The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S5322-S5333 on May 21, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2105. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study of the Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alleviating certain bank erosion and sedimentation problems; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER LEGISLATION
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced S. 1672, the Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998. It will create an important new program to provide homeowners on the Missouri River with the assistance they need to protect their homes from shoreline erosion.
Today, my colleague Senator Johnson and I are introducing a second bill that I hope will help to preserve the character of the Missouri River for generations to come. Up and down the Missouri River, South Dakotans can tell you that the river is slowly changing as a result of the dams built under the authority of the Pick-Sloan Act. While the dams undoubtedly have made positive contributions to South Dakota by controlling floodwaters and making affordable electricity available to promote rural development, they also ended the Big Muddy's ability to carry a full sediment load for long distances. Sediments are now being deposited into shallow areas of the river, causing the water table to rise, flooding shoreline lands and worsening erosion. In addition, the sediment build-up has made navigation nearly impossible in some areas.
These problems have grown particularly severe near the city of Springfield, where a delta is forming downstream from the confluence of the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers. In order to better understand the causes of the sediment build-up and to develop solutions to address it, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the lower Missouri and Niobrara River watershed. It is my hope that this study will provide the blueprint necessary to alleviate the sediment build-up, reduce future sedimentation, and preserve the character of the rivers for years to come. I hope my colleagues will give this legislation their full support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2105
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER SEDIMENTATION
STUDY.
The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a study of the Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion, sedimentation, and related problems in the lower Niobrara River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
______
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2106. A bill to expand the boundaries of Arches National Park, Utah, to include portions of certain drainages that are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and to include a portion of Fish Seep Draw owned by the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the arches national park expansion act of 1998
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the boundaries of Arches National Park. I appreciate my colleague Senator Hatch for joining me in this effort. The House version of this bill, H.R. 2283 sponsored by Mr. Cannon, was passed late last year.
Most Americans recognize the familiar landscape of Arches National Park. It encompasses some of the most unique lands in the Southwest. Delicate sandstone arches, stunning vistas, contrasting colors, sweeping desert valleys, maze-like rock formations, and rugged gorges characterize the panorama in the park. In 1929, when the park was created, knowledge of ecosystem management was almost nonexistent. Park designation preserved these unique geological treasures but also relied on fairly rigid park boundaries which has resulted in some fragmentation of ecological areas within the park. This bill authorizes a 3,140 acre expansion to include the beautiful and unique Lost Spring Canyon parcel contiguous with the eastern boundary of the Arches. This addition will enhance the ecological protection of Arches.
The Arches National Park Expansion includes portions of the following drainages: Salt Wash, Lost Spring Canyon, Fish Seep Draw, Clover Canyon, Cordova Canyon, Mine Draw, and Cottonwood Wash. These areas are currently under the jurisdiction of either the Bureau of Land Management or the State of Utah. Once the expansion is complete, the Park Service will continue to protect the wilderness values of these lands. No road or campground construction will occur in the new addition. Lost Spring Canyon will continue primarily to be used for back-country hiking. It is not in danger of being overrun by thousands of park visitors simply by the nature of the rugged terrain and the distances involved. But it makes good management sense to bring these areas under park management.
Public lands debates are far too contentious in the West, particularly in Utah. While it is unfortunate that we have not been able to reach consensus on issues like wilderness, I am pleased that the expansion of Arches National Park is an issue which a diverse group of interests do agree. Local officials, the Grand Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association, environmental groups, the State of Utah, the Utah Congressional delegation, and the Administration all support this bill.
This legislation is good for Arches National Park and is a great example of how it is possible to reach consensus among public lands interests. The expansion will enhance the visitor experience of Arches by expanding back-country opportunities. It makes good management sense for both BLM and the Park Service. I hope my colleagues will join me in moving this legislation quickly.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today along with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, as a cosponsor of the Arches National Park Expansion Act of 1998. This is an inexpensive, practical, common-sense proposal that has gathered widespread support.
Arches National Park is known world-wide for its spectacular canyons and rock formations. When Arches National Park was created 25 years ago, the park boundaries were set with little regard to naturally occurring borders. Specifically, Lost Springs Canyon, located in the northeast corner of the park, was divided in half by the park boundaries.
Mr. President, this worthwhile legislation would expand the boundaries of the park by approximately 3,140 acres, incorporating the Lost Spring Canyon. The new, expanded boundary would better follow the natural borders dictated by the position of the canyon rim rather than the section lines and manmade features. Adding Lost Spring Canyon to the 73,400 acres already included in Arches National Park would bring a variety of new arches, balanced rocks, spires, and other geologic features under park protection and management. The addition of Lost Spring Canyon would also include the option of a ``back-country'' experience in Arches National Park.
The widespread support this bill enjoys is the result of careful efforts to balance competing interests. The Utah School Trust, the Grand Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association, and the National Park Services have voiced support for the proposed bill. Local officials, interest groups, and a majority of the residents of Grand County have been consulted for input and are also supportive of the boundary change.
Again, I am pleased to cosponsor the Arches National Park Expansion Act of 1998. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Reed):
S. 2107. A bill to enhance electronic commerce by promoting the reliability and integrity of commercial transactions through establishing authentication standards for electronic communications, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today with Senators Wyden, McCain, and Reed I introduce the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act. This legislation will bring the federal government into the electronic age, in the process saving American individuals and companies millions of dollars and hundreds of hours currently wasted on government paperwork.
Mr. President, the Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act would require federal agencies to make versions of their forms available online and allow people to submit these forms with digital signatures instead of handwritten ones. It also sets up a process by which commercially developed digital signatures can be used in submitting forms to the government and permits the digital storage of federal documents.
Each and every year, Mr. President, Americans spend in excess of $600 billion simply filling out, documenting and handling government paperwork. This huge loss of time and money constitutes a significant drain on our economy and we must bring it under control. That is why we need this legislation.
By providing individuals and companies with the option of electronic filing and storage, this bill will reduce the paperwork burden imposed by government on the American people and the American economy. It will allow people to move from printed forms they must fill out using typewriters or handwriting to digitally-based forms that can be filled out using a word processor. The savings in time, storage and postage will be enormous. One company, computer maker Hewlett-Packard, estimates that the section of this bill permitting companies to download copies of regulatory forms to be filed and stored digitally rather than physically will, by itself, save that company $1-2 billion per year.
Other companies will experience similar savings, and the results for the overall economy will be enormous. Mr. President, the results for America's small businesses, which bear a disproportionate portion of the paperwork burden, will be enormous and may in some cases spell the difference between business success and failure.
Mr. President, the easier and more convenient we make it for American businesses to comply with paperwork and reporting requirements, the better job they will do of meeting these requirements, and the better job they will do of creating jobs and wealth for our country. This legislation will help businesses and small businesses in particular as they struggle to satisfy Washington bureaucrats while retaining sufficient resources to satisfy their customers and meet their payrolls.
The most important benefit of this legislation, however, lies in the area of electronic innovation. Currently, digital encryption is in a relatively undeveloped state. One reason for that is the lack of opportunity for many individuals and companies to make use of the technology. Another is the lack of a set industry standard. By allowing use of this technology in the filling out of government paperwork, and by establishing a standard for digital encryption, the federal government can open the gates to quick, efficient development of this technology, as well as its more application throughout the economy. The benefits to American businesses as they struggle to establish paper-
free workplaces that will lower administrative costs, will be significant, and will further spur our national economy.
Efficiency in the federal government itself will also be enhanced by this legislation. By forcing government bureaucracies to enter the digital information age we will force them to streamline their procedures and enhance their ability to maintain accurate, accessible records. This should result in significant cost savings for the federal government as well as increased efficiency and enhanced customer service.
The information age is no longer new, Mr. President. We are in the midst of a revolution in the way people do business and maintain records. This legislation will force Washington to catch up with these developments, and release our businesses from the drag of an obsolete bureaucracy as they pursue further innovations. The result will be a nation and a people that is more prosperous, more free and more able to spend time on more rewarding pursuits.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (by request):
S. 2108. A bill to amend chapter 19, of title 38, United States Code, to provide that Service-members' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance under such chapter may, upon application, be paid to an insured person who is terminally ill; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
servicemembers and veterans' group life insurance accelerated death benefits act
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2108, the proposed ``Servicemembers' and Veterans' Group Life Insurance Accelerated Death Benefits Act.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated February 10, 1998.
My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2108
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This act may be cited as the ``Servicemembers' and Veterans' Group Life Insurance Accelerated Death Benefits Act''.
SEC. 2. OPTION TO RECEIVE ACCELERATED DEATH BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of subchapter III the following new section:
``Sec. 1980. Option to receive accelerated death benefits
``(a) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be considered to be `terminally ill' if such person has a medical prognosis that such person's life expectancy is less than a period prescribed by regulation by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The maximum time period prescribed in regulation shall not exceed 12 months.
``(b) The Department of Veterans Affairs shall prescribe regulations under which any terminally ill person insured under Servicemenbers' Group Life Insurance or Veterans' Group Life Insurance may elect to receive in a lump-sum payment a portion of the face value of the insurance as an accelerated death benefit reduced by an amount necessary to assure that there is no increase in the actuarial value of the benefit paid, as determined in regulations issued by the Secretary. The Secretary may prescribe by regulation the maximum amount of the accelerated death benefit available under this section that the Secretary finds to be administratively practicable and actuarially sound, but in no instance shall the benefit exceed 50 percent of the face value of the person's insurance in force on the date the election is approved. The insured may elect to receive an amount that is less than the maximum prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall prescribe in regulation increments in which the partial benefit can be elected.
``(c) The portion of the face amount of the insurance which was not paid in a lump sum as accelerated death benefits shall remain payable in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
``(d) Deductions under section 1969 and premiums under section 1977(c) shall be reduced, in a manner consistent with the percentage reduction in the face amount of the insurance as a result of payment of accelerated death benefits, effective with respect to any amounts which would otherwise become due on or after the date of payment under this subsection.
``(e) The regulations shall include provisions regarding the form and manner in which an application under this subsection shall be made and the procedures in accordance with which any such application shall be considered.
``(f) An election to receive benefits under this section shall be irrevocable, and not more than one such election may be made by any individual, even if the individual elects to receive less than the maximum amount of accelerated benefits prescribed by regulation.
``(g) If a person insured under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance elects to receive accelerated death benefits under this section, and the insured's Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance is thereafter converted to Veterans' Group Life Insurance as provided in section 1968(b) of this title, the amount of accelerated benefits paid under this section shall reduce the amount of Veterans' Group Life Insurance available to the insured under section 1977(a) of this title.''.
(b) Section 1970(g) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by--
(1) striking ``of benefits'' in the first sentence and inserting ``Any'' at the beginning of that sentence;
(2) adding ``an insured or'' following ``or on account of,''; and
(3) adding the following at the end of the subsection:
``Neither the amount of any payments made under this subchapter nor the name and address of the recipient of such payments shall be reported under subpart B of chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 19, title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding the following new item after the item relating to section 1979:
``1980. Option to receive accelerated death benefits.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) All regulations necessary to implement these amendments shall be promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
____
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC, February 10, 1998.Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,President of the U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft bill entitled the ``Servicemembers' and Veterans Group Life Insurance Accelerated Death Benefits Act.'' I request that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment.
This draft bill would amend title 38, United States Code, by adding a new section which would provide that group life insurance benefits may, upon application, be paid to a terminally ill person insured under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) or Veterans' Group Life Insurance
(VGLI). Traditionally, individuals have purchased life insurance in order to protect their dependents against financial loss due to their death. The proceeds have served to replace the lost income of the insureds and to cover their final expense. However, commercial life insurance companies have more recently included accelerated-benefit provisions in policies, which permit policyholders to receive payment of all or part of their life insurance policy's face amount prior to their death to provide for their needs during their final days. This draft bill would allow terminally ill SGLI and VGLI insureds to have access to a portion of the death benefits of the insurance proceeds provided under SGLI or VGLI coverage before they die in order to meet the financial burdens of medical and living expenses, but also would preserve a portion of the benefits for their dependents.
Section 2 of this draft bill would provide that benefits would be payable to insured persons with a medical prognosis of a life expectancy of less than a period prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, but the maximum period prescribed by the Secretary would not exceed 12 months. The Secretary would be authorized to promulgate regulations prescribing the maximum amount of the accelerated death benefit available under section 2, but in no event would the maximum amount exceed 50 percent of the face value of the person's insurance in force on the date the election is approved. The insured would be able to choose to receive less than the maximum amount prescribed by the Secretary, as prescribed by regulation. Payment of benefits under this bill would be reduced by an amount necessary to assure that there is no increase in the actuarial value of the benefits paid. The benefits would be exempt from taxation, see also 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 101(g)(1)(A), and creditors' claims, and would not be subject to attachment, levy, or seizure before or after receipt by the insured. In return for this election, the insured would sever all rights that any beneficiary might have had in the portion of the proceeds which are paid as accelerated death benefits. The accelerated death benefits election would be irrevocable and monthly deductions for SGLI and premiums for VGLI would be reduced in accordance with the percentage reduction in the face amount of the insured's policy as a result of the election. If a SGLI insured elects to receive accelerated death benefits under section 2 of this proposed legislation and the SGLI policy is then converted to VGLI as provided in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(b), the amount of the accelerated benefits paid would be subtracted from the amount of the VGLI available under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1977(a). The Department of Veterans Affairs would be required to issue regulations regarding the form and manner in which an application for accelerated death benefits must be made.
This legislative proposal would reduce receipts annually by a negligible amount; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (paygo) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA). This proposal should be considered in conjunction with other proposals in the President's FY 1999 Budget that together meet the paygo requirement.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Togo D. West, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 2109. A bill to provide for an exchange of lands located near Gustavus, Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Glacier Bay National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 1998
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation, that when enacted, will provide for a cleaner electrical system for Glacier National Park and Preserve in Alaska.
Vice President Al Gore in his opening remarks to the President's Council on Sustainable Development on January 13, 1994 said ``Our objective is results that are cleaner for the environment and cheaper for the economy.'' My objective for Glacier Bay National Park and the nearby Gustavus community mirrors that of the Vice President--to produce electricity that will be cleaner for the environment and cheaper for the economy.
Glacier Bay National Park currently generates its own electrical power using diesel generators. The electrical generation equipment now in place is expensive to maintain and is unreliable. It is my understanding that over the years there have been at least two oil spills into the waters of Glacier Bay, the tank farm is leaking, and the current electrical system is in need of major repair. In short, the diesel system at Glacier Bay is unacceptable in environmental terms
Before we spend tax payers dollars to add band-aids to this antiquated system, we ought to consider an environmentally sound and cheaper option for the production of electrical power.
Fortunately, there is a viable option. Enactment of this legislation would allow the placement and installation of a small water powered electrical system in the Fall Creek area on the southeast corner of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
Before park advocates take out their swords and start drawing lines in the sand, I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that we allow for the construction of a Hoover Dam in a National Park. I am suggesting that a ``run of stream'' small diversion weir be placed along Fall Creek within the boundaries of the Park.
Since the Fall Creek area of this proposed hydro power system is in a Wilderness area designated by Congress, any redrawing of boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park or other procedure to permit the system requires Congressional approval. As envisioned, the site required will amount to approximately 78 acres. If only the ``footprint'' is considered, as little as 5 acres would be utilized.
I believe there are considerable environmental benefits and economic advantages to be gained by eliminating dependence upon diesel fossil fuel and converting to a small water powered electrical system to provide power to the community of Gustavus and the National Park Service in Glacier Bay. In addition to providing clean, cheaper, stable priced, hydro electricity, substantial savings will occur to the State of Alaska, the National Park Service and to consumers. Significant economic savings from appropriations and increasing operational expenses for the existing systems, along with the environmental enhancements will have continuing long term benefits that more than compensate for a loss of some 5 acres for the Fall Creek System. These multiple benefits should be sufficient merit alone to justify a restructuring of Park boundaries to accommodate the new electrical generating system.
I realize that however meritorious the proposal may be, taking Wilderness out of a system or lands out of a park will be unacceptable to some. Under the provisions of this legislation lands removed from the boundaries of the Park will be replaced with State lands in another park. In other words, there will be no net loss of Wilderness.
We need to clean and protect the environment at Glacier Bay and Gustavus, this legislation is the beginning. The completed project will serve as a conservation model to other communities--an example of significant environmental advantages coupled with substantial economic savings to the public and government which could be realized elsewhere, particularly in the rural communities of Alaska.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was order to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2109
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Glacier Bay National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 1998.''
SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE AND WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to conditions set forth in subsection (c), if the State of Alaska, in a manner consistent with this Act, offers to transfer to the United States the lands identified in paragraph (2) in exchange for the lands identified in paragraph (3), selected from the area described in Section 3(b)(1), the Secretary of the Interior
(in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall complete such exchange no later than 6 months after the issuance of a license to Gustavus Electric Company by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in accordance with this Act. This land exchange shall be subject to the laws applicable to exchanges involving lands managed by the Secretary as part of the National Park System in Alaska and the appropriate process for the exchange of state lands required by state law.
(2) The lands to be conveyed to the United States by the State of Alaska shall be determined by mutual agreement of the Secretary and the State of Alaska. Lands which will be considered for conveyance to the United States pursuant to the process required by State law are: (1) lands owned by the State of Alaska in the Long Lake area within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve; or (2) other lands owned by the State of Alaska.
(3) If the Secretary and the State of Alaska have not agreed on which lands the State of Alaska will convey by a date not later than six months after a license is issued pursuant to this Act, the State of Alaska shall convey
(subject to the approval of the appropriate official of the State of Alaska), and the United States shall accept, within one year after a license is issued, title to land having a sufficiently equal value to satisfy state and federal law, subject to clear title and valid existing rights, and absence of environmental contamination, and as provided by the laws applicable to exchanges involving lands managed by the Secretary as part of the National Park System in Alaska and the appropriate process for the exchange of state lands required by state law. Such land shall be conveyed to the United States from among the following State lands in the priority listed:
COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN
1. T.6., R. 11 E., partially surveyed,
Sec. 11, lots 1 and 2, NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\, and N\1/2\SE\1/4\;
Sec. 12, NW\1/4\;
Sec. 14, lots 1 and 2, NW\1/4\NW\1/4\,
Containing 838.66 acres, as shown on the plat of survey accepted June 9, 1922.
2. T. 5 S., R. 11 E., partially surveyed,
T. 6 S., R. 11 E., partially surveyed,
Sec. 2, NW\1/4\ NE\1/4\ and NW\1/4\,
Containing 200.00 acres, as shown on the plat of survey accepted June 9, 1922,
3. T. 6 S., R. 12 E., partially surveyed,
Sec. 6, lots 1 through 10, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, and SE\1/4\
Containing approximately 529.94 acres, as shown on the plat of survey accepted June 9, 1922.
(4) The lands to be conveyed to the State of Alaska by the United States under paragraph (1) are lands to be designated by the Secretary and the State of Alaska, consistent with sound land management principles, based on those lands determined by the FERC with the concurrence of the Secretary and the State of Alaska, in accordance with section 3(b), to be the minimum amount of land necessary for the construction and operation of a hydroelectric project.
(5) The time periods set forth for the completion of the land exchanged described in this Act may be extended as necessary by the Secretary should the processes of state law or federal law delay completion of an exchange.
(6) For purposes of this Act, ``land'' means lands, waters and interests therein.
(b) Wilderness.--(1) To ensure that this transaction maintains, within the National Wilderness Preservation System, approximately the same amount of area of designated wilderness as currently exists, the following lands in Alaska shall be designated as wilderness in the priority listed, upon consummation of the land exchange authorized by this Act and shall be administered according to the laws governing national wilderness areas in Alaska.
(A) An unnamed island in Glacier Bay National Park lying southeasterly of Blue Mouse Cove in sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, T. 36 S., R 54 E., CRM, and shown on United States Geological Survey quadrangle Mt. Fairweather (D-2), Alaska, containing approximately 789 acres.
(B) Cenotaph Island of Glacier Bay National Park lying within Lituya Bay in sections 23, 24, 25, and 26, T. 37 S., R. 47 E., CRM, and shown on United States Geological Survey quadrangle Mt. Fairweather (C-5), Alaska, containing approximately 280 acres.
(C) An area of Glacier Bay National Park lying in T. 31. S., R. 43 E and T.32 S., R, 43 E., CRM, that is not currently designated wilderness, containing approximately 2270 acres.
(2) The specific boundaries and acreage of these wilderness designations may be reasonably adjusted by the Secretary, consistent with sound land management principles, to approximately equal, in sum, the total wilderness acreage deleted from Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve pursuant to the land exchange authorized by this act.
(c) Conditions.--Any exchange of lands under this Act may occur only if--
(1) following the submission of an acceptable license application, the FERC has conducted economic and environmental analyzes under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791-828) (notwithstanding provisions of that Act and the Federal regulations that otherwise exempt this project from economic analyzes), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661-666), that conclude, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to (A) and (B) below, that the construction and operation of a hydroelectric power project on the lands described in section 3(b)--
(A) will not adversely impact the purposes and values of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (as constituted after the consummation of the land exchange authorized by this section);
(B) will comply with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-470w); and
(C) can be accomplished in an economically feasible manner;
(2) The FERC held at least one public meeting in Gustavus, Alaska, allowing the citizens of Gustavus to express their views on the proposed project;
(3) The FERC has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary and the State of Alaska, the minimum amount of land necessary to construct and operate this hydroelectric power project;
(4) Gustavus Electric Company has been granted a license by FERC that requires Gustavus Electric Company to submit an acceptable financing plan to FERC before project construction may commence, and FERC has approved such plan.
SEC. 3. ROLE OF FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.
(a) License Application.--(1) The FERC licensing process shall apply to any application submitted by Gustavus Electric Company to FERC for the right to construct and operate a hydro power project on the lands described in subsection (b).
(2) The FERC is authorized to accept and consider an application filed by Gustavus Electric Company for the construction and operation of a hydro power plant to be located on lands within the area described in subsection (b), notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(2)). Such application must be submitted within 3 years from the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) The FERC will retain jurisdiction over any hydropower project constructed on this site.
(b) Analyzes.--(1) The lands referred to in subsection (a) of this section are lands in the State of Alaska described as follows:
copper river meridian
Township 39 South, Range 59 East, partially surveyed, Section 36 (unsurveyed) SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\W\1/2\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, and S\1/2\SE\1/4\NW\1/4\. Containing approximately 130 acres.
Township 40 South Range 59 East, partially surveyed, Section 1 (unsurveyed). NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, and SW\1/4\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, excluding U.S. Survey 944 and Native allotment A-442; Section 2 (unsurveyed), fractional, that portion lying above the mean high tide line of Icy Passage, excluding U.S. Survey 944 and U.S. Survey 945; Section 11
(unsurveyed), fractional, that portion lying above the mean high tide line of Icy Passage, excluding U.S. Survey 944; Section 12 (unsurveyed), fractional, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, and those portions of NW\1/4\ and SW\1/4\ lying above the mean high tide line of Icy Passage, excluding U.S. Survey 944 and Native allotment A-442. Containing approximately 1015 acres.
(2) Additional lands and acreage will be included as needed in the study area described in paragraph (1) to account for accretion to these lands from natural forces;
(3) With the concurrence of the Secretary and the State of Alaska, the FERC shall determine the minimum amount of lands necessary for construction and operation of such project;
(4) The National Park Service shall participate as a joint land agency in the development of any environmental document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in the licensing of such project. Such environmental document shall consider both the impacts resulting from licensing and any land exchange necessary to authorize such project.
(c) Issuance of License.--(1) A condition of the license to construct and operate any portion of the hydroelectric power project shall be the FERC's approval, prior to any commencement of construction, of a finance plan submitted by Gustavus Electric Company.
(2) The National Park Service, as the existing supervisor of potential project lands ultimately to be deleted from the Federal reservation in accordance with this Act, waives its right to impose mandatory conditions on such project lands pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)).
(3) The FERC shall not license, re-license the project, or amend the project license unless it determines, with the Secretary's concurrence, that the project will not adversely impact the purposes and values of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (as constituted after the consummation of the land exchange authorized by this Act). Additionally, a condition of the license, or any succeeding license, to construct and operate any portion of the hydroelectric power project shall require the license to mitigate any adverse effects of the project on the purposes and values of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve identified by the Secretary after the initial licensing.
(4) A condition of the license to construct and operate any portion of the hydroelectric power project shall be the completion, prior to any commencement of construction, of the land exchange described in this Act.
SEC. 4. ROLE OF SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.
(a) Special Use Permit.--Notwithstanding the provisions of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133-1136), the Secretary shall issue a Special Use Permit to Gustavus Electric Company to ensure the completion of the analyzes referred to in Section 3. The Secretary shall impose conditions in the permit as needed to protect the purposes and values of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
(b) Park System.--The lands acquired from the State of Alaska under this Act shall be added to and administered as part of the National Park System, subject to valid existing rights. Upon completion of the exchange of lands under this Act, the Secretary shall adjust, as necessary, the boundaries of the affected National Park System unit(s) to include the lands acquired from the State of Alaska; and adjust the boundary of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve to exclude the lands transferred to the State of Alaska under this Act. Any such adjustments to the boundaries of National Park System units shall have no effect upon acreage determinations under section 103(b) of the Public Law 96-487.
(c) Wilderness Area Boundaries.--The Secretary shall make any necessary modifications or adjustments of boundaries of wilderness areas as a result of the additions and deletions caused by the land exchange referred in Section 2. Any such adjustments to the boundaries of wilderness area shall have no effect upon acreage determination under section 103(b) of Public Law 96-487.
(d) Payments.--Gustavus Electric Company shall not required to make Federal land payments under section 10(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803(c)) with respect to the lands to be exchanged under this Act.
(e) Concurrence of the Secretary.--Whenever in this Act the concurrence of the Secretary is required, it shall not be unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Snowe,
Mrs. Murray, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin)
S. 2110. A bill to authorize the Federal program to prevent violence against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
violence against women act ii
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Violence Against Women Act--II.'' I am pleased to be joined by several Senators who are cosponsoring this legislation--including Senators Specter, Boxer, Snowe, Murray, Moseley-Braun, Mikulski, Dodd, Lautenburg, Wellstone, Kennedy, and Durbin.
Mr. President, when I introduced the Violence Against Women Act eight years ago--in June, 1990--it was not clear that the Senate would ever even consider this legislation. The fundamental reason--just eight years ago, few thought it either appropriate or necessary for national legislation to confront the problem of domestic violence.
From 1990 to 1993, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I convened six hearings on the bill, released six reports on the problems of violence against women, convinced the Judiciary Committee to favorably report the bill to the full Senate on three times and had to re-
introduce the bill twice.
But, it was not until November, 1993--nearly 3 and \1/2\ years after introduction--that the full Senate even considered the Violence Against Women Act. In September, 1994, the Violence Against Women Act became law.
But, even passage of the act into law did not end the significant debate on the issue of whether the problem of violence against women merited a national response. As my colleagues will recall, throughout the summer of 1995, the Congress debated whether or not we should actually fund the Violence Against Women Act.
Fortunately, by the fall of 1995, the Congress finally reached a consensus--the Federal Government can and should provide resources and leadership in a national effort to end the violence women suffer at the hands of men who profess to love them.
That consensus has held to this day.
And, at the most practical levels, that consensus has been rewarded:
The murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at the hands of their ``intimates'' fell to an 19-year low in both 1995 and 1996.
Thousands of trained police officers are on the streets arresting abusers before they can victimize again; police officers are working as never before to guide victims toward help; prosecutors have been added to the front-lines to put these abusers where they belong--behind bars; tens of thousands of women have been provided the shelters necessary to protect themselves and their children; battered women are being provided a whole range of support services--counseling, legal help for such matters as getting a ``protection from abuse'' orders; and a new national domestic violence hotline has already answered nearly 200,000 calls for help.
Mr. President, our consensus in the Congress reflects a fundamental consensus in our Nation--the time when a woman has to suffer in silence because the criminal who is victimizing her happens to be her husband or boyfriend is over.
Today, we must build on this consensus and deliver on its promise--
because for all the strides we have made, there remain far too many women who will go home this evening knowing in the nervous pit of their stomach that there is a better than even chance that they will get the hell beat out of them.
I don't know that any of us who have not been in this situation can truly understand what it must be like--an understanding which would, in turn, also help us recognize the tremendous need to take action.
Perhaps we can gain a glimmer of such an understanding if we recall our school-boy memory--and every man in this Chamber I know has at least one of these--a memory of sitting in class, dreading the time when the recess bell would ring, because the school bully told you that he was going to beat the daylights out of you on the playground. Imagine feeling that dread every day. Imagine feeling that twist in your guts as an adult.
That is what every man in this Senate, this Congress and this Nation must remember as we continue to debate what we can--and what we should--do to combat violence against women.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today--the Violence Against Women Act II--has one simple goal: make more women safe.
This legislation seeks this goal by building on the original Violence Against Women Act--continuing what is working; seeking improvements to fix those efforts which could work better; and expanding the national fight into those areas where the need is clear, but our efforts have neglected.
Beyond describing some of the specifics of the legislation being introduced, I want to make it clear, there are many other ideas and proposals that should be considered before the full Senate debates this legislation. Also, I am sure there are several refinements to improve what is currently in this bill.
There are several Senators who are developing these other proposals and refinements--for there are many Senators who are deeply committed to combating violence against women. And, I hope that my colleagues will review this legislation, offer their insights and lend their names as co-sponsors and leaders in the fight against domestic violence.
Still, as my colleagues review this legislation, I believe they will find that it offers comprehensive and sensible responses to violence against women.
To highlight just some of the specific aspects of this legislation, let me start with what I believe to be the central component of the Violence Against Women Act II--the money, continuing the dollars for cops, prosecutors, judges, shelters, and all the elements which are working.
This requires one simple step--continue the violent crime reduction trust fund which the Biden crime bill set up several years ago. This trust fund is due to expire in the year 2000.
Let me remind everybody how it is funded. We agreed that we would reduce the number of Federal workers by over 200,000. We reduced them by 271,000. We agreed that the paychecks that were being paid to those Federal workers would be taken and put in the trust fund, and that trust fund would only be used to fight crime, a part of which is to fight domestic violence. That fund, that trust fund, that separate entity's authorization expires in the year 2000. This legislation first and foremost extends it, extends it to the year 2002. And it does not relitigate the balanced budget agreement upon which we agreed last year. It is accommodated within that balanced budget agreement.
Beyond this fundamental step, there are four key policy areas addressed in my new legislation.
1. Strengthening law enforcement's tools.
2. Improving services for the victims of violence.
3. Reducing violence against children, not only the frequent and horrible side effects of violence against women but also the wellspring of future generations of abusers because all of the data shows that those who witness abuse, ironically and tragically, tend to become abusers.
4. To bolster the antidomestic violence training and education programs to enlist many more professionals in our fight to deal with violence.
Strengthening Law Enforcement
On the law enforcement front, the bill introduced today, starts with needed improvements to bolster the inter-state enforcement of ``stay-
away'' or protection orders.
To give a practical example, let's say a woman from my home State of Delaware gets one of these protection orders against and old boyfriend who has been stalking and beating the heck out of her. Let's also say she works in Pennsylvania.
This is the scenario which led the original Violence Against Women Act to call on states to honor the protection orders of other states. We did so because the cops recognize the simple reality--they know what will happen sooner or later if the old boyfriend keeps showing up at the woman's work. And, the cops in Pennsylvania don't want to wait for the worst to happen--they want to nail the guy for violating the protection order, stopping violence before it happens--in other words, community policing.
The problem--the cops in Pennsylvania may not know about that there is a valid protection order issued by the State of Delaware. We propose today a few simple fixes: Permitting state and local cops to use their
``pro-arrest'' grants for this information sharing; encouraging states to enter into the cooperative agreements necessary to help interstate enforcement; and calling on the Justice Department to help develop new protocols and disseminate the ``best practices'' of state and local cops.
Pretty simple, but all are extremely necessary--and I hope we can all support such common sense measures.
I won't go into nearly as much detail in describing the law enforcement initiatives proposed in this bill, but just to ``tick'' some of these off--we propose to: Bolster the resources available for courts to handle domestic violence and sexual assault cases; target the
``date-rape'' drug with the maximum federal penalties; continue funding for police, prosecutors, law enforcement efforts in rural communities, and for anti-stalking initiatives; extend the support of local police
``pro-arrest'' efforts--a program expiring this year; and provide new laws to protect our military support personnel stationed, as well as our female military personnel who may be assaulted off-base--where, too often, lax foreign laws give a ``free-pass'' to their victimizer.
Assisting the Victims of Violence
Of course, a comprehensive effort to reduce violence against women and lessen its damages must do more than just arrest, convict and imprison abusers--we must also help the victims of violence. This legislation proposes to assist these crime victims in three fundamental ways:
Immediate protections from their abuser--such as battered women's shelters; help so that they can have access to the courts and legal assistance necessary to keep their abuser away from them; and removing the ``catch-22s'' that may literally often force women to stay with their abuser--such as the discriminatory insurance policies which could force a mother to choose: turn-in the man who is beating me or keep health insurance for her children.
Those are the three general policy goals, but to be more specific, let me outline just how our legislation proposes to boost the protections for the victims of violence:
First and foremost, we must build on our successful effort to provide more shelter space for battered women and their children. Senator specter and the appropriations committee has done tremendous work to boost annual funding for shelters to $78 million--enough for about 200,000 battered women and their children.
Unfortunately, the unmet need for shelter remains significant. For example, data from six states, which together have about 16% of the Nation's population had to turn away more than 45,000 battered women who were seeking shelter because they simply did not have the space. Extrapolating these figures to the entire nation suggests that about 300,000 battered women and their children are turned away from shelters every year.
As I said, the current appropriations for shelter space stands at about $78 million. This legislation boosts this amount to $175 million over the next four years. The additional $100 million over current services will close the ``shelter-gap''--of roughly 300,000 battered women and their children. This will bring us closer to the day when all battered women will have a safe, secure place when they need it most.
Of course, we phase in this increase--but, it is clear to us that we must take the basic, fundamental step if we are to protect these victims of violence.
As I said, we must also provide women with the assistance necessary so that they can get access to help from our justice system. We do so, in some clear and common sense ways, such as:
Re-authorizing the expiring program to provide about $1 million per year for victim/witness counselors in federal court; as Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun have recognized, women should not have to chose between showing up at court to make sure her abuser is punished and losing her job--so, this legislation includes their proposal to extend the protections of the Family & Medical Leave Act to the victims of domestic violence;
Continuing the national Domestic Violence Hotline (at a cost of about $2 million per year); and
Developing a national network of trained, volunteer attorneys who will help each of the nearly 100,000 women who, each year, call the national hotline for help.
The other component of our plan to aid the victims of domestic violence is to target what I refer to as the ``catch-22'' problems.
Senator Murray has identified one source of just such a ``Catch-
22''--the fact that some insurance companies and plans deny women health, disability, property or life insurance protections because the woman is a victim of domestic violence.
In starkest terms, this forces a woman to chose between reporting--
and trying to end--the violence she is suffering or her children's health care.
This must end--we must pass Senator Murray's proposal, included in this legislation, to protect the victims from abuse from insurance discrimination.
Let me also remind my colleagues that in the original Violence Against Women Act we took bi-partisan action to end another such insidious ``choice.'' In 1994, we worked out provisions so battered immigrant women--whose ability to stay in the country was dependent on their husbands--would not have to chose: stay in America and continue to get beaten or leave their husbands, end the abuse, but have to leave America (perhaps even without their children.)
While we had fixed some aspects of this problem in 1994, there remain other aspects of immigration law which leave a woman with just such a horrible, unfair and immoral choice. With Senator Kennedy, we have worked to include in this legislation several of these corrections.
I urge my colleagues to support--and even build upon--our efforts to put an end to these real problems.
Reducing Violence Against Children
A third area where this legislation seeks action is on reducing violence against children. As my colleagues know, households where the wife is beaten are much more likely to also be home to child abuse and neglect. In addition, the research findings are clear--children who witness violence are much more likely to repeat the cycle when they are adults and they have a wife and children.
Here, our legislation proposes to continue two long-standing programs--
Resources to serve runaway and homeless youth who are victims of sexual abuse; and
The resources provided for Court-Appointed Special Advocates and special child abuse training for court personnel through the Victims of Child Abuse Act (originally co-sponsored by Senator Thurmond and myself in 1990.)
The current appropriations for all these programs total about $25 million--we propose to increase that annual amount by about $10 million.
Improving Research and Training
The remaining area targeted by the Violence Against Women Act--two includes several efforts to help train and educate those already on the front-lines of the battle against violence against women.
Senator Boxer has recognized that one of the leading reasons why women enter hospital emergency rooms is because they were beaten at the hands of a man. So, this bill, includes her proposal to increase the number of health professionals who are trained in the identification, treatment and referral of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Over the past few years, I have worked with several corporations
(including, DuPont, Polaroid, Liz Claiborne, and The Body Shop) who have begun their own workplace initiatives--everything from 24-hour assistance hotlines for their employees, training to help managers better recognize domestic violence, and even comprehensive employee assistance efforts.
Helping other companies start or improve--again, on their own initiative-- such anti-violence efforts is the reason this legislation includes a national workplace clearinghouse on violence against women.
The clearinghouse will provide technical assistance and help circulate ``best practices'' to companies interested in combating violence against women.
Another practical problem out in the field relates to the complex nature of criminal investigations into sexual assault cases. To assist the cops in the field who face these investigations, this legislation calls on the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards of training and practice of forensic examinations following sexual assaults.
I want to make clear, this legislation does not allow any Federal dictates--but only some assistance to those in the field.
Finally, this legislation continues the authorization for rape prevention and education programs. These programs provide public awareness and education efforts to both teach young women how to protect themselves from rape and attack, as well as to help build their self-esteem.
Mr. President, I have just offered the most general outline of the contents of the Violence Against Women Act--Two. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation. I am confident they will find this bill a comprehensive and practical response which will help us meet a goal I believe is shared by every member of this Senate--making more women safer.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in introducing the Biden-Specter ``Violence Against Women Act II'' (VAWA II), a bipartisan effort to continue and strengthen the many vital Federal programs which work to combat violence against women. I thank Senator Biden in particular for his leadership in crafting this important legislation.
Clearly, violence against women knows no social, economic, or geographic bounds. It affects rich and poor, young and old. Women are assaulted in their homes, on the streets, in the workplace, and on campuses. In 1992, I cosponsored the original ``Violence Against Women Act'' (VAWA), which amended other anti-violence legislation to include acts of violence against women as crimes. Although it did not pass that year, we worked hard to include this vital legislation in the 1994 omnibus anti-crime legislation. Since enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked to ensure that programs under this law are funded adequately.
Domestic violence in particular is an epidemic which VAWA programs seek to address. Within the last year, 3.9 million American women were victims of physical abuse and another 20.7 million were verbally or emotionally abused by their spouse or partner. A recent study found that the medical costs associated with these attacks amount to over
$857.3 million. In my State of Pennsylvania, more than 500,000 citizens will be victims of domestic violence each year, and the estimated medical cost exceeds $326 million. In 1995 and 1996, I held hearings in Pennsylvania on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women in general, and have visited battered women's shelters in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to see first-hand the kind of physical and emotional suffering so many women endure.
Within the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which I chair, Violence Against Women Act programs received $128.7 million for fiscal year 1998. I have also supported Violence Against Women Act programs funded within the Department of Justice, which totaled $270.7 million for fiscal year 1998.
The Biden-Specter VAWA II legislation extends and expands the vital VAWA programs supported by my Subcommittee. Currently funded at $76.5 million, Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children would double its authorization in four years. The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has received over 120,000 calls since February 1996, is another successful resource which would receive a substantial increase in its authorization. The VAWA II proposal would authorize an additional $15 million over four years for the Rape Prevention and Education Program, currently at $45 million, and would institute new coordination between the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to administer the CDC Prevention and Intervention Research to Combat Violence Against Women.
The Biden-Specter VAWA II legislation also includes provisions to address the issue of violence against women on college campuses across the country. Recognizing the grave importance of battling this problem in a targeted manner, I introduced the ``Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998'' (S. 2100) on May 20, 1998. Sexual assaults throughout the United States, including sexual assaults on campuses, are on the rise. Independent research and studies show that 20 percent of college-aged women will be victims of sexual crimes at some point in their postsecondary academic career. Studies also show that rape remains the most underreported violent crime in America, with approximately one in every six rapes reported to police. The Campus Crime Disclosure Act, tightens existing campus security law to discourage higher educational institutions from the underreporting of offenses covered by the 1990 Campus Security Act.
I have also continuously worked to ensure that women receive the benefit of the Federal investment into public health programs. I helped establish the Public Health Service's Office of Women's Health in 1991, which develops, coordinates, and stimulates women's health programs and activities across all Federal agencies. Funding for this program has increased from $450,000 in fiscal year 1991 to $12.5 million in fiscal year 1998. Even in an era of constrained spending, these expenditures are well worthwhile on this important subject.
I believe that by the passage of legislation such as the Biden-
Specter Violence Against Women Act II, we are on the right track to helping women to combat the incidence of domestic violence, and victimization in general. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1993, violence against women had reached a crisis point. The epidemic had spread through every community, across every ethnic group, and did not discriminate based on income, or age.
In 1994, Congress responded to this crisis. The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 established a national strategy for dealing with this crisis. No longer would this kind of violence be tolerated. Congress made violence against women a federal crime and threw the weight of the federal government behind efforts to end this violence.
Senator Biden was instrumental in drafting the original VAWA. I am grateful for his efforts in the past and have always appreciated his work on behalf of this issue. I also want to thank Senator Specter for his efforts to funding these important programs. I have worked with him on the Appropriations Committee and have experienced first hand the benefits of having him on my side on an important family violence issue in the 1998 Labor, HHS Appropriations bill.
Enactment of VAWA in 1994 for me is one of my top legislative accomplishments. I know that we made a difference. I know that providing the resources to help women who are victims of violence seek safety and justice has saved hundreds of lives. I have visited battered women's shelters and talked to many advocates who tell me how important VAWA is. Reauthorization of this historic act must be a priority of this Congress. We can build on the success of VAWA and work to end violence against women.
I want to thank Senator Biden for working with me to include a prohibition against insurance discrimination in this legislation. I find this practice of discriminating against victims of domestic violence offensive and outrageous. To victimize a woman twice is inexcusable. Insurance policies that deny women health insurance or homeowners insurance simply because they have been victims of domestic violence can no longer be tolerated. To say that a victim of domestic violence engages in high risk behavior similar to a sky diver or race car driver is beyond comprehension. Enactment of VAWA reauthorization legislation will end this practice.
Believe me, insurance discrimination is a reality. I know of several cases, including one in my own state of Washington, where an insurance company refused to honor its obligation because the loss was the result of a domestic violence situation. There are many more documented cases of discrimination. Insurance companies should be ashamed of this kind of practice. Today we have a means to end it.
Enactment of this reauthorization legislation is an important step. But, it is only part of the solution. We must do more. We can help ensure that services are available to protect women and resources to local law enforcement to deal with the epidemic. However, the only real solution to ending domestic violence is economic security and stability for the woman. VAWA offers temporary solutions, but long term solutions require tearing down economic barriers for these women. Work place discrimination, lack of affordable child care, housing shortages, punitive welfare requirements, inability to change a Social Security number are all examples of these barriers.
Removing the economic barriers for victims of domestic violence is our next great challenge. I have been working with advocates in the State of Washington on legislation that would serve to end the economic sanctions many victims face.
But, first we do need to ensure the immediate safety of these women and their children. We need to provide resources to law enforcement to protect women and we need to guarantee that the courts treat offenders as violent criminals. The legislation that we will be introducing today accomplishes these goals.
This is one piece of legislation that will make a difference.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I call upon my colleagues to support the Violence Against Women Act of 1998 which we introduce today.
Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women in the United States. Every 9 seconds, a woman is physically abused by her husband or boyfriend. 42 percent of all murdered women are killed by current or ex-partners. Approximately 95 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women. More than 3 million children witness acts of domestic violence every year.
In 1994, Congress passed the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA). Under VAWA, the Department of Justice awarded over $483 million under to the states for domestic violence programs. The largest portion of the money goes toward ``STOP'' grants, which bring together police, prosecutors, counselors, shelter providers and other organizations to develop coordinated services for women dealing with domestic violence.
These funds make a difference in women's lives. My home State of California has received more than $46 million under VAWA, plus an additional $19 million for battered women's shelters and services.
With VAWA funds, Los Angeles County increased the number of shelters from 18 in 1994 to 25 shelters today, adding 200 additional shelter beds for women and children. One organization, the 1736 Family Crisis center, opened a new shelter in large part due to VAWA funds. The Valley Oasis shelter in the high dessert expanded its number of beds significantly, again due in large part to VAWA. Throughout California, VAWA helped fund more than 77 domestic violence shelters.
In California, in fiscal year 1998 alone, VAWA provided: $875,000 to fund domestic violence and children's services such as counseling, shelters, and safety planning; $1.8 million for specialized domestic violence units in local law enforcement agencies; $2.7 million to fund prosecution units that specifically handle domestic violence cases; and
$1.2 million for its multi-disciplinary sexual assault response team victim advocate project, which brings together police officers, doctors, nurses, advocates, and counselors to respond to victim's needs within hours of a sexual assault.
VAWA funds sheriffs in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles to conduct domestic violence training for thousands of law enforcement officers and for individuals involved in community-oriented policing
(the COPS program) throughout the State. This legislation will help continue and expand these and other programs across the country.
VAWA II includes important improvements. It encourages training for health care providers to help them identify the signs of domestic violence and refer patients to appropriate services. It protects women from the horrors of ``date-rape'' drugs by placing the drug Rohypnol in Federal Schedule 1--the strictest level of federal drug penalties and controls. It improves protections for older women, women with disabilities, and women on college campuses.
With VAWA II, we are taking the next crucial steps to help keep American women and children safe. I commend NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund for its leadership on this issue, and the many organizations that have fought to protect and to provide services for battered women and their children. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act II. I commend Senator Biden for his hard work on this continuing effort to combat violence against women. I believe we are making great progress as a nation to make our streets and our world safer by cracking down on violent crime. This new law represents the continuing Federal effort to deal with these crucial issues. I am encouraged by the bipartisan support for this bill. Protecting the lives of women and children should not be a partisan issue. Both Democrat and Republican members of the United States Senate are taking a solid stand against the disgraceful and cowardly crime of domestic violence.
Mr. President, I strongly support this important legislation for three reasons. First, this bill continues the fight for a safer world by providing new and continuing grants to improve the criminal justice system's protections for women and children. Second, it provides important training for those involved in the response to citizens abused by domestic violence. Third it expands and strengthens the services available to victims of violence.
The Violence Against Women Act II is a big step forward in the effort to keep women, children and communities safe. One of the most critical components of this bill is the reauthorization of the STOP Grant funds for vital programs in our states. This allows the states to obtain the money they need to create and mobilize effective strategies against violence. In my state of Maryland, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General of Maryland created the Family Violence Council to find ways to reduce and prevent family violence. With the STOP Grant funds Maryland received through the 1994 Violence Against Crime Act, the Council has been able to effectively assist a statewide initiative against crime. This money has been used to help Maryland develop policies and procedures against domestic violence. It has been used to ensure the development of the best possible laws to protect victims and hold abusers accountable. We have coordinated community programs that protect victims. We have made efforts to break the cycle of violence between generations. And we have stood together as citizens of Maryland and said that violence against women is something we cannot and will not tolerate.
Second, this legislation provides the authorization for money to train people to respond to domestic abuse. It amends the STOP and Pro-
Arrest grants and makes states and local courts specifically eligible for funding. These are the same programs that brought police and prosecutors into the loop of personnel who combat violence toward women. The bill we are introducing today takes the next vital step. It expressly targets funds to the courts and helps engage them in the fight against domestic violence. By educating judicial staff and officers of the court about the special issues raised by violence against women, we completed the circle of people who must work in partnerships to end these crimes. Judges and officers are often the first people a victim will meet in the criminal system when seeking legal intervention. The judicial staff are the ones who can set the stage for whether or not a victim will proceed with her claim. This legislation ensures that all personnel in the criminal justice system are educated and trained to handle cases of domestic violence. This ensures that the proper support, services and protection are available to those who need it most.
Finally, I support this bill because of the services it provides for the victims of these destructive crimes. In 1992, we witnessed a national travesty. In 1992 the National Domestic Violence Hotline went out of business. Not because there was no domestic violence. At that time, the hotline averaged 7.5 calls an hour, 180 calls a day and 65,520 calls a year. The hotline went out of business because it had no funding. That means lives were lost because our citizens had an emergency hotline number that no longer worked. That means more children were beaten and murdered every day who might have been able to get the help they needed. That means the federal government was not meeting its duty to stop the deadly cycle of violent crime.
We cannot and must not allow this to happen again. That is why in 1994 we included a new provision in the law to authorize grants to revive the national hotline. That is why today we are now increasing and extending authorizations to meet the growing demands on the Hotline. Today any woman or child with access to a telephone can dial 1-800-799-SAFE and get the help they urgently need from a qualified and informed professional.
Domestic violence in this country was ignored for far too long before we passed the first Violence Against Women Act. Annually, at least 2 million children and 2 to 4 million women are abused by the people closest to them. These statistics truly send home a very strong message: The most vulnerable members of our society have historically not been served by our government. These alarming crime rates resound loudly and should be heard by every legislator elected to Congress.
We must remain keenly aware of the fact that four women a day are killed at the hands of their batterer. That fifty-seven percent of children under 12 who are murdered are killed by a parent. That every fifteen seconds a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend. The Violence Against Women Act II will continue the effort to combat this violence toward women. The time is now to act and to continue our fight. No woman should live in fear that any person will get away with hurting her or her children. I have stated in the past that if you intend to harm a woman that you better stay out of my state of Maryland. I strongly encourage every single member of the Senate to not only vote for, but to actively support this crucial legislation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud co-
sponsor of this Violence Against Women Act. I was a co-sponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and will work hard to see this Violence Against Women Act pass as well. As you well know my wife Sheila and I do a lot of work trying to reduce violence in homes. That is a big priority for us. And the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act was a first big step and an historical occasion.
It was the culmination of over twenty-five years of hard work by local and national organizations. It was an acknowledgment that this kind of violence within families is everybody's business. It was the public recognition that for all too many women the home, rather than being a safe place is a very dangerous place. And finally it sent a clear message that violence against women was a crime that would not be tolerated. It sent a clear message that we as a nation were committed to ending violence against women. At that time we thought we were introducing a comprehensive bill to end violence against women. We have learned a great deal since the passage of the first Act and with that knowledge we know we can and must do better. We have also learned that violence against women is multi-faceted problem that must be addressed in many ways. While the first Act provided important funding to improve services to abused women and improve the criminal justice system, the statistics show we must do more. In my own state of Minnesota, at least 17 women were killed in 1997 by their intimate partners. In that same year, over 4,000 women and over 5,000 children used domestic violence shelters in my state. I am sure that the provisions provided in VAWA allowed so many women to be served. I am sure that the provision in WAVA allowed law enforcement, in my state and across the country, to better address cases of domestic abuse. But now we must broaden our approach to this critical problem.
And so today we introduce the Violence Against Women Act II. This legislation not only reauthorizes and improves the initial commitment set forth in VAWA, but also addresses the impact of violence against women in areas of child visitation, sexual assault prevention, insurance discrimination, as well as violence in the workplace and on campuses. The initiatives in this bill, as I'm sure my colleague Joe Biden will attest, were developed as part of a collaborative effort with researchers, advocates and service providers alike. Seeing the problems that victims face on a daily basis, they have helped us to develop legislation that will assist women who have been victims of violence.
I have worked hard at addressing the severe economic consequences of domestic abuse on working women and am proud to say that VAWA II includes provisions to ensure access to family and medical leave coverage. With the passage of this Act women will be allowed to be absent from work so that they can deal with the domestic violence in their lives. Under this legislation victims of abuse could use family and medical leave to attend court hearings and go to appointments with health care providers. In addition this legislation specifies that unemployment compensation should be provided if employment is terminated due to domestic abuse. If a woman loses her job because of the abuse she is experiencing in her home then she will be assured access to unemployment compensation. In other words, this legislation addresses the fact that the cycle of violence will not be interrupted unless victims of abuse are assured of economic security and independence.
Another facet of domestic violence that has been recognized since the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act is the discrimination that victims of abuse face. I have worked hard at ending discrimination by insurance companies against victims of abuse and am proud to be able to say that this issue is well addressed in VAWA II. After years of work by advocates, encouraging women to come forward and report their abuse, we now find that they are being discriminated against based on their status as victims of that abuse. We all know that denying women access to insurance they need to foster their mobility out of an abusive situation must be stopped. Under this legislation insurance companies could no longer discriminate against victims of abuse in any line of insurance.
And finally, I would just like to mention the provision to provide safe havens for children. It is time we address the danger that children and victims of abuse are subjected to during visitation sessions with former partners. Let us stop further violence from occurring by providing safe centers for children who are members of families in which violence is a problem. These centers will provide a safe environment in which children can visit with their parents without risk of being exposed to violence in the context of their family relationships. These centers will also save the lives of mothers by providing secure and supervised environments where they can drop off their children to visit with their abusers. Stopping the cycle of violence means providing safe places for women and children inside and outside the home.
While we worked hard in the first Violence Against Women Act to make streets and homes safer for women by investing in law enforcement initiatives, we have learned that a woman's safety is dependent on her ability to achieve economic as well as physical security. The measures that I have mentioned are only some of the pieces that show the comprehensive nature of this bill. It is a reflection of what we have learned and the acknowledgment that we can and must do better. The Violence Against Women Act II is an impressive piece of legislation that deserves serious attention in this Congress. I look forward to the hearings and debates on this bill and look forward to working on and seeing it pass.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
S. 2111. A bill to establish the conditions under which the Bonneville Power Administration and certain Federal agencies may enter into a memorandum of agreement concerning management of the Columbia/
Snake River Basin, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to appoint an advisory committee to make recommendations regarding activities under memorandum of understanding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
columbia river and snake river legislation
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish the conditions under which certain Federal agencies may enter into a memorandum of agreement with non-federal entities concerning management of the Columbia River and Snake River Basin in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
This bill is not an endorsement of the draft Three Sovereigns agreement, but arises from ongoing concerns I have about the proposal. The livelihoods of many Northwest residents are at stake in upcoming decisions about Columbia River operations, and they deserve a voice in this process.
The bill formalizes public input to federal agencies involved in the proposed ``Three Sovereigns'' agreement, or any similar agreement, by creating an advisory committee representing: local governments; customers of the Bonneville Power Administration; upstream ports; fishing interests; shippers; irrigators; environmentalists; forest land owners and grazers. This committee will advise the federal agencies on matters to be addressed under the agreement, including the economic and social impacts of any proposed recommendations.
Currently, two significantly different drafts of a ``Memorandum of Agreement for Three Sovereigns' Governance of the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem'' are out for public comment. However, the public comment process was so ill-defined initially that I had to write one of the chief proponents of the agreement to request that this process be better defined. Further, it has been reported to me that at the public meeting held in Pendleton, Oregon, on the draft agreement, there was no clerk reporter to record people's comments in detail. This has not given those who depend on the river system much confidence in their ability to provide input into any forum established under a Three Sovereigns' agreement.
Developing a successful regional solution to management of the Columbia/Snake River system will involve a broad range of stakeholders. While not a perfect model, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord in California has been successful, in large part, because the water users and environmental groups were parties to the Accord. The bill would not, however, require changes in the draft memorandum of agreement itself, or impose conditions on the states or the tribes. But it is appropriate for the Congress to establish certain conditions for federal participation in any such agreement.
In addition to establishing this advisory committee, the bill requires each federal agency that is a signatory to the Three Sovereigns' agreement to publish and make available to the public, including over the Internet, all scientific data used to formulate recommendations and all methodologies used to prepare cost-benefit analyses.
The bill also provides a mechanism to resolve disputes among federal agencies involved in the Three Sovereigns' agreement. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will designate an official who, at the request of a non-federal party to the agreement, will have the authority to reconcile differences between the federal agencies on any issue before the Three Sovereigns. In this manner, the non-federal signatories are not caught between differing federal agencies.
The Three Sovereigns' agreement, if signed, would establish a process that is very similar to the statutory obligations of the Northwest Power Planning Council with respect to fish and wildlife recommendations. Therefore, the bill requires the Council to report to the Congress annually on how the recommendations on fish and wildlife activities under any agreement would be coordinated and reconciled with the Council's statutory responsibilities.
Finally, to enhance budget coordination among federal agencies regardless of whether an agreement is entered into, the bill requires that the President's annual budget proposal include a cross-cut budget showing proposed spending for activities in the basin by the federal agencies.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to support stakeholder involvement in the development of a regional solution to Columbia and Snake River issues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2111
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``advisory committee'' means the advisory committee established by the Secretary under section 2(b).
(2) Columbia/snake river basin.--The term ``Columbia/Snake River Basin'' means the basin of the Columbia River and Snake River in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
(3) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council established under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.).
(4) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means--
(A) the Bonneville Power Administration in the Department of Energy;
(B) the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior;
(C) the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce;
(D) the Army Corps of Engineers in the department of the Army;
(E) the Forest Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture; and
(F) the Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) Memorandum of understanding.--The term ``memorandum of understanding'' means any written or unwritten agreement between or among 1 or more of the Federal agencies and 1 or more State or local government agencies, 1 or more Indian tribes, or 1 or more private persons or entities--
(A) concerning the manner in which any authority of a Federal agency under any law is to be exercised within the Columbia/Snake River Basin; or
(B) for the purpose of formulating recommendations concerning the manner in which any such authority should be exercised.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 2. CONDITIONS ON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
(a) In General.--The Bonneville Power Administration or any other Federal agency, acting individually or with 1 or more of the other Federal agencies, shall not enter into or implement a memorandum of understanding unless all of the conditions stated in this section are met.
(b) Advisory committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(5 U.S.C. App.) to advise the Federal agencies with respect to matters to be addressed under any memorandum of understanding, including the economic and social impacts of proposed activities or recommendations.
(2) Membership.--The advisory committee shall be composed of--
(A) 1 representative of the large industrial customers served directly by the Bonneville Power Administration;
(B) 1 representative of the preference power customers that purchase power from the Bonneville Power Administration;
(C) 1 representative of non-Federal utilities that have hydropower generation on the Columbia River or Snake River;
(D) 1 irrigator that receives water diverted from a Federal water project on the Snake River;
(E) 1 irrigator that receives water diverted from a Federal water project on the Columbia River or a tributary of the Columbia River (other than a tributary that is also a tributary of the Snake River);
(F) 1 private forest land owner;
(G) 1 representative of the commercial fishing industry;
(H) 1 representative of the sport fishing industry;
(I) 1 representative of the environmental community;
(J) 1 representative of a river port upstream of Bonneville Dam;
(K) 1 representative of shippers that ship from places upstream of any lock on the Columbia River;
(L) 1 representative of persons that hold Federal grazing permits; and
(M) 1 representative of county governments from each of the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
(3) Manner of appointment.--The members of the advisory committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior from among persons nominated by the Governors of the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
(4) Chairperson.--At the first meeting of the advisory committee, the members shall select 1 of the members to serve as chairperson, on a simple majority vote.
(5) Compensation.--A member of the advisory committee shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties of the advisory committee.
(6) Support.--The Secretary shall--
(A) provide such office space, furnishings and equipment as may be required to enable the advisory committee to perform its functions; and
(B) furnish the advisory committee with such staff, including clerical support, as the advisory committee may require.
(7) Opportunity to formulate and present views.--The advisory committee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to--
(A) attend each meeting convened under the memorandum of understanding; and
(B) formulate and present its views on each matter addressed at the meeting.
(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the activities of the advisory committee a total of $1,000,000 during the period in which the advisory committee is in existence.
(9) Termination.--The advisory committee shall terminate on termination of the memorandum of understanding.
(c) Reconciliation of Differences.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall designate an official who, at the request of a non-Federal party to any memorandum of understanding, shall have authority to reconcile differences between the Federal agencies on any issue relating to activities addressed under the memorandum of understanding.
(d) Public Availability of Data and Methodologies.--Each Federal agency shall publish and make available to the public, through use of the Internet and by other means--
(1) all scientific data that are prepared by or made available to the Federal agency for use for the purpose of formulating recommendations regarding any matter addressed under any memorandum of understanding; and
(2) all methodologies that are prepared by or made available to the Federal agency for the purpose of assessing the cost or benefit of any activity addressed under any memorandum of understanding.
(e) Reporting by the Council.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Council shall submit to Congress a report that describes how the recommendations on fish and wildlife activities under any memorandum of understanding during the fiscal year will be reconciled and coordinated with activities of the Council under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.).
(2) Cooperation.--Each Federal agency that is a party to a memorandum of understanding shall provide the Council such information and cooperation as the Council may request to enable the Council to make determinations necessary to prepare a report under paragraph (1).
SEC. 3. BUDGET INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--The President shall include in each budget of the United States Government for a fiscal year submitted under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a separate section that states for each Federal agency the amount of budget authority and outlays proposed to be expended in the Columbia/Snake River Basin (including a pro rata share of overhead expenses) for the fiscal year.
(b) Itemization.--The statement of budget authority and outlays for the Columbia/Snake River Basin under subsection
(a) for each Federal agency shall be stated in the same degree of specificity for each category of expense as in the statement of budget authority and outlays for the entire Federal agency elsewhere in the budget.
____________________
