[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.

                          ____________________