[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2730-S2737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Akaka, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 622. A bill to enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 the hate crimes prevention act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator 
Spector, Senator Wyden, Senator Schumer, and Senator Smith in 
introducing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. This bill has the 
support of the Department of Justice, constitutional scholars, law 
enforcement officials, and many organizations with a long and 
distinguished history of involvement in combating hate crimes, 
including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti-
Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and 
Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women Legal Defense 
and Education Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence 
and The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force.
  Congress has a responsibility to act this year to deal with the 
festering problem of hate crimes. The silence of Congress on this basic 
issue has been deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting 
like we don't care--that somehow this fundamental issue is just a state 
problem. It isn't. It's a national problem, and it's an outrage that 
Congress has been A.W.O.L.
  Few crimes tear more deeply at the fabric of our society than hate 
crimes. These despicable acts injure the victim, the community, and the 
nation itself. The brutal murders in Texas, Wyoming, and most recently 
in Alabama have shocked the conscience of the nation. Sadly, these 
three crimes are only the tip of the hate crimes iceberg. We need to do 
more--much more--to combat them.
  I'm convinced that if Congress acted today, and President Clinton 
signed our bill tomorrow, we'd have fewer hate crimes in all the days 
that follow.
  Current federal laws are clearly inadequate. It's an embarrassment 
that we haven't already acted to close these glaring gaps in present 
law. For too long, the federal government has been forced to fight hate 
crimes with one hand tied behind its back.
  Our bill does not undermine the role of the states in investigating 
and prosecuting hate crimes. States will continue to take the lead. But 
the full power of federal law should also be available to investigate, 
prosecute, and punish these crimes.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 addresses two serious 
deficiencies in the principal federal hate crimes statutes, 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 245, which applies to hate crimes committed on the basis of race, 
color, religion, or national origin.
  First, the statute requires the government to prove that the 
defendant committed an offense not only because of the victim's race, 
color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the victim's 
participation in one of six narrowly defined ``federally protected 
activities'' enumerated in the statute. These activities are: (A) 
enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; (B) 
participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility or activity 
provided or administered by any state or local government; (C) applying 
for or enjoying employment; (D) serving in a state court as a grand or 
petit juror; (E) traveling in or using a facility of interstate 
commerce; and (F) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of 
public accommodation.
  Second, the statute provides no coverage for hate crimes based on the 
victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Together, these 
limitations prevent the federal government from working with state and 
local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of 
many of the most vicious hate crimes.
  Our legislation amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245 to address each of these 
limitations. In cases involving racial, religious, or ethnic violence, 
the bill prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury without 
regard to the victim's participation in one of the six ``federally 
protected activities''. In cases involving hate crimes based on the 
victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability, the bill prohibits 
the intentional infliction of bodily injury whenever the act has a 
nexus, as defined in the bill, to interstate commerce. These provisions 
will permit the federal government to work in partnership with state 
and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate 
crimes. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation, 
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring it to a vote. 
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a more detailed description 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 618

         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 ``Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
     perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual 
     orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a 
     serious national problem;
       (2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of 
     communities and is deeply divisive;
       (3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this 
     problem;
       (4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, 
     including--
       (A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups 
     and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape 
     the incidence or risk of such violence; and

[[Page S2731]]

       (B) by preventing members of targeted groups from 
     purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining 
     employment or participating in other commercial activity;
       (5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;
       (6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to 
     facilitate the commission of such violence;
       (7) such violence is committed using articles that have 
     traveled in interstate commerce;
       (8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery 
     can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;
       (9) although many State and local authorities are now and 
     will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the 
     overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, 
     including violent crimes motivated by bias, Federal 
     jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias is 
     necessary to supplement State and local jurisdiction and 
     ensure that justice is achieved in each case;
       (10) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes 
     motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local 
     authorities to work together as partners in the investigation 
     and prosecution of such crimes; and
       (11) the problem of hate crime is sufficiently serious, 
     widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal 
     assistance to States and local jurisdictions.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

       In this Act, the term ``hate crime'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the 
     use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to 
     cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any 
     person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--
       ``(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(ii) the acts omitted in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully 
     causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of 
     fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause 
     bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability 
     of any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances 
     described in this subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the 
     victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a 
     facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce; or
       ``(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign 
     commerce.''.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant 
     to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States 
     Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the 
     issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes 
     and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to 
     the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor 
     during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who 
     recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
       (b) Consistency With Other Guidelines.--In carrying out 
     this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other 
     Federal sentencing guidelines; and
       (2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the 
     same offense.

     SEC. 6. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority to Make Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat 
     hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to 
     train local law enforcement officers in investigating, 
     prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the 
     Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 
     2002 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of 
     personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of 
     section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by 
     this Act).

     SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
                                  ____


           Summary of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999

       The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 creates a three-
     tiered system for the federal prosecution of hate crimes 
     under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245, as follows:
       1. The bill leaves 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2) unchanged. That 
     provision prohibits the intentional interference, or 
     attempted interference, with a person's participation in one 
     of six specifically enumerated ``federally protected 
     activities'' on the basis of the person's race, color, 
     religion, or national origin. These activities are: (A) 
     enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; 
     (B) participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility 
     or activity provided or administered by any state or local 
     government; (C) applying for or enjoying employment; (D) 
     serving in a state court as a grand or petit juror; (E) 
     traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and 
     (F) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of 
     public accommodation.
       2. The bill adds a new provision, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(c)(1), 
     which prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury 
     on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. 
     This new provision does not require a showing that the 
     defendant committed the offense because of the victim's 
     participation in a federally protected activity. However, an 
     offense under the new 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(c)(1) will be 
     prosecuted as a felony only, and a showing of bodily injury 
     or death or of an attempt to cause bodily injury or death 
     through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device is 
     required. Other attempts will not constitute offenses under 
     this section.
       3. The bill adds another new provision, 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 245(c)(2), which prohibits the intentional infliction of 
     bodily injury or death (or an attempt to inflict bodily 
     injury or death) through the use of fire, a firearm, or an 
     explosive device on the basis of religion, gender, sexual 
     orientation, or disability. Like 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(c)(1), 
     this provision authorizes the prosecution of felonies only, 
     and excludes most attempts, while omitting the ``federally 
     protected activity'' requirement. Unlike 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 245(c)(1), this provision requires proof of a Commerce 
     Clause nexus as an element of the offense.
       4. For prosecutions under both of the new provisions, a 
     certification by the Attorney General or other senior Justice 
     Department official that ``a prosecution by the United States 
     is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial 
     justice.''


                             FEDERALIZATION

       It is expected that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 
     will result in only a modest increase in the number of hate 
     crimes prosecutions brought by the federal government. The 
     intent is to ensure that the federal government will limit 
     its prosecutions of hate crimes to cases that implicate the 
     greatest federal interest and present a clear need for 
     federal intervention. The Act is not intended, for example, 
     to federalize all rapes or all acts of domestic violence.
       The bill requires a nexus to interstate commerce for hate 
     crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. 
     This requirement, which the government must prove beyond a 
     reasonable doubt as an element of the offense, will limit 
     federal jurisdiction in these categories to cases that 
     involve clear federal interests.
       The bill excludes misdemeanors and limits federal hate 
     crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to 
     those involving bodily injury or death (and a limited set of 
     attempts to cause bodily injury or death). These limitations 
     will limit federal cases to truly serious offenses.
       18 U.S.C. Sec. 245 already requires a written certification 
     by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the 
     Associate Attorney General, or a specially designated 
     Assistant Attorney General that ``a prosecution by the United 
     States is in the public interest and necessary to secure 
     substantial justice.'' This requirement will apply to the new 
     crimes in the Act.


      existing federal law and the need for expanded jurisdiction

     1. The ``Federally Protected Activity'' requirement of 18 
         U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2)
       18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2) has been the principal federal 
     hate crimes statute for many years.

[[Page S2732]]

     It prohibits the use of force, or threat of force, to injure, 
     intimidate, or interfere with (or to attempt to injure, 
     intimidate, or interfere with) ``any person because of his 
     race, color, religion, or national origin'' and because of 
     his participation in any of six ``federally protected 
     activities'' specifically enumerated in the statute. The six 
     enumerated ``federally protected activities'' are: (A) 
     enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; 
     (B) participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility 
     or activity provided or administered by any state or local 
     government; (C) applying for or enjoying employment; (D) 
     serving in a state court as a grand or petit juror; (E) 
     traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and 
     (F) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of 
     public accommodation.
       Federal jurisdiction exists under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2) 
     only if a crime motivated by racial, ethnic, or religious 
     hatred has been committed with the intent to interfere with 
     the victim's participation in one or more of the six 
     federally protected activities. Even in the most blatant 
     cases of racial, ethnic, or religious violence, no federal 
     jurisdiction exists under this section unless the federally 
     protected activity requirement is satisfied. This requirement 
     has limited the ability of federal law enforcement officials 
     to work with state and local officials in the investigation 
     and prosecution of many incidents of brutal, hate-motivated 
     violence and has led to acquittals in several cases in which 
     the Department of Justice has found a need to assert federal 
     jurisdiction.
       The most important benefit of concurrent state and federal 
     criminal jurisdiction is the ability of state and federal law 
     enforcement officials to work together as partners in the 
     investigation and prosecution of serious hate crimes. When 
     federal jurisdiction has existed in the limited contexts 
     authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(b)(2), the federal 
     government's resources, forensic expertise, and experience in 
     the identification and proof of hate-based motivations often 
     have provided a valuable investigative assistance to local 
     investigators. By working cooperatively, state and federal 
     law enforcement officials have the best chance of bringing 
     the perpetrators of hate crimes swiftly to justice.
       The work of the National Church Arson Task Force is a 
     useful precedent. Created in 1996 to address the rash of 
     church arsons across the country, the Task Force's federal 
     prosecutors and investigators from ATF and the FBI have 
     collaborated with state and local officials in the 
     investigation of every church arson since then. The results 
     of these state-federal partnerships have been impressive. 
     Thirty-four percent of the joint state-federal church arson 
     investigations conducted by the Task Force resulted in 
     arrests of one or more suspects on state or federal charges. 
     This arrest rate is more than double the normal 16 percent 
     arrest rate in all arson cases nationwide, most of which are 
     investigated by local officials without federal assistance. 
     More than 80 percent of the suspects in joint state-federal 
     church arson investigations by the Task Force have been 
     prosecuted in state court under state law.
     2. Violent hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, 
         or disability
       Current federal law does not prohibit hate crimes based on 
     the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

                         a. Sexual Orientation

       Statistics gathered by the federal government and private 
     organizations indicate that a significant number of hate 
     crimes based on the sexual orientation of the victim are 
     committed every year in the United States. Data collected by 
     the FBI pursuant to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act indicate 
     that 1,102 bias incidents based on the sexual orientation of 
     the victim were reported to local law enforcement agencies in 
     1997; that 1,256 such incidents were reported in 1996; and 
     1,019 and 677 such incidents were reported in 1995 and 1994, 
     respectively. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence 
     Programs (NCAVP), a private organization that tracks bias 
     incidents based on sexual orientation, reported 2,445 such 
     incidents in 1997; 2,529 in 1996; 2,395 in 1995; and 2,064 in 
     1994.
       Even the higher statistics reported by NCAVP may 
     significantly understate the number of hate crimes based on 
     sexual orientation actually committed in this country. Many 
     victims of anti-lesbian and anti-gay incidents do not report 
     the crimes to local law enforcement officials because they 
     fear a hostile response or mistreatment. According to the 
     NCAVP survey, 12% of those who reported hate crimes based on 
     sexual orientation to the police in 1996 stated that the 
     police response was verbally or physically abusive.

                               b. Gender

       Although acts of violence committed against women 
     traditionally have been viewed as ``personal attacks'' rather 
     than as hate crimes, a significant number of women are 
     exposed to terror, brutality, serious injury, and even death 
     because of their gender. In the enactment of the Violence 
     Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, Congress recognized that 
     some violent assaults committed against women are bias crimes 
     rather than mere ``random'' attacks. The Senate Report on 
     VAWA, which created a federal civil cause of action for 
     victims of gender-based hate crimes, stated: ``The Violence 
     Against Women Act aims to consider gender-motivated bias 
     crimes as seriously as other bias crimes. Whether the attack 
     is motivated by racial bias, ethnic bias, or gender bias, the 
     results are often the same. The victims are reduced to 
     symbols of hatred; they are chosen not because of who they 
     are as individuals but because of their class status. The 
     violence not only wounds physically, it degrades and 
     terrorizes, instilling fear and inhibiting the lives of all 
     those similarly situated. `Placing this violence in the 
     context of the civil rights laws recognizes it for what it 
     is--a hate crime.' '' Senate Repot No. 103-138 (1993) 
     (quoting testimony of Prof. Burt Neuborne.)
       The majority of states do not specifically prohibit gender-
     based hate crimes. All 50 states have statutes prohibiting 
     rape and other crimes typically committed against women, but 
     only 17 states have hate crimes statutes that include gender 
     among the categories of prohibited bias motives.
       The federal government should have jurisdiction to work 
     with state and local law enforcement officials in the 
     investigation of violent gender-based hate crimes and, where 
     appropriate in rare circumstances, to bring federal 
     prosecutions to vindicate the strong federal interest in 
     combating the serious gender-based hate crimes of violence.
       Enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act will not result 
     in the federalization of all rapes, other sexual assaults, or 
     acts of domestic violence. The intent is to ensure that the 
     federal government's investigations and prosecutions of 
     gender-based hate crimes will be strictly limited to the most 
     flagrant cases.

                             c. Disability

       Congress has shown a consistent commitment over the past 
     decade to the protection of persons with disabilities from 
     discrimination. In amendments to the Fair Housing Act in 
     1988, and the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, 
     Congress extended protections to persons with disabilities in 
     many traditional civil rights contexts.
       The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a measured response to a 
     critical problem facing the Nation. It will make the federal 
     government a full partner in the battle against hate crimes. 
     In recognition of State and local efforts, the Act also 
     provides grants to states and local governments to combat 
     hate crimes, including programs to train local law 
     enforcement officers in investigating, prosecuting and 
     preventing hate crimes.

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I am proud to be a 
principal cosponsor of again today is a referendum on whether Congress 
will tolerate acts born out of prejudice. Every hate-filled attack, 
whether the target is a young gay man in Alabama or Wyoming or an 
African American man in Jasper, Texas, is an attack on all Americans. 
We must not allow such acts to stain our national greatness.
  Our nation is committed to the ideal that all men and women are 
created equal, and protected equally in the eyes of the law. But some 
people aren't getting the message. It is high time to drive that 
message home.
  The 1999 Hate Crimes Prevention Act will put bigots and racists on 
notice: hate and bigotry will not be tolerated in America.
  This bill will close the loopholes in the current hate crimes laws. 
Right now, there's a patchwork of hate crimes laws in states across the 
country. This bill will provide a unified, Federal approach in how to 
deal with these despicable crimes.
  It puts an end to the double standard where Federal authorities can 
help states and localities prosecute crimes motivated by ethnicity, 
religion, race, and color, but not those motivated by gender, 
disability, or sexual orientation. This bill would finally extend 
federal hate crime laws to cover attacks against women, gays and 
lesbians, people with disabilities.
  It also removes the current straightjacket on local law enforcement 
seeking Federal help to prosecute hate crimes. Current law targets hate 
crimes that are committed against victims who are performing a 
federally protected act, like voting, or eating in a restaurant. But a 
hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of what the victims are doing 
when they're attacked.
  With this legislation, we could prosecute under Federal law the thugs 
who murdered James Byrd, Matthew Shepard, and Billy Jack Gaither, as 
well as other victims.
  No one is suggesting that the Federal government should override 
local law enforcement authorities. This bill will complement, not 
supplant, the work of local law enforcement in investigating and 
prosecuting hate crimes. It gives these local authorities more tools in 
prosecuting these crimes. If they need assistance in prosecuting a hate 
crime, then Federal authorities would be available to assist them--to 
make sure that justice is served.
  Of course, no legislation can ever make up for the loss of any victim 
of a hate crime. But we can honor their memories by doing our best to 
make

[[Page S2733]]

sure that crimes like these never happen again.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I again urge prompt consideration and 
passage of Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I cosponsored this measure in 
the last Congress and do so again this year. This bill would amend the 
federal hate crimes statute to make it easier for federal law 
enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute cases of racial and 
religious violence. It would also focus the attention and resources of 
the federal government on the problem of hate crimes committed against 
people because of their sexual preference, gender, or disability.
  As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I look forward to 
working on hearings next month on this important initiative. Violent 
crime motivated by prejudice demands attention from all of us. It is 
not a new problem, but recent incidents of hate crimes have shocked the 
American conscience. The beating death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming 
was one of those crimes; the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas was 
another. The recent murder of Billy Jack Gaither in Alabama appears to 
be yet another. These are sensational crimes, the ones that focus 
public attention. But there is a toll we are paying each year in other 
hate crimes that find less notoriety, but with no less suffering for 
the victims and their families.
  It remains painfully clear that we as a nation still have serious 
work to do in protecting all Americans and ensuring equal rights for 
all our citizens. The answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be 
found in increased respect and tolerance. But strengthening our federal 
hate crimes legislation is a step in the right direction. Bigotry and 
hatred are corrosive elements in any society, but especially in a 
country as diverse and open as ours. We need to make clear that a 
bigoted attack on one or some of us diminishes each of us, and it 
diminishes our nation. As a nation, we must say loudly and clearly that 
we will defend ourselves against such violence.
  All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they 
choose. In the past we have responded as a nation to deter and to 
punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted federal laws to 
protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for more than 100 
years. This continues that great and honorable tradition.
  Several of us come to this issue with backgrounds in local law 
enforcement. We support local law enforcement and work for initiatives 
that assist law enforcement. It is in that vein that I support the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act, which has received strong bipartisan support 
from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country.
  When the Committee takes up the issue of hate crimes next month, one 
of the questions that must be addressed is whether the bill as drafted 
is sufficiently respectful of state and local law enforcement 
interests. I welcome such questions and believe that Congress should 
think carefully before federalizing prohibitions that already exist at 
the state level.
  To my mind, there is nothing questionable about the notion that hate 
crimes warrant federal attention. As evidenced by the national outrage 
at the Byrd, Shepard, and Gaither murders, hate crimes have a broader 
and more injurious impact on our national society than ordinary street 
crimes. The 1991 murder in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New 
York, of an Hasidic Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum, by a youth later tried 
federally for violation of the hate crime law, showed that hate crimes 
may lead to civil unrest and even riots. This heightens the federal 
interest in such cases, warranting enhanced federal penalties, 
particularly if the state declines the case or does not adequately 
investigate or prosecute it.
  Beyond this, hate crimes may be committed by multiple offenders who 
belong to hate groups that operate across state lines. Criminal 
activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects raises 
federal interests and warrants federal enforcement attention.
  Current law already provides some measure of protection against 
excessive federalization by requiring the Attorney General to certify 
all prosecutions under the hate crimes statute as being ``in the public 
interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.'' We should be 
confident that this provision is sufficient to ensure restraint at the 
federal level under the broader hate crimes legislation that we 
introduce today. I look forward to examining that issue and considering 
ways to guard against unwarranted federal intrusions under this 
legislation. In the end, we should work on a bipartisan basis to ensure 
that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act operates as intended, strengthening 
federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a 
substitute, for state and local law enforcement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 623. A bill to amend Public Law 89-108 to increase authorization 
levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial 
water supplies, to meet current and future water quantity and quality 
needs of the Red River Valley, to deauthorize certain project features 
and irrigation service areas, to enhance natural resources and fish and 
wildlife habitat, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                   Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999

  Mr. CONRAD. I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act 
of 1999, as cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Dorgan. Our colleague, 
Congressman Pomeroy, is introducing identical legislation in the House 
of Representatives today.
  Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act represents a fiscally 
responsible, environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to 
completing the Garrison project. The U.S. Senate is well aware of the 
history of failed promises on water development projects on the 
Missouri River. The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized six main-stem 
dams along the Missouri River. These structures flooded about 550,000 
acres of land in North Dakota. These were prime agricultural lands that 
were flooded. We were promised that we would get certain things in 
return for the loss of these lands. We were promised that we would get 
a major water project for the State of North Dakota. Unfortunately, 
only part of that promise has been kept.
  You can see here the kinds of things that have happened. This is the 
town of Elbowoods, July 7, 1954. This town is now under water. It is 
not the only town that is under water. Town after town along the 
Missouri was flooded in order to give protection to downstream States, 
to remove from them the flood threat that so long had devastated them 
economically.
  We accepted the permanent flood, a flood that came and has never 
gone. That flood has cost our State tremendously. All we are asking is 
that the promise that was made to us in exchange for flooding these 
550,000 acres now be kept.
  Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act would assure North 
Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for municipal, rural, and 
industrial purposes. In fact, without these amendments, many 
communities in North Dakota will be forced to be without clean and 
reliable water supplies.
  I think you can see these two jars. This is water that is delivered 
to rural North Dakotans via a pipeline. It is clean. It is healthy. It 
is wholesome.
  This is the typical water supply for rural North Dakotans. It looks 
like coffee or dark tea. This is actually what comes out when you turn 
on your spigot in the homes of many of the people in rural North 
Dakota. This is like living in the Third World. I tell my colleagues, 
there is nothing quite like getting ready to step into a bathtub of 
water when it looks like this; even worse, to have your child getting 
ready to step into a bathtub of water that looks like this. This is 
absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with the 
Dakota Water Resources Act, to provide clean, healthy supplies of water 
to our population.
  Mr. President, water development is essential for economic 
development, agriculture, recreation and improving the environment. The 
legislation that we are offering today will provide an adequate and 
dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, including communities 
in the Red River Valley.
  This picture shows what we have faced in the past. This is 1910. This 
is the Red River, the famous Red River of the North. You could have 
walked

[[Page S2734]]

across this river. You can see, at that point it was nothing more than 
a few puddles. It had virtually dried up. Now, since that time we have 
had major cities spring up, and we can't face a circumstance in which 
those towns would be high and dry. Fargo, ND--I think many people have 
heard of Fargo, ND--Grand Forks, ND; they are on the Red River. They 
depend, for their water supplies, on the Red River. Yet periodically in 
history the Red River all but dries up. We need to make certain that 
there is ample supplies of water so that we aren't facing that 
circumstance.

  The bill that we are offering today is addressing the current water 
needs of our State. Those needs are significantly different than what 
we faced in 1944.
  Let me briefly summarize the bill. It provides $300 million for 
statewide MR&I projects. It provides $200 million for tribal MR&I 
projects--in many cases, the water conditions on our reservations are 
even worse than the ones that I have shown that pertain in much of 
rural North Dakota--$200 million to deliver water to the Red River 
Valley to make certain that those towns and cities have reliable and 
adequate supplies of water; $40 million to replace the dangerous Four 
Bears Bridge that was required because of flooding that occurred, a 
bridge was built--that bridge is now badly out of date and dangerous--
$25 million for a natural resources trust fund; $6.5 million for 
recreation projects; and an understanding that the State pays for the 
project facilities that it uses. We think that is a fundamental 
principle that ought to be recognized.
  Those are the key elements of the bill that we are offering. Let me 
say, this bill is friendly to taxpayers as well, because our bill, 
while proposing $770 million of new authority to complete the project, 
deauthorizes many parts of the project that were previously authorized. 
The total project cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act would be 
roughly $1.5 billion, nearly $500 million less than the current cost of 
constructing the remainder of the 1986 project that is already 
authorized. In other words, we are trading in parts of the project that 
no longer make the most sense in exchange for new elements which do 
make sense, and we are doing it in a way that is cost-effective for the 
taxpayers, reducing the overall bill by $500 million.
  Now, there are some, representing certain national environmental 
organizations that will remain unnamed here, who have said that this is 
nearly a billion dollars of new spending. They aren't telling the 
truth. That is not the truth. We are reducing the spending by 
deauthorizing certain features previously authorized in exchange for 
new ones, less costly ones that make sense in light of contemporary 
needs.
  Mr. President, North Dakota has been waiting a long time, a long time 
for the promise to be kept to our State. It is desperately needed.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents a fiscally responsible, 
environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to completing the 
Garrison Project that was promised in North Dakota. I look forward to 
continuing to work with Members of this body and the other body and the 
administration to advance this legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, on the introduction of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. 
We have previously introduced similar legislation.
  We worked on this legislation with the Governor of North Dakota, as 
well as the bi-partisan leadership in the State legislature in North 
Dakota, Tribal leaders, and many others. Republicans and Democrats 
together developed a piece of legislation that we think is not only 
good for our State and important for the State's long-term future, but 
which also completes the promise that was given our State many, many 
years ago.
  I will not talk about the specific provisions of the bill in a way 
that will duplicate information which has already been provided, but 
let me again describe the story, just for a moment. People say, Water 
projects--this is some kind of proposal to enrich your region of the 
country. Well, there is more to the story.
  In the 1940s, we had a wild Missouri River that would periodically 
flood in a very significant way, and in the downstream reaches of the 
river, Kansas City, MO, and elsewhere, areas would have massive spring 
flooding. The Federal Government said, Let's put some main stem dams on 
the Missouri River in order to control that flooding. As we put these 
dams on that river, we will also be able to generate electricity from 
those dams, so we will prevent flooding and provide electrical 
benefits. It will be a wonderful opportunity.
  North Dakota, your deal in this is to accept a flood that comes and 
stays every year. You take a half-million-acre flood that comes to your 
State and stays there forever. If you are willing to play host to a 
flood forever, we will make you a deal. We know it is not in your 
interest to say, please, bring us a permanent flood, so if you do that, 
we will make you a deal. Accept a flood--the size of the State of Rhode 
Island, by the way--and when that flood comes, you can take the water 
from behind the reservoir and move it around your State for water 
development and quality purposes.
  That was the original Garrison proposal. Now, that promise, that 
commitment has not been kept. The flood came; that part of the bargain 
has been kept. But we have not received the full flower of benefits 
that we would expect as a result of the Federal commitment. For that 
reason, we continue to insist that if your word is your bond and the 
Federal Government said take this flood and we will provide these 
benefits for your State, and we need these benefits for our State to be 
able to move good quality water around our State, for that reason we 
feel compelled to say to the Federal Government, finish the job.
  That is what this legislation is about. It is not, as some 
environmental organizations insist, some new billion-dollar project. It 
is not that at all. In fact, what we are doing will, in a minor way, 
reduce the authorized project that already exists as a result of the 
1965 authorization and the 1986 authorization. This bill makes the 
final adjustments to this project.
  I have a series of charts which I will not go through, recognizing 
that the folks who are in charge of the timing of this institution want 
to go to lunch. Let me come back at a more appropriate time and go 
through all of my charts in great detail for the benefit of everyone.
  I will only say in closing that my colleague and I feel that this is 
a very important project and a bipartisan piece of legislation that 
will be good for this country, allow our country to keep its promise 
and will especially be a good investment for North Dakota. My prepared 
remarks on the Dakota Water Resources Act will explain these points in 
greater detail.
  Mr. President, the new bill has been substantially modified in the 
form of a substitute amendment (No. 3112) which we introduced on July 
9, 1998. This revised bill represents a bi-partisan consensus carefully 
negotiated by the major elected officials in our State.
  It's a water development bill that I am proud to sponsor. It reduces 
Federal costs, meets environmental and international obligations, and 
fulfills the Federal promise to address North Dakota's contemporary 
water needs.
  This is still among the most important pieces of legislation I will 
introduce for my State. I emphasize once more that this is because the 
key to North Dakota's economic development is water resource management 
and development. And the key to water development in my State has come 
to be the Garrison Diversion Project in the Dakota Water Resources Act 
of 1999.
  I want to share with my colleagues in greater detail the frustrating 
story of an unfulfilled promise to build a water project because some 
have questioned the rationale for the project. I want to explain why 
the people of North Dakota need and expect to have this promise 
fulfilled in the form of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
  Over 100 years ago, John Wesley Powell of the U.S. Geological Survey 
predicted to the North Dakota Constitutional Convention that the lean 
years in agriculture would cause ``thousands of people . . . (to) 
become discouraged and leave.'' He was referring to the difficulty of 
making a living on farms and ranches in a state with abundant water but 
limited rainfall.

[[Page S2735]]

  Unfortunately, Powell's prediction is as telling today as it was in 
the last century. Thousands of North Dakotans are leaving the State for 
economic opportunities in cities such as Denver and Minneapolis. Due to 
this substantial out-migration only 7 North Dakota counties, or less 
than one in seven, had population increases in the past decade. What 
perhaps worries me even more is the fact that our farm youth population 
has declined by 50% in both of the last two decades. In other words, 
out-migration is pummeling our State's well-being and threatening our 
economic future.
  I would say to my colleagues that the root of the North Dakota's 
problem is two-fold. One, we need to diversify our agricultural base so 
that family farmers can make a more dependable living. This requires 
access to water for the growth and processing of specialty crops to 
replace or augment the usual grains that North Dakota farmers have 
grown for decades. Second, we must provide reliable supplies of clean, 
affordable water needed for economic growth in towns and cities across 
North Dakota. Too many of them now lack dependable water supplies for 
municipal and industrial growth.
  What we need, then, is water development. And we thought we would get 
it!
  Over fifty years ago, the Federal Government began building a series 
of main stem dams on the Missouri River to provide flood protection, 
dependable river navigation and inexpensive hydropower--primarily for 
the benefit of states in the Lower Missouri Basin. The problem became 
acute when flooding during World War II disrupted the transport of war 
supplies and spawned disaster relief needs in a budget already over-
stretched.
  When North Dakota allowed the Garrison Dam and Reservoir to be built 
in the State (and the consequences of the Oahe Reservoir in South 
Dakota are added in), it agreed to host permanent floods that inundated 
500,000 acres of prime farm land and the Indian communities on two 
reservations. The State and Tribes did so in exchange for a promise 
that the Federal Government would replace the loss of these economic 
and social assets with a major water development project, the Garrison 
Diversion Unit.
  But 50 years later, the project is less than half done.
  I would like to explain for the benefit of my colleagues just how 
this bill relates to the Federal commitment to my State, what progress 
has been made on that commitment, what remains to be done, and how this 
bill will complete the project in a prudent way.
  May I remind my colleagues that the State lost a half million acres 
of prime farm land, a major component of its overall economic base. To 
grasp the size of this negative impact, I ask my colleagues to think of 
flooding a chunk of farm land the size of Rhode Island. As a result, 
North Dakota has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in farm income. 
Think, too, of Indian Tribes that lost their traditional homelands, 
their economic and social base, hospitals and roads, and a healthy 
lifestyle. Their lives were disrupted and their culture was turned 
upside down.
  We were promised, in exchange, a major water and irrigation project. 
It was designed to help meet the agricultural needs of a semi-arid 
state that gets only 15-17 inches of rainfall per year. We originally 
expected the resources to irrigate over a million acres of land, most 
of it in areas less productive than the land lost to the Garrison 
Reservoir. The Federal Government eventually started a scaled-down 
version of the project, with 250,000 acres of irrigation. In response 
to criticisms that the project was too costly and too environmentally 
disruptive, a federal commission proposed a major revision in 1984 and 
made recommendations on how to meet the State's contemporary water 
needs.
  But make no mistake, the promise remained. The Garrison Diversion 
Unit Commission stated:

       1. The State of North Dakota deserves a federally-funded 
     water project, at least some of which should be in the form 
     of irrigation development, for land lost through inundation 
     by reservoirs of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.
       2. The Commission agrees with Congress that a moral 
     commitment was made in 1944 to the Upper Basin States and 
     Indian Tribes with the passage of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944. The language of the statute establishing this 
     commission reinforces this view. The State of North Dakota 
     sacrificed hundreds of thousands of acres, much of it prime 
     river bottomland, for the greater benefit of the nation. In 
     return, the Federal Government promised assistance in 
     replacement of the economic base of the State and Indian 
     Tribes. There is evidence this has not taken place.

  In 1986, I renegotiated the project with the Reagan Administration, 
the House Interior Committee, and national environmental groups and 
these talks resulted in the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 
1986. The law implemented the Garrison Commission findings and 
recommendations and included a 130,000 acre irrigation project for the 
State and tribes, the promise of Missouri River water to augment water 
supplies in the Red River Valley, an installment on municipal, 
industrial, and rural (MR&I) water for communities across the State, 
the initial water systems for the Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and Ft. 
Totten Indian reservations and a range of activities to mitigate and 
enhance wildlife and habitat.
  So you may ask, ``What progress has been made on the project?''
  Although the promise of irrigation remains largely unfulfilled--with 
the exception of the Oakes Test Area--we have made substantial progress 
in laying the groundwork for water delivery and the provision of a 
partial network for MR&I supplies across the state.
  Over one-third of North Dakotans now benefit from 25 MRI programs on 
four Indian reservations and in some 80 communities.
  The Southwest Pipeline constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation has 
begun to solve water problems in the region where I grew up. For 
example, in my hometown of Regent the ranching family of Michelle 
McCormack used to struggle with coffee-colored water that stained their 
fixtures and clogged their distiller with sludge. Their well barely 
provided enough water for a family of six, let alone a herd of cattle. 
Because of the Garrison Project, the McCormacks can now enjoy ample 
supplies of quality, clean water--something most of us take for 
granted. And they can make a better living to boot.
  We have also taken great strides to mitigate wildlife areas impacted 
by the development of the McClusky and New Rockford Canals. We now have 
mitigated over 200% of the required lands, developed a Wetlands Trust 
Fund and programs, and begun to manage the former Lonetree Dam and 
Reservoir as a state wildlife conservation area. Incidentally, our new 
legislation would complete the process by de-authorizing the Lonetree 
features and converting them into a wildlife conservation area.
  For a variety of reasons, though, we have not fully realized the 
promise of the 1986 Act. Despite some strides, we have yet to develop a 
major irrigation unit under the Garrison Diversion project. We have 
only been able to develop a pilot research plot near Oakes, which has 
validated the use of irrigation for growing high value crops in 
North Dakota. Under terms of the 1986 Act, we would have 130,000 acres 
of irrigation, which will be scaled back to 70,000 acres in the bill we 
introduce today. This will reduce project costs and target limited 
funds in the bill on high priority irrigation and MR&I water 
development.

  We have completed Phase 1 of Municipal, Rural and Industrial 
development for three Indian tribes. There remains well over $200 
million in needs to complete projects on all four reservations which 
will meet the charge of the Garrison Reformulation Act for the 
Secretary of the Interior ``to meet the economic, public health, and 
environmental needs'' of North Dakota tribes. From hearings I have held 
on the reservations, I can tell you that tribal members have some the 
worst water problems in the nation and we must fulfill the 1986 
mandate. Our new legislation will provide $200 million to meet the 
critical water needs of North Dakota's four Indian nations.
  We have developed major elements of a water delivery system for the 
Red River Valley. But the Bureau of Reclamation is currently reviewing 
that issue with the State of North Dakota to determine the best way to 
meet the needs of Fargo, Grand Forks, and other communities throughout 
the Red River Valley.
  Let me illustrate the severity of the problem for the valley by 
noting that in many years in this century, the Red River either has 
slowed to a trickle or

[[Page S2736]]

stopped running altogether. Imagine a major city that depends on a 
river for its municipal and industrial water supply and that river 
stops running. That is why our bill provides $200 million to meet the 
critical water needs the most populous part of our state. But let me 
add that this money will be fully repaid by water users.
  Finally, we have dozens of communities awaiting the promise of 
reliable supplies of clean and usable water. In several hearings I have 
held up bottles of coffee-like water from the McCormack ranch and 
several others, which have not yet been served by such projects as the 
Southwest Pipeline or the Northwest Area Water System.
  Patsy Storhoff's family, for one, has to haul and store water for 
their household use. At times, they make 1,400 gallons last up to three 
weeks--what most families tap in just five days. She sometimes tells 
her kids they have to postpone a bath in order to conserve scarce water 
because the neighbor who hauls their water won't get to Nome for a 
couple more days. Although when you pause to think about it, taking a 
bath in coffee-like water is a liquid oxymoron.
  In part because the State would forego 60,000 acres of irrigation in 
this bill and because we have realized only half of the Garrison 
Commission's promise of MR&I water for nearly 400,000 North Dakotans, 
we do provide $300 million for MR&I development across the state. That 
amount, plus the existing $200 million in authority for MR&I, will 
roughly match the amount promised by the Commission and the 1986 Act.
  So the Dakota Water Resources Act provides $700 million in new 
authority for water development, of which $200 million is fully 
repayable. In order to complete this project, however, North Dakota has 
had to make some major changes. In November of 1997, the delegation 
introduced the Dakota Water Resources Act as a bill that reflected a 
consensus of the bi-partisan elected leadership of the state, major 
cities, four tribal governments, water users, conservation groups, the 
State Water Coalition, and the Garrison Conservancy District.
  In a word, the bill scaled back irrigation from 130,000 to 70,000 
acres, provided new resources to complete the major MR&I delivery 
systems for the four Indian tribes and the state's water supply 
network, and provided a process for choosing the best way to address 
Red River Valley water needs. It also made wildlife conservation a 
project purpose, expanded the Wetlands Trust into a more robust Natural 
Resources Trust, funded a critical bridge on the Ft. Berthold 
Reservation and a few priority recreation projects.
  Subsequently, the Bureau of Reclamation raised several questions and 
concerns about the bill which we have addressed in a series of 
negotiations and discussions over the past months. The revisions mainly 
address reducing costs, meeting tough environmental standards, 
strengthening compliance with an international border agreement, and 
reaffirming the role of the Secretary of the Interior in decision-
making. The bi-partisan elected leaders embraced those changes and have 
agreed to re-introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act with the same 
language as the substitute amendment (No. 3112) which I offered with 
Senator Conrad last year.
  Mr. President, permit me to outline the specific provisions in the 
new version of the bill:
  1. Retain the cost share of 25% for MR&I projects, along with a 
credit for cost share contributions exceeding that amount. This, in 
place of a 15% cost share.
  2. Reimburse the federal government for the share of the capacity of 
the main stem delivery features which are used by the state. This, 
instead of writing off these features.
  3. Index MR&I and Red River features only from the date of enactment, 
not since 1986.
  4. Expressly bar any irrigation in the Hudson's Bay Basin.
  5. Give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to select the Red 
River Valley Water Supply feature and to determine the feasibility of 
any newly authorized irrigation areas in the scaled-back package.
  6. Extend the Environmental Impact Studies period and firm up 
Boundary Waters Treaty measures.
  Taken together with prior provisions, these changes achieve four 
purposes. First, they reduce costs by limiting indexing; by defining 
specific State responsibility for repayment of existing features 
instead of blanket debt forgiveness; by de-authorizing such major 
irrigation features as the Lonetree Dam and Reservoir, James River 
Feeder Canal and Sykeston Canal; and by retaining current law with 
respect to MR&I cost-sharing and repayment for Red River supply 
features.
  Second, the changes affirm the decision making authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior on key issues. The Secretary consults with 
the State of North Dakota on the plan to meet the water needs of the 
Red River Valley but he makes the final selection of the plan that 
works best. The Secretary also negotiates cooperative agreements with 
the State on other aspects of the project. These arrangements protect 
the Federal interest while assuring that North Dakota is a partner in a 
project so closely linked to its destiny.
  Third, the bill forthrightly addresses concerns of Canada. The U.S. 
and Canada have a mutual responsibility to abide by the Boundary Waters 
Treaty and other environmental conventions. The Dakota Water Resources 
Act states in the purpose that the United States must comply strictly 
with the Treaty. It further bars any irrigation in the Hudson's Bay 
drainage with water diverted from the Missouri River, thus limiting 
biota transfer between basins. Again, the Secretary of Interior chooses 
the Red River Valley water supply plan, but if that choice entails 
diversion of Missouri River water, then it must be fully treated with 
state-of-the-art purification and screening to prevent biota transfer. 
And as noted before, the bill de-authorizes the Lonetree features to 
which Canada previously had objected.
  Fourth, the revised bill strengthens environmental protection and 
does so by incorporating the specific recommendations of North Dakota 
wildlife and conservation groups. It lengthens the periods for 
completing Environmental Impact Statements. It also protects the 
Sheyenne Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, it preserves the role 
of the Secretary of the Interior on compliance matters and drops the 
provision that called for a study of bank stabilization on the Missouri 
River.
  In other words, these measures improve even more the proposals in the 
1985 Garrison Commission Report on how to meet North Dakota's 
contemporary water needs. This sounds reasonable, but how does it stack 
up against the fiscal and environmental challenges of 1999?
  Irrespective of the Federal commitment to North Dakota, the State has 
not even received a proportional share of Bureau of Reclamation funds. 
Although my state includes six percent of the population in western 
states, it has received only two percent of Bureau funding.
  Next, most Bureau projects were awarded to augment water development 
and economic growth, not to compensate states for losses suffered from 
the construction of flood control projects by the Corps of Engineers. 
So just on the equities, North Dakota has a fair claim to complete 
Garrison project.
  The revised bill will also save the American taxpayer $500 million--
when compared to the cost of completing the current project. Moreover, 
of the $770 million in new authority in the revised bill, North Dakota 
will repay $345 million--almost half. There is no blanket debt 
retirement because North Dakota will pay for all facilities it uses.
  Moreover, this bill is not just about costs, though reduced and 
restrained, but about investments. The Dakota Water Resources Act 
underpins North Dakota's entire effort to stop the out-migration of its 
young people, the dwindling of family farms, and the decimation of 
rural communities. It is a charter for rural renewal and economic 
growth that will help family farms keep the yard lights burning and 
small towns keep their shop signs glowing.
  Finally, this bill is environmentally sound. It does not destroy 
wetlands, it preserves them. It preserves grasslands and riparian 
habitat, too. It was not dreamed up by a water development group. It 
was drafted with the input of tribal and community leaders, local and 
national environmental groups,

[[Page S2737]]

 the bipartisan leadership of the state, and the Bureau of Reclamation 
and Office of Management and Budget. It reflects a balanced approach to 
water resource development that applies the principles of conservation 
while offering the hope of economic development.
  Ultimately, this bill practices the policy of being a good neighbor 
that is the hallmark of our state. The Government of Canada approved 
the 1986 Garrison Act. This bill provides even more protection for 
Canadian interests. So while we can't appease the political agendas of 
certain folks in Canada, we can sure keep faith with the Boundary 
Waters Treaty. And we do.
  In conclusion, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999 will guarantee 
that this project meets the tests of fiscal responsibility, 
environmental protection, and treaty compliance. It will do so while 
also addressing the critical water development needs of North Dakota 
and fulfilling the Federal obligation for water development for the 
communities and tribes of our State. Accordingly, I urge that my 
colleagues support the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 624. A bill to authorize construction of the Fort Peck Reservation 
Rural Water System in the State of Montana, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                      FORT PECK RURAL WATER SYSTEM

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of 
legislation that is vitally important for the Northeast corner of my 
great state of Montana. As you are aware, water is the most valuable 
commodity in the West. Unfortunately, in many parts of the West the 
water available is unsafe to use. This is the case on the Fort Peck 
Reservation and in the surrounding communities.
  These communities are currently dependent on water sources that are 
either unreliable or contaminated. In some areas the ground water is in 
short supply, in others high levels of nitrates, sulfates, manganese, 
iron, dissolved solids and other contaminates ensure that the water is 
not only unusable for human consumption, but even unusable for 
livestock. Quite simply, the water is not safe.
  Safe drinking water is a necessity in all communities, however, these 
communities have a very unique set of needs that underscore the 
importance of clean water. This legislation would ensure the 
Assiniboine and Sioux people of the Fort Peck Reservation a safe and 
reliable water supply system. One of the largest reservations in the 
nation, the Fort Peck Reservation is located in Northeastern Montana 
and is the home of more than 10,000 people. In addition to a 75 percent 
unemployment rate, the residents suffer from unusually high incidents 
of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.
  These health problems are magnified by the poor drinking water 
currently available on the reservation. In one community, the sulfate 
levels in the water are four times the standard for safe drinking 
water. In four other communities, the iron levels are five times the 
standard. Some families have even been forced to abandon their homes as 
a result of the substandard water quality.
  In many cases, residents of the reservation purchased bottled water 
to avoid illness. While this isn't a big deal to those who can afford 
it, we are dealing with an area living in extreme poverty. To add 
insult to injury, one of the largest man made reservoirs in the United 
States is right down the road. Why must we continue to ask the 
residents of these communities to place their health at risk when a 
clean, safe, stable source of water is readily available?
  The economic health of the region is also affected by the poor water 
supply. In fact, a major constraint on the growth of the livestock 
industry around Fort Peck has been the lack of an adequate watering 
sites for cattle. Only an adequate water system will solve this 
problem, and hopefully serve to spur economic activity on the 
reservation. Recently the administration designated this area as an 
``Empowerment Zone.'' The purpose of this designation is to help the 
tribal government enhance the economic and social well-being of the 
area's residents. What better foundation can we provide than a safe and 
reliable water infrastructure. This region's aspirations towards being 
healthy, both economically and physically, will continue to be stifled 
until we reach out a helping hand and work towards providing a safe 
water system.
  This legislation, which has the support of Fort Peck residents and 
the endorsement of the Tribal Council of the Assiniboine and Sioux 
Tribes, would authorize a reservation-wide municipal, rural and 
industrial water system for the Fort Peck Reservation. A safe and 
reliable source of water would improve the health status of the 
residents and increase the region's attractiveness for economic 
development.
  As the future water needs of the Fort Peck Reservation expand, I 
believe that it is only right that we take action now. The people of 
the Fort Peck Reservation and the State of Montana are making a simple 
request--clean, safe drinking water.
  Thank you Mr. President.

                          ____________________