[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1455-S1461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1580. A bill to provide funding for community-oriented policing, 
to reduce funding for the Department of Defense, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     The Safer Streets Act of 1996

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Safer 
Streets Act of 1996 that will address the anxiety of many citizens who 
believe that violence and crime are eating away at the social fabric of 
their communities. The Safer Streets Act would help to restore family 
security by funding an additional 100,000 police officers, above and 
beyond the 100,000 initially funded by the crime bill, to take their 
place on the streets of communities across our Nation.

  Mr. President, to date, Massachusetts has received $53 million in 
funding from the 1994 crime bill for 1,020 new police officers, 
including the redeployment of 407 officers to the street from desk 
duty. Our communities must be able to respond to the threat of violent 
crime with an effort we know is already working in towns and cities 
across Massachusetts. I have listened to police officers and law 
enforcement officials, and citizens across my State, and they tell me 
that there is a real need for an even greater police presence on the 
streets of Massachusetts. Our first effort--putting 100,000 cops on the 
streets of our Nation--is already working to fight crime. There is no 
better deterrent to crime in our communities than a cop on the beat, so 
it is vital that we help communities obtain the police they need to 
keep neighborhoods safe. The Safer Streets Act will fund approximately 
100,000 additional community police positions across the Nation--
effectively doubling the number it was possible to provide from the 
first year's funding. It does this by cutting $6.5 billion from the 
1996 fiscal year Defense Department appropriation and transferring it 
to the Justice Department to fund community policing efforts with 
grants that will be awarded to communities using the same formula as 
the first 100,000 cops on the street initiative. This is money the 
Defense Department did not ask for, and it is money we desperately need 
for more cops on the street.
  Americans are understandably anxious about their economic and 
personal security. How we as a Congress respond to that anxiety--the 
kinds of partnerships we form between government and communities to 
address the concerns of families struggling to keep up and do well--
will determine this Nation's future. That's why a strong, affordable 
effort to expand community policing, that has been proven to be 
extraordinarily successful, is not only our responsibility but is our 
obligation to the people we represent.
  Mr. President, If we know that community policing works; and we know 

[[Page S1456]]
  that our constituents are anxious about their personal security, then 
it would be irresponsible not to act. This legislation addresses the 
personal frustrations of families who see a level of crime and violence 
on their streets and in their neighborhoods that is unacceptable. 
People want their government to respond with what we know can make a 
difference. Community policing with 200,000 more police on the streets 
will make a difference.
  Mr. President, passing the Safer Streets Act is our duty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record,
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1580

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

     SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996 (P.L. 104-61), 
     the Secretary of Defense shall transfer $6,500,000,000 of 
     unobligated funds appropriated under such Act for fiscal year 
     1996 to the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established 
     under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211).
       (b) Allocation.--The Secretary of Defense shall allocate 
     the amount transferred under subsection (a) from among any 
     programs in the Department of Defense for which funding was 
     not requested in the 1996 budget request of the President.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING PROGRAMS.

       The amount transferred under section 1 shall only be used 
     for community-oriented policing programs under section 
     1701(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)).
                                 ______

      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 1581. A bill to reinstate the license for, and extend the deadline 
under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a 
hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   hydroelectric project legislation

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, S. 1581 would reinstate the license 
for a 49.5 megawatt hydroelectric project in Ohio, which was originally 
issued on September 27, 1989, and extend the deadline for construction 
until September 24, 1999. The licensee for this project is the City of 
Orrville. The original license was stayed and held in abeyance until 
1992, due to administrative and judicial challenges to FERC's decision 
to issue licenses for 16 projects in the upper Ohio River basin. In 
1992, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld FERC's licensing 
decision. Due to the delay caused by the litigation and difficulty 
securing adequate funding for the project, the city surrendered its 
license in June, 1993 and sought other sources of power to meet its 
immediate energy needs. This bill would reinstate the license and 
extend the construction deadline for this project. In a letter dated 
February 9, 1996, FERC chair, Elizabeth Moler, stated that she did not 
have any specific objections to legislation reinstating the license and 
extending the construction deadline for Pike Island Project No. 
3218.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Simon):
  S. 1582. A bill to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and 
the Missing Children's Assistance Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                      Reauthorization Legislation

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator 
Simon to introduce a bill reauthorizing a number of worthwhile programs 
that serve young people and their families in Vermont and across the 
country. In particular, I am referring to the Runaway and Homeless 
Youth Act, the Missing Children's Assistance Act, and related programs, 
whose authorizations are expiring later this year.
  A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Frances Dodd, 
coordinator of the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth 
programs. The Vermont Coalition is a community-based network comprised 
of eight member programs that provide crisis response, emergency 
shelter, counseling, and other services to troubled youth throughout 
nine Vermont counties. This meeting also included a number of young 
Vermonters who knew first-hand the value of providing shelters and 
support for young people facing difficult times. I came away from that 
meeting more convinced than ever that the Federal assistance provided 
by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act continues to make an important 
difference in the lives of our young people and to play a critical role 
in reuniting families.
  Those who provide services pursuant to these programs and those who 
are the beneficiaries of those services are far too important to be 
left hanging. In a Congress in which the budget and appropriations 
processes have given way to short-lived spending authority, they all 
deserve the reassurance of reauthorization and a commitment to funding. 
Only then will our State youth service bureaus and other shelter and 
service providers be able to plan, design and implement the local 
programs necessary to make the goals of the act a reality.
  In 1974, Congress passed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act as title 
III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The 
inclusion of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act in this legislation 
recognized that young people who were effectively homeless were in need 
of shelter, guidance and supervision, rather than punishment, and 
should be united with their families wherever possible.
  Since 1974, the programs that make up the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act have evolved to meet the complex problems faced by our young 
people, their families and our communities. Over the last decade, as a 
nation, we have witnessed an increase in teen pregnancy rates, drug and 
alcohol abuse beginning as early as grade school, child physical and 
sexual abuse, and a soaring youth suicide rate.
  Today, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act encompasses basic center 
grants, the transitional living program and drug abuse prevention 
program. These programs are vital to meeting the needs of troubled 
youth in rural Vermont and across the Nation. While the actual numbers 
of young people who run away or become homeless in rural areas might be 
small in comparison to that of large cities, emergency shelter and 
other services must still be accessible. It is an unfortunate reality 
that urban and rural youth can experience family conflict, and physical 
or sexual abuse.
  The majority of these programs in my home State are coordinated 
through the Vermont Coalition. Young people find these services through 
friends and family as well as through referrals by police and our court 
diversion program.
  Our Vermont programs and services have been very successful. Last 
year, for example 87 percent of runaways returned home or to a positive 
living situation after receiving services. Only 7 percent of those 
served in 1995 had new State social service cases open and less than 1 
percent ended up in police custody. Since 1993, there has been a 42-
percent increase in the total number of youths served by Vermont's 
programs. In 1995, these programs reached over 700 young people and 
over 1000 family members.
  Two years ago, the Vermont Coalition was awarded a Federal rural 
demonstration grant to assist counties that lack adequate services for 
runaway youth in developing responsive programs. Through this grant, 
the Vermont Coalition was able to identify underserved counties, draw 
upon the expertise of its many programs and help develop programs for 
three additional Vermont counties in which services are now emerging.
  Since 1989, the transitional living program, which was developed by 
my colleague, Senator Simon, has filled a gap in the needs of older 
youth to help them make the transition to independent living 
situations. I know how hard Senator Simon worked on creating this 
important program and I look forward to working with him now to 
continue it.
  The programs we seek to reauthorize include those directed at young 
people who have had some kind of alcohol or other drug problem. The 
isolation in rural areas can lead to serious substance abuse problems. 
It is difficult to reach young people in rural areas and it is 
difficult for them to find the services they need. In Vermont, these 
drug abuse prevention programs provide essential outreach services. 

[[Page S1457]]

  Providing these types of community-based services to runaway and 
homeless youth seems to me to make good economic sense. We need only 
compare the cost of these programs to other services often needed by 
young people experiencing serious family conflict and associated social 
difficulties. Neglecting the needs of runaway and homeless youth and 
their families would have staggering economic implications. In Vermont, 
the average cost of services to youth by the Vermont Coalition of 
Runaway Youth Programs is $1,895. Compare this with $18,392, the 
average annual cost of maintaining someone in State custody through the 
social services department; the $50,000 it would cost to place someone 
in a substance abuse treatment facility; or the $60,000 a year it costs 
to incarcerate someone.
  I receive letters from parents whose families have been kept together 
with the assistance of runaway and homeless programs as well as from 
young people who have been helped by these services. In one, a mother 
wrote of a program in the Northeast Kingdom:

       My teenage daughter ran away this spring. I feel fortunate 
     to have been able to call upon the [Northeast Kingdom Youth 
     Services] programs. I credit the quick, compassionate 
     response by [the] on-call worker, with keeping my daughter 
     out of state custody. Careful, immediate intervention was the 
     key in helping my daughter feel comfortable about remaining 
     at home. [Your] ongoing efforts to mediate issues which 
     continue to arise have kept our family together.

  These service providers are being challenged as never before with an 
increasingly complex set of problems affecting young people and their 
families. Now is not the time to abandon them. There is consensus among 
services providers that young people seeking services and their 
families are increasingly more troubled--as evidenced by reports of 
family violence, substance abuse and the effects of an array of 
economic pressures. These services may well be the key to breaking 
through the isolation of street youth, their mistrust of adults, and 
their reluctance to get involved with public or private providers.
  Among the other critical programs reauthorized by our bill is the 
Missing Children's Assistance Act. Since its initial passage in 1984, 
we have made real progress on the tragedy of missing and exploited 
children. A national coordinated effort has proved essential in facing 
these problems. I understand that in Vermont alone there have been more 
than 30 cases of missing children resolved. Those children and their 
families know the value of this program.
  This month, Senator Thompson has begun a series of hearings before 
the subcommittee on Youth Violence. I look forward to working with him 
and with Senator Biden, the ranking member on the subcommittee and on 
the Judiciary Committee, and our other colleagues in connection with 
these matters. In addition to the critical role that Senator Biden is 
playing, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kohl have long been supporters of 
the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs. Senator 
Specter has been actively involved in these matters for more than a 
decade, formerly chaired the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee and 
currently chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
many of these programs.
  In light of the ongoing hearings and in deference to our colleagues 
who lead the subcommittee, we have chosen not to include the title II 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act programs in this 
reauthorization bill at this time. I understand that our colleagues, 
the administration, State program officers, the Ad Hoc Coalition on 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and other groups are all 
currently developing proposals for the reauthorization of the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. We look forward to 
consideration of those proposals and to working together to continue 
the bipartisan traditional that has always attended this program. While 
we all need to work together to address the rise in serious, violent 
juvenile crime and the need to enhance public safety, I believe that we 
can do so while still preserving the essential elements of the act.
  The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has helped foster 
strides nationwide through a series of funded mandates. Throughout the 
United States, the number of violations of the deinstitutionalization 
mandate for status offenders and non-offenders has been reduced from 
171,581 to 3,146 among the participating States. In 1994, 55 States and 
territories participated in the program and only three received reduced 
funding because of compliance issues.
  Over a decade ago, the Vermont General Assembly established the 
Children and Family Council for Prevention programs, which is the 
designated State advisory group that monitors and distributes our funds 
under the title II block grant. The Vermont co-chairs of the council, 
Ken Schatz and Pamela Smith, and its other members encourage community 
involvement in the development of effective prevention programs that 
promote the health and increase the self-reliance of Vermont children 
and families. I look forward to working closely with the council on the 
reauthorization of the title II programs.
  In June 1993, the council used Federal assistance under the act to 
sponsor a youthful offender study project. The ensuing report 
recommended the development of a youthful offender program, which won 
the endorsement of the Vermont Department of Corrections and the 
Department of Social Rehabilitative Services. The council is now 
funding projects with Federal assistance to implement this 
recommendation.
  In 1994, the council developed Vermont's 3-year plan for the formula 
grant monies by identifying State priority areas. The largest portion 
of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention funding is a State block 
grant program, not a one-size-fits-all solution. In Vermont, the 
priorities are violent family functioning, the lack of treatment 
resources for violent youthful offenders and the need to improve the 
juvenile justice system. Over the last decade, Vermont has seen a 
substantial increase in reported violence against women and children. 
The council's plan allowed it to target this problem. The decrease in 
substantial cases of child abuse last year signals that the State's 
prevention efforts are making a difference.
  Using its Federal assistance, Vermont has made great progress in 
improving the juvenile justice system in recent years. These funds 
enable Vermont to replicate initiatives that are working across the 
State. Typically, the Federal funding is leveraged with State and 
private funds to support these efforts. Vermont's formula grant has 
gone to support such projects as community-based treatment, court 
diversion, diversity training, pilot programs on juvenile restitution, 
its Families First program, its Caring Communities program and teen 
centers where young people can gather in a safe, supervised environment 
for socializing, group activities and educational events. One Vermont 
youthful offender noted:

       The Diversion program works. The board's faith in me gave 
     me something to live up to and gave me confidence. They 
     trusted me at a time when almost all the trust I ever had was 
     gone, and they gave me one extra chance and that one extra 
     bit of trust that I needed.

  Through the programs which make up the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act, the Federal response to the problems of our 
youth has become comprehensive and collaborative. The Federal technical 
and financial resources have enabled States to undertake a number of 
system-wide improvements. The bill that we are introducing today 
recognizes the importance of a nonpunitive system for vulnerable youth.
  In my view, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the other Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act programs are working in Vermont 
and ought to be continued. Given the short time left in this Congress, 
I believe that changes proposed to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act will have to be those around which a consensus can be 
obtained very quickly if we are to meet our goal of reauthorizing it 
before the end of the year.
 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is the year that the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act needs to be reauthorized. This 
important act has vastly improved our handling of juveniles in our 
criminal justice system, and has provided funding for services to some 
of the most vulnerable young people in our society. 

[[Page S1458]]

  Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing a bill to reauthorize the 
runaway and homeless youth sections of the act. Although I feel 
strongly that the entire Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Act should be reauthorized, I understand that Senators Thompson and 
Biden, chairman and ranking member of the Juvenile Violence 
Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are holding hearings on 
the rest of the act. I applaud their work to examine these issues and 
construct a reauthorization plan, however I want to introduce this bill 
because the runaway and homeless youth parts of the act are 
particularly important to me.
  In 1988, I held a hearing in Chicago on the problem of homeless 
youth. As a result of that hearing, I sponsored the Transitional Living 
Program. The Transitional Living Program was designed to fill a gap in 
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The basic centers part of the act 
provides grants to community centers which provide temporary shelter 
and services to runaways while they try to reunite with their families 
or are placed in a foster home. Unfortunately, as I discovered during 
my 1988 hearing, many young people never return to their family homes, 
largely because of neglect and abuse, but are too old to be placed with 
a foster family. These young people were not being adequately served by 
the temporary shelters which help so many others.
  The Transitional Living Program awards new-start grants to community 
projects which provide longer-term residential services to older 
homeless youth ages 16 through 21. Nonprofit, community-based grantees 
teach these young people independent living skills to prepare them to 
live on their own. Young people live in host family homes, group 
houses, or in supervised apartments, and receive guidance from 
counselors to help them make the transition to independent living. The 
goal of this program is to help these young people live productive, 
self-sufficient lives, and prevent future dependency on social 
services. The total annual appropriations for this program has been 
approximately $12 million. That investment has assisted countless young 
people who otherwise would have found themselves on the street with no 
one to provide the support and resources they need to live 
independently.
  In 1988, a third component of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was 
also added. This Drug Abuse Prevention Program [DAPP] for runaway and 
homeless youth was initiated because of the recognition that drugs play 
a large role in these young people's lives. Their difficult living 
situations make them particularly vulnerable to the dangers of drug 
use, and such drug use severely hinders efforts to improve their 
circumstances. As anyone working in this field will testify, drug 
prevention and treatment are an essential element of any efforts to 
help runaway and homeless youth. Unfortunately, this DAPP component of 
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, along with a companion DAPP program 
for youth gangs, was not reauthorized last year and did not receive any 
funding this year. This bill recognizes the destructive role of illicit 
drug use in these young people's lives, and reauthorizes both of these 
essential programs.
  Finally, this bill reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children. This center, created in 1984, provides important 
services to the thousands of families who face the devastating, 
mysterious loss of a child. The center operates a toll-free number to 
gather tips about missing children, coordinates Federal, State and 
local efforts to locate missing children, serves as a clearinghouse of 
information on successful service and research efforts, provides grants 
to local agencies for research and service efforts and conducts a 
regular survey on the number of missing children. This center has 
helped us as a nation understand the scope of this problem and has 
helped families locate missing children. Unfortunately, the problem of 
missing children continues, as President Clinton recognized on January 
19, 1996, when he signed an order instructing Federal agencies to post 
missing-children posters in Federal buildings. The National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children performs an essential function and 
should be reauthorized.
  Mr. President, this bill should not be considered a substitute for a 
complete reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act. I support the efforts of Senators Thompson, and Biden, 
and look forward to working with them to reauthorize the act. However, 
Senator Leahy and I agree that the runaway and homeless youth part of 
the act provide essential support for a most vulnerable group of young 
people. Our bill is meant to highlight our support for these programs 
and our belief that they should be reauthorized.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 1583. A bill to establish the Lower Eastern Shore American 
Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


       the lower eastern shore american heritage area act of 1996

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to designate the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland as a 
National Heritage Area. The purpose of this legislation is to help 
conserve and promote the resources of the region's communities and 
their unique contribution to the fabric of the Nation, while 
revitalizing its local economies and improving its overall quality of 
life.
  The Lower Eastern Shore is a very special place. It contains an 
unrivaled combination of resources and history which represent a unique 
and integral piece of the diverse tapestry of our national character. 
Situated on the Delmarva Peninsula between the Atlantic Ocean and the 
Chesapeake Bay--the largest and most productive estuary in North 
America, its nationally significant natural resources also include the 
Coastal Bays--Chincoteague, Sinepuxent, Isle of Wright, and Assawoman; 
the Wild and Scenic Pocomoke River; and one of the few relatively 
undisturbed strands of barriers islands on the east coast--to name only 
a few. Its unique land and water resources contain an extraordinary 
variety of habitat types--from old growth forests to cypress swamps--
and a tremendous diversity of flora and fauna.
  The Lower Eastern Shore has played an important role in the history 
and culture of our Nation from the earliest native American, African-
American, and European-American settlements. Evidence of the Lower 
Shore's past is featured prominently in its daily life--including its 
watermen who for centuries have sailed the Bay's waters in the 
legendary Skipjacks--the last commercial sailing fleet left in North 
America--Bugeyes, and other vessels harvesting oysters, crabs, and 
fish. The area is recognized as the country's original historic and 
cultural center for the shell fishing industry. It holds the birth 
rights to the uniquely American art form of decoy carving through the 
internationally-recognized work of Lemuel and Steve Ward. The 
agriculture and water-related industries which flourished throughout 
the 1700's and 1800's, still contribute heavily to the regional 
economy. Many of the towns and communities on the Lower Shore including 
Crisfield, Deal Island, Smith Island, Snow Hill, and Princess Anne look 
much the same today as they did almost two centuries ago--and their 
numerous buildings and sites on the National Register of Historic 
Places still serve as important reminders of the history of the area.
  The Lower Eastern Shore also boasts a wide array of national 
recreational amenities including: Ocean City, one of the Nation's 
premier ocean resorts; the Assateague Island National Seashore, one of 
the few pristine and unspoiled seashores remaining on the east coast; 
the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, home to the largest population 
of bald eagles east of the Mississippi River; and the Beach to Bay 
Indian National Recreational Trail. Over 10 million tourists visit the 
area each year to enjoy not only the scenic waterways and recreational 
draws, but also the historic sites and cultural attractions.
  Five years ago, State and local government officials, area residents, 
the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, businesses, and other private 
organizations joined together to harness and at the same time protect 
this area's distinctive potential. This was one of the early efforts in 
a growing national movement of concerned individuals, organizations, 
and governments working 

[[Page S1459]]
together to develop a vision for the future of an area distinguished by 
its resources, communities, and ways of life. Through that effort, a 
regional public-private partnership was formed and the Lower Eastern 
Shore Heritage Committee has prepared and begun to implement a plan 
which is already showing results in the conservation, preservation, and 
the revitalization of the Lower Shore counties.
  The bill which I have introduced will provide further impetus for the 
successful implementation of a heritage conservation and development 
plan, while providing the Lower Eastern Shore with the important 
national recognition it deserves. This legislation is not designed to 
create a new national park or in any way change existing authorities of 
Federal, State and local governments to regulate the use of land as 
provided for by current law or regulations. Rather, it provides Federal 
technical assistance and grants and seed moneys at the grassroots level 
to foster Federal, State, and local partnerships, and promote and 
protect the unique characteristics of the area.
  The Lower Eastern Shore Heritage initiative has been endorsed by a 
number of communities and organizations including the town of Berlin, 
the city of Crisfield, Pocomoke City, the town of Princess Anne, the 
town of Snow Hill, the Beach to Bay Indian Trail Committee, the 
Pocomoke River Alliance, the Greater Crisfield Marketing Authority, the 
Jenkins Creek Environmental Research Center, Wicomico, Worcester, and 
Somerest County tourism offices, and local chambers of commerce.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a section-
by-section analysis be included in the Record. It is my hope that this 
bill can be included as part of the broader National Heritage Area 
legislation which is working its way through the Congress.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1583

       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 ``Lower Eastern Shore American 
     Heritage Area Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Coordinating entity.--The term ``coordinating entity'' 
     means the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee, Inc., a 
     nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Maryland.
       (2) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Lower Eastern Shore American Heritage Area established under 
     section 5.
       (3) Participating partner.--The term ``participating 
     partner'' means a county that has entered into the compact 
     under section 6.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Lower Eastern Shore possesses important historical, 
     cultural, and natural resources, representing themes of 
     settlement, migration, transportation, commerce, and natural 
     resource uses, as described in the Lower Eastern Shore 
     Heritage Plan (1992), endorsed by local governments, and in 
     the draft report, Investing in a Special Place: A Report by 
     the National Park Service to Congress and the Public on 
     Resources, Accomplishments, and Opportunities for 
     Conservation and Sustainable Development: Lower Eastern 
     Shore, Maryland (1995);
       (2) the Lower Eastern Shore played an important role in the 
     history of the American Revolution and the Civil War;
       (3) the Lower Eastern Shore gave birth to the uniquely 
     American art form of decoy-carving through the 
     internationally recognized work of Lemuel and Steve Ward and 
     played a central role in the recognition of the aesthetic 
     value of waterfowl habitat and landscapes;
       (4) the skipjack, a popular symbol of the Chesapeake Bay 
     designed and used in Maryland for harvesting oysters, is the 
     last commercial sailing vessel still used in North America;
       (5) the Lower Eastern Shore played an important role in the 
     evolution of the colonial and American agricultural, 
     timbering, shipping, and seafood industries in the 17th 
     through 20th centuries, exemplified in many structures and 
     landscapes, including farms and plantations, railroad towns, 
     seafood processing industries, docks, and what was once the 
     largest cannery in the United States;
       (6) the Lower Eastern Shore rural townscapes and 
     landscapes--
       (A) display exceptional surviving physical resources 
     illustrating the themes of the Lower Eastern Shore and the 
     social, industrial, and cultural history of the 17th through 
     the early 20th centuries; and
       (B) include many national historic sites and landmarks;
       (7) the Lower Eastern Shore is the home of traditions and 
     research efforts associated with native American, African-
     American, and European-American settlements dating to periods 
     before, during, and after European contact, and retains 
     physical, social, and cultural evidence of the traditions; 
     and
       (8) the State of Maryland has established a structure to 
     enable Lower Eastern Shore communities to join together to 
     preserve, conserve, and manage the Lower Eastern Shore's 
     resources through the Maryland Greenways Commission, river 
     conservation, trail development, and other means.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) recognize the importance of the history, culture, and 
     living resources of the Lower Eastern Shore to the United 
     States;
       (2) assist the State of Maryland and the communities of the 
     Lower Eastern Shore in protecting, restoring, and 
     interpreting the Lower Eastern Shore's resources for the 
     benefit of the United States; and
       (3) authorize Federal financial and technical assistance to 
     serve the purposes stated in paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 5. LOWER EASTERN SHORE AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Lower 
     Eastern Shore American Heritage Area.
       (b) Initial Geographic Scope.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the Heritage Area shall consist of the Maryland 
     counties of Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester.
       (2) Local agreement to participate.--The government of each 
     county listed under paragraph (1) and each municipality in a 
     county listed under paragraph (1) shall become a 
     participating partner by entering into the compact under 
     section 6.
       (3) Additional partners.--The Secretary may include a 
     county or municipality other than those listed in paragraph 
     (1) to be part of the Heritage Area if the county becomes a 
     participating partner by entering into the compact under 
     section 6.
       (4) Coordination.--The Secretary may coordinate with or 
     allow participation by any county, city, town, or village in 
     the Lower Eastern Shore.

     SEC. 6. COMPACT.

       (a) In General.--To carry out the purposes of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall enter into a compact with the State of 
     Maryland, the coordinating entity, and any county eligible to 
     be a participating partner under section 5.
       (b) Information.--The compact shall include information 
     relating to the objectives and management of Heritage Area 
     programs, including--
       (1) a discussion of the goals and objectives of Heritage 
     Area programs, including an explanation of a proposed 
     approach to conservation and interpretation and a general 
     outline of the measures committed to by the parties to the 
     compact;
       (2) a description of the respective roles of the 
     participating partners;
       (3) a list of the initial partners to be involved in 
     developing and implementing a management plan for the 
     Heritage Area and a statement of the financial commitment of 
     the partners; and
       (4) a description of the role of the State of Maryland.

     SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The coordinating entity and the 
     participating partners shall develop a management plan for 
     the Heritage Area that presents comprehensive recommendations 
     for conservation, program funding, management, and 
     development.
       (b) Plan Requirements.--The management plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with State and local plans in existence 
     prior to development of the management plan;
       (2) involve residents, public agencies, universities, and 
     private organizations working in the Heritage Area;
       (3) specify the existing and potential sources of funding 
     to protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area; and
       (3) include--
       (A) a description of actions to be undertaken by units of 
     government and private organizations;
       (B) an inventory of the resources contained in the Heritage 
     Area, including a list of any property in the Heritage Area 
     that is related to the themes of the Heritage Area and that 
     should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or 
     maintained because of the property's natural, cultural, 
     historical, recreational, or scenic significance;
       (C) a recommendation of policies for resource management 
     that considers and details application of appropriate land 
     and water management techniques, including the development of 
     intergovernmental cooperative agreements to protect the 
     Heritage Area's historical, cultural, recreational, and 
     natural resources in a manner that is consistent with 
     supporting appropriate and compatible economic viability;
       (D) a program for implementation of the management plan, 
     including plans for restoration and construction, and 
     specific commitments of the participating partners for the 
     first 5 years of operation;
       (E) an analysis of ways in which Federal, State, and local 
     programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of 
     this Act; and
     
[[Page S1460]]

       (F) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area.
       (c) Time Limit for Submission of a Management Plan.--If the 
     Secretary has not approved a management plan by the date that 
     is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Heritage Area shall be ineligible for Federal funding until a 
     management plan is approved.

     SEC. 8. THE COORDINATING ENTITY AND PARTICIPATING PARTNERS.

       (a) Duties of the Coordinating Entity and Participating 
     Partners.--The coordinating entity and participating partners 
     shall--
       (1) develop and submit to the Secretary for approval a 
     management plan pursuant to section 7 not later than the date 
     that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the 
     compact and the management plan, including taking steps to--
       (A) assist units of government, regional planning 
     organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
       (i) preserving the Heritage Area;
       (ii) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in 
     the Heritage Area;
       (iii) developing recreational resources in the Heritage 
     Area;
       (iv) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for 
     the natural, historical, and architectural resources and 
     sites in the Heritage Area; and
       (v) restoring any historic building relating to the themes 
     of the Heritage Area;
       (B) encourage by appropriate means economic vitality in the 
     area consistent with the management plan for the Heritage 
     Area;
       (C) encourage local governments to adopt policies 
     consistent with the management of the Heritage Area and the 
     goals of the plan; and
       (D) assist units of government, regional planning 
     organizations, businesses, and nonprofit organizations to 
     ensure that clear, consistent, and environmentally 
     appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of 
     interest are put in place throughout the Heritage Area;
       (3) consider the interests of diverse governmental, 
     business, and nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area;
       (4) conduct public meetings not less frequently than 
     quarterly regarding the implementation of the management 
     plan;
       (5) submit substantial changes (including any increase of 
     more than 20 percent in the cost estimates for 
     implementation) to the management plan to the Secretary for 
     approval;
       (6) for any year in which Federal funds have been received 
     under this Act, submit an annual report to the Secretary 
     setting forth the accomplishments and expenses and income of 
     the coordinating entity and the participating partners and 
     the entity to which any loans and grants were made during the 
     year for which the report is made; and
       (7) for any year in which Federal funds have been received 
     under this Act, make available for audit all records 
     pertaining to the expenditure of the Federal funds and any 
     matching funds and require, for all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     receiving organizations make available for audit all records 
     pertaining to the expenditure of the funds.
       (b) Federal Funding.--
       (1) Operations.--The Federal contribution to the operations 
     of the coordinating entity and participating partners shall 
     not exceed 50 percent of the annual operating cost of the 
     entity and partners associated with carrying out this Act.
       (2) Implementation.--A grant to the coordinating entity or 
     a participating partner for implementation of this Act may 
     not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the entity and partners 
     for implementing this Act.
       (c) Prohibition of Acquisition of Real Property.--The 
     coordinating entity may not use Federal funds received under 
     this Act to acquire real property or an interest in real 
     property.
       (d) Eligibility To Receive Financial Assistance.--
       (1) Eligibility.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     coordinating entity shall be eligible to receive funds to 
     carry out this Act for a period of 10 years after the date on 
     which the compact under section 6 is signed by the Secretary 
     and the coordinating entity.
       (2) Exception.--The coordinating entity may receive funding 
     under this Act for a period of not more than 5 additional 
     years, if--
       (A) the coordinating entity determines that the extension 
     is necessary in order to carry out the purposes of this Act 
     and the coordinating entity notifies the Secretary of the 
     determination not later than 180 days prior to the 
     termination date;
       (B) not later than 180 days prior to the termination date, 
     the coordinating entity presents to the Secretary a plan of 
     activities for the period of the extension, including a plan 
     for becoming independent of the funds made available through 
     this Act; and
       (C) the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of 
     Maryland, approves the extension of funding.
       (e) Other Federal Funds.--Nothing in this Act shall affect 
     the use of Federal funds received by the coordinating entity 
     or a participating partner under any other Act.

     SEC. 9. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Duties and Authorities of the Secretary.--
       (1) Grants to the coordinating entity and participating 
     partners.--The Secretary shall make grants available to the 
     coordinating entity and the participating partners to carry 
     out this Act.
       (2) Technical and financial assistance.--
       (A) In general.--On request of the coordinating entity, the 
     Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance to 
     the coordinating entity and participating partners to develop 
     and implement the management plan.
       (B) Priority.--In assisting the coordinating entity and 
     participating partners, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     actions that--
       (i) conserve the significant natural, historic, and 
     cultural resources of the Heritage Area; and
       (ii) provide educational, interpretive, and recreational 
     opportunities consistent with the resources and associated 
     values of the Heritage Area.
       (B) Expenditures for nonfederally owned property.--The 
     Secretary may expend Federal funds on nonfederally owned 
     property to further the purposes of this Act, including 
     assisting units of government in appropriate treatment of 
     districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed 
     or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 
     Places.
       (2) Approval and disapproval of compacts and management 
     plans.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Governor of Maryland, shall approve or disapprove a compact 
     or management plan submitted under this Act not later than 90 
     days after receiving the compact or management plan.
       (B) Action following disapproval.--
       (i) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves a compact or 
     management plan, the Secretary shall advise the coordinating 
     entity in writing of the reasons for rejecting the compact or 
     plan and shall make recommendations for revisions in the 
     compact or plan.
       (ii) Approval of revision.--The Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove a proposed revision not later than 90 days after 
     the date the revision is submitted.
       (3) Approving amendments.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall review substantial 
     amendments to the management plan for the Heritage Area.
       (B) Funds for amendment.--Funds made available under this 
     Act may not be expended to implement a substantial amendment 
     to the management plan until the Secretary approves the 
     amendment.
       (4) Issuing regulations.--The Secretary shall issue such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Duties of Federal Entities.--A Federal entity 
     conducting or supporting an activity directly affecting the 
     Heritage Area, and any unit of government acting pursuant to 
     a grant of Federal funds or a Federal permit or agreement 
     conducting or supporting an activity directly affecting the 
     Heritage Area, shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) consult with the Secretary and the coordinating entity 
     with respect to the activity;
       (2) cooperate with the Secretary and the coordinating 
     entity in carrying out the duties of the Secretary and the 
     coordinating entity under this Act; and
       (3) conduct or support the activity in a manner consistent 
     with the management plan.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                                                    ____


                      Section-by-section analysis


                         section 1. short title

       Establishes the title of the bill, the Lower Eastern Shore 
     Heritage Area Act of 1996.


                         Section 2. definitions

       Defines the terms, ``Coordinating Entity,'' ``Heritage 
     Area,'' ``Participating Partner,'' and ``Secretary.''


                          Section 3. findings

       Identifies historical, cultural, and natural resources of 
     National significance on the Lower Eastern Shore.


                           Section 4. purpose

       States that the purpose of the Act is to: 1.) recognize the 
     importance of the history, culture and living resources of 
     the Lower Eastern Shore to the United States; 2.) assist the 
     State of Maryland and the communities of the Lower Eastern 
     Shore in protecting, restoring, and interpreting the Lower 
     Eastern Shore's resources; and 3.) to authorize Federal 
     financial and technical assistance to serve these purposes.


         section 5. lower eastern shore american heritage plan

       Directs the Secretary of the Interior to designate the 
     Lower Eastern Shore as an American Heritage Area. Establishes 
     a process for the counties and municipalities of Somerset, 
     Worcester, and Wicomico and other surrounding jurisdictions 
     that wish to be included therein to participate in the 
     Heritage Area.


                           section 6. compact

       Directs the Secretary of Interior to enter into a compact 
     with the State of Maryland, the coordinating entity, and any 
     county eligible to participate in the heritage plan and also 
     defines roles, objectives and goals for 

[[Page S1461]]
     management and implementation of the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area.


                       section 7. management plan

       Requires, within two years, that the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the coordinating entity and participating partners 
     develop a management plan, that presents comprehensive 
     recommendations for conservation, program funding, 
     management, and development. The plan must be consistent with 
     State and local plans in existence prior to its development 
     and include a description of actions to be taken by units of 
     government and private organizations and an inventory of 
     resources contained within the area.


       section 8. coordinating entity and participating partners

       Defines duties of Coordinating Entity and Participating 
     Partners to include: 1.) coordination with state and local 
     authorities in the development of the management plan; and 
     2.) holding of quarterly public meetings regarding the 
     implementation of the plan. Establishes federal cost shares 
     at 50 percent of the operating costs and 75 percent of the 
     implementation costs.


         section 9. duties and authorities of federal agencies

       Auhtorizes the Department of the Interior to provide 
     technical and grant assistance to the coordinating entity and 
     participating partners to develop and implement the 
     management plan.


              section 10. authorization of appropriations

       Authorizes such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. First, and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
  S. 1584. A bill to authorize appropriations for the preservation and 
restoration of historic buildings at historically black colleges and 
universities; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


  the historically black colleges and universities historic building 
                    restoration and preservation act

 Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer on behalf of 
myself, Senator Frist, and Senator Mosely-Braun authorization 
legislation for historic preservation activity for buildings at 
historically black colleges and universities. This bill directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to administer a program of grants-in-aid, 
from amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out the National 
Historic Preservation Act for fiscal year 1996 through 1999, to 
eligible historically black colleges and universities for the 
preservation and restoration of historic buildings and structures on 
their campuses.
  This being African-American History Month, I believe it is important 
for us to step back and reflect on the contributions that African-
Americans have made to the founding and building of this Nation. And 
more importantly, to reflect on the institutions and organizations that 
were built by African-Americans to meet the challenges, goals, and 
needs of their people. Historically black colleges and universities 
stand as a testament to the hopes, dreams, achievements, and struggle 
of a people previously denied opportunity and justice to overcome 
extreme adversity and who succeeded despite the imposition of almost 
insurmountable legal and social obstacles.
  This bill authorizes the Secretary to: First, obligate funds for a 
grant with respect to a building or structure listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places only if the grantee agrees to match the 
amount of such grant, with funds derived from non-Federal sources; and 
second, waive this matching requirement if an extreme emergency exists 
or is such a waiver is in the public interest to assure the 
preservation of historically significant resources.
  It authorizes funds for to complete preservation operations at Fisk 
University and 13 historically black colleges and universities in 
Delaware, the District of Columbia and throughout the South, based on 
the 1991 National HBCU Historic Preservation Initiative. In September 
1987, the Office of Historically Black College and University Programs 
within the Department of the Interior developed a proposal for a 
project designed to restore and preserve historic structures on the 
campuses of HBCU's. In 1988, a special survey to identify candidates 
for inclusion in the program generated responses from 46 HBCUs 
nominating 144 structures for consideration. The initiative selected 11 
of the most historically significant and critically threatened 
structures which will require an estimated $20 million to restore 
and preserve the structure. Projects to be funded under the program 
include: Gains Hall, Morris Brown College, Atlanta, GA; Leonard Hall, 
Shaw University, Raleigh, NC; Hill Hall, Savannah State College, 
Savannah, GA; St. Agnes, St. Augustine's College, Raleigh, NC; The 
Mansion, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS; White Hall, Bethune-Cookman 
College, Daytona Beach, FL; Graves Hall, Morehouse College, Atlanta, 
GA; Howard Hall, Howard University, Washington, DC; Virginia Hall, 
Hampton University, Hampton, VA; Parkard Hall, Spelman College, 
Atlanta, GA; Administration Building, Fisk University, Nashville, TN; 
Lookerman Hall, Delaware State College, Dover, DE; Cooper Hall, 
Sterling College, Sterling, KS; and Science Hall, Simpson College, 
Indianola, IA.

  This bill is exactly the same as the bill that passed both the House 
and Senate in 1994 but died in conference due to the end of the 
session. The only changes made were to the effective dates. I am happy 
to be a part of preserving this important part of American history and 
urge my colleagues to join me in the effort.

                          ____________________