S7498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 Housepassed 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 privatelyowned 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 hardworking 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 § 31 

as subsection (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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: 

‘‘Ninth ............................ Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands.’’; 

and 

(3) between the last 2 items of the table, by 

inserting the following new item: 

‘‘Twelfth ......................... 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: 

‘‘Ninth ............................ San Francisco, Los Angeles.’’; 

and 

(2) by inserting between the last 2 items at 

the end thereof the following new item: 

‘‘Twelfth ......................... 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 141⁄2 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 onesixth 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 onesixth 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 longterm 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 longterm 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

‘‘(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 costsharing 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—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 costsharing payments, or both. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

‘‘(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 costsharing 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, costsharing 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; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7513 

‘‘(3) providing technical assistance, costsharing 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 costsharing 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, costsharing 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—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7514 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

‘‘(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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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? 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 twothirds. 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 costshare 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 onbase 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 hightech 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 onefourth 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7522 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 indepth 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 familywage 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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 longterm 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, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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 fulltime 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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: 

‘‘§ 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—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7526 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

(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: 

‘‘§ 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 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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. 

f 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 240

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the 

name of the Senator from New York 

[Mr. D’AMATO] was added as a cosponsor of S. 240, a bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to establish 

a filing deadline and to provide certain 

safeguards to ensure that the interests 

of investors are well protected under 

the implied private action provisions of 

the act. 

S. 245

At the request of Mr. COHEN, the 

name of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 

NUNN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

245, a bill to provide for enhanced penalties for health care fraud, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 256

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the name 

of the Senator from Maine [Ms. SNOWE] 

was added as a cosponsor of S. 256, a 

bill to amend title 10, United States 

Code, to establish procedures for determining the status of certain missing 

members of the Armed Forces and certain civilians, and for other purposes. 

S. 327

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] was added as a 

cosponsor of S. 327, a bill to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide clarification for the deductibility 

of expenses incurred by a taxpayer in 

connection with the business use of the 

home. 

S. 490

At the request of Mr. GRASSLEY, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

[Mr. BURNS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 490, a bill to amend the Clean Air 

Act to exempt agriculture-related facilities from certain permitting requirements, and for other purposes. 

S. 515

At the request of Mr. BRADLEY, the 

name of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY] was added as a cosponsor of S. 515, a bill to amend the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act and the 

Poultry Products Inspection Act to 

provide for improved public health and 

food safety through the reduction of 

harmful substances in meat and poultry that present a threat to public 

health, and for other purposes. 

S. 714

At the request of Mr. LEAHY, the 

name of the Senator from Illinois [Ms. 

MOSELEY-BRAUN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 714, a bill to require the 

Attorney General to study and report 

to Congress on means of controlling 

the flow of violent, sexually explicit, 

harassing, offensive, or otherwise unwanted material in interactive telecommunications systems. 

S. 758

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from Maine [Ms. 

SNOWE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

758, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for S corporation reform, and for other purposes. 

S. 770

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the name 

of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. PACKWOOD] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

770, a bill to provide for the relocation 

of the United States Embassy in Israel 

to Jerusalem, and for other purposes. 

S. 816

At the request of Mr. DEWINE, the 

name of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] was added as a 

cosponsor of S. 816, a bill to provide 

equal protection for victims of crime, 

to facilitate the exchange of information between Federal and State law enforcement and investigation entities, 

to reform criminal procedure, and for 

other purposes. 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 3

At the request of Mr. SIMON, the 

name of the Senator from Washington 

[Mr. GORTON] was added as a cosponsor 

of Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, a 

concurrent resolution relative to Taiwan and the United Nations. 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 15—RELATIVE TO THE 

COSTS OF INTERNATIONAL 

PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES 

Ms. SNOWE submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: 

S. CON. RES. 15 

Whereas in fiscal year 1989 the United 

States provided $29,000,000 to the United Nations for assessed United States contributions for international peacekeeping activities, compared to $485,000,000 paid for combined assessed contributions for all other 

international organizations, including the 

United Nations, all United Nations specialized agencies and the Organization for American States and all other Pan American 

international organizations; 

Whereas in fiscal year 1994 United States 

assessed contributions to the United Nations 

for international peacekeeping activities had 

grown to $1,072,000,000, compared to 

$860,000,000 for combined assessed contributions for all other international organizations; 

Whereas for fiscal year 1995 the President 

requested a $672,000,000 United Nations 

peacekeeping supplemental appropriation 

which, if approved, would have been a direct 

increase in the Federal budget deficit and 

would have brought fiscal year 1995 total appropriations for assessed contributions for 

United Nations peacekeeping activities to 

$1,025,000,000; 

Whereas for fiscal year 1995 the President 

also requested supplemental appropriations 

of $1,900,000,000 to cover the Department of 

Defense’s unbudgeted costs for humanitarian 

and peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Kuwait 

and Bosnia, which are in addition to regular 

United States assessed contributions to the 

United Nations for peacekeeping activities; 

and 

Whereas for fiscal year 1996 the President 

requested $445,000,000 for assessed contributions to the United Nations for international 

peacekeeping activities, a funding level most 

observers believe to be a significant understatement of actual peacekeeping obligations the Administration has committed the 

United States to support and which, if accurate, would lead to the third year in a row in 

which the Administration requests supplemental appropriations for assessed contributions to international peacekeeping in excess 

of $600 million outside of the regular budget 

process: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Executive 

Branch should cease obligating the United 

States to pay for international peacekeeping 

operations in excess of funds specifically authorized and appropriated for this purpose. 

f 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 16—RELATIVE TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Ms. SNOWE submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations: 

S. CON. RES. 16 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) Iran is aggressively pursuing a program 

to acquire and/or develop nuclear weapons; 

(2) the Director of Central Intelligence, in 

September of 1994, confirmed that Iran is 

manufacturing and stockpiling chemical 

weapons; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS