Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to may good friend and colleague from Colorado, Congressman Dan Schaefer. Congressman Dan Schaefer is retiring from the House of Representatives after 15 years of service to the people of Colorado's 6th Congressional District and the United States. I would like to take this opportunity to share a few reflections on Dan Schaefer's many accomplishments as a Congressman. Not only did Congressman Dan Schaefer ably step into the void left when Congressman Jack Swigert died shortly after being elected, but he also successfully led the charge in Congress to have a statute depicting Jack Swigert as a young and daring astronaut of Apollo XIII fame added to Congress' statuary collection as Colorado's second and final contribution. With its wonderful combination of bronze and a colorful space suit, the statue is both visually striking and proud. The Jack Swigert statue is perhaps one of the most popular in the halls of Congress for visitors from all over the world. I know it is one of mine. Over the years Congressman Dan Schaefer has been a leader in the fight to balance our nation's budget. In fact, Dan Schaefer is the one who introduced H.J. Res. 1, a joint resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the U.S. federal government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation in the 105th Congress. H.J. Res. 1 clearly merits the cosponsorships of the 229 of his colleagues in the House of Representatives who joined in support of Congressman Schaefer's resolution. I am an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 1, the companion legislation in the Senate to H.J. Res. 1. While this worthy legislation fell just one vote short of passage in the Senate in the 105th Congress, this Congress also just passed the first balanced budget in many, many years. Dan Schaefer is retiring from Congress with its books balanced for the first time in generations. His role in achieving this important historic victory for the American people will be remembered. Congressman Dan Schaefer has also been a national leader in energy issues. In the 105th Congress he led the drive for Public Law 105-28, a law that amends and updates sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act. He has also been a ground breaker in the quest to deregulate American electricity. Even the exceeding complexities and deep vested interests involved in our nation's electricity markets and monopolies did not deter Dan Schaefer from introducing H.R. 655. This bill's goal was to give all American consumers the right to choose among competitive providers of electricity in order to achieve lower prices and better service. His steadfast work on this complex issue has made valuable progress that can be built upon in years to come. Finally, as the Coach of the Republican Congressional Baseball Team, Dan Schaefer has established a winning record, batting 60% as the Republican team has won 3 out of 5 games under his leadership, including winning for the last two years, in 1997 and 1998. Dan has also been selected as the team's Most Valuable Player twice. It is clear that Congressman Schaefer's leadership will be missed both in the halls of Congress as well as on the Congressional baseball diamond. As he retires from the House, Congressman Dan Schaefer has a record of accomplishment to be proud of. He is the undisputed Dean of the Colorado delegation. He will be missed. I wish him well and best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague from Iowa for raising this issue. The Senator from Iowa is correct that the conferees did not include a specific increase in funding for the individual HIDTA's. However, it is my hope that the Office of National Drug Control Policy will use these extra resources to fund an increase in those HIDTA's which demonstrates the greatest need. Consideration should be given to those HIDTA's cited in the amendment described by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Agency Compliance Act. This legislation is the redraft of prior legislation that I introduced, S. 1166, the Federal Agency Compliance Act, which was the subject of a hearing on June 15, 1998 before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, chaired by Senator Grassley. At the June 15 hearing, Lynn Conforti from Denver, CO, testified on behalf of the thousands of Social Security disability claimants, who are denied their claims not on the basis of Federal circuit court opinions but on the basis of agency policy that is contrary to Federal law. In November 1996, Ms. Conforti was forced to quit work because of severe pain due to failed surgery on her back to correct corvature of the spine, scoliosis. Until that time. Ms. Conforti had been employed her entire life since she was 19 years old and paid her FICA taxes into the Social Security Disability Program for 27 years. At the hearing, she described her 32-month struggle with the Social Security Administration that had twice denied her benefits, because they did not give due weight to the medical opinion of her treating physicians or the severity of her pain, contrary to Federal court decisions. Ms. Conforti described her physical ordeal, having two back surgeries, removing 10 discs, two sets of surgical rods and screws, 38 days in the hospital, 334 physical therapy visits, 128 physician visits, and 16 months of chronic pain. Despite her disability, Ms. Conforti hopes to be able to return to work in the future, but she needs the disability resources to continue rehabilitation efforts. Finally, in July 1998, Ms. Conforti was awarded her disability benefits by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in an on-the-record determination. The ALJ, unlike lower level decisionmakers at SSA, was able to apply Federal court decisions to her case. For this reason, the bill I am introducing today contains a provision included in a similar bill, H.R. 1544, that states that agency employees and ALJ's shall adhere to court of appeals precedent within the circuit, insuring that Ms. Conforti and thousands of other claimants will no longer be victims of agency intracircuit nonacquiescence with the passage of this legislation. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Sessions and Senator Durbin, for their support for this important legislation and for their assistance in revising the legislation that I introduce today. Through the effort of Senator Sessions, the bill clarifies that adherence by agencies to court of appeals precedent shall be in civil cases and there is no prohibition on an agency relitigating a matter in more than three circuits if such relitigation is necessary. Also, Senator Durbin clarified that certain agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], are not bound by adherence to court of appeals precedent when it is not certain that the court of appeals that established the NLRB precedent has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter or by another circuit. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for these clariications and for their support of the bill I introduce today. Intracircuit agency nonacquiescence to appellate precedent is not limited to the Social Security Administration, which was described at our hearing, but has been a long-term problem with all agencies and one that the Congress has struggled with since the early 1980's. Finally, we have a consensus on legislation that will solve this problem and return us to the rule of law that we expect and that citizens deserve. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure Federal agencies follow the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Agency Compliance Act. This legislation is the redraft of prior legislation that I introduced, S. 1166, the Federal Agency Compliance Act, which was the subject of a hearing on June 15, 1998 before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, chaired by Senator Grassley. At the June 15 hearing, Lynn Conforti from Denver, CO, testified on behalf of the thousands of Social Security disability claimants, who are denied their claims not on the basis of Federal circuit court opinions but on the basis of agency policy that is contrary to Federal law. In November 1996, Ms. Conforti was forced to quit work because of severe pain due to failed surgery on her back to correct corvature of the spine, scoliosis. Until that time. Ms. Conforti had been employed her entire life since she was 19 years old and paid her FICA taxes into the Social Security Disability Program for 27 years. At the hearing, she described her 32-month struggle with the Social Security Administration that had twice denied her benefits, because they did not give due weight to the medical opinion of her treating physicians or the severity of her pain, contrary to Federal court decisions. Ms. Conforti described her physical ordeal, having two back surgeries, removing 10 discs, two sets of surgical rods and screws, 38 days in the hospital, 334 physical therapy visits, 128 physician visits, and 16 months of chronic pain. Despite her disability, Ms. Conforti hopes to be able to return to work in the future, but she needs the disability resources to continue rehabilitation efforts. Finally, in July 1998, Ms. Conforti was awarded her disability benefits by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in an on-the-record determination. The ALJ, unlike lower level decisionmakers at SSA, was able to apply Federal court decisions to her case. For this reason, the bill I am introducing today contains a provision included in a similar bill, H.R. 1544, that states that agency employees and ALJ's shall adhere to court of appeals precedent within the circuit, insuring that Ms. Conforti and thousands of other claimants will no longer be victims of agency intracircuit nonacquiescence with the passage of this legislation. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Sessions and Senator Durbin, for their support for this important legislation and for their assistance in revising the legislation that I introduce today. Through the effort of Senator Sessions, the bill clarifies that adherence by agencies to court of appeals precedent shall be in civil cases and there is no prohibition on an agency relitigating a matter in more than three circuits if such relitigation is necessary. Also, Senator Durbin clarified that certain agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], are not bound by adherence to court of appeals precedent when it is not certain that the court of appeals that established the NLRB precedent has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter or by another circuit. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for these clariications and for their support of the bill I introduce today. Intracircuit agency nonacquiescence to appellate precedent is not limited to the Social Security Administration, which was described at our hearing, but has been a long-term problem with all agencies and one that the Congress has struggled with since the early 1980's. Finally, we have a consensus on legislation that will solve this problem and return us to the rule of law that we expect and that citizens deserve. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure Federal agencies follow the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President. I take this opportunity to call my colleagues' attention to the role of women owned businesses in our economy, and particularly in Colorado. The Business Women's Network (BWN), which is a network of 1200 women's associations working in concert to expand all women's inclusion in business development, is helping towards that end. Tonight, the BWN will be hosting an event to honor its members and the many structures which serve the development of women's business. Colorado enterprises which embody well-developed and successful business ventures include: the Colorado Women's Business Office, which represents more than 75,000 women and 50,000 girls; the Denver Women's Business Network; the Casa Career Development and Business Center for Women; the Southern Colorado Women's Chamber of Commerce; the University of Colorado Women's Resource Center; the Women Owner, Managers and Executive Network of Colorado Springs; the Women's Foundation of Colorado; the Women's Library Association in Denver, and many others. Colorado's success in identifying and nurturing a strong base of women owned businesses provides a model for other states seeking to conquer the spectrum of needs and obstacles that confront women entrepreneurs. National recognition is in order. Last year, the women-owned businesses in the Denver metro area had the highest regional growth rate in the country, at 57%. Both employment and sales increased four- fold. The translation for Coloradans is easy. As a state, we enjoy more than 77,600 women-owned businesses that provide jobs for almost 208,000 people, to the tune of $23 billion in annual sales. The Business Women's Network is important because it profiles all women's groups, both nationally and globally, in salute of their achievements. Today, I wish to single out for special honor the solid foothold women's business has in Colorado's unparalleled economy. I also want to encourage the continued efforts of BWN--the strong presence of women in our world economy cannot be emphasized enough.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Today I express my appreciation to the majority leader, Senator Ford, Senator Gorton, and Senator McCain for their hard work and efforts on S. 852, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act. I believe S. 852 will deter automobile theft and protect consumers by providing them with notice of severely damaged vehicles. I would like to emphasize one provision contained in the bill. It is my understanding that the process of reducing salvage and nonrepairable vehicles to parts cannot begin before receipt of a salvage title, nonrepairable vehicle certificate, or other appropriate ownership documentation under state law. If a vehicle could be dismantled prior to the receipt of the appropriate ownership documents, then the parts from a severely damaged vehicle could skirt the titling system which this bill has put in place to deter automobile theft. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the conference report be dispensed with.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading of the bill be dispensed with.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending motion.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Majority Leader and my colleague from Alabama for his leadership on this issue. The gentleman is correct. The language included in the Conference Report will require Federal agencies to make all Federally funded research data available to the public through procedures established by the Freedom of Information Act. The Conferees recognize that this language covers research data not currently covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The provision applies to all Federally funded research data regardless of whether the awarding agency has the data at the time the request is made. If the awarding agency must obtain the data from the recipient of the award, the provision specifically states that the awarding agency may authorize a reasonable user fee equaling the incremental cost of obtaining the data. It is my expectation that the Director of OMB to make the required changes within 90 days of enactment and that awarding agencies to issue new regulations implementing the amended Circular within one year of enactment. As is true with the existing OMB Circular A-110, the amended Circular shall apply to all Federally funded research, regardless of the level of funding or whether the award recipient is also using non-Federal funds. I want to thank my colleague from Alabama for his leadership on this important issue and his efforts to safeguard the public's right to know.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the majority leader. Whether this bill is pulled down or proceeds is yet to be determined. I would like to make a few comments about the bill. Senator Kohl and I, as well as our staffs, worked very hard on this bill. It seemed like the longer it hung out there the more lightning it drew. I want comment on a few provisions in it. This report provides funding for the Department of Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and various independent agencies, as our colleagues know. Although this has not been an easy bill to complete, because of the funding constraints as well as controversial issues, I think we did as good a job as we could, accommodating as many requests as we could from our colleagues. The most difficult issues for the conferees were not about money, but about legislative riders to this appropriations bill. There were some very strong opinions on both sides on these riders and that did end up stalling the bill. But I am concerned about one article. As I mentioned, during the heat of the debate, there were some strong opinions. I was concerned about an article appearing in the October 7 Hill that implied the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, was blocking the bill because it contained language to name a post office building in St. Paul for former Senator Eugene McCarthy. For the Record, I want to say that is absolutely not true. At no time, did she ever disagree with this bill, and in fact that language is in the bill. I wanted to make that part of the Record. The ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Kohl, and I continued to place greater emphasis on treasury law enforcement, which is a central focus of this bill, and tried to ensure that agents and inspectors have the tools to do their job. I certainly appreciate Senator Kohl's support and hard work. There is much in this conference report that deserves the support of the Senate: $128 million for the IRS customer service initiative, and to restructure and reform their long overdue operation. $2 million for low-income taxpayers clinic. $2.4 million to double the staffing for the cyber-smuggling unit at the Customs Service to stop child pornography, plus an additional $1 million for technology to assist in this effort. $13 million for grants to state and local law enforcement for gang resistance education and training programs, called GREAT programs--$3 million more than the President actually had requested. $6 million to allow eligible State and local law enforcement to acquire ballistics identification and comparison computer systems for both bullets and cartridge cases. There is another $27 million to continue and expand the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative to help stop gun trafficking to our youth. There is $182 million for the high-intensity drug trafficking areas, known as HIDTAs, and $13 million to continue the program to transfer technology to State and local law enforcement. Courthouse construction projects, as well as repair and alterations of current Federal facilities, were also included. There is $185 million for a second year of a very successful antidrug youth media campaign that was administered by the drug czar. All in all, Mr. President, I think it is a good bill. We worked very hard. I am just here to say I am sorry that some of these rather divisive riders that ended up being on the bill ended up making it so controversial. But the underlying fact of the bill, the mission of the bill, has great intentions. It is a good bill. I just wanted to again thank Senator Kohl for all of his work on it. I hope we proceed forward with it. I am realistic enough to know that it is in trouble. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I want to take a few moments to let my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives know about the progress we have made in promoting Honesty in Sweepstakes during the 105th Congress. Over the past month, the Honesty in Sweepstakes Act of 1998, S. 2141, made excellent progress as it was refined and polished. These refinements reflect the valuable input I received from witness testimony and my fellow Senators during a Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearing on S. 2141. The newest Honesty in Sweepstakes language also reflects the results of numerous productive discussions and negotiations with interested parties, including the Postal Service, the industry, the AARP and consumer protection groups. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Thompson and Senator Cochran, who as the respective Chairmen of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services Subcommittee, have been helpful and gracious in their efforts to help me move this sweepstakes reform legislation during the 105th Congress. I also want to thank my good friend, Senator Collins, who cosponsored my original Honesty in Sweepstakes bill and provided valuable input that is reflected in the new language I am talking about today. This revised Honesty in Sweepstakes legislation would go a long way toward protecting our nation's seniors and other vulnerable consumers from misleading and deceptive sweepstakes promotions. This is something we should do this year to protect consumers. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation before the 105th Congress concludes. For my colleagues' reference, I ask unanimous consent that this new Honesty in Sweepstakes language be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, Tuesday, October 6, 1998, will always hold a spot dear to my heart. I hope that today will also be dear to the hearts of the Cheyenne and Arapaho people, dear to Coloradans, and dear to Americans everywhere. Today, S. 1695, the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Study Act of 1998, a bill I was proud to introduce, was signed into law at a special White House ceremony. Under this new law, our nation takes a major step toward honoring the memory of the many innocent Cheyenne and Arapahoe people massacred there by instructing the National Park Service to locate the site of the Sand Creek Massacre once and for all. Somewhere along the banks of Sand Creek in Southeastern Colorado is a killing field where many innocent Cheyenne and Arapaho, many of my ancestors, fell on the cold morning of November 29, 1864. On that day, in the month known by the Cheyenne and Arapaho people as the Month of the Freezing Moon, this ground was sanctified when the blood of hundreds of innocent Cheyenne and Arapaho women, children and elderly noncombatants was needlessly and brutally spilt. Once this sacred ground is located, I hope it will be acquired and preserved with honor and dignity and in a way that takes into account the concerns of the Cheyenne and Arapaho decedents of those who died there. This ground should also be open to all people as a reminder of the national tragedy that occurred at Sand Creek. On this special day, I would like to take a moment to thank a few people who helped S. 1695 become law. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, Congressman Bob Schaffer, who introduced the companion bill and shepherded this legislation through the House of Representatives. I also want to thank Senator Craig Thomas, who as the Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, was gracious and helpful in getting this bill through the Senate. I especially want to thank my friends William Walksalong, Steve Brady and Laird Cometsevah, who all spoke with such eloquence as witnesses during the March 24th, 1998, hearing on S. 1695, that many in the room, including myself, were deeply moved. I also want to thank LaForce Lonebear who sent in his testimony even though he could not attend the hearing. Finally, I want to thank David Halaas of the Colorado State Historical Society and Roger Walke of the Congressional Research Service for their dedication along the way. Many of these and other friends joined me at the White House earlier today as S. 1695 was signed into law. Finally, on this occasion I want to pay a long overdue tribute to one young Coloradan, Captain Silas S. Soule, whose actions over one hundred and thirty years ago saved many innocent Cheyenne and Arapaho lives on that fateful day at Sand Creek. When Captain Soule, who was under Colonel Chivington's command, heard of Chivington's plan to attack a peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho winter encampment at Sand Creek, he vigorously tried to persuade Chivington to abandon the plan. However, Colonel Chivington, who was known to say ``Nits make Lice'' as a justification for killing innocent Cheyenne and Arapaho women and children, could not be dissuaded. When Chivington ordered his men to attack the peaceful Sand Creek encampment, the vast majority of which were women, children, and elderly noncombatants, Captain Soule steadfastly refused to order his Company to open fire. Captain Soule's refusal allowed many, perhaps hundreds, of innocent Cheyenne and Arapaho to flee the bloody killing field through his Company's line. While the Sand Creek Massacre was at first hailed as a great victory, Captain Soule was determined to make the horrific truth of the massacre known. Even though he was jailed, intimidated, threatened, and even shot at, Soule refused to compromise himself and made his voice heard through reports that reached all the way from Colorado to Washington, and even to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Even with the bloody carnage of the Civil War, the brutal atrocities at Sand Creek shocked the nation. During hearings in Denver, Captain Soule's integrity and unwavering testimony turned the tide against the once popular Chivington and the other men who participated in the massacre and mutilations at Sand Creek. Captain Soule fully realized that telling the truth about the massacre could cost him his life, even telling a good friend that he fully expected to be killed for his testimony. He was right. Walking home with his new bride a short time later, Silas Soule was ambushed and shot in the head by an assassin who had participated in the Sand Creek Massacre. Silas Soule's funeral, held just a few weeks after his wedding, was one of the most attended in Denver up until that time. While Captain Silas Soule's name has largely faded into history, he stands out as one of the few bright rays of light in the moral darkness that surrounds the Sand Creek Massacre. He should be remembered. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 1998, at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a markup, on S. 1870, to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; H.R. 1805, Auburn Indian Restoration Act; and S. 2097, to encourage and facilitate the resolution of conflicts involving Indian tribes. To be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 2010, to provide for business development and trade promotion for Native Americans. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as I cast my vote in favor of final passage of the Federal Aviation Administration's Reauthorization bill, S.2279, I am pleased to bring attention to one special amendment to this bill. The amendment which my colleague Senator Allard and I offered will make the FAA's temporary ban on commercial tour overflights permanent. I have been working toward permanently banning commercial tour overflights over Rocky Mountain National Park for many years now, and am pleased to see this provision pass the Senate. As I cast my vote today, Coloradans will be one big step closer to being assured that they will be able to enjoy the scenic beauty of Rocky Mountain National Park without the noisy disturbances of commercial tour overflights. At this time I want to thank Senator McCain, who as the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, played a critical role in getting this amendment successfully included in the FAA bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 24, 1998, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing on H.R. 1805, the Auburn Indian Restoration Act. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting, to mark up the following bills: S. 1771, to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; and S. 1899, Chippewa Cree of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1998; to be followed immediately by a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Montie Deer, to be Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. subcommittee on investigations

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi amendment on Indian gaming. I think it is patently unfair because it will result in preventing Indian tribes from engaging in business activities that are now enjoyed by non-Indian neighbors. If we are going to talk about the merits of gambling--and I noticed my friend from Wyoming spoke eloquently about the down side of gambling--maybe we ought to shut down Reno and Las Vegas so millions, hundreds of millions of Americans cannot go there because it is bad for their health or sight or something. We are not here, by the way, Mr. President, to defend the actions of the Secretary of Interior, and I hope we will not confuse that. His mismanagement is one thing, but the letter of the law is something else. And I firmly believe you can't fix an otherwise good bill, this Interior appropriations bill, with a bad amendment. This simply makes a good bill bad. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 was a compromise to give State governments a voice in what kind of gaming would occur on Indian reservations within a State's borders. This was an unusual break from Federal Indian policy because States have no constitutional role in negotiating with Indian tribes, as you know. I was here in 1988, in fact, and helped write that original authorizing legislation, IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. There was no intent at the time to usurp State laws, but as with many laws we have passed, there have been unintended consequences. The way it was written, a State can prevent a tribe from operating gaming facilities on its reservation simply by refusing to negotiate with the tribe. And that, of course, was upheld in the Seminole decision. My friend from Wyoming has spoken to that. But in 1988, it didn't occur to us, when we were writing the bill, that States might simply refuse to negotiate in good faith. Since tribes are limited to those types of gaming allowed under State law, we have tribes prohibited from being in the same business as their non- Indian neighbors. I think that is discriminatory in the least. It is wrong to do that, and I think it violates the treaties. I should also point out to my colleagues that in many cases non-Indian gaming is promoted and even operated by State governments. They certainly don't want the competition. Since Congress' intent under IGRA was that States should not have the ability to unilaterally veto gaming on Indian land, the Department of Interior has proposed regulations to address this situation. Although the proposal may need refinement, we do not believe the Secretary should be precluded from at least developing and proposing alternative approaches to State-tribal impasses in the gaming negotiations. In fact, in a letter issued on September 9, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has stated the Enzi amendment could be very harmful in their ongoing negotiations. Coming from a Western State, I am as supportive as anybody of States rights, but those who say this new procedure overrides the States are simply wrong. Under the draft proposal, if a State objected to a decision made by the Interior Secretary, that State could challenge that decision in Federal court. For those who claim the Interior Department is acting without legislative oversight, I would point out that Congress will have the authority to review any proposed regulations before they take effect. As those proposed regulations come before the authorizing committees, any new gaming regulations will get a careful review, and if, after input from the rest of the Senate, those regulations are found to be unacceptable, they simply will not pass. We will legislate a new approach if they do not pass. I understand that there are Members in the Chamber who are simply against gaming. That is not what this debate is about. Under Federal law, tribes are limited to the types of gaming allowed under the laws of the State in which they reside. In my own State of Colorado as an example, there are two tribes, the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute. They are limited to slot machines and low-stakes table games, just as the other gaming towns in Colorado. In Utah, State law prohibits all gaming. Therefore, no tribes can do any kind of gaming whatsoever, and the tribes in other States cannot do gaming if a State law prevents that. Contrary to the statement already made that there have been no hearings, we have done hearings. We simply have not gotten to the important part of the legislation, which is a markup, but we will. This debate is about whether a Governor of a State can limit a type of business activity to certain ethnic groups. That is unfair and un- American. Let's not jeopardize a good bill with a bad amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Enzi amendment and allow the regulatory and legislative process to work. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I add my voice to the on-going debate on the campaign finance reform bill that is before us once again. Let me say right up front, so that there is no confusion, I support, and I have always supported enforceable, reasonable, common- sense reform. Unfortunately, I don't believe the amendment offered by Senators McCain and Feingold before the Senate meets those standards, nor do I believe it would stand a Constitutional challenge. As I stated with my friend and fellow Coloradan, Senator Allard, in a joint editorial printed in the Denver Post back in October, ``real campaign finance reform protects the right to free speech under the First Amendment while guaranteeing the public's right to know through full disclosure.'' This amendment does not contain that kind of reform. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to freedom of speech and association in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court applied those words to campaign spending in the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo to mean that money spent in favor or against a candidate is a form of speech, and therefore entitled to this protection. That decision has been reinforced over and over again. Given this ruling, I cannot believe that the Court, or the Founding Fathers, intended to impose a sixty- or thirty-day moratorium prior to elections on this right, as this amendment would do. I believe the Founders wanted Americans to have the unabridged right to speak their minds and show their support for candidates by using a collective voice, including showing support by making contributions to one candidate or another. In order to have an educated electorate, money must be spent on spreading candidates' messages. In our free market system, advertising rates are determined by the industry. I would note that these days, there is hardly such a thing as a ``free exchange of ideas,'' as nearly all forms of communication cost money. The exchange of ideas and opinions is what allows the public to become informed about the candidates that are seeking office. But limiting the amount candidates can raise and spend severely limits the ability to spread information about their backgrounds and opinions, and only harms citizens. I cannot understand why this amendment targets some forms of spreading these messages while allowing others to continue unchecked. Doesn't that signal to the American people that the First Amendment only applies to speech that is printed, and not speech that is broadcast? I would note that my colleagues and I have been under tremendous pressure this session to pass this particular legislation. But until we have found a solution that answers all the Constitutional concerns that have been raised, I am reluctant to act on this particular measure. As was stated in an editorial that appeared in my state's Rocky Mountain News, this ``particular piece of legislation would have betrayed several of the nation's most important principles, not the least of all is its guarantee of free political speech.'' I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the text of this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the National Jewish Medical Research Center in Denver, Colorado, which has recently been recognized by U.S. News and World Report as the top-ranked Respiratory Hospital in the United States. The work of National Jewish is close to my heart because I watched my mother struggle with tuberculosis throughout her lifetime. She lived and worked in a sanatorium for many years, making it difficult for her to care for my sister and me. In the late 1800s, Denver's elevation and abundant sunshine made it a mecca for people with tuberculosis. National Jewish treated only patients with tuberculosis until the 1950s, when antibiotics brought the disease under control. The hospital then turned its attention to asthma. Allergies which can develop into asthma, bronchitis, and sinus infections, now attack some 40 million people, double the number 25 years ago. Twice as many people, 15 million, have asthma now, too, at a cost of $6.2 billion a year in missed work and school, in medications and hospital visits. Today, National Jewish is a world-class institution, a global leader in the research and treatment of lung, allergic and immune diseases. It is ranked as the number one private institution for immunology research in the world and as one of the top 10 independent research institutions of any kind in the world. Tremendous breakthroughs in understanding respiratory disease are taking place in Denver. Not only is National Jewish recognized world-wide for its research, it is also known for its considerable philanthropic activities in the health care community. Until the mid-1960s, patient care was funded entirely through philanthropy. Today, the hospital continues to provide a significant amount of free and subsidized care to those unable to afford total treatment costs. Founded in 1899 as a nonsectarian, non-profit hospital for tuberculosis patients, National Jewish enters the 21st century as the only facility in the world dedicated exclusively to pulmonary disorders. It is one of Colorado's treasures. Next year it will celebrate its 100th year of giving health and hope to people suffering from pulmonary diseases. Today, I want to commend National Jewish on the rich history of patient care and research given to Colorado, to congratulate them on being recognized as the top-ranked Respiratory Hospital in America, and to wish them well as they celebrate the 100th anniversary in 1999.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, Senator, per your request $1,500,000 will be directed to the New Mexico HIDTA for fiscal year 1999 in order to combat the methamphetamine problem in your state.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 3356, previously adopted, and ask it be so modified.

Mr. CAMPBELL. On behalf of Senators Graham of Florida, Harkin, and Kerrey of Nebraska, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments Nos. 3387, 3381, and 3389 be withdrawn.