[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5322-S5333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2105. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
study of the Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort
Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine the
feasibility of alleviating certain bank erosion and sedimentation
problems; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER LEGISLATION
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced S. 1672,
the Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998. It will create an
important new program to provide homeowners on the Missouri River with
the assistance they need to protect their homes from shoreline erosion.
Today, my colleague Senator Johnson and I are introducing a second
bill that I hope will help to preserve the character of the Missouri
River for generations to come. Up and down the Missouri River, South
Dakotans can tell you that the river is slowly changing as a result of
the dams built under the authority of the Pick-Sloan Act. While the
dams undoubtedly have made positive contributions to South Dakota by
controlling floodwaters and making affordable electricity available to
promote rural development, they also ended the Big Muddy's ability to
carry a full sediment load for long distances. Sediments are now being
deposited into shallow areas of the river, causing the water table to
rise, flooding shoreline lands and worsening erosion. In addition, the
sediment build-up has made navigation nearly impossible in some areas.
These problems have grown particularly severe near the city of
Springfield, where a delta is forming downstream from the confluence of
the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers. In order to better understand the
causes of the sediment build-up and to develop solutions to address it,
I am introducing legislation today to direct the Corps of Engineers to
conduct a study of the lower Missouri and Niobrara River watershed. It
is my hope that this study will provide the blueprint necessary to
alleviate the sediment build-up, reduce future sedimentation, and
preserve the character of the rivers for years to come. I hope my
colleagues will give this legislation their full support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S5323]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2105
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER SEDIMENTATION
STUDY.
The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a study of the
Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall
Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine
the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion,
sedimentation, and related problems in the lower Niobrara
River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
______
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2106. A bill to expand the boundaries of Arches National Park,
Utah, to include portions of certain drainages that are under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and to include a portion
of Fish Seep Draw owned by the State of Utah, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the arches national park expansion act of 1998
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
expand the boundaries of Arches National Park. I appreciate my
colleague Senator Hatch for joining me in this effort. The House
version of this bill, H.R. 2283 sponsored by Mr. Cannon, was passed
late last year.
Most Americans recognize the familiar landscape of Arches National
Park. It encompasses some of the most unique lands in the Southwest.
Delicate sandstone arches, stunning vistas, contrasting colors,
sweeping desert valleys, maze-like rock formations, and rugged gorges
characterize the panorama in the park. In 1929, when the park was
created, knowledge of ecosystem management was almost nonexistent. Park
designation preserved these unique geological treasures but also relied
on fairly rigid park boundaries which has resulted in some
fragmentation of ecological areas within the park. This bill authorizes
a 3,140 acre expansion to include the beautiful and unique Lost Spring
Canyon parcel contiguous with the eastern boundary of the Arches. This
addition will enhance the ecological protection of Arches.
The Arches National Park Expansion includes portions of the following
drainages: Salt Wash, Lost Spring Canyon, Fish Seep Draw, Clover
Canyon, Cordova Canyon, Mine Draw, and Cottonwood Wash. These areas are
currently under the jurisdiction of either the Bureau of Land
Management or the State of Utah. Once the expansion is complete, the
Park Service will continue to protect the wilderness values of these
lands. No road or campground construction will occur in the new
addition. Lost Spring Canyon will continue primarily to be used for
back-country hiking. It is not in danger of being overrun by thousands
of park visitors simply by the nature of the rugged terrain and the
distances involved. But it makes good management sense to bring these
areas under park management.
Public lands debates are far too contentious in the West,
particularly in Utah. While it is unfortunate that we have not been
able to reach consensus on issues like wilderness, I am pleased that
the expansion of Arches National Park is an issue which a diverse group
of interests do agree. Local officials, the Grand Canyon Trust, the
National Parks and Conservation Association, environmental groups, the
State of Utah, the Utah Congressional delegation, and the
Administration all support this bill.
This legislation is good for Arches National Park and is a great
example of how it is possible to reach consensus among public lands
interests. The expansion will enhance the visitor experience of Arches
by expanding back-country opportunities. It makes good management sense
for both BLM and the Park Service. I hope my colleagues will join me in
moving this legislation quickly.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today along with my
good friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, as a cosponsor of the
Arches National Park Expansion Act of 1998. This is an inexpensive,
practical, common-sense proposal that has gathered widespread support.
Arches National Park is known world-wide for its spectacular canyons
and rock formations. When Arches National Park was created 25 years
ago, the park boundaries were set with little regard to naturally
occurring borders. Specifically, Lost Springs Canyon, located in the
northeast corner of the park, was divided in half by the park
boundaries.
Mr. President, this worthwhile legislation would expand the
boundaries of the park by approximately 3,140 acres, incorporating the
Lost Spring Canyon. The new, expanded boundary would better follow the
natural borders dictated by the position of the canyon rim rather than
the section lines and manmade features. Adding Lost Spring Canyon to
the 73,400 acres already included in Arches National Park would bring a
variety of new arches, balanced rocks, spires, and other geologic
features under park protection and management. The addition of Lost
Spring Canyon would also include the option of a ``back-country''
experience in Arches National Park.
The widespread support this bill enjoys is the result of careful
efforts to balance competing interests. The Utah School Trust, the
Grand Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association,
and the National Park Services have voiced support for the proposed
bill. Local officials, interest groups, and a majority of the residents
of Grand County have been consulted for input and are also supportive
of the boundary change.
Again, I am pleased to cosponsor the Arches National Park Expansion
Act of 1998. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Reed):
S. 2107. A bill to enhance electronic commerce by promoting the
reliability and integrity of commercial transactions through
establishing authentication standards for electronic communications,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today with Senators Wyden, McCain,
and Reed I introduce the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act. This
legislation will bring the federal government into the electronic age,
in the process saving American individuals and companies millions of
dollars and hundreds of hours currently wasted on government paperwork.
Mr. President, the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act would require
federal agencies to make versions of their forms available online and
allow people to submit these forms with digital signatures instead of
handwritten ones. It also sets up a process by which commercially
developed digital signatures can be used in submitting forms to the
government and permits the digital storage of federal documents.
Each and every year, Mr. President, Americans spend in excess of $600
billion simply filling out, documenting and handling government
paperwork. This huge loss of time and money constitutes a significant
drain on our economy and we must bring it under control. That is why we
need this legislation.
By providing individuals and companies with the option of electronic
filing and storage, this bill will reduce the paperwork burden imposed
by government on the American people and the American economy. It will
allow people to move from printed forms they must fill out using
typewriters or handwriting to digitally-based forms that can be filled
out using a word processor. The savings in time, storage and postage
will be enormous. One company, computer maker Hewlett-Packard,
estimates that the section of this bill permitting companies to
download copies of regulatory forms to be filed and stored digitally
rather than physically will, by itself, save that company $1-2 billion
per year.
Other companies will experience similar savings, and the results for
the overall economy will be enormous. Mr. President, the results for
America's small businesses, which bear a disproportionate portion of
the paperwork burden, will be enormous and may in some cases spell the
difference between business success and failure.
Mr. President, the easier and more convenient we make it for American
businesses to comply with paperwork
[[Page S5324]]
and reporting requirements, the better job they will do of meeting
these requirements, and the better job they will do of creating jobs
and wealth for our country. This legislation will help businesses and
small businesses in particular as they struggle to satisfy Washington
bureaucrats while retaining sufficient resources to satisfy their
customers and meet their payrolls.
The most important benefit of this legislation, however, lies in the
area of electronic innovation. Currently, digital encryption is in a
relatively undeveloped state. One reason for that is the lack of
opportunity for many individuals and companies to make use of the
technology. Another is the lack of a set industry standard. By allowing
use of this technology in the filling out of government paperwork, and
by establishing a standard for digital encryption, the federal
government can open the gates to quick, efficient development of this
technology, as well as its more application throughout the economy. The
benefits to American businesses as they struggle to establish paper-
free workplaces that will lower administrative costs, will be
significant, and will further spur our national economy.
Efficiency in the federal government itself will also be enhanced by
this legislation. By forcing government bureaucracies to enter the
digital information age we will force them to streamline their
procedures and enhance their ability to maintain accurate, accessible
records. This should result in significant cost savings for the federal
government as well as increased efficiency and enhanced customer
service.
The information age is no longer new, Mr. President. We are in the
midst of a revolution in the way people do business and maintain
records. This legislation will force Washington to catch up with these
developments, and release our businesses from the drag of an obsolete
bureaucracy as they pursue further innovations. The result will be a
nation and a people that is more prosperous, more free and more able to
spend time on more rewarding pursuits.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (by request):
S. 2108. A bill to amend chapter 19, of title 38, United States Code,
to provide that Service-members' Group Life Insurance and Veterans'
Group Life Insurance under such chapter may, upon application, be paid
to an insured person who is terminally ill; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
servicemembers and veterans' group life insurance accelerated death
benefits act
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2108, the proposed ``Servicemembers'
and Veterans' Group Life Insurance Accelerated Death Benefits Act.''
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the
President of the Senate by letter dated February 10, 1998.
My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and
comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2108
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 ``Servicemembers' and
Veterans' Group Life Insurance Accelerated Death Benefits
Act''.
SEC. 2. OPTION TO RECEIVE ACCELERATED DEATH BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 19 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end of subchapter III the
following new section:
``Sec. 1980. Option to receive accelerated death benefits
``(a) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be
considered to be `terminally ill' if such person has a
medical prognosis that such person's life expectancy is less
than a period prescribed by regulation by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. The maximum time period prescribed in
regulation shall not exceed 12 months.
``(b) The Department of Veterans Affairs shall prescribe
regulations under which any terminally ill person insured
under Servicemenbers' Group Life Insurance or Veterans' Group
Life Insurance may elect to receive in a lump-sum payment a
portion of the face value of the insurance as an accelerated
death benefit reduced by an amount necessary to assure that
there is no increase in the actuarial value of the benefit
paid, as determined in regulations issued by the Secretary.
The Secretary may prescribe by regulation the maximum amount
of the accelerated death benefit available under this section
that the Secretary finds to be administratively practicable
and actuarially sound, but in no instance shall the benefit
exceed 50 percent of the face value of the person's insurance
in force on the date the election is approved. The insured
may elect to receive an amount that is less than the maximum
prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall prescribe in
regulation increments in which the partial benefit can be
elected.
``(c) The portion of the face amount of the insurance which
was not paid in a lump sum as accelerated death benefits
shall remain payable in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter.
``(d) Deductions under section 1969 and premiums under
section 1977(c) shall be reduced, in a manner consistent with
the percentage reduction in the face amount of the insurance
as a result of payment of accelerated death benefits,
effective with respect to any amounts which would otherwise
become due on or after the date of payment under this
subsection.
``(e) The regulations shall include provisions regarding
the form and manner in which an application under this
subsection shall be made and the procedures in accordance
with which any such application shall be considered.
``(f) An election to receive benefits under this section
shall be irrevocable, and not more than one such election may
be made by any individual, even if the individual elects to
receive less than the maximum amount of accelerated benefits
prescribed by regulation.
``(g) If a person insured under Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance elects to receive accelerated death benefits under
this section, and the insured's Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance is thereafter converted to Veterans' Group Life
Insurance as provided in section 1968(b) of this title, the
amount of accelerated benefits paid under this section shall
reduce the amount of Veterans' Group Life Insurance available
to the insured under section 1977(a) of this title.''.
(b) Section 1970(g) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by--
(1) striking ``of benefits'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``Any'' at the beginning of that sentence;
(2) adding ``an insured or'' following ``or on account
of,''; and
(3) adding the following at the end of the subsection:
``Neither the amount of any payments made under this
subchapter nor the name and address of the recipient of such
payments shall be reported under subpart B of chapter 61 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 19, title 38, United States Code, is
amended by adding the following new item after the item
relating to section 1979:
``1980. Option to receive accelerated death benefits.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by section 2 shall
take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(e) All regulations necessary to implement these amendments
shall be promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
____
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC, February 10, 1998.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft
bill entitled the ``Servicemembers' and Veterans Group Life
Insurance Accelerated Death Benefits Act.'' I request that
this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt
consideration and enactment.
This draft bill would amend title 38, United States Code,
by adding a new section which would provide that group life
insurance benefits may, upon application, be paid to a
terminally ill person insured under Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance (SGLI) or Veterans' Group Life Insurance
(VGLI). Traditionally, individuals have purchased life
insurance in order to protect their dependents against
financial loss due to their death. The proceeds have served
to replace the lost income of the insureds and to cover their
final expense. However, commercial life insurance companies
have more recently included accelerated-benefit provisions in
policies, which permit policyholders to receive payment of
all or part of their life insurance policy's face amount
prior to their death to provide for their needs during their
[[Page S5325]]
final days. This draft bill would allow terminally ill SGLI
and VGLI insureds to have access to a portion of the death
benefits of the insurance proceeds provided under SGLI or
VGLI coverage before they die in order to meet the financial
burdens of medical and living expenses, but also would
preserve a portion of the benefits for their dependents.
Section 2 of this draft bill would provide that benefits
would be payable to insured persons with a medical prognosis
of a life expectancy of less than a period prescribed by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, but the maximum period
prescribed by the Secretary would not exceed 12 months. The
Secretary would be authorized to promulgate regulations
prescribing the maximum amount of the accelerated death
benefit available under section 2, but in no event would the
maximum amount exceed 50 percent of the face value of the
person's insurance in force on the date the election is
approved. The insured would be able to choose to receive less
than the maximum amount prescribed by the Secretary, as
prescribed by regulation. Payment of benefits under this bill
would be reduced by an amount necessary to assure that there
is no increase in the actuarial value of the benefits paid.
The benefits would be exempt from taxation, see also 26
U.S.C.A. Sec. 101(g)(1)(A), and creditors' claims, and would
not be subject to attachment, levy, or seizure before or
after receipt by the insured. In return for this election,
the insured would sever all rights that any beneficiary might
have had in the portion of the proceeds which are paid as
accelerated death benefits. The accelerated death benefits
election would be irrevocable and monthly deductions for SGLI
and premiums for VGLI would be reduced in accordance with the
percentage reduction in the face amount of the insured's
policy as a result of the election. If a SGLI insured elects
to receive accelerated death benefits under section 2 of this
proposed legislation and the SGLI policy is then converted to
VGLI as provided in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(b), the amount of the
accelerated benefits paid would be subtracted from the amount
of the VGLI available under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1977(a). The
Department of Veterans Affairs would be required to issue
regulations regarding the form and manner in which an
application for accelerated death benefits must be made.
This legislative proposal would reduce receipts annually by
a negligible amount; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-
you-go (paygo) requirement of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA). This proposal should be
considered in conjunction with other proposals in the
President's FY 1999 Budget that together meet the paygo
requirement.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Togo D. West, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 2109. A bill to provide for an exchange of lands located near
Gustavus, Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Glacier Bay National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 1998
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of
introducing legislation, that when enacted, will provide for a cleaner
electrical system for Glacier National Park and Preserve in Alaska.
Vice President Al Gore in his opening remarks to the President's
Council on Sustainable Development on January 13, 1994 said ``Our
objective is results that are cleaner for the environment and cheaper
for the economy.'' My objective for Glacier Bay National Park and the
nearby Gustavus community mirrors that of the Vice President--to
produce electricity that will be cleaner for the environment and
cheaper for the economy.
Glacier Bay National Park currently generates its own electrical
power using diesel generators. The electrical generation equipment now
in place is expensive to maintain and is unreliable. It is my
understanding that over the years there have been at least two oil
spills into the waters of Glacier Bay, the tank farm is leaking, and
the current electrical system is in need of major repair. In short, the
diesel system at Glacier Bay is unacceptable in environmental terms
Before we spend tax payers dollars to add band-aids to this
antiquated system, we ought to consider an environmentally sound and
cheaper option for the production of electrical power.
Fortunately, there is a viable option. Enactment of this legislation
would allow the placement and installation of a small water powered
electrical system in the Fall Creek area on the southeast corner of
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
Before park advocates take out their swords and start drawing lines
in the sand, I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that
we allow for the construction of a Hoover Dam in a National Park. I am
suggesting that a ``run of stream'' small diversion weir be placed
along Fall Creek within the boundaries of the Park.
Since the Fall Creek area of this proposed hydro power system is in a
Wilderness area designated by Congress, any redrawing of boundaries of
Glacier Bay National Park or other procedure to permit the system
requires Congressional approval. As envisioned, the site required will
amount to approximately 78 acres. If only the ``footprint'' is
considered, as little as 5 acres would be utilized.
I believe there are considerable environmental benefits and economic
advantages to be gained by eliminating dependence upon diesel fossil
fuel and converting to a small water powered electrical system to
provide power to the community of Gustavus and the National Park
Service in Glacier Bay. In addition to providing clean, cheaper, stable
priced, hydro electricity, substantial savings will occur to the State
of Alaska, the National Park Service and to consumers. Significant
economic savings from appropriations and increasing operational
expenses for the existing systems, along with the environmental
enhancements will have continuing long term benefits that more than
compensate for a loss of some 5 acres for the Fall Creek System. These
multiple benefits should be sufficient merit alone to justify a
restructuring of Park boundaries to accommodate the new electrical
generating system.
I realize that however meritorious the proposal may be, taking
Wilderness out of a system or lands out of a park will be unacceptable
to some. Under the provisions of this legislation lands removed from
the boundaries of the Park will be replaced with State lands in another
park. In other words, there will be no net loss of Wilderness.
We need to clean and protect the environment at Glacier Bay and
Gustavus, this legislation is the beginning. The completed project will
serve as a conservation model to other communities--an example of
significant environmental advantages coupled with substantial economic
savings to the public and government which could be realized elsewhere,
particularly in the rural communities of Alaska.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was order to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2109
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 ``Glacier Bay National Park
Boundary Adjustment Act of 1998.''
SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE AND WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to conditions set forth in
subsection (c), if the State of Alaska, in a manner
consistent with this Act, offers to transfer to the United
States the lands identified in paragraph (2) in exchange for
the lands identified in paragraph (3), selected from the area
described in Section 3(b)(1), the Secretary of the Interior
(in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall complete
such exchange no later than 6 months after the issuance of a
license to Gustavus Electric Company by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), in accordance with this Act.
This land exchange shall be subject to the laws applicable to
exchanges involving lands managed by the Secretary as part of
the National Park System in Alaska and the appropriate
process for the exchange of state lands required by state
law.
(2) The lands to be conveyed to the United States by the
State of Alaska shall be determined by mutual agreement of
the Secretary and the State of Alaska. Lands which will be
considered for conveyance to the United States pursuant to
the process required by State law are: (1) lands owned by the
State of Alaska in the Long Lake area within Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and Preserve; or (2) other lands owned by
the State of Alaska.
(3) If the Secretary and the State of Alaska have not
agreed on which lands the State of Alaska will convey by a
date not later than six months after a license is issued
pursuant to this Act, the State of Alaska shall convey
(subject to the approval of the appropriate official of the
State of Alaska), and the United States shall accept, within
one year after a license is issued, title to land having a
sufficiently equal value to satisfy state and federal law,
subject to clear title and valid existing rights, and absence
of environmental contamination, and as provided by
[[Page S5326]]
the laws applicable to exchanges involving lands managed by
the Secretary as part of the National Park System in Alaska
and the appropriate process for the exchange of state lands
required by state law. Such land shall be conveyed to the
United States from among the following State lands in the
priority listed:
COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN
1. T.6., R. 11 E., partially surveyed,
Sec. 11, lots 1 and 2, NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\, and
N\1/2\SE\1/4\;
Sec. 12, NW\1/4\;
Sec. 14, lots 1 and 2, NW\1/4\NW\1/4\,
Containing 838.66 acres, as shown on the plat of survey
accepted June 9, 1922.
2. T. 5 S., R. 11 E., partially surveyed,
T. 6 S., R. 11 E., partially surveyed,
Sec. 2, NW\1/4\ NE\1/4\ and NW\1/4\,
Containing 200.00 acres, as shown on the plat of survey
accepted June 9, 1922,
3. T. 6 S., R. 12 E., partially surveyed,
Sec. 6, lots 1 through 10, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, and SE\1/4\
Containing approximately 529.94 acres, as shown on the plat
of survey accepted June 9, 1922.
(4) The lands to be conveyed to the State of Alaska by the
United States under paragraph (1) are lands to be designated
by the Secretary and the State of Alaska, consistent with
sound land management principles, based on those lands
determined by the FERC with the concurrence of the Secretary
and the State of Alaska, in accordance with section 3(b), to
be the minimum amount of land necessary for the construction
and operation of a hydroelectric project.
(5) The time periods set forth for the completion of the
land exchanged described in this Act may be extended as
necessary by the Secretary should the processes of state law
or federal law delay completion of an exchange.
(6) For purposes of this Act, ``land'' means lands, waters
and interests therein.
(b) Wilderness.--(1) To ensure that this transaction
maintains, within the National Wilderness Preservation
System, approximately the same amount of area of designated
wilderness as currently exists, the following lands in Alaska
shall be designated as wilderness in the priority listed,
upon consummation of the land exchange authorized by this Act
and shall be administered according to the laws governing
national wilderness areas in Alaska.
(A) An unnamed island in Glacier Bay National Park lying
southeasterly of Blue Mouse Cove in sections 5, 6, 7, and 8,
T. 36 S., R 54 E., CRM, and shown on United States Geological
Survey quadrangle Mt. Fairweather (D-2), Alaska, containing
approximately 789 acres.
(B) Cenotaph Island of Glacier Bay National Park lying
within Lituya Bay in sections 23, 24, 25, and 26, T. 37 S.,
R. 47 E., CRM, and shown on United States Geological Survey
quadrangle Mt. Fairweather (C-5), Alaska, containing
approximately 280 acres.
(C) An area of Glacier Bay National Park lying in T. 31.
S., R. 43 E and T.32 S., R, 43 E., CRM, that is not currently
designated wilderness, containing approximately 2270 acres.
(2) The specific boundaries and acreage of these wilderness
designations may be reasonably adjusted by the Secretary,
consistent with sound land management principles, to
approximately equal, in sum, the total wilderness acreage
deleted from Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve pursuant
to the land exchange authorized by this act.
(c) Conditions.--Any exchange of lands under this Act may
occur only if--
(1) following the submission of an acceptable license
application, the FERC has conducted economic and
environmental analyzes under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
791-828) (notwithstanding provisions of that Act and the
Federal regulations that otherwise exempt this project from
economic analyzes), the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370), and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661-666), that conclude, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior with respect
to (A) and (B) below, that the construction and operation of
a hydroelectric power project on the lands described in
section 3(b)--
(A) will not adversely impact the purposes and values of
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (as constituted after
the consummation of the land exchange authorized by this
section);
(B) will comply with the requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-470w); and
(C) can be accomplished in an economically feasible manner;
(2) The FERC held at least one public meeting in Gustavus,
Alaska, allowing the citizens of Gustavus to express their
views on the proposed project;
(3) The FERC has determined, with the concurrence of the
Secretary and the State of Alaska, the minimum amount of land
necessary to construct and operate this hydroelectric power
project;
(4) Gustavus Electric Company has been granted a license by
FERC that requires Gustavus Electric Company to submit an
acceptable financing plan to FERC before project construction
may commence, and FERC has approved such plan.
SEC. 3. ROLE OF FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.
(a) License Application.--(1) The FERC licensing process
shall apply to any application submitted by Gustavus Electric
Company to FERC for the right to construct and operate a
hydro power project on the lands described in subsection (b).
(2) The FERC is authorized to accept and consider an
application filed by Gustavus Electric Company for the
construction and operation of a hydro power plant to be
located on lands within the area described in subsection (b),
notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796(2)). Such application must be submitted within 3
years from the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) The FERC will retain jurisdiction over any hydropower
project constructed on this site.
(b) Analyzes.--(1) The lands referred to in subsection (a)
of this section are lands in the State of Alaska described as
follows:
copper river meridian
Township 39 South, Range 59 East, partially surveyed,
Section 36 (unsurveyed) SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\,
NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\W\1/2\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, and S\1/2\SE\1/
4\NW\1/4\. Containing approximately 130 acres.
Township 40 South Range 59 East, partially surveyed,
Section 1 (unsurveyed). NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, and
SW\1/4\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, excluding U.S. Survey 944 and Native
allotment A-442; Section 2 (unsurveyed), fractional, that
portion lying above the mean high tide line of Icy Passage,
excluding U.S. Survey 944 and U.S. Survey 945; Section 11
(unsurveyed), fractional, that portion lying above the mean
high tide line of Icy Passage, excluding U.S. Survey 944;
Section 12 (unsurveyed), fractional, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/
2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, and those portions of NW\1/4\ and
SW\1/4\ lying above the mean high tide line of Icy Passage,
excluding U.S. Survey 944 and Native allotment A-442.
Containing approximately 1015 acres.
(2) Additional lands and acreage will be included as needed
in the study area described in paragraph (1) to account for
accretion to these lands from natural forces;
(3) With the concurrence of the Secretary and the State of
Alaska, the FERC shall determine the minimum amount of lands
necessary for construction and operation of such project;
(4) The National Park Service shall participate as a joint
land agency in the development of any environmental document
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in the
licensing of such project. Such environmental document shall
consider both the impacts resulting from licensing and any
land exchange necessary to authorize such project.
(c) Issuance of License.--(1) A condition of the license to
construct and operate any portion of the hydroelectric power
project shall be the FERC's approval, prior to any
commencement of construction, of a finance plan submitted by
Gustavus Electric Company.
(2) The National Park Service, as the existing supervisor
of potential project lands ultimately to be deleted from the
Federal reservation in accordance with this Act, waives its
right to impose mandatory conditions on such project lands
pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
797(e)).
(3) The FERC shall not license, re-license the project, or
amend the project license unless it determines, with the
Secretary's concurrence, that the project will not adversely
impact the purposes and values of Glacier Bay National Park
and Preserve (as constituted after the consummation of the
land exchange authorized by this Act). Additionally, a
condition of the license, or any succeeding license, to
construct and operate any portion of the hydroelectric power
project shall require the license to mitigate any adverse
effects of the project on the purposes and values of Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve identified by the Secretary
after the initial licensing.
(4) A condition of the license to construct and operate any
portion of the hydroelectric power project shall be the
completion, prior to any commencement of construction, of the
land exchange described in this Act.
SEC. 4. ROLE OF SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.
(a) Special Use Permit.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133-1136), the Secretary shall
issue a Special Use Permit to Gustavus Electric Company to
ensure the completion of the analyzes referred to in Section
3. The Secretary shall impose conditions in the permit as
needed to protect the purposes and values of Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve.
(b) Park System.--The lands acquired from the State of
Alaska under this Act shall be added to and administered as
part of the National Park System, subject to valid existing
rights. Upon completion of the exchange of lands under this
Act, the Secretary shall adjust, as necessary, the boundaries
of the affected National Park System unit(s) to include the
lands acquired from the State of Alaska; and adjust the
boundary of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve to exclude
the lands transferred to the State of Alaska under this Act.
Any such adjustments to the boundaries of National Park
System units shall have no effect upon acreage determinations
under section 103(b) of the Public Law 96-487.
(c) Wilderness Area Boundaries.--The Secretary shall make
any necessary modifications or adjustments of boundaries of
wilderness areas as a result of the additions and deletions
caused by the land exchange referred in Section 2. Any such
adjustments to the boundaries of wilderness area shall have
no effect upon acreage determination under section 103(b) of
Public Law 96-487.
(d) Payments.--Gustavus Electric Company shall not required
to make Federal land
[[Page S5327]]
payments under section 10(e) of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 803(c)) with respect to the lands to be exchanged
under this Act.
(e) Concurrence of the Secretary.--Whenever in this Act the
concurrence of the Secretary is required, it shall not be
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Snowe,
Mrs. Murray, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin)
S. 2110. A bill to authorize the Federal program to prevent violence
against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
violence against women act ii
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Violence Against
Women Act--II.'' I am pleased to be joined by several Senators who are
cosponsoring this legislation--including Senators Specter, Boxer,
Snowe, Murray, Moseley-Braun, Mikulski, Dodd, Lautenburg, Wellstone,
Kennedy, and Durbin.
Mr. President, when I introduced the Violence Against Women Act eight
years ago--in June, 1990--it was not clear that the Senate would ever
even consider this legislation. The fundamental reason--just eight
years ago, few thought it either appropriate or necessary for national
legislation to confront the problem of domestic violence.
From 1990 to 1993, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I convened
six hearings on the bill, released six reports on the problems of
violence against women, convinced the Judiciary Committee to favorably
report the bill to the full Senate on three times and had to re-
introduce the bill twice.
But, it was not until November, 1993--nearly 3 and \1/2\ years after
introduction--that the full Senate even considered the Violence Against
Women Act. In September, 1994, the Violence Against Women Act became
law.
But, even passage of the act into law did not end the significant
debate on the issue of whether the problem of violence against women
merited a national response. As my colleagues will recall, throughout
the summer of 1995, the Congress debated whether or not we should
actually fund the Violence Against Women Act.
Fortunately, by the fall of 1995, the Congress finally reached a
consensus--the Federal Government can and should provide resources and
leadership in a national effort to end the violence women suffer at the
hands of men who profess to love them.
That consensus has held to this day.
And, at the most practical levels, that consensus has been rewarded:
The murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at the hands of
their ``intimates'' fell to an 19-year low in both 1995 and 1996.
Thousands of trained police officers are on the streets arresting
abusers before they can victimize again; police officers are working as
never before to guide victims toward help; prosecutors have been added
to the front-lines to put these abusers where they belong--behind bars;
tens of thousands of women have been provided the shelters necessary to
protect themselves and their children; battered women are being
provided a whole range of support services--counseling, legal help for
such matters as getting a ``protection from abuse'' orders; and a new
national domestic violence hotline has already answered nearly 200,000
calls for help.
Mr. President, our consensus in the Congress reflects a fundamental
consensus in our Nation--the time when a woman has to suffer in silence
because the criminal who is victimizing her happens to be her husband
or boyfriend is over.
Today, we must build on this consensus and deliver on its promise--
because for all the strides we have made, there remain far too many
women who will go home this evening knowing in the nervous pit of their
stomach that there is a better than even chance that they will get the
hell beat out of them.
I don't know that any of us who have not been in this situation can
truly understand what it must be like--an understanding which would, in
turn, also help us recognize the tremendous need to take action.
Perhaps we can gain a glimmer of such an understanding if we recall
our school-boy memory--and every man in this Chamber I know has at
least one of these--a memory of sitting in class, dreading the time
when the recess bell would ring, because the school bully told you that
he was going to beat the daylights out of you on the playground.
Imagine feeling that dread every day. Imagine feeling that twist in
your guts as an adult.
That is what every man in this Senate, this Congress and this Nation
must remember as we continue to debate what we can--and what we
should--do to combat violence against women.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today--the Violence
Against Women Act II--has one simple goal: make more women safe.
This legislation seeks this goal by building on the original Violence
Against Women Act--continuing what is working; seeking improvements to
fix those efforts which could work better; and expanding the national
fight into those areas where the need is clear, but our efforts have
neglected.
Beyond describing some of the specifics of the legislation being
introduced, I want to make it clear, there are many other ideas and
proposals that should be considered before the full Senate debates this
legislation. Also, I am sure there are several refinements to improve
what is currently in this bill.
There are several Senators who are developing these other proposals
and refinements--for there are many Senators who are deeply committed
to combating violence against women. And, I hope that my colleagues
will review this legislation, offer their insights and lend their names
as co-sponsors and leaders in the fight against domestic violence.
Still, as my colleagues review this legislation, I believe they will
find that it offers comprehensive and sensible responses to violence
against women.
To highlight just some of the specific aspects of this legislation,
let me start with what I believe to be the central component of the
Violence Against Women Act II--the money, continuing the dollars for
cops, prosecutors, judges, shelters, and all the elements which are
working.
This requires one simple step--continue the violent crime reduction
trust fund which the Biden crime bill set up several years ago. This
trust fund is due to expire in the year 2000.
Let me remind everybody how it is funded. We agreed that we would
reduce the number of Federal workers by over 200,000. We reduced them
by 271,000. We agreed that the paychecks that were being paid to those
Federal workers would be taken and put in the trust fund, and that
trust fund would only be used to fight crime, a part of which is to
fight domestic violence. That fund, that trust fund, that separate
entity's authorization expires in the year 2000. This legislation first
and foremost extends it, extends it to the year 2002. And it does not
relitigate the balanced budget agreement upon which we agreed last
year. It is accommodated within that balanced budget agreement.
Beyond this fundamental step, there are four key policy areas
addressed in my new legislation.
1. Strengthening law enforcement's tools.
2. Improving services for the victims of violence.
3. Reducing violence against children, not only the frequent and
horrible side effects of violence against women but also the wellspring
of future generations of abusers because all of the data shows that
those who witness abuse, ironically and tragically, tend to become
abusers.
4. To bolster the antidomestic violence training and education
programs to enlist many more professionals in our fight to deal with
violence.
Strengthening Law Enforcement
On the law enforcement front, the bill introduced today, starts with
needed improvements to bolster the inter-state enforcement of ``stay-
away'' or protection orders.
To give a practical example, let's say a woman from my home State of
Delaware gets one of these protection orders against and old boyfriend
who has been stalking and beating the heck out of her. Let's also say
she works in Pennsylvania.
This is the scenario which led the original Violence Against Women
Act to call on states to honor the protection orders of other states.
We did so
[[Page S5328]]
because the cops recognize the simple reality--they know what will
happen sooner or later if the old boyfriend keeps showing up at the
woman's work. And, the cops in Pennsylvania don't want to wait for the
worst to happen--they want to nail the guy for violating the protection
order, stopping violence before it happens--in other words, community
policing.
The problem--the cops in Pennsylvania may not know about that there
is a valid protection order issued by the State of Delaware. We propose
today a few simple fixes: Permitting state and local cops to use their
``pro-arrest'' grants for this information sharing; encouraging states
to enter into the cooperative agreements necessary to help interstate
enforcement; and calling on the Justice Department to help develop new
protocols and disseminate the ``best practices'' of state and local
cops.
Pretty simple, but all are extremely necessary--and I hope we can all
support such common sense measures.
I won't go into nearly as much detail in describing the law
enforcement initiatives proposed in this bill, but just to ``tick''
some of these off--we propose to: Bolster the resources available for
courts to handle domestic violence and sexual assault cases; target the
``date-rape'' drug with the maximum federal penalties; continue funding
for police, prosecutors, law enforcement efforts in rural communities,
and for anti-stalking initiatives; extend the support of local police
``pro-arrest'' efforts--a program expiring this year; and provide new
laws to protect our military support personnel stationed, as well as
our female military personnel who may be assaulted off-base--where, too
often, lax foreign laws give a ``free-pass'' to their victimizer.
Assisting the Victims of Violence
Of course, a comprehensive effort to reduce violence against women
and lessen its damages must do more than just arrest, convict and
imprison abusers--we must also help the victims of violence. This
legislation proposes to assist these crime victims in three fundamental
ways:
Immediate protections from their abuser--such as battered women's
shelters; help so that they can have access to the courts and legal
assistance necessary to keep their abuser away from them; and removing
the ``catch-22s'' that may literally often force women to stay with
their abuser--such as the discriminatory insurance policies which could
force a mother to choose: turn-in the man who is beating me or keep
health insurance for her children.
Those are the three general policy goals, but to be more specific,
let me outline just how our legislation proposes to boost the
protections for the victims of violence:
First and foremost, we must build on our successful effort to provide
more shelter space for battered women and their children. Senator
specter and the appropriations committee has done tremendous work to
boost annual funding for shelters to $78 million--enough for about
200,000 battered women and their children.
Unfortunately, the unmet need for shelter remains significant. For
example, data from six states, which together have about 16% of the
Nation's population had to turn away more than 45,000 battered women
who were seeking shelter because they simply did not have the space.
Extrapolating these figures to the entire nation suggests that about
300,000 battered women and their children are turned away from shelters
every year.
As I said, the current appropriations for shelter space stands at
about $78 million. This legislation boosts this amount to $175 million
over the next four years. The additional $100 million over current
services will close the ``shelter-gap''--of roughly 300,000 battered
women and their children. This will bring us closer to the day when all
battered women will have a safe, secure place when they need it most.
Of course, we phase in this increase--but, it is clear to us that we
must take the basic, fundamental step if we are to protect these
victims of violence.
As I said, we must also provide women with the assistance necessary
so that they can get access to help from our justice system. We do so,
in some clear and common sense ways, such as:
Re-authorizing the expiring program to provide about $1 million per
year for victim/witness counselors in federal court; as Senators
Wellstone and Moseley-Braun have recognized, women should not have to
chose between showing up at court to make sure her abuser is punished
and losing her job--so, this legislation includes their proposal to
extend the protections of the Family & Medical Leave Act to the victims
of domestic violence;
Continuing the national Domestic Violence Hotline (at a cost of
about $2 million per year); and
Developing a national network of trained, volunteer attorneys who
will help each of the nearly 100,000 women who, each year, call the
national hotline for help.
The other component of our plan to aid the victims of domestic
violence is to target what I refer to as the ``catch-22'' problems.
Senator Murray has identified one source of just such a ``Catch-
22''--the fact that some insurance companies and plans deny women
health, disability, property or life insurance protections because the
woman is a victim of domestic violence.
In starkest terms, this forces a woman to chose between reporting--
and trying to end--the violence she is suffering or her children's
health care.
This must end--we must pass Senator Murray's proposal, included in
this legislation, to protect the victims from abuse from insurance
discrimination.
Let me also remind my colleagues that in the original Violence
Against Women Act we took bi-partisan action to end another such
insidious ``choice.'' In 1994, we worked out provisions so battered
immigrant women--whose ability to stay in the country was dependent on
their husbands--would not have to chose: stay in America and continue
to get beaten or leave their husbands, end the abuse, but have to leave
America (perhaps even without their children.)
While we had fixed some aspects of this problem in 1994, there remain
other aspects of immigration law which leave a woman with just such a
horrible, unfair and immoral choice. With Senator Kennedy, we have
worked to include in this legislation several of these corrections.
I urge my colleagues to support--and even build upon--our efforts to
put an end to these real problems.
Reducing Violence Against Children
A third area where this legislation seeks action is on reducing
violence against children. As my colleagues know, households where the
wife is beaten are much more likely to also be home to child abuse and
neglect. In addition, the research findings are clear--children who
witness violence are much more likely to repeat the cycle when they are
adults and they have a wife and children.
Here, our legislation proposes to continue two long-standing
programs--
Resources to serve runaway and homeless youth who are victims of
sexual abuse; and
The resources provided for Court-Appointed Special Advocates and
special child abuse training for court personnel through the Victims of
Child Abuse Act (originally co-sponsored by Senator Thurmond and myself
in 1990.)
The current appropriations for all these programs total about $25
million--we propose to increase that annual amount by about $10
million.
Improving Research and Training
The remaining area targeted by the Violence Against Women Act--two
includes several efforts to help train and educate those already on the
front-lines of the battle against violence against women.
Senator Boxer has recognized that one of the leading reasons why
women enter hospital emergency rooms is because they were beaten at the
hands of a man. So, this bill, includes her proposal to increase the
number of health professionals who are trained in the identification,
treatment and referral of victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault.
Over the past few years, I have worked with several corporations
(including, DuPont, Polaroid, Liz Claiborne, and The Body Shop) who
have begun their own workplace initiatives--everything from 24-hour
assistance hotlines for their employees, training to help managers
better recognize domestic violence, and even comprehensive employee
assistance efforts.
Helping other companies start or improve--again, on their own
initiative--
[[Page S5329]]
such anti-violence efforts is the reason this legislation includes a
national workplace clearinghouse on violence against women.
The clearinghouse will provide technical assistance and help
circulate ``best practices'' to companies interested in combating
violence against women.
Another practical problem out in the field relates to the complex
nature of criminal investigations into sexual assault cases. To assist
the cops in the field who face these investigations, this legislation
calls on the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards of
training and practice of forensic examinations following sexual
assaults.
I want to make clear, this legislation does not allow any Federal
dictates--but only some assistance to those in the field.
Finally, this legislation continues the authorization for rape
prevention and education programs. These programs provide public
awareness and education efforts to both teach young women how to
protect themselves from rape and attack, as well as to help build their
self-esteem.
Mr. President, I have just offered the most general outline of the
contents of the Violence Against Women Act--Two. I urge my colleagues
to review this legislation. I am confident they will find this bill a
comprehensive and practical response which will help us meet a goal I
believe is shared by every member of this Senate--making more women
safer.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle in introducing the Biden-Specter ``Violence
Against Women Act II'' (VAWA II), a bipartisan effort to continue and
strengthen the many vital Federal programs which work to combat
violence against women. I thank Senator Biden in particular for his
leadership in crafting this important legislation.
Clearly, violence against women knows no social, economic, or
geographic bounds. It affects rich and poor, young and old. Women are
assaulted in their homes, on the streets, in the workplace, and on
campuses. In 1992, I cosponsored the original ``Violence Against Women
Act'' (VAWA), which amended other anti-violence legislation to include
acts of violence against women as crimes. Although it did not pass that
year, we worked hard to include this vital legislation in the 1994
omnibus anti-crime legislation. Since enactment of the Violence Against
Women Act, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked
to ensure that programs under this law are funded adequately.
Domestic violence in particular is an epidemic which VAWA programs
seek to address. Within the last year, 3.9 million American women were
victims of physical abuse and another 20.7 million were verbally or
emotionally abused by their spouse or partner. A recent study found
that the medical costs associated with these attacks amount to over
$857.3 million. In my State of Pennsylvania, more than 500,000 citizens
will be victims of domestic violence each year, and the estimated
medical cost exceeds $326 million. In 1995 and 1996, I held hearings in
Pennsylvania on the issue of domestic violence and violence against
women in general, and have visited battered women's shelters in
Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to see first-hand the kind of physical and
emotional suffering so many women endure.
Within the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, which I chair, Violence Against Women Act
programs received $128.7 million for fiscal year 1998. I have also
supported Violence Against Women Act programs funded within the
Department of Justice, which totaled $270.7 million for fiscal year
1998.
The Biden-Specter VAWA II legislation extends and expands the vital
VAWA programs supported by my Subcommittee. Currently funded at $76.5
million, Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children would double
its authorization in four years. The National Domestic Violence
Hotline, which has received over 120,000 calls since February 1996, is
another successful resource which would receive a substantial increase
in its authorization. The VAWA II proposal would authorize an
additional $15 million over four years for the Rape Prevention and
Education Program, currently at $45 million, and would institute new
coordination between the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to administer the CDC Prevention and Intervention
Research to Combat Violence Against Women.
The Biden-Specter VAWA II legislation also includes provisions to
address the issue of violence against women on college campuses across
the country. Recognizing the grave importance of battling this problem
in a targeted manner, I introduced the ``Campus Crime Disclosure Act of
1998'' (S. 2100) on May 20, 1998. Sexual assaults throughout the United
States, including sexual assaults on campuses, are on the rise.
Independent research and studies show that 20 percent of college-aged
women will be victims of sexual crimes at some point in their
postsecondary academic career. Studies also show that rape remains the
most underreported violent crime in America, with approximately one in
every six rapes reported to police. The Campus Crime Disclosure Act,
tightens existing campus security law to discourage higher educational
institutions from the underreporting of offenses covered by the 1990
Campus Security Act.
I have also continuously worked to ensure that women receive the
benefit of the Federal investment into public health programs. I helped
establish the Public Health Service's Office of Women's Health in 1991,
which develops, coordinates, and stimulates women's health programs and
activities across all Federal agencies. Funding for this program has
increased from $450,000 in fiscal year 1991 to $12.5 million in fiscal
year 1998. Even in an era of constrained spending, these expenditures
are well worthwhile on this important subject.
I believe that by the passage of legislation such as the Biden-
Specter Violence Against Women Act II, we are on the right track to
helping women to combat the incidence of domestic violence, and
victimization in general. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring
this important legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1993,
violence against women had reached a crisis point. The epidemic had
spread through every community, across every ethnic group, and did not
discriminate based on income, or age.
In 1994, Congress responded to this crisis. The enactment of the
Violence Against Women Act in 1994 established a national strategy for
dealing with this crisis. No longer would this kind of violence be
tolerated. Congress made violence against women a federal crime and
threw the weight of the federal government behind efforts to end this
violence.
Senator Biden was instrumental in drafting the original VAWA. I am
grateful for his efforts in the past and have always appreciated his
work on behalf of this issue. I also want to thank Senator Specter for
his efforts to funding these important programs. I have worked with him
on the Appropriations Committee and have experienced first hand the
benefits of having him on my side on an important family violence issue
in the 1998 Labor, HHS Appropriations bill.
Enactment of VAWA in 1994 for me is one of my top legislative
accomplishments. I know that we made a difference. I know that
providing the resources to help women who are victims of violence seek
safety and justice has saved hundreds of lives. I have visited battered
women's shelters and talked to many advocates who tell me how important
VAWA is. Reauthorization of this historic act must be a priority of
this Congress. We can build on the success of VAWA and work to end
violence against women.
I want to thank Senator Biden for working with me to include a
prohibition against insurance discrimination in this legislation. I
find this practice of discriminating against victims of domestic
violence offensive and outrageous. To victimize a woman twice is
inexcusable. Insurance policies that deny women health insurance or
homeowners insurance simply because they have been victims of domestic
violence can no longer be tolerated. To say that a victim of domestic
violence engages in high risk behavior similar to a sky
[[Page S5330]]
diver or race car driver is beyond comprehension. Enactment of VAWA
reauthorization legislation will end this practice.
Believe me, insurance discrimination is a reality. I know of several
cases, including one in my own state of Washington, where an insurance
company refused to honor its obligation because the loss was the result
of a domestic violence situation. There are many more documented cases
of discrimination. Insurance companies should be ashamed of this kind
of practice. Today we have a means to end it.
Enactment of this reauthorization legislation is an important step.
But, it is only part of the solution. We must do more. We can help
ensure that services are available to protect women and resources to
local law enforcement to deal with the epidemic. However, the only real
solution to ending domestic violence is economic security and stability
for the woman. VAWA offers temporary solutions, but long term solutions
require tearing down economic barriers for these women. Work place
discrimination, lack of affordable child care, housing shortages,
punitive welfare requirements, inability to change a Social Security
number are all examples of these barriers.
Removing the economic barriers for victims of domestic violence is
our next great challenge. I have been working with advocates in the
State of Washington on legislation that would serve to end the economic
sanctions many victims face.
But, first we do need to ensure the immediate safety of these women
and their children. We need to provide resources to law enforcement to
protect women and we need to guarantee that the courts treat offenders
as violent criminals. The legislation that we will be introducing today
accomplishes these goals.
This is one piece of legislation that will make a difference.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I call upon my colleagues to
support the Violence Against Women Act of 1998 which we introduce
today.
Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women in the
United States. Every 9 seconds, a woman is physically abused by her
husband or boyfriend. 42 percent of all murdered women are killed by
current or ex-partners. Approximately 95 percent of the victims of
domestic violence are women. More than 3 million children witness acts
of domestic violence every year.
In 1994, Congress passed the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA). Under VAWA, the Department of Justice awarded over $483 million
under to the states for domestic violence programs. The largest portion
of the money goes toward ``STOP'' grants, which bring together police,
prosecutors, counselors, shelter providers and other organizations to
develop coordinated services for women dealing with domestic violence.
These funds make a difference in women's lives. My home State of
California has received more than $46 million under VAWA, plus an
additional $19 million for battered women's shelters and services.
With VAWA funds, Los Angeles County increased the number of shelters
from 18 in 1994 to 25 shelters today, adding 200 additional shelter
beds for women and children. One organization, the 1736 Family Crisis
center, opened a new shelter in large part due to VAWA funds. The
Valley Oasis shelter in the high dessert expanded its number of beds
significantly, again due in large part to VAWA. Throughout California,
VAWA helped fund more than 77 domestic violence shelters.
In California, in fiscal year 1998 alone, VAWA provided: $875,000 to
fund domestic violence and children's services such as counseling,
shelters, and safety planning; $1.8 million for specialized domestic
violence units in local law enforcement agencies; $2.7 million to fund
prosecution units that specifically handle domestic violence cases; and
$1.2 million for its multi-disciplinary sexual assault response team
victim advocate project, which brings together police officers,
doctors, nurses, advocates, and counselors to respond to victim's needs
within hours of a sexual assault.
VAWA funds sheriffs in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles to
conduct domestic violence training for thousands of law enforcement
officers and for individuals involved in community-oriented policing
(the COPS program) throughout the State. This legislation will help
continue and expand these and other programs across the country.
VAWA II includes important improvements. It encourages training for
health care providers to help them identify the signs of domestic
violence and refer patients to appropriate services. It protects women
from the horrors of ``date-rape'' drugs by placing the drug Rohypnol in
Federal Schedule 1--the strictest level of federal drug penalties and
controls. It improves protections for older women, women with
disabilities, and women on college campuses.
With VAWA II, we are taking the next crucial steps to help keep
American women and children safe. I commend NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund for its leadership on this issue, and the many
organizations that have fought to protect and to provide services for
battered women and their children. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today as an
original co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act II. I commend
Senator Biden for his hard work on this continuing effort to combat
violence against women. I believe we are making great progress as a
nation to make our streets and our world safer by cracking down on
violent crime. This new law represents the continuing Federal effort to
deal with these crucial issues. I am encouraged by the bipartisan
support for this bill. Protecting the lives of women and children
should not be a partisan issue. Both Democrat and Republican members of
the United States Senate are taking a solid stand against the
disgraceful and cowardly crime of domestic violence.
Mr. President, I strongly support this important legislation for
three reasons. First, this bill continues the fight for a safer world
by providing new and continuing grants to improve the criminal justice
system's protections for women and children. Second, it provides
important training for those involved in the response to citizens
abused by domestic violence. Third it expands and strengthens the
services available to victims of violence.
The Violence Against Women Act II is a big step forward in the effort
to keep women, children and communities safe. One of the most critical
components of this bill is the reauthorization of the STOP Grant funds
for vital programs in our states. This allows the states to obtain the
money they need to create and mobilize effective strategies against
violence. In my state of Maryland, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney
General of Maryland created the Family Violence Council to find ways to
reduce and prevent family violence. With the STOP Grant funds Maryland
received through the 1994 Violence Against Crime Act, the Council has
been able to effectively assist a statewide initiative against crime.
This money has been used to help Maryland develop policies and
procedures against domestic violence. It has been used to ensure the
development of the best possible laws to protect victims and hold
abusers accountable. We have coordinated community programs that
protect victims. We have made efforts to break the cycle of violence
between generations. And we have stood together as citizens of Maryland
and said that violence against women is something we cannot and will
not tolerate.
Second, this legislation provides the authorization for money to
train people to respond to domestic abuse. It amends the STOP and Pro-
Arrest grants and makes states and local courts specifically eligible
for funding. These are the same programs that brought police and
prosecutors into the loop of personnel who combat violence toward
women. The bill we are introducing today takes the next vital step. It
expressly targets funds to the courts and helps engage them in the
fight against domestic violence. By educating judicial staff and
officers of the court about the special issues raised by violence
against women, we completed the circle of people who must work in
partnerships to end these crimes. Judges and officers are often the
first people a victim will meet in the criminal system when seeking
legal intervention. The judicial staff are the ones
[[Page S5331]]
who can set the stage for whether or not a victim will proceed with her
claim. This legislation ensures that all personnel in the criminal
justice system are educated and trained to handle cases of domestic
violence. This ensures that the proper support, services and protection
are available to those who need it most.
Finally, I support this bill because of the services it provides for
the victims of these destructive crimes. In 1992, we witnessed a
national travesty. In 1992 the National Domestic Violence Hotline went
out of business. Not because there was no domestic violence. At that
time, the hotline averaged 7.5 calls an hour, 180 calls a day and
65,520 calls a year. The hotline went out of business because it had no
funding. That means lives were lost because our citizens had an
emergency hotline number that no longer worked. That means more
children were beaten and murdered every day who might have been able to
get the help they needed. That means the federal government was not
meeting its duty to stop the deadly cycle of violent crime.
We cannot and must not allow this to happen again. That is why in
1994 we included a new provision in the law to authorize grants to
revive the national hotline. That is why today we are now increasing
and extending authorizations to meet the growing demands on the
Hotline. Today any woman or child with access to a telephone can dial
1-800-799-SAFE and get the help they urgently need from a qualified and
informed professional.
Domestic violence in this country was ignored for far too long before
we passed the first Violence Against Women Act. Annually, at least 2
million children and 2 to 4 million women are abused by the people
closest to them. These statistics truly send home a very strong
message: The most vulnerable members of our society have historically
not been served by our government. These alarming crime rates resound
loudly and should be heard by every legislator elected to Congress.
We must remain keenly aware of the fact that four women a day are
killed at the hands of their batterer. That fifty-seven percent of
children under 12 who are murdered are killed by a parent. That every
fifteen seconds a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend. The
Violence Against Women Act II will continue the effort to combat this
violence toward women. The time is now to act and to continue our
fight. No woman should live in fear that any person will get away with
hurting her or her children. I have stated in the past that if you
intend to harm a woman that you better stay out of my state of
Maryland. I strongly encourage every single member of the Senate to not
only vote for, but to actively support this crucial
legislation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud co-
sponsor of this Violence Against Women Act. I was a co-sponsor of the
original Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and will work hard to see
this Violence Against Women Act pass as well. As you well know my wife
Sheila and I do a lot of work trying to reduce violence in homes. That
is a big priority for us. And the passage of the 1994 Violence Against
Women Act was a first big step and an historical occasion.
It was the culmination of over twenty-five years of hard work by
local and national organizations. It was an acknowledgment that this
kind of violence within families is everybody's business. It was the
public recognition that for all too many women the home, rather than
being a safe place is a very dangerous place. And finally it sent a
clear message that violence against women was a crime that would not be
tolerated. It sent a clear message that we as a nation were committed
to ending violence against women. At that time we thought we were
introducing a comprehensive bill to end violence against women. We have
learned a great deal since the passage of the first Act and with that
knowledge we know we can and must do better. We have also learned that
violence against women is multi-faceted problem that must be addressed
in many ways. While the first Act provided important funding to improve
services to abused women and improve the criminal justice system, the
statistics show we must do more. In my own state of Minnesota, at least
17 women were killed in 1997 by their intimate partners. In that same
year, over 4,000 women and over 5,000 children used domestic violence
shelters in my state. I am sure that the provisions provided in VAWA
allowed so many women to be served. I am sure that the provision in
WAVA allowed law enforcement, in my state and across the country, to
better address cases of domestic abuse. But now we must broaden our
approach to this critical problem.
And so today we introduce the Violence Against Women Act II. This
legislation not only reauthorizes and improves the initial commitment
set forth in VAWA, but also addresses the impact of violence against
women in areas of child visitation, sexual assault prevention,
insurance discrimination, as well as violence in the workplace and on
campuses. The initiatives in this bill, as I'm sure my colleague Joe
Biden will attest, were developed as part of a collaborative effort
with researchers, advocates and service providers alike. Seeing the
problems that victims face on a daily basis, they have helped us to
develop legislation that will assist women who have been victims of
violence.
I have worked hard at addressing the severe economic consequences of
domestic abuse on working women and am proud to say that VAWA II
includes provisions to ensure access to family and medical leave
coverage. With the passage of this Act women will be allowed to be
absent from work so that they can deal with the domestic violence in
their lives. Under this legislation victims of abuse could use family
and medical leave to attend court hearings and go to appointments with
health care providers. In addition this legislation specifies that
unemployment compensation should be provided if employment is
terminated due to domestic abuse. If a woman loses her job because of
the abuse she is experiencing in her home then she will be assured
access to unemployment compensation. In other words, this legislation
addresses the fact that the cycle of violence will not be interrupted
unless victims of abuse are assured of economic security and
independence.
Another facet of domestic violence that has been recognized since the
passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act is the discrimination
that victims of abuse face. I have worked hard at ending discrimination
by insurance companies against victims of abuse and am proud to be able
to say that this issue is well addressed in VAWA II. After years of
work by advocates, encouraging women to come forward and report their
abuse, we now find that they are being discriminated against based on
their status as victims of that abuse. We all know that denying women
access to insurance they need to foster their mobility out of an
abusive situation must be stopped. Under this legislation insurance
companies could no longer discriminate against victims of abuse in any
line of insurance.
And finally, I would just like to mention the provision to provide
safe havens for children. It is time we address the danger that
children and victims of abuse are subjected to during visitation
sessions with former partners. Let us stop further violence from
occurring by providing safe centers for children who are members of
families in which violence is a problem. These centers will provide a
safe environment in which children can visit with their parents without
risk of being exposed to violence in the context of their family
relationships. These centers will also save the lives of mothers by
providing secure and supervised environments where they can drop off
their children to visit with their abusers. Stopping the cycle of
violence means providing safe places for women and children inside and
outside the home.
While we worked hard in the first Violence Against Women Act to make
streets and homes safer for women by investing in law enforcement
initiatives, we have learned that a woman's safety is dependent on her
ability to achieve economic as well as physical security. The measures
that I have mentioned are only some of the pieces that show the
comprehensive nature of this bill. It is a reflection of what we have
learned and the acknowledgment that we can and must do better. The
Violence Against Women Act II is an impressive piece of legislation
that deserves serious attention in this Congress. I look forward to the
hearings
[[Page S5332]]
and debates on this bill and look forward to working on and seeing it
pass.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
S. 2111. A bill to establish the conditions under which the
Bonneville Power Administration and certain Federal agencies may enter
into a memorandum of agreement concerning management of the Columbia/
Snake River Basin, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to appoint
an advisory committee to make recommendations regarding activities
under memorandum of understanding, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
columbia river and snake river legislation
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation to establish the conditions under which certain Federal
agencies may enter into a memorandum of agreement with non-federal
entities concerning management of the Columbia River and Snake River
Basin in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
This bill is not an endorsement of the draft Three Sovereigns
agreement, but arises from ongoing concerns I have about the proposal.
The livelihoods of many Northwest residents are at stake in upcoming
decisions about Columbia River operations, and they deserve a voice in
this process.
The bill formalizes public input to federal agencies involved in the
proposed ``Three Sovereigns'' agreement, or any similar agreement, by
creating an advisory committee representing: local governments;
customers of the Bonneville Power Administration; upstream ports;
fishing interests; shippers; irrigators; environmentalists; forest land
owners and grazers. This committee will advise the federal agencies on
matters to be addressed under the agreement, including the economic and
social impacts of any proposed recommendations.
Currently, two significantly different drafts of a ``Memorandum of
Agreement for Three Sovereigns' Governance of the Columbia River Basin
Ecosystem'' are out for public comment. However, the public comment
process was so ill-defined initially that I had to write one of the
chief proponents of the agreement to request that this process be
better defined. Further, it has been reported to me that at the public
meeting held in Pendleton, Oregon, on the draft agreement, there was no
clerk reporter to record people's comments in detail. This has not
given those who depend on the river system much confidence in their
ability to provide input into any forum established under a Three
Sovereigns' agreement.
Developing a successful regional solution to management of the
Columbia/Snake River system will involve a broad range of stakeholders.
While not a perfect model, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord in California has
been successful, in large part, because the water users and
environmental groups were parties to the Accord. The bill would not,
however, require changes in the draft memorandum of agreement itself,
or impose conditions on the states or the tribes. But it is appropriate
for the Congress to establish certain conditions for federal
participation in any such agreement.
In addition to establishing this advisory committee, the bill
requires each federal agency that is a signatory to the Three
Sovereigns' agreement to publish and make available to the public,
including over the Internet, all scientific data used to formulate
recommendations and all methodologies used to prepare cost-benefit
analyses.
The bill also provides a mechanism to resolve disputes among federal
agencies involved in the Three Sovereigns' agreement. The Director of
the Office of Management and Budget will designate an official who, at
the request of a non-federal party to the agreement, will have the
authority to reconcile differences between the federal agencies on any
issue before the Three Sovereigns. In this manner, the non-federal
signatories are not caught between differing federal agencies.
The Three Sovereigns' agreement, if signed, would establish a process
that is very similar to the statutory obligations of the Northwest
Power Planning Council with respect to fish and wildlife
recommendations. Therefore, the bill requires the Council to report to
the Congress annually on how the recommendations on fish and wildlife
activities under any agreement would be coordinated and reconciled with
the Council's statutory responsibilities.
Finally, to enhance budget coordination among federal agencies
regardless of whether an agreement is entered into, the bill requires
that the President's annual budget proposal include a cross-cut budget
showing proposed spending for activities in the basin by the federal
agencies.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to support
stakeholder involvement in the development of a regional solution to
Columbia and Snake River issues.
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. 2111
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``advisory committee''
means the advisory committee established by the Secretary
under section 2(b).
(2) Columbia/snake river basin.--The term ``Columbia/Snake
River Basin'' means the basin of the Columbia River and Snake
River in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and
Washington.
(3) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council
established under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and
Conservation Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.).
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means--
(A) the Bonneville Power Administration in the Department
of Energy;
(B) the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior;
(C) the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department
of Commerce;
(D) the Army Corps of Engineers in the department of the
Army;
(E) the Forest Service and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture; and
(F) the Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) Memorandum of understanding.--The term ``memorandum of
understanding'' means any written or unwritten agreement
between or among 1 or more of the Federal agencies and 1 or
more State or local government agencies, 1 or more Indian
tribes, or 1 or more private persons or entities--
(A) concerning the manner in which any authority of a
Federal agency under any law is to be exercised within the
Columbia/Snake River Basin; or
(B) for the purpose of formulating recommendations
concerning the manner in which any such authority should be
exercised.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 2. CONDITIONS ON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
(a) In General.--The Bonneville Power Administration or any
other Federal agency, acting individually or with 1 or more
of the other Federal agencies, shall not enter into or
implement a memorandum of understanding unless all of the
conditions stated in this section are met.
(b) Advisory committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C. App.) to advise the Federal agencies with respect
to matters to be addressed under any memorandum of
understanding, including the economic and social impacts of
proposed activities or recommendations.
(2) Membership.--The advisory committee shall be composed
of--
(A) 1 representative of the large industrial customers
served directly by the Bonneville Power Administration;
(B) 1 representative of the preference power customers that
purchase power from the Bonneville Power Administration;
(C) 1 representative of non-Federal utilities that have
hydropower generation on the Columbia River or Snake River;
(D) 1 irrigator that receives water diverted from a Federal
water project on the Snake River;
(E) 1 irrigator that receives water diverted from a Federal
water project on the Columbia River or a tributary of the
Columbia River (other than a tributary that is also a
tributary of the Snake River);
(F) 1 private forest land owner;
(G) 1 representative of the commercial fishing industry;
(H) 1 representative of the sport fishing industry;
(I) 1 representative of the environmental community;
(J) 1 representative of a river port upstream of Bonneville
Dam;
(K) 1 representative of shippers that ship from places
upstream of any lock on the Columbia River;
(L) 1 representative of persons that hold Federal grazing
permits; and
[[Page S5333]]
(M) 1 representative of county governments from each of the
States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
(3) Manner of appointment.--The members of the advisory
committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior
from among persons nominated by the Governors of the States
of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
(4) Chairperson.--At the first meeting of the advisory
committee, the members shall select 1 of the members to serve
as chairperson, on a simple majority vote.
(5) Compensation.--A member of the advisory committee shall
serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for
travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in
the performance of duties of the advisory committee.
(6) Support.--The Secretary shall--
(A) provide such office space, furnishings and equipment as
may be required to enable the advisory committee to perform
its functions; and
(B) furnish the advisory committee with such staff,
including clerical support, as the advisory committee may
require.
(7) Opportunity to formulate and present views.--The
advisory committee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity
to--
(A) attend each meeting convened under the memorandum of
understanding; and
(B) formulate and present its views on each matter
addressed at the meeting.
(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the activities of the
advisory committee a total of $1,000,000 during the period in
which the advisory committee is in existence.
(9) Termination.--The advisory committee shall terminate on
termination of the memorandum of understanding.
(c) Reconciliation of Differences.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall designate an official
who, at the request of a non-Federal party to any memorandum
of understanding, shall have authority to reconcile
differences between the Federal agencies on any issue
relating to activities addressed under the memorandum of
understanding.
(d) Public Availability of Data and Methodologies.--Each
Federal agency shall publish and make available to the
public, through use of the Internet and by other means--
(1) all scientific data that are prepared by or made
available to the Federal agency for use for the purpose of
formulating recommendations regarding any matter addressed
under any memorandum of understanding; and
(2) all methodologies that are prepared by or made
available to the Federal agency for the purpose of assessing
the cost or benefit of any activity addressed under any
memorandum of understanding.
(e) Reporting by the Council.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days before the
beginning of each fiscal year, the Council shall submit to
Congress a report that describes how the recommendations on
fish and wildlife activities under any memorandum of
understanding during the fiscal year will be reconciled and
coordinated with activities of the Council under the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Act (16
U.S.C. 839 et seq.).
(2) Cooperation.--Each Federal agency that is a party to a
memorandum of understanding shall provide the Council such
information and cooperation as the Council may request to
enable the Council to make determinations necessary to
prepare a report under paragraph (1).
SEC. 3. BUDGET INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--The President shall include in each budget
of the United States Government for a fiscal year submitted
under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a
separate section that states for each Federal agency the
amount of budget authority and outlays proposed to be
expended in the Columbia/Snake River Basin (including a pro
rata share of overhead expenses) for the fiscal year.
(b) Itemization.--The statement of budget authority and
outlays for the Columbia/Snake River Basin under subsection
(a) for each Federal agency shall be stated in the same
degree of specificity for each category of expense as in the
statement of budget authority and outlays for the entire
Federal agency elsewhere in the budget.
____________________