Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly the technical corrections made in this bill to Section 116 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. I wish to point out to my colleagues that the original language was intended to ratify the State of Utah's legislative decision to allocate all funds generated by two federal land grants for a miner's hospital to the University of Utah in Salt Lake City for construction and support of a physical rehabilitation center. However, the original language inadvertently failed to include the statutory citation of the first of the two land grants for a miner's hospital. The technical amendments correct this omission, clarifying Congress' ratification of the Utah legislature's actions with respect to funds generated from miners' hospital land grants in both 1894 and 1929.

Mr. BENNETT. Certainly. In the Utah Enabling Act, Congress granted the new State of Utah the right to select 50,000 acres of unappropriated federal lands for support of a miner's hospital for disabled miners. This 1894 grant was supplemented in 1929 by the grant of an additional 50,000 acres. In the late 1950's, the Utah legislature, with the support of the United Mineworkers of America, determined that accumulated funds from these two grants could best be used for the construction of a rehabilitation center that would serve both miners and the general public, rather than for the construction of a standalone hospital for the limited number of disabled miners in the state. This facility was constructed in 1965 and operated under the supervision of an advisory commission that included representatives of the State's mining unions. Subsequent state legislation has provided that ongoing funds generated from the two land grants are to be used to support this rehabilitation center.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue with the Chairman as we conclude the debate on the Interior Appropriations bill. I had intended offered an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Thomas and Murkowski to instruct the various agencies of the Department of the Interior to prepare a report to the committee regarding the instances in which they have entered into InterAgency Service Agreements with other Federal agencies or into agreements with State and local governments on foreign entities. Unfortunately, we have been unable to reach agreement among members of the committee on the feasibility and scope of this amendment. I am disappointed with this development and I will not offer this amendment this evening. As the Chairman well knows, there are a number of architectural, engineering, geological mapping and even aircraft services that are contracted out by the various agencies within the Department of the Interior. I simply would like to get a sense of the impact on private engineering and consulting firms when agencies enter into agreements or contract for services within. I believe the information would have been valuable to the committee. It would help the committee recognize opportunities to save money by using the private sector more often and it will help redirect agencies toward their core governmental missions. While I will not offer this amendment, I intend to continue to pursue this information. I ask the Chairman if he would be also be interested in exploring this issue further?

Mr. BENNETT. Although the rehabilitation center was constructed with the support of the United Mineworkers of America, and has been open to use by the state's miners, some have questioned whether the Utah legislature was permitted under the Utah Enabling Act to use funds generated from these grants for a rehabilitation center open to both miners and the general public, as opposed to a facility open only to miners. Section 116 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 was intended as Congressional approval of the Utah legislature's actions with respect to use of accumulated and ongoing funds from these land grants. However, as I have noted, that Act referred only to the 1929 land grant and inadvertently failed to cite the 1894 land grant. These technical amendments correct that omission.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator raises a good point. The Olympic Committee, working in conjunction with the Utah Department of Transportation has been pursuing a number of funding options for this project. It is my intent to work closely with the Olympic Committee and the Utah Department of Transportation in these efforts. I thank the Chairman for his assistance in this matter.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank my colleague for the clarification. Is it the Committee's intent that the Forest Service proceed quickly on the design of this project?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as my colleagues know nearly a year ago, on September 18, 1996, President Clinton announced the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument under the authority of the Antiquities Act, declaring 1.7 million acres in the State of Utah as a national monument. The majority of the citizens in southern Utah were understandably distressed that they were left out of the designation process. Today, those local citizens continue to be alarmed by the potential negative impact this designation may have on their counties' economies. While we may not wish to reverse the President's designation, we must ensure that the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is sufficiently funded and managed in a way that ensures the integrity of the public comment process. I have included specific language included in the committee report accompanying H.R. 2107 represents the first opportunity we have to appropriate funds for this monument. I would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, Senator Slade Gorton and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Robert Byrd, for working with me to address the immediate needs of the monument. The language included in the committee report identifies $6,400,000 in funding for the monument. This amount, rather than been consolidated in a single line item, has been distributed among 20 different subaccounts within the Bureau of Land Management's budget under ``Management of Lands and Resources'' account. Because these funds are appropriated through so many separate budget functions, it is extremely important that the moneys allocated for the monument be clearly listed in the report by line item, so that funds are not diverted to other agency programs. In order to ensure that sufficient resources are available during this planning stage, the report language mandates that all of the funds designated in this bill are to be allocated to the Utah BLM office and the on-ground field office. I thank the chairman for his help in this matter. Mr. President, it is also important that Congress provide maximum flexibility at the field office level to utilize these funds in most effective way. The report language expresses the expectation that funds will be relocated as needed, with an emphasis on the provision of visitor services. On this matter, the committee directs the BLM to work cooperatively with Kane and Garfield Counties and the State of Utah in accommodating the diverse range of visitor expectations. The agency should look first to the capabilities and expertise of local citizens, private and government entities in addressing the issue of safety, access, and maintenance of the areas visited by the public. The two impacted counties have already signed cooperative agreements with the BLM outlining the goals, expectations and deliverables and defining the counties' participation in the planning process. The reports I have received of this cooperative effort have been encouraging. The committee is appropriating ample funds to continue the development of a management plan and allow the continuation of the existing cooperative agreements with Kane and Garfield Counties. However, the committee has expressed that the cooperative relationship must not be limited to the management plan, as it has been already expanded to include some short-range search and rescue and other related concerns. Mr. President, regarding the ever critical matter of schools, President Clinton assured the people of Utah that ``the creation of this monument will not come at expense of Utah's children'' and that once land exchanges were underway, ``the differences in valuation will be resolve in favor of the school Trust.'' However, the committee rightly so, has expressed its concern that the Department of Interior may be undervaluating school trust lands within the monument. We have been very specific in our instructions to the BLM that this is unacceptable. In closing, I would like again to thank my distinguished colleagues, Senators Gorton and Byrd and their staff for their assistance in forging the directives that will guide the BLM and the Department of Interior in the planning and management of the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument in the next fiscal year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, with all of the discussions that have occurred in recent weeks regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], it seems that every year about this time, we in Congress scratch our heads and wring our hands over how to improve efficiency with this most cumbersome of Federal bureaucracies. I want to share with my colleagues an experience that one of my constituents recently had with the BIA. It deals with Hodges, Inc., a small construction firm with home offices in Sandy, UT. This is a case with a long and complicated history, but I want my colleagues to have a better understanding of what it is like for a small contractor to conduct business with the BIA. On June 20, 1994, the BIA awarded to Hodges, Inc., a contract for the renovation of the Taos Pueblo Day School in New Mexico, in the amount of $649,541. According to this agreement, the renovation work was to have been completed within 120 days from July 5, 1994. The first problem occurred when the architect of the project was also selected to be the contracting officer's representative [COR] creating several built-in conflicts of interest. When Hodges, Inc., the primary contractor, pointed out several deficiencies in the design, the COR unfortunately interpreted these comments as personal attacks. Problems escalated as the COR visited the job site only three or four times, and failed to take into account differing site conditions, changes, and payment clauses of the contract. The COR never attempted to determine if the work was satisfactorily completed at the time of invoice preparation. Unfortunately, the COR and the contracting officer also failed to understand the significance and importance of issuing change orders to the contractor. Numerous incidents occurred during the renovation when change orders were issued to the contractor, directing him to perform a specific repair and to submit a proposal for that work. Under the terms of the original contract, Hodges, Inc., had no choice but to perform these tasks as directed and, in return, the contracting officer was to pay the contractor an equitable adjustment, covering any increased costs and recognize the additional contract performance time as a result of the directed change. However, the BIA did not always agree with the invoices submitted by Hodges, Inc., and arbitrarily determined the amount it would pay with no attempt to negotiate the payment or understand the nature of the expenses incurred by the contractor. Mr. President, competent architects and engineers know that renovation of an existing building is frequently far more complicated than new construction projects. Consequently, extra care should be taken to ensure the accuracy of the contract documents. The number of complications during renovation of the Taos Pueblo Day School that can be traced to defects in the plans and specifications led to significant changes to the contract. Singularly, these defects might not have been significant, but the considerable number of defects hindered the contractor's ability to perform in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Throughout all the performance process, there was no sense of urgency on the part of the BIA in responding to several concerns raised by the contractor, with delays in answering critical correspondence of up to 45 days. The BIA's failure to respond to requests for clarification or direction in a timely manner impacted Hodges, Inc.'s ability to perform its contractual obligation. By September 1994, the antagonistic relationship between the BIA and Hodges, Inc., was so strained as to make any sort of amicable solution very difficult. Rather than having meaningful discussions to resolve the differences, the remaining performance period became a nonproductive paper war. The contract was terminated for default by the BIA on April 6, 1995. In accordance with the disputes clause of the contract, Hodges, Inc., appealed the termination for default to the Interior Board of Contract Appeals [IBCA] on June 6, 1995. In October, Hodges, Inc., filed a complaint with the IBCA alleging they were delayed in performing the contract by the BIA's improper administration of several contract clauses. Hodges, Inc., filed claims against the BIA in the amounts of $16,627.39 for improper administration of payments during contract performance, $82,394.53 in documenting costs because of equitable adjustments to the contract under the changes clause of the contract, and $573,398.28 requesting termination for convenience costs. In December, BIA agreed to a termination for convenience rather than the termination for default, with an effective date of April 6, 1996. On December 12, 1996, the BIA and Hodges, Inc., settled the termination for convenience costs with a payment due to Hodges, Inc., in the amount of $495,000.00. During the course of the negotiations the parties agreed that payment would be made by the middle of January 1997, the because the project was not yet completed by the construction contractor performing on behalf of the bonding company, the costs that the bonding company incurred would be paid directly to them by BIA. To almost no one's surprise, BIA did not fulfill its obligation of paying by mid-January. Only after my office contacted the BIA in behalf of Hodges, Inc., and with the oversight of the Department of the Interior, were payments made. The first $145,000 payment was received on April 2, 1997, a second $300,000 payment was received on April 16, 1997, and a third $50,000 payment was received on May 6, 1997. All payments were made well after the convened date, causing undue hardship on the contractor who had made arrangements with its subcontractors in order to clear its own debts. Unfortunately, chapters in this strange saga continue to be written. BIA has denied the contractor claim to recover interest penalties owed them, and because the bonding company has not received payment from BIA for work beyond the conversion, they have been forced to withhold Hodges, Inc.'s performance and payment bonds with the Small Business Administration. As a result, Hodges, Inc., is limited on the size of contracts it can bid, hindering its ability to do business. Mr. President, this whole episode has escalated the cost of the renovation of the Taos Pueblo Day School from about $650,000 to $1.1 million--$500,000 over the original amount awarded. That is a half a million dollars that could better be spent improving education, law enforcement or housing. And we wonder why things don't seem to be getting any better for the tribes over the years. In the coming days, we will discuss the future of tribal funding. As this debate is conducted, I ask my colleagues to also keep in mind that no matter how funding formulas are changed, failure to force BIA to improve efficiency will only hinder efforts to improve conditions for the tribes. A new funding formula administered by an old, inefficient, and unresponsive bureaucracy is the equivalent of putting new wine in old bottles. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider the need to restructure BIA in addition to the need to restructure current funding formulas. the grand staircase-escalante national monument

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon, hearing interesting comments by the senior Senator from New York who, as he said, was present at the creation of the National Endowment, hearing now this eloquent and well-reasoned attack on the National Endowment by the junior Senator from Missouri, I find myself compelled to make a few comments from my own observation that I think will be a little different from some that we have heard. The Senator from Missouri talks about distorting the arts by virtue of Federal involvement and Federal subsidization. I can only say that is not what happens in my State. The main impact of the National Endowment for the Arts in the State of Utah has been to spread the arts; that is, make them available in areas in rural Utah and in poorer school districts where they would not be available otherwise. I find no distortion of the arts when a Federal grant goes to support the establishment of string quartets playing Bach and Beethoven and Mozart in areas where the people would not of themselves be able to sustain that kind of musical organization coming into their community. I don't think it is a distortion of good art to have this kind of spreading effect take place in the rural areas of our country. The Senator from Missouri makes the point that the vast amount of funding for the arts does, indeed, come from the private sector and that the amount of Federal contribution is so small as to be almost negligible, and he uses as his example the Metropolitan Opera. I would be happy to stipulate that if the National Endowment for the Arts went away, the Metropolitan Opera clearly would not. The Metropolitan Opera has the ability and the visibility to raise the money necessary to stay viable if the NEA were to disappear. But I stand here as a supporter of the NEA not because I love the Metropolitan Opera. I have been to a few performances. I think it is fine. I would go to more if I had the opportunity to be in New York more often. It is the Utah opera I am concerned about and, yes, the Utah opera would probably survive without support from the National Endowment for the Arts, but the fundraising efforts of those who put on and produce the Utah opera would be hampered. The National Endowment for the Arts is something like a ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'' put on a local effort which allows the people who are running that local effort to then go out and do their fundraising and say, ``You see what we have here is really a class operation. It's something worthy of your support, worthy of your private contributions. Look. It's good enough that the National Endowment for the Arts has put their seal of approval on it.'' There are organizations in Utah that compete heavily for that seal of approval, not because they are involved in any distortion of what they are doing for purpose of seeking a Federal grant. The Utah Shakespearian Festival, for example, is not going to rewrite Shakespeare's plays just in an effort to get a Federal grant. But if they can get just enough seed money out of the National Endowment for the Arts that says to the people of southern Utah, ``The Utah Shakespearian Festival has arrived, the Utah Shakespearian Festival is a first-class operation important enough to come to the attention of the National Endowment for the Arts,'' they can then take that statement, along with what little amount of money that came along with it, and redouble their fundraising efforts to make sure that the Utah Shakespearian Festival will thrive. If I may, for just a moment, talk about the Utah Shakespearian Festival. It started as almost a class project at the College of Southern Utah in Cedar City for something to do during the summer. The founder of the festival would probably be a little more grandiose in his description of what he was getting started. This was roughly 30 years ago. It has grown to be one of the top five Shakespearian festivals in the country. People come from all over the country to attend it. And we have a marvelous, marvelous cultural experience in southern Utah as a result of its existence. Do they need money from the National Endowment for the Arts to survive? No, they do not. But they compete for the money as often as possible even though they are now a multimillion-dollar operation because they want the seal of approval that comes with the recognition by a centrally located Government agency that says, ``You are quality. You have reached the point where you justify our kind of concern.'' So those who are involved in the Shakespearian festival are grateful to me for speaking out in their behalf on behalf of the NEA. They are not seeking to distort what they do. They are not, as I say, rewriting Shakespeare's plays so some bureaucrat will love them. They are simply seeking the credibility that comes with association with the National Endowment for the Arts. I have talked to school districts around the State of Utah. In every case, they have the same story to tell. ``If we can just get a few hundred dollars that has the NEA seal connected with it attached to our program, we can then raise far more easily the local money that we need.'' No, the Utah Opera will not disappear. The Utah Shakespearian Festival will not disappear. The Utah Symphony will not disappear. Ballet West will not disappear. These are the leading arts organizations in Utah. But the school music programs will be hurt. The orchestras--they are not even big enough to be orchestras. The school musical activities that go on throughout rural Utah will be hurt if the NEA disappears. I think that is something to be concerned about. The Senator from Missouri says, well, the art in this country was just as good before the NEA as it has been afterward. I will not dispute that. I do not think the NEA has funded the creation of a new Beethoven or a new Michelangelo or a new Shakespeare. But it has made it possible for people to enjoy the productions of the old Michelangelo and Beethoven and Shakespeare in places where they had not had that opportunity previously. Of course, in my State there is a long history of public funding for the arts. This is, as people perhaps are beginning to get tired of being reminded, the sesquicentennial of the arrival of the Mormon pioneers in Salt Lake Valley; 150 years ago this group trekked across the plains, came in to found what is now the State of Utah. And there has been a great deal of national publicity about that, a great deal of discussion about the difficulties and hardships that they went through. In the context of this debate, I point out that within weeks after their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, which was about as inhospitable a place as they could possibly have arrived, they put on a production of the ``Merchant of Venice.'' In their total poverty, having walked across the plains, now exhausted, faced with the possibility of starvation because they were not sure they could get their crops in in time to get any kind of a harvest before the winter set in, in a hostile environment where no crops had ever been grown before, they turned their attention to put on a production of the ``Merchant of Venice''--public support for the arts. You say, ``Oh, that was all private money.'' Well, that is true. They did not have any Federal money. They did not have any money at all. And I am sure it was not the most wonderful production of the ``Merchant of Venice'' that has ever been put on. But they focused on the renewing, enriching circumstance of the arts. Brigham Young, when he arrived in the valley, planted his cane in the ground and said, ``Here we will build a temple to our God,'' establishing his first priority, which was worship in the manner that they saw fit. That is why they went there, because they were prevented from worshiping the way they saw fit when they had been in the United States. And so they went to leave the United States. When they started out for that part of the world it was part of Mexico. But the temple was 40 years in the building. Long before the temple was built, they had built the Salt Lake Theater. And they were having plays. They were supporting the arts with public funds. We recently passed a tax increase in Salt Lake County for one purpose, and one purpose only, to support the arts--public funding going for arts support. The Utah Symphony probably would not survive without that tax increase. And there was a recognition that what the Utah Symphony does for the school children of Utah, what the Utah Symphony does for the cultural atmosphere of the entire State of Utah, the concerts they give all up and down the State that are attended free by schoolchildren and others is worth public funding for the arts. That is a precedent that I think we cannot lose sight of when we are having this debate here on the floor and saying, ``The public has no business funding the arts. Let the private people take care of it.'' The public has an enormous stake in seeing to it that the arts flourish in our society, that if we ever get to the point where our schoolchildren have no appreciation for Shakespeare, have no sense of excitement when they hear the ``Ode to Joy'' from the last movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, because they have never heard it before--oh, if they live in a major metropolitan area they will hear it, if they live within the sound of public radio, which some of our colleagues in the House want to destroy as well, they may hear it--but there is nothing quite like hearing it live in your own rural community, maybe badly played, put on by the local folk, and only a few hundred dollars from the National Endowment for the Arts that made it possible, that started the ball rolling, but essential, vital, important to the lives of all of us. The public, as a whole, has a stake in seeing that the arts flourish. Those who would cancel any kind of Federal participation in the arts will be sending a powerful message that the public in the United States wants to turn its back on any kind of public involvement in disseminating the impact of the arts throughout our society. So, Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleagues for whom I have great personal affection who are on the other side of this issue, I make it clear that I stand for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Out of that general statement, let me make some specific comments about the debate we are having. Is the National Endowment for the Arts the perfect vehicle for this funding activity that I have just defended? Probably not. There are always improvements that can be made in the bureaucracy. Has the National Endowment for the Arts funded art with which I am disappointed? Absolutely. There is no question that the sense of outrage that has been raised on the floor of this House and the other over the years about some things that have been funded by money from the Federal Government is a legitimate sense of outrage. Unfortunately, we have ourselves in the circumstance where if you are for the arts you almost have to stand up for this appropriations, in the way the public perceives it. And if you think that there is a problem, you almost have to be with Senator Helms and opposing everything. I would hope we could get away from that. And I know there are a lot of amendments on the floor. Senator Hutchison from Texas has one that I am almost tempted to vote for, maybe with some tweaking I might be able to vote for it. I wish we could be in the atmosphere where we started out with the amendment of the Senator from Texas and said, ``OK, this is a description of where we want to be. Now let's try to work from here towards solution.'' But unfortunately, the matter has been so polarized you almost have to pick a side and stand on that side and say, ``Any movement away from this side opens me up to misinterpretation,'' any movement away from a stand for the full amount approved by the subcommittee that Senator Gorton chairs, and on which I serve, is a demonstration you are not in favor of the public support for the arts; or, on the other side, any movement away from total elimination is a demonstration that you are in favor of filthy art. I do not think either of those extremes is accurate in the legislative situation in which we find ourselves. I would hope that in this Congress we would pass the bill as it came out of the subcommittee--I voted for it in the subcommittee and support it strongly on the floor--and then move toward a more reasoned or, if you will, less emotional analysis of what should be the future of funding for the arts, what should be the restructuring of the National Endowment for the Arts. Could we perhaps combine the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities in a single endowment, overseeing both activities, and see if we can't achieve some efficiencies in administration, that some of the same administrative functions could take place to support both activities, and do that in a much less emotionally charged atmosphere that seems to surround this debate? For that reason, I will support the amendment by the chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, that says once this is all over in this appropriations bill, Congress should hold some hearings on this issue and see where we really ought to go. But in this emotionally charged atmosphere that we find ourselves, I find that those kinds of conversations get lost in the rhetoric and you have to chose either one side or the other. The highly polarized atmosphere of this debate is, I think, unfortunate. But in that atmosphere I have made my choice, true to the traditions of the State that I represent, going back 150 years. I have decided to support public funding for the recognition that it is the spreading of the arts throughout all of society that is the great benefit of the arts. It is not for the elite, who sit in the concert hall and listen to the Metropolitan Opera, to say, ``That is a magnificent operatic experience''; it is for the people in the small towns of Utah, who sing those operatic arias, usually rather badly, but are nonetheless inspired by the experience of coming in contact with that which the Metropolitan Opera itself helps preserve for the Nation as a whole. Would I like to have more money for my State out of the National Endowment? Of course. What politician would not, but not at the expense of dismantling the great artistic organizations that are at the core of the spreading of art throughout our society as a whole. So I look forward to the passage of Senator Stevens' amendment, for the coming of some kind of hearings for the examination of the particulars of how we deal with this. But I repeat again, in the polarization that has occurred here where you have to ultimately say you are on one side or the other, I have chosen the side that I have been on. And I wish to make that clear.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1178, introduced earlier today by Senators Abraham and Kennedy, be placed on the calendar.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Tomorrow morning when the Senate convenes, there will be 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the pending substitute amendment to S. 830, the FDA reform bill. Senators should, therefore, anticipate the first rollcall vote tomorrow morning at approximately 10 a.m. If cloture is invoked, it is the majority leader's hope that the Senate can conclude action on the FDA bill in a reasonable timeframe on Tuesday. Under the consent agreement, all Senators have until 10 a.m. in order to file second-degree amendments to the FDA bill. The Senate will also resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Therefore, Senators can expect additional votes on Tuesday following the cloture vote. This week, the Senate may also consider the D.C. appropriations bill, as well as any legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on September 15, 1997, by the President of the United States: Protocol with Mexico Amending Convention for Protection of Migratory Birds (Treaty Document No. 105-26). I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 16. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 830, the FDA reform bill.

Mr. BENNETT. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Specter for his willingness to work with me on this important and I look forward to working with him on this matter.

Mr. BENNETT. I am told that this would be a 5-year study that would require about $1.9 million per year.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the recent National Cancer Institute recommendation that followup studies be conducted regarding American's exposure to radioactive iodine-131. During the 1950's and 1960's the Nevada test site conducted a number of atomic tests. The radioactive fallout from such tests was significant. I believe that a number of Utahns were exposed to this radioactive fallout. The University of Utah has conducted several studies to assess the impact of this fallout. In doing so the University of Utah collaborated with the Public Health Service, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Energy. Although these studies concluded that there is an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancers among the examined group and that further research was needed. Many of those exposed are just now coming to the age where thyroid cancer is manifested. As a result, I believe it is important that Congress fund the next phase of this study. I would like to ask Chairman Specter if he would work with me to find the necessary resources to fund the next phase of this study. I am well aware of the limited resources available to this subcommittee. I also understand that there are many competing needs and important programs and projects. However, I am hopeful that we can work together to find the necessary resources to fund this study.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in the Federalist Papers, Madison tried to allay fears of a Federal government overpowering state and local concerns, by stating: . . . where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. . . . But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?--Federalist Paper, No. 46. Mr. President, while Mr. Madison believed that Federal encroachment of local interests would be rare, I believe the State of Utah finds itself in that circumstance. Utah's education budgets are being improperly sacrificed by federal action. Mr. Madison predicted that legislative devices would be used to solve these types of problems. He was right. Today I am offering an amendment in an attempt to do just that. Last September, the President created the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument in Utah. While I vehemently disagreed with the process the Administration used to designate this monument, it is now a fixture on our map. We must now move on and work toward resolving the problems that were created by this Proclamation. One of the most important issues that must be addressed are the 176,000 acres of school trust lands trapped within the boundaries of the monument. For those of you who are not familiar with school trust lands, let me briefly explain. At statehood, the federal government granted about one-ninth of the lands in Utah for the support of public education. School trust lands exist solely to generate revenue for public schools. President Clinton, in designating the monument acknowledged the impact to state education funds. He stated, ``I know the children of Utah have a big stake in school lands located within the boundaries of the monument that I am designating today . . . creating this national monument should not and will not come at the expense of Utah's school children.'' Utah's citizens, and education groups, including the Utah's Education Association, the Parent-Teacher Association, the School Boards Association, the State Board of Education, the School Superintendents Association, the Association of Elementary School Principals, the Association of Secondary School Principals, and School Employees Association agree, and have spoken loudly and clearly about the need to solve this problem for the benefit of Utah's school children. President Clinton then directed the Interior Department to conduct a land exchange of school trust lands located within the Monument. While this is one of the most realistic solutions to this problem, it will not be easy. Land exchanges are expensive, time-consuming, and unfortunately, will negatively impact tight State education budgets. In a May 14 report on the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument, the Department of Education reached the following conclusion: The Department [of Education] recognized that the process of arranging for land exchanges exacts costs on the State of Utah . . . These costs are paid from funds that would otherwise be available for public education. Mr. President, this amendment provides a grant to the Utah State Education Agency to partially defray expenses of conducting a land- exchange. State education funds are badly needed to educate Utah's children. I would like to thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their assistance, and leadership in education. I look forward to working with them, the Department of Education and the Administration on this issue, and appreciate their willingness to work with me. Amendment No. 1111

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his courtesy and consideration in allowing me to take this time. I also congratulate both the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from New York for their ability in crafting this particular piece of legislation. When I ran for the Senate in 1992, I made tax reform one of my primary goals. I must confess that this bill does not meet all of my expectations and promises as I ran in the campaign, because one of the things that I was most devoted to was a determination to make the Tax Code less complex, easier to understand, and tax returns, perhaps, filed that are the size of a postcard. This bill does not accomplish that, and I still hold that out as a goal for the future. But if this bill does not make the Tax Code less complex, it at least makes the Tax Code less burdensome --less burdensome for middle Americans, middle-class Americans who have not received a significant tax break for a long, long time. There have been tax breaks at the other ends of the Tax Code, yes, at the bottom end for people who received the earned income tax credit and, some would argue, too much at the top end. But there has not been the kind of middle-class tax relief talked about in the 1992 campaign until this bill. So while it is not everything that I would want--and there is still much unfinished business to be taken care of in terms of tax simplification--it is a step in the right direction that we should apply. I intend to vote for it enthusiastically and urge all of my colleagues to do the same. When I came here in January 1993, the atmosphere was completely different than the one we find on the floor today. At that time, there was a determination to see that spending would grow and that taxing would grow. I am delighted to have been able to be a part of an effort that has brought us to a case where spending is going down, at least in percentage terms, and taxes are going down, in terms of the burden that they are placing on the American people. So I congratulate all connected with this effort, including, yes, Mr. President, the President of the United States. I know it is not common for people on my side of the aisle to stand up and say nice things about this President, and I have said my share of unkind things in areas where I feel he has done things that I think are inappropriate. But as I have said to the President when I have been to the White House on occasions, ``When you are right, Mr. President, I will back you. When I think you are wrong, I will oppose you.'' I owe it to him and to those in his administration who have worked with him on this agreement to publicly acknowledge that this time I think he has been right. I congratulate him and those who work with him for their willingness to do this. I must say that I still had hoped that Senator Dole would be elected President. I think if he had been, we would be here discussing the tax simplification that I believe in as well as some tax reduction. We had our opportunity to make that case in the campaign. For one reason or another, it didn't fly, and it will have to wait for another day. But I congratulate all those who have put partisanship aside and worked together for the good of the people and made a compromise with which perhaps none fully agree, but for which the American people, overall, will ultimately be grateful. For that reason, Mr. President, I am grateful to the two Senators for allowing me to take this brief time to make these expressions. I conclude as I began, with my congratulations to them and to their colleagues on the Finance Committee, to the leadership of both Houses in both parties, for their ability on the legislative side to work out an agreement with the President and his associates in the executive branch to give us at least this first step in the direction of making the Tax Code less burdensome and less onerous on the American people. I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997 today. The merits of this legislation have already been outlined by others, so I will not go into details. I believe that we have come a long way toward reaching a compromise and I congratulate the chairman for his willingness and his efforts to reach the middle ground. Mr. President, in this time of economic prosperity, I find it worrisome that we must constantly remind the American people that our Nation's economic prosperity is largely dependent upon our ability to create wealth. The ability to create wealth depends upon ability to take a raw material that has little or no economic worth and turn it into something of value. The economic prosperity which we have experienced in this decade is due, in part, to the increased ability of our Nation's mining industry to create wealth out of our raw materials. In my own State, there are some groups which argue that the mining industry is no longer needed, that it is a relic of the past. I hear from these same groups how tourism will be the savior of Utah's rural communities and if the people of rural Utah would only accept this, then everything will work out just fine. The economy will be strong, the environment will be protected and everyone will have a high standard of living. Mr. President, I do not want to diminish in any way the important contribution that tourism provides to the economy of my State. Utahns encourage people to come and enjoy our ski slopes, our canyons, and our national parks. But much of the tourism industry is seasonal in nature. In some small communities in southern Utah, it takes two and one-half incomes to generate the average income. It is not uncommon to strike up a conversation with a waitress in the local cafe, and learn that her husband works two jobs to make ends meet. As one County Commissioner summarized recently, ``If tourism was really the answer, making beds, frying hamburgers, and pumping gas would have made us rich a long, long time ago.'' In 1995, the values of minerals mined in Utah exceeded $2.4 billion. Utah's direct economic gain from mining exceeded $1.1 billion, including $358 million in personal income gains. The average mining job in Utah pays about $36,000 a year. With this in mind, imagine the tremendous positive impact that a few dozen mining jobs have in these communities. These jobs impact the local auto dealer, the real estate agent, the contractor, and the hardware store owner. Mr. President, responsible and reasonable mining law reform should be enacted. But as we undertake these efforts, we must also recognize the important contribution of the mining industry to our Nation's economy. It makes no sense to enact mining law reform in the name of environmental protection or budgetary concerns, if these reforms in turn force industry offshore where environmental restrictions are not a consideration and some other country's government receives tax revenues. I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind. I congratulate the chairman for his efforts and I look forward to working closely with him to enact this legislation. the mining law reform act of 1997

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I had not expected to be here in the Senate today. I had made plans to be in Salt Lake City where the celebrations are going on for a historic event marking the 150th anniversary of the entry of Brigham Young into the Salt Lake Valley. As Senate business has been pressing, combined with a bad cold that you can hear in my throat, I decided wisdom meant that I should stay here, even though my heart is in Utah. Mr. President, we have heard a lot from the senior Senator, appropriately, about the trek and what went on. Like him, I have forebears who were part of that great movement, which began with Brigham Young in 1847, but continued until the coming of the railroad in 1869. My grandfather, John F. Bennett, was 3 years old when his parents and his grandparents took him out of the slums of Liverpool, where they were born and raised in what would be considered the lower- lower class, walked across the great American plains to try to find a new life and a new religion in a new place. Out of that family that came from that little boy, who had no education, no hope, and in the class-ridden status of England at the time, no chance of opportunity for advancement, have come two United States Senators, a number of successful businessmen, a series of college graduates, and a tremendous family of achievement and family happiness of which I am a beneficiary. There was indeed something magic about that trek that called people not only from the United States, but from all over the world, to go forward in the name of their religion and their faith to a place that was picked because no one else wanted it. Indeed, their leader chose this place because he had been literally driven out of the United States--some say solely because of his religion, others say because of political problems, and others say because the Mormons weren't good at getting along with their neighbors in Missouri, Illinois, and the other places where they tried to settle permanently. I won't try to rehash that history because it doesn't really matter. What matters is that they stayed together, they traveled together, they spread their version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world, and they called their adherence from all over the world to join with them in that tremendous sacrifice, to find a place where they could be left alone to flourish. They were not successful. They were not left alone. Within 2 years after Brigham Young arrived, gold was discovered in California and the world started going through Utah on its way for riches. Not everyone found their way to riches, but they did help, economically, build a State--an ironic twist of events for Brigham Young, who wanted to be alone. We have had a great deal said during this sesquicentennial year about the tremendous physical sacrifice involved in that trek. As I think of my 3-year-old grandfather, I can barely identify with how physically difficult that must have been for him and for his parents and his grandparents. I have just gone across country with a 5-year-old grandchild, courtesy of Delta Airlines, and it was a whole lot easier than taking him in a covered wagon for hundreds, if not thousands, of miles. So I pay tribute today to the legacy that I owe to those people and what they did and what they endured. I have been back to England and have looked at my relatives who stayed there and compared what happened to those of us who are descendants of the people who were willing to make that trek with what happened to those who stayed in what they thought would be the comfort of the British Isles. It is one of the things I offer thanks for in my personal prayers, that I am descended from that branch of the family that endured that trek. I want to make one final point about this, which I think is the important point out of this entire experience as we pay tribute to the people and who they were and what they did. As impressive as their physical sacrifice and performance was, there is something else that I want to mention that I think, in many ways, is more distinctive and more instructive for us today in our world. This was a group of people--at least the core group--who had been physically driven from their homes several times. They had been physically driven from Ohio. They sought refuge in Missouri; they did not find it. They were physically driven from Missouri and ended up penniless, with nothing but the clothes on their backs, in the State of Illinois. They started over again. They built the largest and, by some accounts, most beautiful city in Illinois. They were physically driven from there and, again, started out with very little to go someplace where they could be left alone. In today's world, when we see articles in books constantly written about how we are all victims, we could expect that they would have spent their time lamenting over that which they lost and focusing on their resentments and their bitterness and that which other people owed them. They did not. Oh, I am sure that there was some of that. It would only be human that there would be some regrets and tears shed for homes left. But that was not their focus. That was not their driving force. They were not driven by hatred, a desire for revenge, a sense of victimhood and petitions to get everything back that had been taken away from them. Instead, their focus was on the future. Senator Hatch has already quoted the third verse of the hymn that they wrote and sang to themselves again and again as they endured the physical difficulties. I want to repeat it here in this context. It was not a hymn of mourning or longing for the past. They said: We'll find a place which God for us prepared, Far away in the West, where none shall come to hurt, or make afraid. There, the Saints will be blessed. We'll make the air with music ring, Shout praises to our God and King, above the rest. This tale will tell, all is well, all is well. Mr. President, we look around the world today in Bosnia, in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, and we find people who have suffered ancient wrongs, sometimes terrible, unforgivable wrongs, at the hands of their fellow men, in the name of politics or religion, or just plain ethnic hatred. We find people in the Middle East who remember the Crusades and feel offended by something that happened a thousand years ago and are sworn to set right those ancient grievances. I say to them and to all of us that those who made their way across the plains 150 years ago had reason to hold grievances, but they looked not to the past but to the future. And as I rise today to pay tribute to their memory, I pay tribute not only to their physical courage in undergoing that trek and express my gratitude for the privilege of being descended from them, but I express my greater gratitude for what, in my view, is a greater legacy: that I have grown up in a circumstance where these people, however much they talk about the history of the past, are willing to forgive the past; that they are not viewing themselves anymore as that first generation, as victims, as obsessed with redressing old wrongs or attacking old antagonists. The legacy that is of greatest value to me and to the people of my State that came from those who were engaged in that great trek was their legacy of hope and optimism and a willingness to forgive and forget and look to the future. That is what we are celebrating today as we look back on 150 years since the time they finally found their place faraway in the West, which God had in fact for them prepared, where they have indeed been blessed. Senator Hatch and I would like to be with them today, but we cannot because of our duties here in the Senate. But we thank the Members of the Senate for their indulgence in allowing us to take the time of the U.S. Senate and make this recognition of significant events in American history. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, like my colleague, I may be allowed to proceed as in morning business.