice on the same land.
       (d) Priority Lands. Priority is given to structural or land 
     management practices on lands on which agricultural 
     production has the potential to cause the failure to meet 
     water quality standards or other environmental objectives of 
     Federal or State laws.
       Sec. 1238D. Duties of the Operator. An operator must agree 
     to implement an EQIP plan that contains conservation and 
     environmental goals to be achieved through land management or 
     structural practices.
       Sec. 1238E. Environmental Quality Incentives Program Plan.
       EQIP plans may include a description of specific 
     conservation and environmental objectives to be achieved, the 
     practices necessary to achieve those objectives, or other 
     information relevant to conserving and enhancing soil, water 
     and related natural resources.
       Sec. 1238F. Duties of the Secretary.
       The Secretary shall assist the operator in achieving the 
     conservation and environmental goals of the EQIP plan by 
     providing technical assistance, cost share, or incentives 
     payments.
       Sec. 1238G. Eligible Lands.
       Agricultural lands upon which land management and/or 
     structural practices can be performed include cropland, 
     rangeland, and pasture that the Secretary determines pose a 
     serious threat to soil, water, and related resources. 
     Agricultural lands identified as problems due to agricultural 
     non-point sources of pollution under section 319 of the clean 
     Water Act are also priority lands under this program.
       Sec. 1238H. Limitation on Payments.
       The total amount of cost share and incentive payments paid 
     may not exceed $10,000 in any one year, and may not exceed a 
     total of $50,000 for multi-year contracts.
       Sec. 1238I. Temporary Administration of the Environmental 
     Quality Incentives Program.
       (a) Interim Administration. To assure that cost share, 
     technical assistance, and incentive payments continue to be 
     administered in an orderly manner until such time as 
     assistance can be provided through final regulations of EQIP, 
     the Secretary shall, by 180 days after the effective date, 
     continue to provide cost share, technical assistance, and 
     incentive payments under the terms and conditions of the 
     current Agricultural Conservation Program, Water Quality 
     Incentives Program, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
     Program, and Great Plains Conservation Program, to the extent 
     the terms and conditions of these programs are consistent 
     with the provisions of EQIP.
       (b) Expiration of Authority. The authority of the Secretary 
     to administer EQIP under the interim authority in subsection 
     (a) shall terminate at the later of--
       (A) 180 days from the date of enactment; or
       (B) March 31, 1996.
       Sec. 4. Administration. Subtitle E is amended to read: 
     Subtitle E--Administration
       Sec. 1241. Funding.
       (a) Mandatory Expenses.
       The CRP, WRP, and EQIP programs shall be funded through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation between 1996-2005.
       (b) Environmental Easements Program. Funding for the 
     Environmental Easements program is subject to prior 
     appropriations.
       (c) Environmental Quality Incentives Program. CCC funding 
     for EQIP targeted at practices relating to crop production 
     for the 1996-1997 fiscal years shall be allocated in the same 
     proportion that exists for funding between practices relating 
     to crop production and livestock production in 1995. For the 
     1998-2005
      fiscal years, funding for practices relating to crop 
     production shall not be less than the total 1995 funding 
     level. By 2000, 50% of the EQIP funding shall be targeted 
     at practices relating to livestock production. The 
     Secretary is authorized to allocate less than 50% of the 
     total program funding level for practices relating to crop 
     or livestock production, if such a funding level is not 
     justified by need or demand.
       (d) Conservation Reserve Program. Funding for the CRP shall 
     be--
       (1) $1.805 billion in FY 1996;
       (2) $1.804 billion in FY 1997;
       (3) $1.485 billion in FY 1998;
       (4) $1.345 billion in FY 1999;
       (5) $1.221 billion in FY 2000-2005.
       (e) Wetlands Reserve Program. Funding for the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program shall be $150 million in each of fiscal years 
     1996-2005.
       (f) Limitation on Use of CCC Funds. The Secretary shall 
     allocate $2.06 billion of funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation in each of fiscal years 1996-2005 to fund the 
     CRP, WRP and EQIP.
       (g) Proration of Payments. If in any fiscal year the 
     Secretary has incurred total contractual obligations to make 
     payments under the CRP, WRP and EQIP that would exceed $2.06 
     billion, the Secretary shall prorate all payments owed under 
     these programs.
       Sec. 1242. Administration.
       (a) Plans. The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, 
     avoid duplication in the conservation plans required for 
     conservation compliance, CRP, WRP, and EQIP.
       (b) Tenants and Sharecroppers. In carrying out the programs 
     under subtitle D, the Secretary shall provide adequate 
     safeguards to protect the interests of tenants and 
     sharecroppers, including provision for sharing, on a fair and 
     equitable basis, in payments under either the CRP, WRP, or 
     EQIP.
       (c) Acreage Limitation. The Secretary shall not enroll more 
     than 25 percent of the cropland in any county into the CRP, 
     WRP, and Environmental Easements Program. Not more than 10 
     percent of such cropland in a county may be subject to an 
     easement acquired under those programs.
       Sec. 1243. Conforming Amendments.
       (1) The following conservation cost share programs are 
     terminated, and their functions transferred to EQIP.
       1. Agricultural Conservation Program;
       2. Agricultural Water Quality Incentives Program;
       3. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program; and
       4. Great Plains Conservation program.
       (2) The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act is amended 
     to provide for, and limit, funding by the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for the CRP, WRP, and EQIP.
       (3) The WRP is amended to allow land to be enrolled between 
     1996-2005.
       (h) The Environmental Easements Program is amended to allow 
     land to be enrolled between 1996-2005.
       Sec. 1244. Conservation Operations. It is the Sense of the 
     Senate that the functions performed by the Secretary pursuant 
     to the authority for Conservation Operations are valuable 
     conservation activities that should continue to be carried 
     out by the Secretary and receive annual appropriations by 
     Congress at least at 1995 funding levels.
       Sec. 1245. Information Management. It is the Sense of the 
     Senate that the Secretary should develop information 
     management techniques that are necessary to create individual 
     farm or ranch natural resource data bases that would 
     streamline the process by which owners or operators apply to 
     participate in a conservation program administered by USDA 
     and, to the extent practicable, develop a common application 
     process for all conservation programs.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce today, 
with Senator Lugar, the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 
1995.
  When President Bush signed the 1990 farm bill, he called it one of 
the most important environmental bills in that Congress.
  Today will build on that legacy.
  We build on the legacy of Vermont's--and America's values.
  Being good neighbors. That is the value we live by in Vermont. When a 
cow gets out of her pasture, our neighbors make sure she gets back 
safely. When phosphorus gets out of our barnyards and threatens Lake 
Champlain, we come together to find a solution.
  We build on the legacy of our Vermont experience.
  In Vermont we have proved over the past 15 years that if we build 
good conservation policy, our farmers will come and participate. This 
bill takes the Vermont model and makes it a nationwide program.
  We build on a legacy of bipartisan cooperation.
  The conservation policies we enacted in 1985 and 1990 have produced 
more progress in the last 10 years than we have seen in the last 50 
years of soil conservation.
  That is a summary of the values and policies behind this bill.
  What does it mean on the ground in Vermont? [[Page S7517]] 
  First, it means farmers will not have to choose between being good 
neighbors--controlling their polluted runoff--and staying in business.
  Our neighbors, Vermonters and Americans nationwide, will help share 
the costs.
  Second, our working together means cleaner rivers and streams. We can 
take the successes we have had in local areas, and make them work 
statewide.
  Third, it means new opportunities for all Vermont's farmers. Dairy 
and sheep, apple farmers and vegetable farmers--all can be better 
farmers and neighbors.
  I believe the bill we are introducing today embodies in legislation 
the agricultural community's commitment to conservation and the 
environment. In the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1995 we 
extend that legacy to the broader environmental challenges farmers and 
ranchers will face in the next 10 years.
  The legislation I am introducing today is built on four key ideas.
  We are neighbors;
  Let's build on proven success;
  We need solutions, not complex programs;
  Look ahead, or we will fall behind.
  We are neighbors: The Good Neighbor Act of 1995.
  The Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1995 is more than a 
set of proposals for policies and programs. It is, at its heart, a 
statement of the values we share as Americans.
  The guiding principle of this bill is the golden rule.
  Farmers and ranchers manage nearly half of the land mass of the 
contiguous United States. Cropland alone makes up one-fifth of our 
land. The 36 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program is 2.5 
times the size of the Wildlife Refuge System in the lower 48 states. 
These figures show that some of our most critical environmental 
concerns, from water quality to wildlife habitat, can be solved only 
with the active, cooperative support of the agricultural sector. The 
bill I am introducing today provides the means to engage farmers and 
ranchers in actively and cooperatively meeting their responsibilities 
as neighbors.
  I firmly believe that most farmers and ranchers are good neighbors. 
The facts speak for themselves. Since 1985, farmers and ranchers have 
reduced soil erosion on highly erodible land by two-thirds. We are 
about to turn the corner on wetland losses in agriculture--restoring 
more acres than we are converting. A recent poll of 10,000 farmers in 
15 leading farm States found that 58 percent of the farmers said 
conservation compliance should be continued. A majority of the farmers 
polled, 43 percent agreed that the Government should insist they plant 
filter strips along stream banks to protect water quality--40 percent 
disagreed.
  Farmers, it seems to me, are way ahead of some of their leaders when 
it comes to working constructively to solve our real and legitimate 
environmental problems. This bill builds on farmers and ranchers clear 
commitment to conservation and their neighbors.
  BUILD ON PROVEN SUCCESS: IF WE BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.
  This bill tries to make what has worked so well in Vermont work for 
farmers and ranchers in the rest of the country.
  In Vermont we have a problem with Lake Champlain. Runoff from dairy 
farms causes a real problem when it carries phosphorus into Lake 
Champlain. Beginning in 1980, farmers and their urban neighbors came 
together to work out solutions. We identified the sources of runoff--we 
identified the management practices that would reduce that runoff--and 
we set ourselves some goals by which to measure our progress. We 
targeted the Federal assistance to get results.
  And it's working. In the Lake Champlain basin alone 436 farmers have 
contributed $5.8 million over their own money to match $13.4 million in 
Federal funding in the last 15 years. Other farmers are taking 
advantage of technical assistance and incentive payments provided 
through the Water Quality Incentives Program to set up innovative 
rotational grazing systems that increase profits and protect water 
quality. Our experience proves that if we provide farmers and ranchers 
with the technical and financial assistance they need, they will step 
up to the plate and do their share to protect the environment.
  That is what the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1995 
does--put the tools into the hands of farmers that will allow them to 
reconcile profitability, productivity, and the environment. 
Specifically we:
  Reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program through 2005 and make 
sure the program works to protect soil, water quality, and wildlife 
habitat;
  Authorize a new program, called the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, which insures farmers will have the technical and financial 
assistance to produce crops and livestock in ways that protect the 
environment; and
  Reauthorize the Wetland Reserve Program through 2005 to make sure 
wetland restoration and protection works for flood prevention, water 
quality, and wildlife habitat.
  These three programs will enable farmers to make the changes they 
need to make to protect the environment while protecting their bottom 
line at the same time.
  We need solutions, not complex programs.
  Farmers and ranchers want to do the right thing, but sometimes our 
rules and regulations get in the way.
  This bill gets bureaucratic redtape out of the way of farmers that 
want to conserve and protect the environment.
  Our proposed Environmental Quality Incentives Program combines the
   functions of the Great Plains Conservation Program, Water Quality 
Incentives Program, Agricultural Conservation Program, and the Colorado 
River Salinity Control Program into one, voluntary and flexible 
conservation program. Farmers and ranchers will have one-step shopping 
for conservation planning. They will no longer have to have a file 
drawer full of plans for every conservation program or cost-share 
agreement they need. They will be able to use one plan to address all 
their conservation objectives and that makes them eligible for 
financial assistance.
  Last year, we took the first steps toward eliminating bureaucratic 
redtape when we passed legislation that reorganized the Department. 
There is no reason to reinvent the wheel and create a new bureaucratic 
structure to implement the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 
The structure is already in the field to do the job--county committees, 
conservation districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and 
the Consolidated Farm Services Agency just need to work together to get 
the job done. That's how it works in Vermont, and that's how it should 
work in every State. The implementation of the Department 
reorganization is proving that it can and will work for everyone.
  We have to think ahead or we will be left behind.
  This bill provides a public commitment to help farmers meet what they 
tell me is a growing concern: meeting increasingly complex 
environmental challenges while sustaining profitable and productive 
farms and ranches.
  This bill charts a course for farm policy in the 21st century. It is 
a course that provides for environmental income stability in the same 
way our current farm policy provides for market income stability.
  Agricultural programs were established in the 1930's to stabilize 
farm income in the face of large swings in commodity prices. Farmers 
now believe that conservation and environmental rules threaten the 
stability of farm income. Often these threats are overblown by groups 
more interested in being divisive than being constructive. Polls 
consistently show that the American public holds both farming and 
environmental protection in very high esteem. Both farmers and 
environmentalists have much to lose from a divisive relationship.
  As I said earlier, farmers and ranchers manage half of the land mass 
in the contiguous United States. This means how we farm and how we 
ranch must affect our neighbors, whether those neighbors are across the 
fence, or 1,000 miles downstream. The farm policy of the future must 
meet the unique needs of farmers and ranchers as the Nation's 
landowners and land managers.
  This bill proposes to put conservation funding on an equal footing 
with commodity programs. Why?
  The purpose of the CCC borrowing authority is to provide farm income 
stability. [[Page S7518]] 
  Conservation programs address the effect of changing environmental 
rules on farm income, just as commodity programs address farm income 
instability from changing markets.
  That is why this legislation authorizes the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to use its borrowing authority to fund the Conservation 
Reserve Progam, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the 
Wetland Reserve Program.
  Early last year several groups of experts from all sectors of 
agriculture came together under the auspices of the National Center for 
Food and Agricultural Policy to help us plan for the 1995 farm bill.
  Let me quote from the overview prepared at the end of this process:

       Supporters of the program had some difficulty, however, in 
     rationalizing as to why an industrial policy for the food and 
     fiber sector requires continuing large-scale transfers of 
     income to a portion of the farm production sector. . . . The 
     working group looking at land use, conservation and 
     environment issue had no such problems in identifying the 
     public interest in and the public benefits that can be 
     derived from programs. . . . This group argued that the 
     primary beneficiary of the conservation and the environment 
     programs is the public--which values the benefits of 
     additional wildlife, cleaner water, and less soil erosion.

  This report is right. The direction is clear. I firmly believe that 
conservation should and will play an increasingly important role in the 
agricultural policy of the next century. The public has proved they are 
willing to pay for conservation. We need to take the first steps this 
year to build on that willingness to guarantee farmers and ranchers 
will have the technical and financial assistance they will need in the 
future.
  Budget pressures will sorely test our commitment to conservation this 
year. We will be forced to make painful choices. We will be forced to 
rethink the basis and justification of our farm policy. This bill makes 
a firm commitment to conservation as a fundamental purpose of future 
farm programs.
  Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today. This bill 
builds on what we know works in my State and in the Nation. It is part 
of a blueprint for a farm policy that will meet the needs of farmers, 
ranchers, and their neighbors as we approach the next century.
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 855. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revise the 
authorization for long-term leasing of military family housing to be 
constructed; to the Committee on Armed Services.

         the build-to-lease military family housing act of 1995

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf 
of myself and Senator Stevens legislation to address a serious national 
need--the condition and availability of military family housing for the 
Armed Forces of the United States, including the Coast Guard.
  The condition of the family housing for our military personnel has 
deteriorated to the point where it is a serious disincentive to 
reenlistment and a threat to long-term military readiness. According to 
a March 7, 1995 article in the Washington Post:

       ``Defense Secretary William J. Perry cites the poor 
     condition of military housing as the number one complaint he 
     hears from soldiers on visits to bases.''
       ``. . . 60% of the 375,000 on base family housing units are 
     inadequate . . .''
       ``Many barracks and family apartments, built soon after 
     World War II, are cramped and suffer from peeling lead-based 
     paint, hazardous asbestos, cracked foundations, corroding 
     pipes or faulty heating and cooling systems.''

  Mr. President, this is clearly a shameful situation that we can and 
should address. The Washington Post article I cited goes on to point 
out the need for a system to attract private investment to help rebuild 
or replace America's military housing. That is the approach of the 
legislation I am introducing today.
  Mr. President, in Alaska we have successfully used private developers 
to build 1,216 units of critically needed military family housing, 
including 666 units of Air Force housing at Eielson Air Force Base, and 
550 units of Army housing at Fort Wainwright. This was accomplished 
under the authority of section 801 of Public Law 98-115, a provision I 
authored in 1983 along with Senator Tower and Representative Charlie 
Stenholm of Texas. Today I am urging that we revise and extend that law 
to encourage its use for today's housing needs in the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.
  While there is still build-lease authority in 10 U.S.C. 2828, it is 
my understanding that little or no new housing has actually been 
constructed under the provisions of the statute as currently written 
due to the manner in which proposed projects are scored for budgetary 
purposes by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. There are also other 
constraints in the current statutory language, such as the requirement 
that the housing be off-base, that work to the detriment of successful 
projects.
  Mr. President, in Ketchikan, AK the Coast Guard tells me that there 
is a serious need for new housing. However, they do not believe that 
they can provide this for their personnel due to budgetary constraints. 
By providing the authority to lease or construct on or near a military 
installation I believe we will reduce the cost of providing housing as 
many of the needed infrastructure support systems, that is, water, 
sewer, electricity, will already be in place.
  The approach I advocate, and the approach in the legislation I am 
introducing today, is simple and cost effective. The military services 
would invite the private sector to build housing to military 
specifications on land already belonging to the Federal Government, 
preferably on base or on Government property. Under my approach, the 
military service can also contract for maintenance, providing the 
developer with an added incentive to construct easy-to-maintain 
housing.
  The private developer builds the housing, leases it back to the 
military for the contract lease price including any inflation factors 
specified in the contract, for a lease term not to exceed 20 years. At 
the end of the 20 years, the United States has the right of first 
refusal to purchase the housing for its own purposes. As a practical 
matter, I'd expect the purchase to occur at little additional cost. 
Since the land the housing is on belongs to the Government, and since 
access to the housing and the base can be stipulated, any on-base 
housing would only be of value to the Federal Government.
  My approach also codifies the requirement that the housing projects 
be competitively bid, and that the committees of jurisdiction in the 
House and Senate have an opportunity to review the economic 
justifications for the projects prior to final award.
  Finally, Mr. President, my legislation directs that the total amount 
of budget authority and outlays required by the build-lease contract 
shall be scored on a pro rata basis over the term of the contract for 
purposes of CBO scoring. While some may dislike this provision, 
experience has demonstrated its necessity.
  Mr. President, I ask that the article from the Washington Post and 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                 S. 855

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

     SECTION 1. REVISION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LONG TERM LEASING OF 
                   MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING.

       (a) Revision.--The text of section 2835 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Build and Lease Authorized.--The Secretary of a 
     military department, or the Secretary of Transportation with 
     respect to the Coast Guard, may enter into a contract for the 
     lease of family housing units to be constructed or 
     rehabilitated to military use on or near a military 
     installation within the United States under the Secretary's 
     jurisdiction at which there is a shortage of family housing. 
     Housing units leased under this section shall be assigned, 
     without rental charge, as family housing to members of the 
     armed forces who are eligible for assignment to military 
     family housing.
       ``(b) Competitive Process.--Each contract under subsection 
     (a) shall be awarded through the use of publicly advertised, 
     competitively bid, or competitively negotiated, contracting 
     procedures as provided in chapter 137 of this title. Such a 
     contract may provide for the contractor of the housing 
     facilities to operate and maintain such housing facilities 
     during the term of the lease.
       ``(c) Conditions on Obligation of Funds.--A lease contract 
     entered into for a military housing project under subsection 
     (a) shall include the following provisions:
       ``(1) A statement that the obligation of the United States 
     to make payments under the [[Page S7519]] contract in any 
     fiscal year is subject to the availability of appropriations 
     for that purpose.
       ``(2) A requirement that housing units constructed pursuant 
     to the contract be constructed to Department of Defense 
     specifications.
       ``(d) Lease Term.--A contract under this section may be for 
     any period not in excess of 20 years (excluding the period 
     required for construction of the housing facilities).
       ``(e) Right of First Refusal to Acquire.--A contract under 
     this section shall provide that, upon the termination of the 
     lease period, the United States shall have the right of first 
     refusal to acquire all right, title, and interest to the 
     housing facilities constructed and leased under the contract.
       ``(f) Notice and Wait Requirements.--A contract may not be 
     entered into for the lease of housing facilities under this 
     section until--.
       ``(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, in writing, an economic analysis 
     (based upon accepted life cycle 15 costing procedures) which 
     demonstrates that the proposed contract is cost-effective 
     when compared with alternative means of furnishing the same 
     housing facilities; and
       ``(2) a period of 21 calendar days has expired following 
     the date on which the economic analysis is received by those 
     committees.''.
       (b) Budget Scoring.--For purposes of scoring the budgetary 
     impact of any contract entered into under section 2835 of 
     title 10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), 
     the total amount of budget authority required by the 
     contract, and the total outlays, shall be scored on a pro 
     rata basis over the term of the contract.
           [From the Washington Post, Tuesday, Mar. 7, 1995]

             The New Military Readiness Worry: Old Housing

                          (By Bradley Graham)

       Fort Bragg, NC--After decades of neglect, U.S. military 
     housing has so deteriorated that Pentagon leaders say it is 
     discouraging soldiers from reenlisting and thereby 
     handicapping the nation's military readiness.
       Many barracks and family apartments, built soon after World 
     War II, are cramped and suffer from peeling lead-based paint, 
     hazardous asbestos, cracked foundations, corroded pipes or 
     faulty heating and cooling systems.
       More than half the family housing is rated inadequate, and 
     Defense Secretary William J. Perry cites the poor condition 
     of military housing as the number one complaint he hears from 
     soldiers on visits to bases.
       ``If you ever drove up with your kids to a college with 
     that kind of housing, you'd never leave your kid,'' John 
     Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller, has been telling 
     congressional and news media audiences around Washington. 
     ``It's pathetic.''
       But at a time of shrinking budgets, Pentagon officials have 
     come up with only some token extra millions of dollars to 
     throw at a problems requiring billions to fix. So Perry is 
     casting about for creative off-budget schemes. His main 
     notion, still largely untested, is to establish a system for 
     attracting private investment to help rebuild or replace 
     America's military housing.
       So passionate has Perry become about the subject that the 
     former aerospace, entrepreneur--remembered as an 
     undersecretary in the Carter administration for such high-
     tech innovations as stealth technology and the cruise 
     missile--is now determined to leave his mark by cleaning up 
     the more mundane housing mess.
       ``When I leave here, I want to look back at a handful of 
     legacies--things that I`ve done that I'm proud of, that will 
     be sustained and carried on--and this is going to be one of 
     them,'' Perry said in an interview.
       Asked about the apparent irony of appealing for new, 
     improved housing even as another round of base closings is 
     underway, Pentagon authorities say the shutdowns have 
     exacerbated the overall housing shortage. Moreover, with much 
     of the closure process now behind them, Defense Department 
     officials say the way is open for enlisting private 
     developers who had been spooked by the uncertainty of the 
     closings.
       On Capitol Hill, where strong bipartisan support exists for 
     better military housing, Perry has run into one complication. 
     His emphasis on the U.S. problem is undermining his parallel 
     effort to continue building new homes for former Soviet 
     military officers, part of a U.S. program to finance 
     elimination of nuclear missile bases in Moscow's onetime 
     empire.
       Much American military housing remains in decent shape. 
     Some quite handsome buildings, with remodeled interiors and 
     attractive surroundings, are home to senior officers. And 
     many bases feature well-kept smaller housing units.
       But the norm is something else.
       While no definitive Pentagon standard for adequate housing 
     exists, the Defense Department reports that about 60 percent 
     of the 375,000 on-base family housing units are inadequate--
     and there are long waiting lists at most bases even for those 
     homes. About one-fourth of the military's 510,000 ``barracks 
     spaces'' are rated substandard, with World War II-vintage 
     gang latrines still common.
       Even some top-tier combat forces, like the Army's 82nd 
     Airborne Division based here at Fort Bragg, live in 
     overcrowded rooms with pock-marked walls, rickety lockers, 
     swaying bunks and dim lighting.
       ``We'd like to give our soldiers something better than 
     tiles falling on their heads and air conditioning that 
     doesn't work,'' said Lt. Col. Charles Jacoby, a battalion 
     commander in the 82nd.
       Pentagon officials cite several factors to explain how 
     housing became a crisis. One involves the shift over the past 
     two decades from a conscript force to an all-volunteer 
     military, which led to a jump from 40 percent to 60 percent 
     in the proportion of married service members.
       But the availability of family housing has increased little 
     since the 1970s. Most of the Reagan administration's surge in 
     defense spending went into new weapon systems rather than 
     bricks and mortar. Some military housing was upgraded in 
     Europe, then central to Cold War defenses, but those 
     facilities now are being closed.
       ``Even during the 1980s, when we had a defense budget 
     buildup, there was little or not attention paid to this 
     housing problem,'' Perry said. ``I think it just didn't 
     strike them that it was an important problem.''
       The relocation in the United States of U.S. troops formerly 
     based abroad has exacerbated the shortage, as has the closing 
     of numerous domestic bases that offered at least some decent 
     housing.
       Styles, too, have changed. Today's soldiers, like other 
     Americans, expect more privacy and space than their 
     counterparts several decades ago. One bath for three or four 
     bedrooms might have been satisfactory in the 1950s; now, 
     military families want not only more bathrooms, but more 
     living and storage space, various appliances, parking for at 
     least two cars and other amenities.
       Despite numerous, limited renovations efforts, military 
     officials say maintenance has tended to be more reactive than 
     preventive. Besides, only so much can be done for some 
     eroding structures.
       ``This place is like an old car, it's continually breaking 
     down,'' said Sgt. Maj. Sam Chapman of the 16th Military 
     Brigade, quartered at Fort Bragg in a 1920s-era barracks with 
     broken plumbing, unreliable heating and never enough hot 
     water. ``We're constantly putting in work orders, but the 
     only way to fix things is to tear the place down and build a 
     new barracks.''
       Defense Department policy is to provide on-base housing 
     when the neighboring private market cannot meet the need. 
     Each military service houses about the same proportion of its 
     family population on base--between 30 percent and 40 percent. 
     Some commanders would prefer to get out of the housing 
     business altogether, but on-base units remain very popular 
     among service members for reasons of adding security, family 
     support networks, financial advantages, proximity to jobs and 
     access to child care and medical services.
       Living off-base is often not a manageable alternative, 
     because military pay and housing allowances have not kept up 
     with civilian pay on average. In a recent survey of 29 home 
     ports, the Navy found that sailors ranked petty officer third 
     class and below could afford a one-bedroom apartment in only 
     five of the localities and an efficiency in only 17.
       Perry makes the point that ``quality of life'' concerns, of 
     which housing ranks highest, are key to persuading the best 
     military people to reenlist.
       ``What I want to do is equate dealing with the housing 
     problem with [military] readiness,'' he said. ``I see a 
     single, iron logic that drives me from one to the other.''
       Under an initiative announced last fall, the Pentagon plans 
     to spend $450 million a year for the next six years to 
     improve on-base housing, raise allowances for off base living 
     and provide more child care and other family support 
     services. But even with these extra funds--on top of 
     increased spending on housing by the services--Pentagon 
     officials expect to modernize only 14 percent of the family 
     housing stock over the next six years and only one in three 
     substandard barracks.
       ``The real hope is that we can attract large amounts of 
     private investment into this housing problem,'' said Perry.
       Perry now has both an internal team of officials and an 
     outside task force headed by former Army secretary John O. 
     Marsh looking for alternatives.
       One promising plan is being tried by the Navy, which 
     received congressional authority last year to enter into 
     equity partnerships with private developers. Also under 
     consideration are sales of excess property or land swaps to 
     raise capital for housing projects, discounted leases on 
     government land to lower costs for developers and mortgage 
     insurance for new or renovated military housing.
       Perry would like to proceed with several pilot programs 
     this year, then select one or two for expansion next year.
       ``The problems have been a long time in coming, and will 
     take a long time to fix,'' said Col. James R. Hougnon, Fort 
     Bragg's public works director.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Pell, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 856. A bill to amend the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, the Museum Services Act, and the Arts and 
Artifacts Indemnity Act to improve and extend the acts, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
[[Page S7520]]

    the reauthorization of the national foundation on the arts and 
                         humanities act of 1995

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with Senators Kassebaum, Kennedy, Pell, 
Simpson, and Dodd, I am introducing today the Reauthorization of the 
National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965. This bill 
provides authorization for the National Endowment for the Arts, the 
National Endowment for the Humanities, the newly consolidated Institute 
for Museum and Library Services, and the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity 
Act, through the year 2000.
  Mr. President, this has been a controversial bill I know, and we have 
done our utmost in the committee, and will continue to do so through 
the markup, to restore the kind of confidence that this act in these 
various endowments deserve.
  The subject of government sponsorship of the arts and humanities 
evokes great disagreement and spirited debate from thoughtful people. 
My colleagues here in the Senate are certainly no strangers to the 
controversies and discussions associated with the National Endowment 
for the Arts. I must say that throughout the process of drafting the 
bill this consideration has been on my mind. I worked in consultation 
with my Republican and Democratic colleagues on the Labor Committee in 
hopes of addressing concerns and incorporating constructive suggestions 
as to how to improve each of the agencies.
  At each subcommittee hearing, we had opportunities to discuss 
fundamental issues related to the NEA, NEH, and IMS with a host of 
individuals each with very different perspectives. Some spoke of the 
merits of the Endowments, others proposed significant change, still 
others advocated total elimination of the Endowments as we now know 
them. We had the opportunity to see the work of the IMS first hand. The 
hearing on the Institute for Museum Services was held at the Alexandria 
Black History Resource Center--a center that serves the community, is 
home to a wonderful collection of photographs and objects, supports 
education and lifelong learning initiatives, and is there for the 
enjoyment of all of the people of Alexandria, and others who visit.
  The exchanges at each of the hearings were enlightening, lively, and 
I believe in the end, very productive. We were able to discuss ideas 
and concepts which challenged the way we have thought of these 
agencies. I believe we successfully broadened this discussion from that 
of simply all or nothing--elimination versus no change--and created an 
opportunity to improve upon these agencies.
  We have sought to do something very different with this bill. We have 
made changes that will lead to substantial improvement in terms of how 
these agencies work and made it even more clear in the legislation as 
to the priority of who they serve. I learned a great deal from the 
hearings and feel certain that we have incorporated some of the 
valuable and thoughtful ideas that were shared during these 
discussions. There was room for improvement at the NEA and NEH. In 
addition, there is a clear and direct connection to learning between 
the IMS and libraries.
  We have worked very hard on this bill, for very simple reasons, in my 
opinion. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment 
for the Humanities, libraries and museums make enormous contributions 
to vibrancy and greatness of our society. They enrich the fabric of 
this Nation, they bring us together, enable us to better express 
ourselves and better understand each other and many times, through the 
arts and humanities we reach those who have been written off.
  Simply, the arts and humanities are an integral improvement in terms 
of how these agencies work and make even more clear that legislation is 
needed as to the priority of those who they serve.
  I learned a great deal from the hearings and feel certain that we 
will have incorporated some of the most valuable and thoughtful ideas 
that were shared during these discussions. There was room for 
improvement in the NEA and the NEH.
  In addition, it is clear that direct connection to learning between 
the NEH, the NEA, and the libraries is enlightening. We have worked 
very hard on this bill for very simple reasons, in my opinion. The 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and the institute for Museum and Library Services make 
enormous contributions. Encouraging curiosity, thought, learning, 
dialog, and understanding are endeavors that the Federal Government 
should have a role in supporting.
  In fact, I believe the Federal Government should have a leadership 
role in fostering and preserving the unique cultural heritage of the 
Nation. And to give credit where credit is due, the National Endowment 
for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute 
for Museum Services and libraries have made the arts and humanities 
more accessible to all people of our Nation and have created innovative 
and exciting ways of learning to the lives of many, old and young.
  My support of these agencies is based on what I have witnessed and 
learned over the years--facts about what they really do and who they 
really serve. I have seen the many ways the Endowments' and the IMS' 
programs have touched people's lives. Their programs have reached 
children who, prior to their involvement with the arts or humanities 
had little interest in learning and less hope. Each of these agencies 
have enabled individuals to gain a better understanding of their 
neighbors and their communities through participation in community 
festivals and other outreach activities. They have brought the beauty 
and the magic of the Nation's rich culture to even the smallest corners 
of the Nation.
  My own State of Vermont, while unique in so many ways, is part of a 
common phenomenon--when the arts, humanities, museums, and libraries 
are introduced to a community--that community comes alive, its people 
come alive. There are examples of excellence in the arts and humanities 
in Vermont which deserve mention. Book Discussion for General 
Audiences, which began from a small grant from the Vermont Council for 
the Humanities at the suggestion of a local librarian in my home town 
of Rutland, VT, has become a integral component of the agenda in many 
of the State humanities councils. The Shelburne Museum has received 
grants from the NEA, NEH, and IMS. It is a showcase and a leading 
institution of American folk art and decorative arts and artifacts--
visited by Vermonters and other visitors from across the country and 
around the world. It has worked in partnership with local libraries, 
local schools, and with adult education projects. These are but two 
examples of thousands which have enhanced the experiences of people in 
a State.
  It has been my intention to preserve what the agencies do well, yet 
provide them with greater guidance and direction as to the purpose of 
their work. Today we are putting forward a proposal that consolidates 
programs, streamlines functions,
 restructures and provides clear guidelines for the agencies. It 
recognizes that there are initiatives that are best done best locally 
and other initiatives that are clearly national in scope and benefit a 
broad audience. This bill makes the agencies more accountable and more 
responsive to the American public while enabling them to continue to do 
what they do best--provide and enhance access to the best of the arts 
and humanities to all the people of this Nation.

  It comes to a very fundamental question, should this Nation care and 
support those who want to nurture its heart and soul, to provide the 
opportunity for those who would not otherwise have it, and to best 
demonstrate the beauty and greatness of our fabulous country.
  I think it is important to go into some detail as to the extent of 
the changes we have proposed. They are far reaching and go to the basis 
of the operation of these agencies. It is our hope that these changes 
will provide clear guidance as to how the Endowment funds are spent and 
sets a clear priority which meet the standard of artistic excellence 
and artistic merit, benefit and reach the widest possible audience.
  First, we have cleaned up much of the clutter and confusion regarding 
grant programs, primarily as this relates to the National Endowment for 
the Arts. We have imposed a new structure by establishing three grant 
programs at the Arts Endowment: partnership grants, national 
significance [[Page S7521]] grants, and direct grants. At the 
Humanities Endowment, we have adopted this same structure. We have 
consolidated the Institute for Museum Services with the Library 
Services Act and changed the focus of the latter to technology and 
access and literacy programs for undeserved communities.
  Forty percent of NEA's program funds must now be spent on partnership 
grants. Local initiatives make up the partnerships block. Projects 
funded under this block include the basic State grant at an increased 
level as well as competitive grants to State agencies and local and 
regional groups to establish local acts activities with particular 
emphasis on arts education and projects that reach rural and urban 
undeserved areas. Funds will be matched on a 1:1 ratio.
  Forty percent of all program funds must be used for national 
significance grants. These are grants to organizations of demonstrated 
and substantial artistic and cultural importance for projects that will 
increase access of the American people to the best of their arts and 
culture. Within this block, priority will be given to those projects 
that will have a national, regional, or otherwise substantial artistic 
and cultural impact. Matching requirements are increased within the 
block to 3:1 or 5:1 dependent on the size of the institution's annual 
budget.
  Finally, 20 percent of funds for grants must be spent on direct 
grants to groups or individuals that are broadly representative of the 
cultural heritage of the United States and broadly geographically 
representative for projects of the highest artistic excellence and 
artist merit. Again, within this block, priority is given to those 
projects that will have a national, regional, or otherwise substantial 
artistic and cultural impact and the match is 1:1.
  Some administrative changes apply to both Endowments. We have merged 
many of the administrative functions of the Endowments with the intent 
of eliminating duplication and saving money. In addition, we have 
placed a cap on what can be spent on administration for both Endowments 
at 12 percent. We have decreased the number of members that make up the 
national councils to streamline and cut bureaucracy. We have instituted 
a provision which enables both the NEA and NEH to recapture funds if a 
grant supported by the Endowment becomes commercially successful. We 
have prohibited any funds from either Endowment to be used for 
lobbying. Some administrative changes apply specifically to the NEA. We 
have incorporated administrative provisions that make the chairperson 
more accountable and given her greater decisionmaking responsibilities. 
It limits the number of grants an individual can receive in a lifetime 
and the number of grants an institution can receive in a year. We have 
eliminated seasonal support and eliminated subgranting--areas of great 
problem and concern in the past--making an exception only for States 
and regional groups. We have increased turnover in the panel system and 
increased lay person participation to ensure greater community 
involvement. In addition, panels will be prohibited from recommending 
specific amounts for grants and required to recommend more grants than 
funding available.
  We have made substantial structural changes as well as the Humanities 
Endowment. We have mandated that 25 percent of program funds be used 
for Federal/State partnership. Included in this block is the basic 
State grant to State humanities councils which represents an increase 
in their funding. NEH funds must be matched dollar for dollar.
  We have mandated that 37.5 percent of all program funds at the NEH be 
used for national grants to support groups and individuals for programs 
in education and the public humanities that have a national audience 
and are of national significance. Projects within the block used for 
endowment building or capital projects must be matched 3:1 by private 
funds.
  Finally, research and scholarship grants will constitute the final 
37.5 percent of program funds at the Humanities Endowment. These funds 
will be awarded to groups and individuals to encourage the development 
and dissemination of significant scholarship in the humanities and will 
be matched 1:1.
  The consolidation of the Institute of Museum Services and the Library 
Services Act reflects efforts to unite programs that have a direct 
connection to one another. More than simply a connection is the 
potential for invaluable collaboration and partnership especially in 
the areas of technology and access.
  Last but, in my opinion one of the most important changes to this 
bill is the broadening of the Arts and Artifact Indemnity Act. This 
change will enable domestic exhibitions to be eligible for insurance 
and allow for more Americans to have access to the great treasures of 
this Nation.
  I have laid out a great deal in this statement. It is my hope it 
provides a general sense of the direction we have moved the agencies 
and the efforts we have made in consolidating programs to better serve 
the American people. We have focused on what is done best at each level 
and made each responsible for projects to serve the large 
constituency--the citizens of this Nation. Access to the name of the 
game in my opinion and we have a responsibility to provide direction 
and guidance to ensure that the Endowments and the Institute of Museum 
Library Service reach every corner of the country.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 857. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide waiver authority for the requirement to provide a written 
justification for the exact grounds for the denial of a visa, except in 
cases of intent to immigrate; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE SOURCES PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Law 
Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act of 1995. This 
legislation would significantly increase the ability of law enforcement 
and intelligence agencies to share information with the State 
Department for the purpose of denying visas to known terrorists, drug 
traffickers, and individuals involved in international crime.
  This provision would permit denials of U.S. visas to be made without 
a detailed written explanation for individuals who are excludable for 
law enforcement reasons, which current law requires. These denials 
could be made citing U.S. law generically, without further 
clarification or amplification. Individuals denied visas due to the 
suspicion that they are intending to immigrate would still have to be 
informed that this is the basis, to allow such an individual to compile 
additional information that may change that determination.
  Under a provision of the INA, a precise written justification, citing 
the specific provision of law, is required for every alien denied a 
U.S. visa. This requirement was inserted into the INA out of the belief 
that every non-American denied a U.S. visa for any reason had the right 
to know the precise grounds under which the visa was denied, even if it 
was for terrorist activity, narcotics trafficking, or other illegal 
activity. This has impeded the willingness of law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies to share with the State Department the names of 
excludable aliens. These agencies are logically concerned about 
impeding an investigation or revealing sources and methods if they 
submit a name of a person they know to be a terrorist or criminal--but 
who we do not want to know that we know about their activities--who 
then goes on the lookout list, is denied a visa, and then is informed 
in writing that he or she was denied a visa because of known drug 
trafficking activity. That drug trafficker then will know that the DEA 
knows about his or her illegal activity and may be developing a 
criminal case. This information is something the United States would 
want to protect, until the case against is completed and, hopefully, 
some law enforcement action is taken. At the same time, however, for 
the protection of the American people we should also make this 
information available to the Department of State to keep the individual 
out of our country.
  The key issue is that travel to the U.S. by noncitizens is a 
privilege, not a constitutional right. There is no fundamental right 
for extensive due process in visa decisions by our consular officers 
overseas. While I believe that our country should do what we can to be 
[[Page S7522]] fair in our treatment of would-be visitors to the United 
States, in cases where providing information to an alien would harm our 
own national security, complicate potential criminal cases, or 
potentially reveal sources and methods of intelligence gathering, we 
should err on the side of protecting Americans, not the convenience of 
foreign nationals.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 862. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration to make urban university business initiative grants, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.

                     small business enhancement act

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to help 
our vital small and emerging businesses grow successfully. This bill 
would utilize existing research facilities, especially in our urban 
universities, to help enable businesses to discover what currently 
hinders their development. This proposal previously passed the Senate 
as an amendment to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act. While this 
act did not become law last year, it is my hope that this measure will 
see quick action in this Congress.
  This proposal will not create a new bureaucracy. In fact, it may help 
to point out where local and Federal bureaucracies impede business 
development. It is designed to promote business research assistance by 
those uniquely qualified to take on these tasks: namely, our Nation's 
business schools in conjunction with private or nonprofit 
organizations.
  The focus of this legislation is the overall health of businesses in 
lower income urban communities. However, this bill does not preclude 
this assistance from being applied in rural areas. In fact, if a State 
does not contain an urban area as defined in the legislation, the SBA 
Administrator may designate one area in that State for this purpose.
  We know some of the most basic problems that businesses face, such as 
intrusive government regulations. Additionally, small and emerging 
businesses in low-income urban areas find development difficult because 
of the lack of access to investment capital and technical assistance. 
However, why do some of these businesses thrive and compete 
internationally while others fail?
  Last year's committee report on the National Competitiveness Act 
noted that only 6 out of 10 of our smaller manufacturers employ 
advanced technology, compared to 9 out of 10 for plants with more than 
500 employees. Reports offer little information on exactly why 
businesses fail or cease to expand in certain areas. When I tried to 
find research on the specific problems that businesses face in Oregon, 
the only current source of information was a survey done by the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses. Surveys and government 
statistics cannot take the place of primary research conducted by our 
Nation's business schools.
  Business schools play an important role in sustaining business 
development. They currently perform vital research and train our 
Nation's future business leaders. However, this role could be
 greatly enhanced by providing them with additional Federal resources 
to expand their much needed research and apply their findings to 
businesses in their communities through assistance programs.

  This proposal would allow the Small Business Administration to make 
grants to urban universities for research on, or for implementation of, 
technical assistance, technology transfer, or delivery of services in 
business creation, expansion, and human resource management. As noted 
above, where there is not an urban university in a State, the SBA 
Administrator may designate another eligible area in the State.
  The authorization for these demonstration grants is limited to $10 
million. The grants would be dispersed geographically, and not exceed 
$400,000 per institution or consortium. This procedure makes use of 
existing talent and facilities to create the information and assistance 
that developing businesses need.
  For example, a comprehensive data base on business births, deaths, 
expansions, or contractions is no longer maintained. A potential 
benefit of this proposal could be the creation of such a data base in 
conjunction with assistance efforts based upon the resulting 
information. In this case, we would see nonprofit entities taking over 
functions that were previously under the direction of the SBA in order 
to enhance American competitiveness.
  Other programs such as the Small Business Development Centers 
[SBDC's] do an admirable job of specializing in assisting small 
entrepreneurial enterprises. However, the Small Business Enhancement 
Act is designed to offer applied research and in-depth technical 
assistance to small and emerging businesses that SBDCs do not have the 
facilities to undertake.
  I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important 
business initiative. I ask unanimous consent that supporting letters 
from the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the 
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the 
American Electronics Association of Oregon, and Portland State 
University be placed into the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 25, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: On behalf of the American 
     Association of State Colleges and Universities and Land Grant 
     Colleges (NASULGC), we commend your efforts to match the 
     resources of our urban colleges and universities to the needs 
     of the urban business community through the proposed Urban 
     University Business Initiative legislation.
       The community resource and economic development mission of 
     our urban colleges and universities inextricably links our 
     institutions to the communities in which they reside. 
     Moreover, the business community's need for technical 
     assistance and solutions to problems, especially those in 
     lower income urban areas, and the urban university's ability 
     and interest in applying their energies and talents to human 
     and community concerns, creates a climate for urban 
     universities and urban businesses to collaborate.
       As we approach the 21st century, the technological 
     challenges threatening America's economy and international 
     competitiveness will have to be addressed by the American 
     people. Too often the potential of our colleges and 
     universities, as participants in the problem solving process, 
     is overlooked. Your legislation helps create the link between 
     urban institutions of higher education and the communities in 
     which they reside.
       Once again, we appreciate your foresight and leadership on 
     this issue and your outstanding and longstanding advocacy on 
     behalf of urban and metropolitan colleges and universities.
           Sincerely,
     James B. Appleberry,
         President, American Association of State Colleges and 
           Universities.
     C. Peter Magrath,
         President, National Association of State Universities and 
           Land-Grant Colleges.
                                                                    ____

                                    Portland State University,

                                       Portland, OR, May 22, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I'm writing to let you know I 
     enthusiastically endorse your proposed legislation related to 
     urban universities and technical assistance for small and 
     emerging businesses. This legislation will make a difference 
     not only to businesses in Oregon, but throughout the nation. 
     Establishing direct linkages between urban universities and 
     business assistance will help enhance the success rate of 
     small and emerging businesses.
       At a time when our nation's economic base is changing 
     dramatically from industrial to small and mid-size 
     businesses, legislative solutions like the Urban University 
     Business Initiative Grants are especially crucial to long-
     term sustainability. In addition to providing technical 
     assistance, your legislation specifically establishes a 
     priority for a research agenda. Clearly, too little is now 
     known about what works to support business development, 
     strategies for promoting business expansion, and successful 
     efforts to maintain profitability and sustainability.
       The urban university is well positioned to provide business 
     assistance. It is the mission of the urban university to work 
     with the community to address community problems. A key 
     problem for urban areas, especially lower-income 
     neighborhoods, is business competitiveness. Jobs, 
     particularly family-wage jobs, are essential to self-
     sufficiency, family stability, and community development. 
     Your legislation creates a mechanism for urban university 
     business schools to be an integral part of the solution.
       Senator Hatfield, your leadership on this issue is greatly 
     appreciated. I especially want to recognize the good work and 
     commitment of your staff in making this legislative concept a 
     reality. It is obvious that your [[Page S7523]] passion for 
     the urban university mission is shared by the people you 
     employ.
       Thank you again for embracing this important issue. Please 
     call upon me if I can provide you with any information or 
     assistance.
           Best regards,
                                                Judith A. Ramaley,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                             American Electronics Association,

                                          Salem, OR, May 25, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I am writing to express support for 
     your proposed small business initiative grant program.
       As you know, Oregon is a hotbed of small businesses, many 
     of which are faced with the daunting task of trying to 
     compete in a global marketplace. Although such programs as 
     the SBDCs attempt to help small enterprises get started, your 
     proposal addresses a different need: the applied research and 
     long-term technical assistance that could be provided by our 
     urban universities.
       Your proposal addresses another gap in our current system--
     a much needed data base to track small business development 
     and chart the reasons for success and failure.
       A recent discussion we had with economic development 
     leaders in the Portland area highlighted for us the urgent 
     need for business development strategies designed 
     specifically for lower income urban communities. We hope that 
     your proposal, if successful, will help address those needs.
       As always, we applaud your leadership in these issues. Good 
     luck.
           Sincerely,
                                                       jim Craven,
                                       Government Affairs Manager.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 863. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for increased Medicare reimbursement for physician assistants, 
to increase the delivery of health services in health professional 
shortage areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 864. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for increased Medicare reimbursement for nurse practitioners 
and clinical nurse specialists to increase the delivery of health 
services in health professional shortage areas, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.

                          medicare legislation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Conrad, I am introducing two bills. If enacted, these bills would 
increase access to primary care for Medicare beneficiaries in rural and 
inner city communities. The Primary Care Health Practitioner Incentive 
Act of 1995 would reform Medicare reimbursement to nurse practitioners 
[NP's] and clinical nurse specialists [CNS's]. The Physician Assistant 
Incentive Act of 1995 would reform Medicare reimbursement for physician 
assistants.
  We introduced these bills in the last Congress. We are reintroducing 
them today in the conviction that access to primary care services for 
Medicare beneficiaries would be improved if we reformed Medicare 
policies that restrict the circumstances under which the services of 
these providers can be reimbursed.

                              the problem

  The Medicare program currently covers the services of these 
practitioners. However, payment levels vary depending on treatment 
settings and geographic area. In most cases, reimbursement may not be 
made directly to the nonphysician provider. Rather, it must be made to 
the employer of the provider, often a physician. The legislation 
authorizing these different reimbursement arrangements was passed in an 
incremental fashion over the years.
  The Medicare law which authorizes reimbursement of these providers is 
also inconsistent with State law in many cases. For instance, in Iowa, 
State law requires nonphysicians to practice with either a supervising 
physician or a collaborating physician. But under Iowa law, the 
supervising physician need not be physically present in the same 
facility as the nonphysician practitioner and, in many instances, can 
be located in a site physically distant from that of the nonphysician 
practitioner he or she is supervising.
  Unfortunately, Medicare policy will not recognize such relationships 
and instead requires that the physician be present in the same building 
as the nonphysician practitioner in order for the services of these 
nonphysician providers to be reimbursed. This is known as the incident 
to provision, referring to services that are provided incident to a 
physician's services.
  This has created a problem in Iowa, Mr. President. In many parts of 
my State, clinics have been established using nonphysician 
practitioners, particularly physician assistants, in order to provide 
primary health care services in communities that are unable to recruit 
a physician. The presence of these practitioners insures that primary 
health care services will be available to the community.
  Iowa's Medicare carrier has strictly interpreted the incident to 
requirement of Medicare law as requiring the physician presence of a 
supervising physician in places where physician assistants practice. 
This has caused many of the clinics using physician assistants to 
close, and thus has deprived the community of primary health care 
services.
  Mr. President, recently the Iowa Hospital Association suggested a 
number of ways access and cost effectiveness could be improved in the 
Medicare Program. One of their suggestions was that this incident to 
restriction be relaxed. They said:

       In rural Iowa, most physicians are organized in solo or 
     small group practices. Physician assistants are used to 
     augment these practices. With emergency room coverage 
     requirements, absences due to vacation, continuing education 
     or illness and office hours in satellite clinics, there are 
     instances on a monthly basis where the physician assistant is 
     providing care to patients without a physician in the clinic. 
     Medicare patients in the physician clinic where the physician 
     assistant is located have to either wait for the physician to 
     return from the emergency room or care is provided without 
     charge. The patient and the providers are clearly harmed by 
     this provision.

                            this legislation

  If enacted, this legislation would establish a more uniform payment 
policy for these providers. It would authorize reimbursement of their 
services as long as they were practicing within State law and their 
professional scope of practice. It calls for reimbursement of these 
provider groups at 85 percent of the physician fee schedule for 
services they provide in all treatment settings and in all geographic 
areas. Where it is permitted under State law, reimbursement would be 
authorized even if these nonphysician providers are not under the 
direct, physical supervision of a physician. Currently, the services of 
these nonphysician practitioners are paid at 100 percent of the 
physician's rate when provided incident to a physician's services. If 
enacted, this legislation would discontinue this incident to policy. 
The reimbursement would be provided directly to the nurse practitioners 
and clinical nurse specialists. It would be provided to the employer of 
the physician assistant.
  These bills also call for a 10-percent bonus payment for those of 
these practitioners who work in health professional shortage areas 
[HPSA's]. We hope that this provision will encourage nonphysician 
practitioner to relocate in areas in need of health care services.
  Mr. President, legislation closely paralleling the legislation we are 
introducing today was twice accepted by the Committee on Finance, and 
once by the Senate. Comparable legislation was included in the Senate's 
version of H.R. 11 in 1992. Also included in that legislation were 
certified nurse midwives. Comparable legislation was also accepted by 
the committee in its health care reform legislation last year. That 
legislation included only the services of nurse practitioners and 
physician assistants.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I are again 
introducing legislation to improve Medicare reimbursement policy 
related to nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and 
physician's assistants. The bills we are introducing today--the Primary 
Care Health Practitioner Incentive Act and the Physician Assistant 
Incentive Act--are slightly modified versions of S. 833 and S. 834, 
which we introduced during the last Congress.
  Our legislation helps maximize the effective utilization of these 
primary health care providers, who play a vital role in our health care 
delivery infrastructure, particularly in rural areas.
  Each of the specialties affected by our legislation has its own 
training requirements. For example, nurse practitioners are registered 
nurses who have advanced education and clinical training in a health 
care specialty area that is either age- or setting-specific. A few 
examples include pediatrics, adult health, geriatrics, women's health, 
[[Page S7524]] school health, and occupational health. Nurse 
practitioners generally perform services like assessment and diagnosis, 
and provide basic primary care treatment.
  Almost half of the 25,000 nurse practitioners across the Nation have 
master's degrees. Clinical nurse specialists, on the other hand, are 
required to have master's degrees and are found more frequently in 
tertiary care settings in specialties like cardiac care. However, many 
also practice in primary care settings.
  Physician assistants on average receive 2 years of physician-
supervised clinical training and classroom instruction. Unlike nurse 
practitioners, they are educated using the medical model of care, 
rather than the nursing process. Physician assistants work in all 
settings providing diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive care 
services.
  Members of each of these provider groups work with physicians to 
varying degrees. They generally work in consultation with physicians, 
and are being relied upon more and more. In States like North Dakota, 
nurse practitioners or physician assistants often staff clinics where 
no physician is present or available. Without their presence, many 
communities would have no ready access to the health care system.
  Within their areas of competence, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse 
specialists, and physician's assistants furnish care of
 exceptional quality. Numerous studies have demonstrated that they do a 
particularly effective job of providing preventive care, supportive 
care, and health promotion services. They also emphasize communication 
with patients and provide effective followup with patients. These 
qualities will continue to grow in importance as primary care receives 
increasing emphasis throughout our health care system.

  Medicare currently provides for reimbursement of nurse practitioners, 
physicians' assistants, and clinical nurse specialists working with 
physicians. But the ad hoc fashion in which the various payment 
mechanisms have been established results in wide reimbursement 
variations in different settings and among different providers.
  Our national budget situation requires that we approach Medicare 
reimbursement policies in a sensible way. This legislation is one 
example of how Medicare can and should promote the use of cost-
effective providers to a much higher degree, without compromising the 
quality of care that older Americans receive.
  Today's Medicare requirements can hinder the ability of practices to 
set up satellite clinics that are staffed by providers other than 
physicians. For example, although the State of North Dakota allows for 
broad use of such providers, the reimbursement levels provided by 
Medicare can create difficulty both for the providers and the practices 
themselves.
  In rural North Dakota, and in rural communities throughout the 
Nation, one or two doctors might rotate between a series of clinics. 
The clinics might also be staffed by physician's assistants, nurse 
practitioners, or other providers. If a Medicare patient requires care 
when a doctor is conducting business away from the clinic, and the only 
provider present is a physician assistant, the clinic can not be 
reimbursed by Medicare for care he or she provides to that individual--
the same care that would be reimbursed if the physician were in the 
next room. The State of North Dakota allows that same physician's 
assistant to provide the care without a physician present, but Medicare 
provides no reimbursement.
  The Office of Technology Assessment, the Physician Payment Review 
Commission and these providers themselves have all expressed the need 
for consistency, and for a reimbursement scheme that acknowledges 
reality of today's medial marketplace.
  Greater use of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and 
clinical nurse specialists can improve our ability to provide health 
care services in areas where access to providers can be difficult. 
These providers have historically been willing to move to both rural 
and inner-city areas that are underserved by health care providers. In 
fact, they are located in about 50 communities throughout North Dakota.
  Many communities that cannot support a physician can support a full-
time nurse practitioner or physician assistant. As I have already 
discussed, some towns already utilize these providers to some extent. 
North Dakotans and residents of many other States recognize the value 
of each of these health care professionals, and appreciate the access 
to quality care they provide.
  Although North Dakota maximizes access to health care for our rural 
residents by allowing for relatively broad utilization of these 
providers, our efforts are impeded by an irrational Federal 
reimbursement scheme. But no matter what the State of North Dakota 
does, unless changes are made in Federal reimbursement, we will never 
encourage use of this group of health care professionals to the extent 
that rural Americans need.
  The bills Senator Grassley and I are introducing would help eliminate 
the existing barriers to using these important primary care providers. 
The bills provide each of these provider groups with reimbursement at 
85 percent of the physician fee schedule for the services they provide. 
The 85 percent level represents a compromise relative to the 
legislation we introduced in the 103d Congress. It is consistent with a 
provision that was included in all of the major health reform 
legislation before the Senate last year--the Mainstream coalition 
proposal as well as the health reform proposals made by Senators 
Mitchell and Dole.
  Our proposals also allow for a bonus payment to these providers if 
they elect the practice in Health Professional Shortage Areas [HPSAs]. 
All but six counties in North Dakota are completely or partially 
designated as HPSAs. The health care access problems residents of those 
counties experience could be substantially alleviated by the presence 
of this special class of primary care providers. Finally, our 
legislation ensure that a nurse practitioner from a rural area who 
follows a patient into an inpatient setting will get paid for doing so.
  The improvements that Senator Grassley and I advocate will pay 
dividends in improved access to health care for Americans living in 
rural and urban areas alike. They were items about which Democrats and 
Republicans had a great deal of agreement during health care reform 
last year. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to 
improve health care access for rural Americans.
      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 866. A bill to reform prison litigation, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                      prison litigation reform act

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in introducing the 
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
  Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an alarming explosion in 
the number of lawsuits filed by State and Federal prisoners. According 
to enterprise institute scholar Walter Berns, the number of ``due-
process and cruel and unusual punishment'' complaints filed by 
prisoners has grown astronomically--from 6,600 in 1975 to more than 
39,000 in 1994. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist has pointed out, 
prisoners will now ``litigate at the drop of a hat,'' simply because 
they have little to lose and everything to gain. Prisoners have filed 
lawsuits claiming such grievances as insufficient storage locker space, 
being prohibited from attending a wedding anniversary party, and yes, 
being served creamy peanut butter instead of the chunky variety they 
had ordered.
  Unfortunately, prisoner litigation does not operate in a vacuum. 
Frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners tie up the courts, waste valuable 
judicial and legal resources, and affect the quality of justice enjoyed 
by the law-abiding population.
  According to Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, 45 percent of the 
civil cases filed in Arizona's Federal courts last year were filed by 
State prisoners. That means that 20,000 prisoners in Arizona filed 
almost as many cases as Arizona's 3.5 million law-abiding citizens. The 
time and money spent defending most of these cases are clearly time and 
money that could be better spent prosecuting criminals, fighting 
[[Page S7525]] illegal drugs, or cracking down on consumer fraud.

                              garnishment

  The bottom line is that prisons should be prisons, not law firms. 
That's why the Prison Litigation Reform Act would require prisoners who 
file lawsuits to pay the full amount of their court fees and other 
costs.
  Many prisoners filing lawsuits today in Federal court claim indigent 
status. As indigents, prisoners are generally not required to pay the 
fees that normally accompany the filing of a lawsuit. In other words, 
there is no economic disincentive to going to court.
  The Prison Litigation Reform Act would change this by establishing a 
garnishment procedure: If a prisoner is unable to fully pay court fees 
and other costs at the time of filing a lawsuit, 20 percent of the 
funds in his account would be garnished for this purpose. Every month 
thereafter, an additional 20 percent of the
 income credited to the prisoner's account would be garnished, until 
the full amount of the court fees and costs are paid-off.

  When average law-abiding citizens file a lawsuit, they recognize that 
there could be an economic downside to going to court. Convicted 
criminals shouldn't get preferential treatment: If a law-abiding 
citizen has to pay the costs associated with a lawsuit, so too should a 
convicted criminal.
  In addition, when prisoners know that they will have to pay these 
costs--perhaps not at the time of filing, but eventually--they will be 
less inclined to file a lawsuit in the first place.

                           judicial screening

  Another provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act would require 
judicial screening, before docketing, of any civil complaint filed by a 
prisoner seeking relief from the Government under section 1983 of title 
42, a reconstruction-era statute that permits actions against State 
officials who deprive ``any citizen of the United States * * * of the 
rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the constitution.'' 
This provision would allow a Federal judge to immediately dismiss a 
complaint under section 1983 if either of two conditions is met: First, 
the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 
or second, the defendant is immune from suit.

                             other reforms

  The Prison Litigation Reform Act would also punish Federal prisoners 
who file frivolous lawsuits by requiring them to forfeit any good-time 
credits they may have accumulated. Why should we provide ``good-time'' 
credits to Federal prisoners who waste taxpayer dollars and valuable 
judicial resources with unnecessary lawsuits?
  The act also requires State prisoners to exhaust all administrative 
remedies before filing a lawsuit in Federal court.
  In addition, the act amends both the Civil Rights of 
Institutionalized Persons Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act to 
prohibit prisoners from suing for mental or emotional injury while in 
custody, absent a showing of physical injury.
  If enacted, all of these provisions would go a long way to curtail 
frivolous prisoner litigation.

                               conclusion

  Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to Arizona 
Attorney General Grant Woods. In many respects, the Prison Litigation 
Reform Act is modeled after the attorney general's own State initiative 
in Arizona. Without the invaluable input of Attorney General Woods and 
his staff, Senator Kyl and I would not be here today introducing this 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
Prison Litigation Reform Act be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 865

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Prison Litigation Reform Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

       (a) Filing Fees.--Section 1915 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) Any'' and inserting ``(a)(1) Subject 
     to subsection (b), any'';
       (B) by striking ``fees and'';
       (C) by striking ``makes affidavit'' and inserting ``submits 
     an affidavit'';
       (D) by striking ``such costs'' and inserting ``such fees'';
       (E) by striking ``he'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``the person'';
       (F) by adding immediately after paragraph (1), the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(2) A prisoner of a Federal, State, or local institution 
     seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a 
     civil action or proceeding, without prepayment of fees or 
     security therefor, in addition to filing the affidavit filed 
     under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the 
     trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) 
     for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding 
     the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained 
     from the appropriate official of each institution at which 
     the prisoner is or was confined.''; and
       (E) by striking ``An appeal'' and inserting ``(3) An 
     appeal'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a prisoner 
     brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, 
     the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a 
     filing fee. The court shall assess, and when funds exist, 
     collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by 
     law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the 
     greater of--
       ``(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's 
     account; or
       ``(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account 
     for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of 
     the complaint or notice of appeal.
       ``(2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the 
     prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 
     percent of the preceding month's income credited to the 
     prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner 
     shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the 
     clerk of the court each time the amount in the account 
     exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
       ``(3) In no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the 
     amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a 
     civil action or a appeal of a civil action or criminal 
     judgment.
       ``(4) In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from 
     bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal 
     judgment for the reason that the prisoner is unable to pay 
     the initial partial filing fee.'';
       (4) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (a) and (b) and the prepayment of any partial 
     filing fee as may be required under subsection (b)''; and
       (5) by amending subsection (e), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(e) The court may request an attorney to represent any 
     person unable to employ counsel, and shall dismiss the case 
     at any time if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the 
     court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or 
     malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be 
     granted.''.
       (b) Costs.--Section 1915(e) of title 28, United States Code 
     (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)), is amended)--
       (1) by striking ``(f) Judgment'' and inserting ``(f)(1) 
     Judgment'';
       (2) by striking ``such cases'' and inserting ``proceedings 
     under this section'';
       (3) by striking ``cases'' and inserting ``proceedings''; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) If the judgment against a prisoner includes the 
     payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be 
     required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.
       ``(B) The prisoner shall be required to make payments for 
     costs under this subsection in the same manner as is provided 
     for filing fees under subsection (a)(2).
       ``(C) In no event shall the costs collected exceed the 
     amount of the costs ordered by the court.''.

     SEC. 3. JUDICIAL SCREENING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 123 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1915 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1915A. Screening

       ``(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing 
     if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after 
     docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner 
     seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or 
     employee of a governmental entity.
       ``(b) Grounds for Dismissal.--On review, the court shall 
     dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if 
     the complaint--
       ``(1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 
     granted; or
       ``(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant that is immune 
     from such relief.
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `prisoner' means a person that is serving a sentence 
     following conviction of a crime or is being held in custody 
     pending trial or sentencing.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 123 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 1915 the following new item:
``1915A. Screening.''.
     SEC. 4. FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS.

       Section 1346(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended-- [[Page S7526]] 
       (1) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) No person convicted of a felony who is incarcerated 
     while awaiting sentencing or while serving a sentence may 
     bring a civil action against the United States or an agency, 
     officer, or employee of the Government, for mental or 
     emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior 
     showing of physical injury.''.

     SEC. 5. CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS.

       The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1997 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 7 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7A. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY.

       ``No civil action may be brought against the United States 
     by an adult convicted of a crime confined in a jail, prison, 
     or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional 
     injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of 
     physical injury.''.

     SEC. 6. EARNED RELEASE CREDIT OR GOOD TIME CREDIT REVOCATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 123 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1932. Revocation of earned release credit

       ``In a civil action brought by an adult convicted of a 
     crime and confined in a Federal correctional facility, the 
     court may order the revocation of earned good time credit (or 
     the institutional equivalent) if--
       ``(1) the court finds that--
       ``(A) the claim was filed for a malicious purpose;
       ``(B) the claim was filed solely to harass the party 
     against which it was filed; or
       ``(C) the claimant testifies falsely or otherwise knowingly 
     presents false evidence or information to the court; or
       ``(2) if the Attorney General determines that subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) has been met and recommends 
     revocation of earned good time credit to the court.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 123 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 1931 the following:
``1931. Revocation of earned release credit.''.
     SEC. 7. EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.

       Section 7(a)(1) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
     Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``in any action brought'' and inserting 
     ``no action shall be brought'';
       (2) by striking ``the court shall'' and all that follows 
     through ``require exhaustion of'' and insert ``until''; and
       (3) by inserting ``and exhausted'' after ``available''.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I join Senator Dole in introducing the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This bill will deter frivolous inmate 
lawsuits. Statistics complied by the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts show that inmate suits are clogging the courts and draining 
precious judicial resources. Nationally, in 1994, a total of 238,590 
civil cases were brought in U.S. district court. More than one-fourth 
of these cases--60,086--were brought by prisoners.
  Most inmate lawsuits are meritless. Courts have complained about the 
abundance of such cases. Filing frivolous civil rights lawsuits has 
become a recreational activity for long-term residents of our prisons. 
James v. Quinlan, 886 F.2d 37, 40 n. 5 (3rd Cir. 1989) quoting Gabel v. 
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Indeed, 
in Gabel, the fifth circuit expressed frustration with the glut of 
``frivolous or malicious appeals by disgruntled state prisoners.'' 
Gabel v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 (per curiam). The court wrote:

       About one appeal in every six which came to our docket 
     (17.3%) the last four months was a state prisoner's pro se 
     civil rights case. A high percentage of these are meritless, 
     and many are transparently frivolous. So far in the current 
     year (July 1-October 31, 1987), for example, the percentage 
     of such appeals in which reversal occurred was 5.08. Partial 
     reversal occurred in another 2.54%, for a total of 7.62% in 
     which any relief was granted. . . . Over 92% were either 
     dismissed or affirmed in full.
       For the same period section 1983 prisoner appeals 
     prosecuted without counsel were our largest single category 
     of cases which survived long enough to be briefed and enter 
     our screening process so as to require full panel 
     consideration. The number of these stands at almost 22%, with 
     the next largest category--diversity cases--coming in at 16%, 
     federal question appeals at 14.5%, and both general civil 
     rights cases and criminal appeals coming in at something over 
     11% each. Such figures suggest that pro se civil rights 
     litigation has become a recreational activity for state 
     prisoners in our Circuit . . . Id.

  As Walter Berns recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``Nowhere 
is [the] problem [of frivolous lawsuits] more pressing than in our 
prison system.'' (April 24, 1995) Legislation is needed because of the 
large and growing number of prisoner civil rights complaints, the 
burden that disposing of meritless complaints imposes on efficient 
judicial administration, and the need to discourage prisoners from 
filing frivolous complaints as a means of gaining a ``short sabbatical 
in the nearest Federal courthouse.'' Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 327 
(1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
  The Dole-Kyl ``Prisoner Litigation Reform Act'' will:
  Remove the ability of prisoners to file free lawsuits, instead making 
them pay full filing fees and court costs.
  Require judges to dismiss frivolous cases before they bog down the 
court system.
  Prohibit inmate lawsuits for mental and emotional distress.
  Retract good-time credit earned by inmates if they file lawsuits 
deemed frivolous.
  Require the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
  The Dole-Kyl bill is based on similar provisions that were enacted in 
Arizona. Arizona's recent reforms have already reduced State prisoner 
cases by 50 percent. Now is the time to reproduce these commonsense 
reforms in Federal law. If we achieve a 50-percent reduction in bogus 
Federal prisoner claims, we will free up judicial resources for claims 
with merit by both prisoners and nonprisoners.
  Section 2 of the bill covers proceedings in forma pauperis. It adds a 
new subsection to 28 U.S.C. section 1915. The subsection provides that 
whenever a Federal, State, or local prisoner seeks to commence an 
action or proceeding in Federal court as a poor person, the prisoner 
must pay a partial filing fee of 20 percent of the larger of the 
average monthly balance in, or the average monthly deposits to, his 
inmate account. The fee may not exceed the full statutory fee. If the 
inmate can show that circumstances render him unable to make payment of 
even the partial fee, the court has the power to waive the entire 
filing fee.
  Section 2 will require prisoners to pay a very small share of the 
large burden they place on the Federal judicial system by paying a 
small filing fee upon commencement of lawsuits. In doing so, the 
provision will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary 
outlay will force prisoners to think twice about the case and not just 
file reflexively. Lumbert v. Illinois Department of Correction, 837 
F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1987) (Posner, J.). Prisoners will have to make 
the same decision that law-abiding Americans must make: Is the lawsuit 
worth the price? Criminals should not be given a special privilege that 
other Americans do not have. The only thing different about a criminal 
is that he has raped, robbed, or killed. A criminal should not be 
rewarded for these actions.
  The volume of prisoner litigation represents a large burden on the 
judicial system, which is already overburdened by increases in 
nonprisoner litigation. Yet prisoners have very little incentive not to 
file nonmeritorious lawsuits. Unlike other prospective litigants who 
seek poor person status, prisoners have all the necessities of life 
supplied, including the materials required to bring their lawsuits. For 
a prisoner who qualifies for poor person status, there is no cost to 
bring a suit and, therefore, no incentive to limit suits to cases that 
have some chance of success.
  The filing fee is small enough not to deter a prisoner with a 
meritorious claim, yet large enough to deter frivolous claims and 
multiple filings. As noted above, the bill contains a provision to 
waive even the partial filing fee. This provision assures that 
prisoners with meritorious claims will not be shut out from court for 
lack of sufficient money to pay even the partial fee.
  Finally, section 2 of the Dole-Kyl bill also imposes the same payment 
system for court costs as it does for filing fees. This provision, like 
the filing fee provision, will ensure that inmates evaluate the merits 
of their claims.
  Section 3 of this bill creates a new statute that requires judicial 
screening of a complaint, or any portion of the complaint, in a civil 
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or 
officer or employee of a governmental entity. The bill establishes two 
standards a prisoner must meet. Under the first standard, the court 
must dismiss the complaint if satisfied that the complaint fails to 
state a claim on which relief may be [[Page S7527]] granted. Under the 
second standard, the court must dismiss claims for monetary relief from 
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
  Sections 4 and 5 of the bill will bar inmate lawsuits for mental or 
emotional injury suffered while in custody unless they can show 
physical injury. Of the 60,086 prisoner petitions in 1994 about two-
thirds were prisoner civil rights petitions, according to the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. courts. Prisoner civil rights 
petitions are brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Section 1983 petitions are 
claims brought in Federal court by State inmates seeking redress for a 
violation of their civil rights. ``The volume of section 1983 
litigation is substantial by any standard,'' according to the Justice 
Department's report on section 1983 litigation, ``Challenging the 
Conditions of Prisons and Jails.'' Indeed, the Administrative Office 
[AO] of the U.S. courts counted only 218 cases in 1966, the first year 
that State prisoners' rights cases were recorded as a specific category 
of litigation. The number climbed to 26,824 by 1992. When compared to 
the total number of all civil cases filed in the Nation's U.S. district 
courts, more than 1 in every 10 civil filings is now a section 1983 
lawsuit, according to the AO.
  Section 6 of the bill will deter frivolous suits by adding to the 
U.S.C. a sanction to revoke good-time credits when a frivolous suit is 
filed. Specifically, the bill would require that in a civil action 
brought by an adult convicted of a crime and confined in a Federal 
correctional facility, the court may order the revocation of earned 
good-time credit if the court finds that: First, the claim was filed 
for a malicious purpose, second, the claim was filed solely to harass 
the party against which it was filed, or third, the claimant testifies 
falsely or otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information 
to the court. Additionally, if the Attorney General determines that any 
of these criteria have been met, the Attorney General may recommend the 
revocation of earned good-time credit to the court.
  Section 7 will make the exhaustion of administrative remedies 
mandatory. Many prisoner cases seek relief for matters that are 
relatively minor and for which the prison grievance system would 
provide an adequate remedy. Section 7 of this bill would require an 
inmate, prior to filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, to 
exhaust all available administrative remedies certified as adequate by 
the U.S. attorney general. An exhaustion requirement is appropriate for 
prisoners given the burden that their cases place on the Federal court 
system, the availability of administrative remedies, and the lack of 
merit of many of the claims filed under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
  Mr. President, in a dissenting opinion in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 
U.S. 193, 211 (1985), then-Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``With less to 
profitably occupy their time than potential litigants on the outside, 
and with a justified feeling that they have much to gain and virtually 
nothing to lose, prisoners appear to be far more prolific litigants 
than other groups in the population.'' The Dole-Kyl bill will stem the 
tide of meritless prisoner cases.
  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:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 1995]

          Sue the Warden, Sue the Chef, Sue the Gardener . . .

                           (By Walter Berns)

       The Senate's debate this week on tort reform will focus the 
     public spotlight on frivolous lawsuits. Nowhere is this 
     problem more pressing than in our prison system. As one 
     federal appeals court judge said recently, filing civil 
     rights suits has become a ``recreational activity'' for long-
     term inmates. Among his examples of ``excessive filings'': 
     more than 100 by Harry Franklin (who, in one of them, sued a 
     prison official for ``overwatering the lawn''), 184 in three 
     years by John Robert Demos, and--so far the winning score--
     more than 700 by the ``Reverend'' Clovis Carl Green Jr.
       Disenting in a case that reached the Supreme Court in 1985, 
     Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that prisoners are not 
     subject to many of the constraints that deter litigiousness 
     among the population at large. Most prisoners qualify for in 
     forma pauperis status, which entitles them to commence an 
     action ``without prepayment of fees and costs or security 
     therefor,'' and all of them are entitled to free access to 
     law books or some other legal assistance. As the chief 
     justice said, with time on their hands, and with much to gain 
     and virtually nothing to lose, prisoners ``litigate at the 
     drop of a hat.''
       Chief Justice Rehnquist was not referring to appeals by 
     defendants protesting their innocence, but to the suits 
     initiated by people claiming a deprivation of their rights 
     while in prison. Since almost any disciplinary or 
     administrative action taken by prison officials now can give 
     rise to a due process or cruel-and-unusual-punishment 
     complaint, the number of these suits is growing at a rate 
     that goes far to explain the ``litigation explosion'': from 
     6,606 in 1975 to 39,065 in 1994 (of which ``only'' 1,100 
     reached the Supreme Court).
       Of the 1994 total, 37,925 were filed by state prisoners 
     under a section of the so-called Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 
     which permits actions for damages against state officials who 
     deprive ``any citizen of the United States or other person 
     under the jurisdiction thereof, [of] any rights, privileges, 
     or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'' This 
     statute came into its own in 1961 when the Supreme Court 
     permitted a damage action filed by members of a black family 
     who (with good reason) claimed that Chicago police officers 
     had deprived them of the Fourth Amendment right ``to be 
     secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against 
     unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Today, the statute is 
     used mostly by prisoners who, invoking one or another 
     constitutional right, complain of just about anything and 
     everything.
       They invoke the cruel-and-unusual-punishment provision of 
     the Eighth Amendment not only when beaten or raped by prison 
     guards, but when shot during a prison riot, or when required 
     to share a cell with a heavy smoker, or when given 
     insufficient storage locker space, or when given creamy 
     peanut butter instead of the chunky variety they ordered.
       They involve the First Amendment when forbidden to enter 
     into marriage, or to correspond with inmates in other state 
     prisons. John Robert Demos sued one prison official for not 
     addressing him by his Islamic name.
       And there is probably not a prison regulation whose 
     enforcement does not, or at least may not, give rise to a 
     14th Amendment (or, in the case of federal prisoners, a Fifth 
     amendment) due process complaint. Requiring elaborate trials 
     or evidentiary proceedings, these especially, are the cases 
     that try the patience of the judges. Still, reviewing these 
     complaints imposes a particular burden on administrative 
     officials who, unlike the judges, can be sued for damages.
       Consider a recent due process case involving a New York 
     state inmate.
       In five separate hearings, prison officers found inmate 
     Jerry Young guilty of violating various prison rules and 
     sentenced him to punitive segregation and deprived him of 
     inmate privileges. Appeals from the disciplinary decisions in 
     the 66 state prisons are directed to Donald Selsky, a 
     Department of Correctional Services official who, in a 
     typical year, hears more than 5,000 such appeals. Young sued 
     the prison hearing officers, claiming that they had denied 
     his request to call 31 inmates and two staff officers as 
     witnesses, and that they failed to provide him with adequate 
     legal assistance; he also sued Mr. Selsky, claiming he had 
     violated his due process rights by affirming the decisions 
     made by the hearing officers. From Mr. Selsky he demanded 
     $200 in punitive damages, $200, in compensatory damages, and 
     $200 in exemplary damages for each day of his segregated 
     confinement.
       Mr. Selsky is currently the defendant in 156 such suits, 
     but the state provides him with legal representation, and, if 
     he is found liable, will indemnity him unless the damages 
     ``resulted from [his] intentional wrongdoing,'' Since he 
     bears the burden of providing that it was ``objectively 
     reasonable to conclude that the prisoners' constitutional 
     rights were not violated.'' he may or may not find this 
     reassuring.
       The Republican crime bill passed by the House in the first 
     100 days aims to reduce the number of such suits--first, by 
     prohibiting the filing of an action in Federal court by adult 
     state prisoners until they have exhausted all the remedies 
     available to them in the states, and, second, by permitting 
     federal judges to dismiss an in forma pauperis case ``if the 
     allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the 
     action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 
     granted or is frivolous or malicious, even if the partial 
     filing fees have been imposed by the court.''
       These provisions seem reasonable, but it remains to be seen 
     whether the Senate and the president will find them so. And 
     only time will tell whether they are adequate.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Tucson Citizen, Feb. 2, 1995]

                Cost of Inmates' Frivolous Suits Is High

       Almost 400 times last year, inmates in Arizona prison sued 
     the state. Some of their claims:
       An inmate wasn't allowed to go to his parents' wedding 
     anniversary party; another said he was subject to cruel and 
     unusual punishment because he wasn't allowed to attend his 
     father's funeral.
       An inmate claimed that he lost his Reebok tennis shoes 
     because of gross negligence by the state. Another said the 
     state lost his sunglasses.
       A woman inmate said the jeans she was issued didn't fit 
     properly.
       An inmate sued because he wasn't allowed to hang a tapestry 
     in his cell. [[Page S7528]] 
       When the state decided that inmates would not be allowed to 
     see movies with exposed breasts and genitals, an inmate 
     claimed that violated his Constitutional rights.
       Inmates claimed the state stole money from their prison 
     accounts. But another inmate claimed the state illegally 
     deposited money in his account, disqualifying him as an 
     indigent.
       An inmate claimed he was wrongly disciplined for refusing 
     to change the television from a Spanish-language channel.
       An inmate said he was not provided the proper books for a 
     black studies class he was taking.
       Several inmates said they weren't allowed to go to the 
     bathroom while using the law library.
       One inmate was denied access to the law library after he 
     kicked and tampered with a security device in the library.
       An inmate said he wasn't allowed to get married.
       An inmate said he was forced to work and not paid minimum 
     wage.
       Lawsuits filed by inmates are expensive for Arizona 
     taxpayers. The Attorney General's Office budgets $1.5 million 
     per year to fight the suits, not including court costs. Other 
     state departments also pay some costs.
       To cut down on the number of frivolous suits filed, the 
     state Legislature last year passed a law that requires 
     inmates to pay part or all of the filing costs from money 
     earned in prison jobs. In addition, inmates who filed 
     unsubstantiated or harassing lawsuits can be forced to 
     forfeit five days of good-behavior credit.
       The new law didn't slow down Mitchell H. Jackson, a 
     convicted drug dealer incarcerated at the state prison in 
     Tucson. Jackson has filed 22 suits against the state in 
     recent years. He got off to a good start in 1995, filing two 
     in the first week.
       In one of his suits, he targets the new law requiring 
     inmates to pay filing fees. He claims that has caused him 
     ``mental anguish and emotional distress.'' He wants $10 
     million from each of the 90 legislators--a total of almost $1 
     billion.
     

                          ____________________
```