[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11582-S11585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 2555. A bill to deauthorize the Blunt Reservoir feature of the 
Oahe Irrigation Project, South Dakota, and direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the reservoir 
to the Commission of Schools and Public Lands of the State of South 
Dakota, on the condition that the current preferential leaseholders 
shall have an option to purchase the parcels from the Commission; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 the blunt reservoir land transfer act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
restore to the original owners and operators, the Blunt Reservoir lands 
in Sully County, South Dakota. The time has come for Congress finally 
to return these lands to those who owned them and worked them before 
they were acquired for the Oahe project. It is clear the lands will 
never be used for their intended purpose and it makes no sense for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to continue to manage them with the expectation 
that someday this project ever will be constructed.
  The history of this project has been one of contention and debate 
within South Dakota and the federal government. One of the promises 
made to South Dakota when the Pick-Sloan dams were authorized was that 
we would be compensated for hosting the dams with the development of 
abundant irrigation. The centerpiece of that promise was the Oahe 
Irrigation project, which was to have expanded the agricultural 
potential of central South Dakota. In anticipation of constructing the 
Oahe Irrigation project, the Bureau of Reclamation acquired about 
25,000 acres of land in Sully County to be used as a reservoir to store 
water for the irrigation project and for a canal from Pierre to carry 
the water. Despite taking this initial step, the project became very 
controversial and, as a result, has never been built. Consequently, 
instead of constructing the Blunt Reservoir feature of the project, the 
Bureau of Reclamation has leased these lands to the original owners and 
operators on a preferential basis and to others on a non-preferential 
basis, while waiting to see if Congress and the Administration would 
ever provide the funding necessary to build the project.
  What has become clear during that time is that the Blunt Reservoir 
feature of the Oahe project never will be completed. It is senseless to 
continue to ask the Bureau of Reclamation to manage these lands. We 
should recognize this fact and take the steps necessary to return the 
lands to the county tax rolls by restoring them to their former owners 
and operators.
  Those who have sacrificed their lands to this ill-fated project 
should no longer be forced to live with the uncertainty of wondering if 
they will be forever renting the lands they once owned. One farmer 
whose family owned Blunt Reservoir land for four generations recently 
visited me in Washington and told me that under their current 
circumstances there is little incentive to invest in improving the 
land. Without the security of ownership, farmers feel more like hired 
hands than permanent stewards. At times like these, when the very act 
of

[[Page S11583]]

farming is a precarious pursuit, we should pursue every means of 
providing stability to our producers.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation to deauthorize the 
Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota, 
and to transfer to the South Dakota School and Public Lands Commission 
the preferentially-leased lands. The Commission, in turn, will be 
required to offer the lands for sale to the original landowners or 
operators, or their heirs. The legislation also will transfer to the 
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department the lands associated with 
this project that are currently leased on a non-preferential basis. The 
Department will use the lands to help mitigate the wildlife habitat 
that was inundated by the Pick-Sloan project.
  Under my legislation, the preferential lessees will be able to 
purchase the Blunt Reservoir lands they currently are leasing for cash, 
at a 10% discount from the assessed value, or for a contract-for-deed 
at the full assessed value. The land also could be purchased with a 
contract-for-deed if the purchaser makes a down payment of 20% of the 
value of the land, and pays the balance over 30 years at 3% interest 
per year. Existing preferential lessees would have 10 years from the 
date of enactment to decide to purchase the lands, during which time 
they could continue to lease the lands from the School and Public Lands 
Commission at the current lease rates. Money gained from the sale of 
these lands by the School and Public Lands Commission will support 
education in South Dakota, which has been adversely affected by the 
replacement of property tax revenue with the perennially inadequate 
federal payments-in-lieu-of-taxes for these lands and for the Pick-
Sloan project lands. It is my hope that in the near future, similar 
legislation can be developed for the lessees using the Pierre Canal 
lands that addresses their objectives to purchase the land and the 
objectives of those who hope to maintain the option of someday 
developing an irrigation project for the area.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to present this 
legislation to the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting its enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2555

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

     SECTION 1. DEAUTHORIZATION OF THE BLUNT RESERVOIR FEATURE OF 
                   THE OAHE IRRIGATION PROJECT, SOUTH DAKOTA; 
                   CONVEYANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Blunt reservoir feature.--The term ``Blunt Reservoir 
     feature'' means the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe 
     Irrigation Project authorized by section 9 of the Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665), as part of the 
     Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Commission of Schools and Public Lands of the State of South 
     Dakota.
       (3) Preferential leaseholder.--The term ``preferential 
     leaseholder'' means a leaseholder of a parcel of land who 
     is--
       (A) the person from whom the Secretary purchased the parcel 
     for use in connection with the Blunt Reservoir feature;
       (B) the original operator of the parcel at the time of 
     acquisition; or
       (C) a descendant of a person described in subparagraph (A) 
     or (B).
       (4) Preferential lease parcel.--The term ``preferential 
     lease parcel'' means a parcel of land that--
       (A) was purchased by the Secretary for use in connection 
     with the Blunt Reservoir feature; and
       (B) is under lease to a preferential leaseholder as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation.
       (b) Deauthorization.--The Blunt Reservoir feature is 
     deauthorized.
       (c) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey all of the 
     preferential lease parcels to the Commission, without 
     consideration, on the condition that the Commission honor the 
     purchase option provided to preferential leaseholders under 
     subsection (d).
       (d) Purchase Option.--
       (1) In general.--A preferential leaseholder shall have an 
     option to purchase from the Commission the preferential lease 
     parcel that is the subject of the lease.
       (2) Terms.--A preferential leaseholder may elect to 
     purchase a parcel on 1 of the following terms:
       (A) Cash purchase for the amount that is equal to--
       (i) the value of the parcel determined under paragraph (4); 
     minus
       (ii) 10 percent of that value.
       (B) Installment purchase, with 20 percent of the value of 
     the parcel determined under paragraph (4) to be paid on the 
     date of purchase and the remainder to be paid over 30 years 
     at 3 percent annual interest.
       (3) Option exercise period.--
       (A) In general.--A preferential leaseholder shall have 
     until the date that is 10 years after the date of the 
     conveyance under subsection (c) to exercise the option under 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Continuation of leases.--Until the date specified in 
     subparagraph (A), a preferential leaseholder shall be 
     entitled to continue to lease from the Commission, under the 
     same terms and conditions as under the lease as in effect as 
     of the date of conveyance, the parcel leased by the 
     preferential leaseholder.
       (4) Valuation.--
       (A) In general.--The value of a preferential lease parcel 
     shall be determined to be, at the election of the 
     preferential leaseholder--
       (i) the amount that is equal to 110 percent of the amount 
     that is equal to--

       (I) the number of acres of the preferential lease parcel; 
     multiplied by
       (II) the amount of the per-acre assessment of adjacent 
     parcels made by the Director of Equalization of the county in 
     which the preferential lease parcel is situated; or

       (ii) the amount of a valuation of the preferential lease 
     parcel for agricultural use made by an independent appraiser.
       (B) Cost of appraisal.--If a preferential leaseholder 
     elects to use the method of valuation described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), the cost of the valuation shall be paid 
     by the preferential leaseholder.
       (e) Conveyance of Nonpreferentially Leased Parcels.--The 
     Secretary shall convey to the South Dakota Department of 
     Game, Fish, and Parks the Blunt Reservoir parcels that are 
     leased on a nonpreferential basis. These lands shall be used 
     by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks for 
     the purpose of mitigating the wildlife habitat that was lost 
     as a result of the development of the Pick-Sloan project.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 2556. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the 
Social Security Act, the Wagner-Peyser Act, and the Federal-State 
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 to improve the method by 
which Federal unemployment taxes are collected and to improve the 
method by which funds are provided from Federal unemployment tax 
revenue for employment security administration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


               employment security financing act of 1998

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Employment 
Security Financing Act of 1998, a bill which seeks to reform the 
unemployment insurance program by giving states greater control over 
the management of their unemployment insurance system.
  Specifically, under this legislation, beginning January 1, 2000, 
states would begin to collect Federal unemployment taxes, or ``FUTA 
taxes,'' in addition to the state unemployment taxes that they 
currently collect. The legislation also repeals the ``temporary'' 0.2 
percent FUTA surtax in 2004, restructures the accounts in the 
Unemployment Trust Fund and reduces paperwork for employers. Most 
importantly, this legislation will return to the states the funding 
necessary to effectively operate their employment security systems and 
services.
  Reform of the unemployment insurance program is essential to a state 
like Ohio which receives less than 39 cents of each employer FUTA 
dollar. This shortfall in funding has led to the closing of 22 local 
employment service offices during the past four years. In order to make 
up for the shortfall of FUTA dollars, the Ohio legislature has 
appropriated more than $50 million during the last four years to pay 
for employment services, something that should be funded by FUTA 
dollars. This appropriation of state tax dollars forces Ohio taxpayers 
to pay twice to fund unemployment services.
  Ohio is not alone--since 1990, less than 59 cents of every employer 
FUTA tax dollar has been returned to the states for funding employment 
security. As a result, $2 billion sits in Federal accounts rather than 
being used as it was intended--to help put people back to work.
  This is an important issue that Congress needs to consider. While 
this legislation obviously will not be considered before adjournment, I 
look forward to working with Representative Clay Shaw, the House 
sponsor of this bill, on legislation that can meet the budget rules, 
yet still achieve necessary reform of the unemployment insurance 
program.

[[Page S11584]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 2557. A bill to authorize construction and operation of the Valley 
Forge Museum of the American Revolution at Valley Forge National 
Historical Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


       valley forge museum of the american revolution act of 1998

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Valley Forge 
Museum of the American Revolution Act of 1998, which authorizes the 
Secretary of Interior to enter into an agreement with the private, non-
profit Valley Forge Historical Society to construct and operate this 
museum and visitor center within the boundaries of Valley Forge 
National Historical Park.
  I have worked closely with Congressman Weldon on this legislation, 
and the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution Act included in 
the Omnibus National Parks and Public lands Act currently being 
considered in the House of Representatives.
  This museum will combine the holdings of the Valley Forge National 
Historical Park and the Valley Forge Historical Society, making it the 
largest collection of Revolutionary War era artifacts in the world. The 
Valley Forge Historical Society, established in 1918, has a long 
history of service to the park, and has amassed one of the best 
collections of artifacts, art, books, and documents relating to the 
1777-1778 encampment of George Washington's Continental Army at Valley 
Forge, the American Revolution, and the American colonial era. Their 
collection is currently housed in a facility that is inadequate to 
properly maintain, preserve, and display the Society's ever-growing 
collection. Construction of a new facility will rectify this situation.
  This project is supported by local officials, and a new facility is 
part of Valley Forge National Historical Park's General Management 
Plan, which has identified inadequacies in the park's current visitor 
center and calls for the development of a new or significantly 
renovated museum and visitor center. The museum will educate an 
estimated 500,000 visitors a year about the critical events surrounding 
the birth of our nation. Currently, there is no museum in the United 
States dedicated to the American Revolution, and I believe it is 
important that Congress provide the authorization to bring this 
worthwhile project to fruition.
  This legislation authorizes the Valley Forge Historical Society to 
operate the museum in cooperation with the Secretary of Interior. This 
project will directly support the historical, educational, and 
interpretive activities and needs of Valley Forge National Historical 
Park and the Valley Forge Historical Society while combining two 
outstanding museum collections.
  Mr. President, this legislation holds enormous potential for 
visitors, scholars, and researchers to the park. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2558. A bill to provide economic security for battered women, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 Battered Women's Economic security act

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, Senator Wellstone and I are 
introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This 
legislation was developed in order to address the numerous economic 
obstacles facing victims of domestic and family violence as they try to 
escape this violence.
  I know that Senator Wellstone joins me in applauding Senator Biden's 
efforts in crafting legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act programs. Senator Biden developed a bipartisan bill to build 
on the success of VAWA and expand those programs aimed at the immediate 
needs of victims of domestic violence.
  The legislation we are introducing today takes the next step. As a 
result of VAWA and the increased federal commitment to addressing the 
domestic violence crisis, we now have an infrastructure in place that 
helps the community respond to this violence. VAWA has been a success 
in helping local law enforcement, and the courts, prosecute those who 
batter and abuse women. VAWA provides a strong law enforcement 
component as well as services to provide immediate and emergency 
assistance to victims. But, the road to recovery is much longer and 
much harder because of economic barriers.
  As I learned last year in my efforts to maintain a safety net for 
victims of family violence, often times it is basic economics that trap 
women and children in violent homes and relationships. Economic 
barriers threaten the success of VAWA and work to maintain the threat 
of violence.
  We all know the cost of domestic and family violence. But, there is a 
much greater cost to the community that is often overlooked. How many 
police officers have been caught in the cross fire when responding to 
domestic and family violence calls? How many innocent children grow up 
in a violent home and bring this violence into the classroom or future 
relationships? We have made a commitment to ending domestic violence, 
however, in order to succeed we must tear down the economic barriers.
  We have insurance policies that discriminate against victims of 
domestic violence. Some insurance companies think that victims of 
domestic violence are engaging in high risk behavior similar to a race 
car driver or sky diver. Life, homeowners, auto and health insurance 
are essential elements of economic security. Eliminating this 
protection for victims of domestic violence threatens their ability to 
achieve economic independence. It also discourages women from coming 
forward and reporting this violence and abuse for fear that their 
insurance company will use it against them.
  Don't let anyone tell you this does not happen. I can give many 
examples of insurance discrimination faced by victims of domestic 
violence. Just ask Kaddas Bolduc from Washington, whose estranged 
husband burned down her home. Her insurance company refused to honor 
her homeowner's policy as they decided this was not arson, but a 
violent response to the break up of a relationship. Her husband had 
been released from jail shortly before the fire. She was told that she 
had no claim and no way to rebuild her home. I would have to say that 
this is a serious economic barrier that must come down.
  I have met with many domestic violence advocates in Washington and 
have listen to their concerns about finding long term security for 
victims. I have heard horror stories about the lack of affordable 
housing or the inability of victims to secure safe housing. Many 
landlords refuse to rent to a victim for fear that the violence will 
follow her. Many women do not have a lease or mortgage in their name. 
They have no real credit history and certainly cannot prove that they 
were reliable tenants. As a result they have a difficult time finding 
housing. Shelters are simply temporary solutions and in many 
communities the need far outweighs the availability of emergency 
shelter space.
  We need to expand Section 8 opportunities for victims of domestic 
violence in order to ensure that they can find long term housing. A 
safe, affordable home is often a goal that many battered women are 
unable to achieve. Many women end up back in violent homes or 
relationships as they have no where else to go. In order to end 
domestic and family violence we must provide greater housing assistance 
and opportunities to those who have suffered this violence.
  Currently, there are many barriers to work for victims of domestic 
violence. Safe, affordable child care would be the greatest barrier and 
I believe the bonus provisions included in this bill will provide the 
incentives to the states to address this problem. We need to expand 
child care options and benefits for victims of domestic violence, but 
we cannot do it at the expense of other low income women an families 
struggling to stay off of welfare. I believe we need to work with the 
states in addressing the unique needs of victims of domestic violence.

  Unfortunately, the violence can follow women into the work place 
which jeopardizes their health and safety as well as their job. Many 
women are unable to take leave to seek relief in the courts. They do 
not have the luxury of taking time off to file for a restraining order 
or to testify against their abuser. They cannot take sick leave to seek 
medical attention or treatment. Many employers simply do not offer or 
provide the flexibility that these women

[[Page S11585]]

need. Included in this legislation we are introducing today is the 
Employment Protection for Battered Women introduced by Senator 
Wellstone. I believe these provisions will help battered women maintain 
their jobs without jeopardizing their safety.
  But when the threat of violence becomes so great as to jeopardize the 
woman and her coworkers she must be able to leave the job immediately. 
Unfortunately, many states refuse to allow these women the ability to 
collect unemployment compensation as they rule that she left on her own 
accord. However, many women are forced to leave a job and should not be 
penalized because they are being harassed and have been subjected to 
abuse in the past. Our legislation includes provisions that would allow 
a victim of domestic violence to collect unemployment compensation when 
they are forced to leave their job due to the thereat of continued 
violence.
  I have also heard first hand from advocates who have been working 
with women in an effort to change their Social Security number in order 
to flee a violent abuser. It is impossible to secure employment without 
giving out one's Social Security number. It is impossible to rent an 
apartment or even establish credit without a Social Security number. 
Yet giving out this number can make it easier for an abusive husband or 
boyfriend to track a woman down. The ability to change their Social 
Security number becomes the difference between economic dependency and 
economic independence. Yet it is easier to change one's number based on 
superstition than it is because one is trying to flee a violent 
relationship.
  The Office of Victims Advocacy at the Washington State AG's office 
told me that it can take as long as six months to change a Social 
Security number and that is in a case where there was a clear need to 
change the victim's identity. But, in most cases it takes more than 12 
months and for some it may never happen. The Social Security 
Administration must work to correct this threat. Included in our 
legislation is a requirement that the Social Security Administration 
expedite requests from victims of domestic violence for a change in 
their Social Security number in order to achieve economic independency 
faster and safer.
  The legislation is the result of months of drafting and working with 
domestic violence advocactes to address the many economic barriers 
facing victims. In working to strengthen the Family Violence Option in 
welfare reform, I became painfully aware of the barriers that punitive 
welfare reform provisions had created. But I realized that this was 
only one of many barriers.
  VAWA took the first step in dedicating federal resources to 
addressing the domestic violence crisis, but its whole focus is law 
enforcement and emergency response. We need to go to the next level to 
truly end violence against women. We need to address these economic 
needs and problems. I believe our legislation meets this test and will 
eliminate many of the economic barriers that trap women and children in 
violent homes and relationships.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 2560. A bill to authorize electronic issuance and recognition of 
migratory bird hunting and conservation stamps; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                       electronic duck stamp act

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the 
distinguished senior Senator from the State of Mississippi and my 
colleague on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Senator 
Cochran, in introducing the Electronic Duck Stamp Act. I believe it is 
legislation all of our colleagues should support.
  The Electronic Duck Stamp Act would authorize electronic issuance of 
the federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp. A number of 
states are setting up electronic licensing systems so their hunters can 
purchase all their state hunting licenses at one time and in one 
location. This bill will help coordinate federal and state licensing 
systems and provide sportsmen and sportswomen the convenience of 
getting all their hunting licenses, federal and state, in one location. 
I believe this added convenience will increase ``duck stamp'' sales. 
This, in turn, will increase the total funds deposited into the 
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the purchase of suitable habitat 
for migratory birds. These funds are essential to the long-term 
survival of our migratory bird populations.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
worthwhile legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text 
of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2560

       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 ``Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC ISSUANCE OF MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND 
                   CONSERVATION STAMPS.

       Section 2 of the Act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718b), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Electronic Issuance of Stamps.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Actual stamp.--The term `actual stamp' means a 
     printed paper stamp that is issued and sold through a means 
     in use on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Electronic stamp.--The term `electronic stamp' means 
     a representation of a stamp issued electronically under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Stamp.--The term `stamp' means a migratory bird 
     hunting and conservation stamp required by the first section.
       ``(2) Authorization.--The Department of the Interior, the 
     Postal Service, or, subject to paragraph (7), a State or 
     person authorized under subsection (a) to sell stamps, may 
     issue representations of stamps electronically by endorsement 
     affixed to licenses issued at points of sale or through other 
     electronic media.
       ``(3) Size of electronic stamps.--An electronic stamp shall 
     be of an area that is less than \3/4\, or more than 1\1/2\, 
     of the area of an actual stamp.
       ``(4) Confirmation number and other identifying 
     information.--
       ``(A) Confirmation number.--An electronic stamp shall be 
     assigned a unique confirmation number.
       ``(B) Other identifying information.--Each issuer of an 
     electronic stamp and unique confirmation number shall print 
     on the electronic stamp appropriate information that is 
     sufficient to permit Federal, State, and other law 
     enforcement officers to verify the electronic stamp, 
     confirmation number, and sales transaction with the licensee.
       ``(5) Delivery of actual stamps.--An entity that issues 
     electronic stamps shall have financial responsibility for the 
     sale, delivery, and mailing of the corresponding actual stamp 
     to the licensee within 14 calendar days after the date of 
     issuance of the electronic stamp.
       ``(6) Recognition of electronic stamps.--
       ``(A) In general.--An electronic stamp and its unique 
     confirmation number shall--
       ``(i) subject to the requirements of the first section, be 
     given full recognition during the period beginning on the 
     date of issuance of the electronic stamp until the date on 
     which the corresponding actual stamp is received; and
       ``(ii) expire and be replaced by the actual stamp upon 
     receipt of the actual stamp, but not later than 14 calendar 
     days after the date of issuance of the electronic stamp, if 
     the licensee complies with the requirements of the first 
     section.
       ``(7) Plan.--
       ``(A) Submission to secretary of the interior.--A State or 
     person may participate in the issuance of an electronic stamp 
     under this subsection only if the Secretary of the Interior 
     has approved a plan submitted by the State or person that 
     provides for--
       ``(i) a satisfactory accounting process for the collection 
     and transfer of revenue;
       ``(ii) distribution and law enforcement verification of the 
     electronic transaction; and
       ``(iii) the subsequent distribution of the actual stamp.
       ``(B) Action by the secretary.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of submission of a plan under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary of the Interior shall--
       ``(i) review the request of the State or person and all 
     accompanying documentation and other information available to 
     the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) make a determination to approve or disapprove the 
     plan.
       ``(8) Electronic collection of electronic stamp sales 
     revenue.--Not later than 14 days after the date of issuance 
     of an electronic stamp under this subsection, a State or 
     person shall transfer to the Department of the Interior or a 
     designated agent the revenue collected from the issuance by 
     means of an electronic fund transfer method approved by, and 
     compatible with, the accounting system of the Department of 
     the Interior or the designated agent.''.




                          ____________________