Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``International Monetary Fund Transparency and Efficiency Act of 1998.'' When bailing out failing economies, the International Monetary Fund often requires countries to make their markets more transparent, efficient and accountable. In the wake of the Asian economic crisis, it has become clear that the IMF itself also sorely needs the very same increased transparency, efficiency, and accountability that the IMF demands of others. I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues from North Carolina and Alabama, Senators Faircloth and Shelby, who are original cosponsors of this legislation. On March 17, 1998, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 1769, which would provide Supplemental Appropriations for the IMF for Fiscal Year 1998. Although I voted against the amendment which would provide $18 billion to bail out the IMF, the Senate ultimately adopted this amendment. While S. 1769 contains a few provisions calling for IMF reforms, like increased transparency and calling on countries receiving IMF loans to end market distorting government subsidies, S. 1769 contains much weaker enforcement mechanisms than those contained in the bill I am introducing today. Also, S. 1769 does not curtail the IMF's subsidized interest rates, something this bill will do. Just last week, the IMF itself freely admitted the need for increased openness and accountability. On April 14, 1998, on the eve of the IMF's annual spring meeting, Managing Director, Michel Camdessus, promised more openness and accountability at the IMF. Furthermore, during a National Journal interview earlier this month, Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers was quoted as saying, ``Equally, we cannot be satisfied with the IMF that we now have. And that is why it is important to build consensus as rapidly as possible on efforts to make the IMF a more transparent institution.'' I believe the American taxpayers deserve no less. We in Congress must act to ensure that just such IMF reforms become reality. By sending the IMF's established hierarchy a clear and immediate reason to implement these reforms we will ensure that these long overdue reforms will actually take place. This legislation is also timely. When the IMF bails out failing economies, it regularly calls for increased transparency and governmental efficiency as a precondition for receiving financial aid. The IMF is right on target in this respect. Increased transparency and accountability are crucial to give the American taxpayers reasonable assurances that the problems that cause these economic breakdowns are being directly addressed. Obviously, if these troubled economies had been transparent, efficient and open to American exports from the start, Congress would not be debating about making another $18 billion available to the IMF. Clearly, the IMF itself should live up to the standards it sets for others. This legislation would withhold U.S. federal funding from the IMF until the Treasury Secretary certifies that the IMF has met four specific reform requirements, and then Congress enacts a joint resolution approving this certification. First, the IMF would be required to make the minutes of its board of Governors or Executive Board available for public inspection within three months of the meeting. Second, the IMF would release copies of loan and program documents, written reviews, and other pertinent documents related to proposed and ongoing programs within three months. Third, the IMF would establish an independent board to review the IMF's operations, research and loan activities and then issue annual reports for public inspection. Finally, when granting financial assistance, the IMF would charge interest rates that are comparable to market interest rates rather than the subsidized interest rates it currently charges. Naturally, this bill includes special exemptions to protect classified U.S. information, information which would disrupt markets, and proprietary information. The administration and IMF have requested that the American taxpayers make an additional $18 billion of their hard-earned dollars available to the IMF to replenish its fund that has been depleted by the Asian financial crisis. My bill will bring accountability to an institution, funded in large part by the American people that has--for the last 50 years--eluded true accountability. Increased transparency and efficiency will finally enable the American taxpayers to clearly see how their tax dollars are being used by the IMF. For the reasons stated above and more, I introduce this bill as the Senate companion to H.R. 3331, recently introduced by our colleagues in the House, Congressman Saxton of New Jersey, the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Congressman Tom Campbell from California, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey. The Heritage Foundation has described this legislation as a compromise with a lot of merit. It is time for increased transparency and efficiency at the IMF, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, prior to the noon hour today, the Senate cast a roll call vote on our colleague Senator Dodd's amendment No. 2305 to H.R. 2646, the Coverdell Education bill. This vote to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Dodd amendment failed by a vote of 46- 53. I was unavoidably detained in the Physician's Office of the Capitol, but would have voted against waiving the Budget Act. My vote would not have altered the final outcome of the vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``International Monetary Fund Transparency and Efficiency Act of 1998.'' When bailing out failing economies, the International Monetary Fund often requires countries to make their markets more transparent, efficient and accountable. In the wake of the Asian economic crisis, it has become clear that the IMF itself also sorely needs the very same increased transparency, efficiency, and accountability that the IMF demands of others. I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues from North Carolina and Alabama, Senators Faircloth and Shelby, who are original cosponsors of this legislation. On March 17, 1998, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 1769, which would provide Supplemental Appropriations for the IMF for Fiscal Year 1998. Although I voted against the amendment which would provide $18 billion to bail out the IMF, the Senate ultimately adopted this amendment. While S. 1769 contains a few provisions calling for IMF reforms, like increased transparency and calling on countries receiving IMF loans to end market distorting government subsidies, S. 1769 contains much weaker enforcement mechanisms than those contained in the bill I am introducing today. Also, S. 1769 does not curtail the IMF's subsidized interest rates, something this bill will do. Just last week, the IMF itself freely admitted the need for increased openness and accountability. On April 14, 1998, on the eve of the IMF's annual spring meeting, Managing Director, Michel Camdessus, promised more openness and accountability at the IMF. Furthermore, during a National Journal interview earlier this month, Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers was quoted as saying, ``Equally, we cannot be satisfied with the IMF that we now have. And that is why it is important to build consensus as rapidly as possible on efforts to make the IMF a more transparent institution.'' I believe the American taxpayers deserve no less. We in Congress must act to ensure that just such IMF reforms become reality. By sending the IMF's established hierarchy a clear and immediate reason to implement these reforms we will ensure that these long overdue reforms will actually take place. This legislation is also timely. When the IMF bails out failing economies, it regularly calls for increased transparency and governmental efficiency as a precondition for receiving financial aid. The IMF is right on target in this respect. Increased transparency and accountability are crucial to give the American taxpayers reasonable assurances that the problems that cause these economic breakdowns are being directly addressed. Obviously, if these troubled economies had been transparent, efficient and open to American exports from the start, Congress would not be debating about making another $18 billion available to the IMF. Clearly, the IMF itself should live up to the standards it sets for others. This legislation would withhold U.S. federal funding from the IMF until the Treasury Secretary certifies that the IMF has met four specific reform requirements, and then Congress enacts a joint resolution approving this certification. First, the IMF would be required to make the minutes of its board of Governors or Executive Board available for public inspection within three months of the meeting. Second, the IMF would release copies of loan and program documents, written reviews, and other pertinent documents related to proposed and ongoing programs within three months. Third, the IMF would establish an independent board to review the IMF's operations, research and loan activities and then issue annual reports for public inspection. Finally, when granting financial assistance, the IMF would charge interest rates that are comparable to market interest rates rather than the subsidized interest rates it currently charges. Naturally, this bill includes special exemptions to protect classified U.S. information, information which would disrupt markets, and proprietary information. The administration and IMF have requested that the American taxpayers make an additional $18 billion of their hard-earned dollars available to the IMF to replenish its fund that has been depleted by the Asian financial crisis. My bill will bring accountability to an institution, funded in large part by the American people that has--for the last 50 years--eluded true accountability. Increased transparency and efficiency will finally enable the American taxpayers to clearly see how their tax dollars are being used by the IMF. For the reasons stated above and more, I introduce this bill as the Senate companion to H.R. 3331, recently introduced by our colleagues in the House, Congressman Saxton of New Jersey, the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Congressman Tom Campbell from California, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey. The Heritage Foundation has described this legislation as a compromise with a lot of merit. It is time for increased transparency and efficiency at the IMF, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia. I want to associate myself with his remarks. It is amazing to me how much we praise the actions of our military when they are putting their lives on the line and how quickly we forget them during peacetime or after they leave the military. This highway bill is important. I believe that, too, that our Nation's highways are in disrepair. But we have human beings that are also in disrepair in our veterans' ranks. We put $217 billion into the highway fund this year, which is almost $40 billion more than anybody expected. We have done a good job on funding our highways. I hope that we do an equally good job on funding the benefits for our sick veterans. As my colleague from West Virginia mentioned, the administration--I don't, frankly, think they understand the ramifications of this because when I was in the service, I can remember, as Senator Rockefeller alluded to, that there was no counseling not to smoke. In fact, as he said, it was ``smoke 'em if you got 'em.'' That was the common thing to do at virtually every break. We were told, ``If you want to smoke, go ahead, do it.'' There weren't any labels on the packs, and the cigarettes were free. You were actively encouraged to smoke. To say that it is somehow the veterans' fault and to say that they voluntarily smoked is a stretch of the imagination. I know we have potholes in our highways, but we ought to also be concerned with the bullet holes that were put in some of the veterans. To raid the veterans' health care funds to put it in the highways, I think, is absolutely outrageous. I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from West Virginia. I applaud him for his courageous stand on trying to protect the veterans of our Nation. I yield back my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to make certain technical corrections to a number of unrelated laws affecting Indian tribes. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. The bill will allow us to address a series of minor amendments to Indian laws in one piece of legislation, without having to introduce and legislate on a number of separate bills. I conferred with the delegation of each state involved on each of these amendments and the delegations generally support the respective amendment affecting tribes in their states. The bill contains a total of 14 amendments addressing a variety of issues including: increasing the allowable lease terms of reservation lands; reservation boundary adjustments; amendments to facilitate water rights settlements; clarification of federal service areas for tribes; and a number of others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as our nation approaches the Millennium, it is an appropriate time to renew the appreciation and understanding of the American people in the democratic heritage and principles which make our country the greatest in the world. That is why I am introducing legislation today to rename Election Day as Freedom and Democracy Day and to renew civic responsibility. The two main objectives of this legislation are first, to broaden and increase voter turnout, and second, to restore appreciation for our country's most fundamental expression of freedom and its democratic underpinnings--the right to vote. As a nation, we must all be concerned that voter apathy is so high, while voter participation is so low. Voting, it seems, has become a neglected, if not cumbersome, privilege of Americans. In the past 20 years, voter participation in presidential election years has remained barely above 50 percent, and during midterm congressional election years it has not been more than 50 percent. I am alarmed at the unfortunate fact that voter participation has declined to the point that it is now among the lowest of any democratic nation. The rate of voter participation among younger Americans--the future leaders, teachers, and business executives--has declined significantly. It is our responsibility as elected officials, and, more importantly, as American citizens, to support additional efforts to strengthen the electoral process, to encourage civic awareness, and to promote active participation in the exercise of liberty. Therefore, the first goal of the bill is to renew civic spirit and highlight the importance of Americans to fulfill their civic responsibilities by making Election Day a legal public holiday, known as Freedom and Democracy Day. This designation gives new meaning to the importance of voting on the first Tuesday in November. We need to stress the importance of self-government, encourage Americans to exercise their freedom and liberty as citizens by voting, and encourage Americans to reinvigorate their support for their civic duties. Although my bill designates this day as a legal public holiday, I want to emphasize that Freedom and Democracy Day will remain a regular workday. The bill specifically does not reference statutes relating to pay and leave of federal employees, and it does not affect the regular operations of the federal government. We as legislators and as citizens should do more to promote voter turnout and increase understanding of the value and importance of the right to vote. That is why the second objective of this bill is to encourage communities, schools, civic organizations, charitable organizations, companies, radio and television broadcasters, and public officials at all levels of government to support and celebrate Freedom and Democracy Day. The legislation encourages these key segments of society to sponsor and publicize appropriate celebrations and events which stress the importance of participation in self government. Their programs and support will send a strong message that the legitimacy of the democratic process is created from the consent of the governed, and voiced in the full participation of an informed, aware and active citizenry. I believe my bill provides a starting point for a renewed spirit and appreciation of freedom and democracy. It is my sincere hope that given more incentive to vote, more Americans will seize and exercise this expression of freedom. It is a small step in the overall effort to encourage all American citizens to take pride and participate in their representative system of government. Much of the voter apathy reflects many citizens' lack of faith in all levels of government. In America, power is supposed to be delegated from the citizen and loaned to the government. The Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for a new country, knew that as a nation we must leave room for change and growth and development. They knew the nation they left for us would modernize, rethink, and restructure. Let us be vigilant in remembering that the American idea of democracy is a government ``of the people, by the people, for the people.'' This is the idea of freedom and liberty; uniquely American. And, it is the goal of this bill to strengthen the American people's right to freedom and celebrate the spirit of democracy in the country which first empowered citizens with ``certain unalienable rights.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to make certain technical corrections to a number of unrelated laws affecting Indian tribes. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. The bill will allow us to address a series of minor amendments to Indian laws in one piece of legislation, without having to introduce and legislate on a number of separate bills. I conferred with the delegation of each state involved on each of these amendments and the delegations generally support the respective amendment affecting tribes in their states. The bill contains a total of 14 amendments addressing a variety of issues including: increasing the allowable lease terms of reservation lands; reservation boundary adjustments; amendments to facilitate water rights settlements; clarification of federal service areas for tribes; and a number of others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as our nation approaches the Millennium, it is an appropriate time to renew the appreciation and understanding of the American people in the democratic heritage and principles which make our country the greatest in the world. That is why I am introducing legislation today to rename Election Day as Freedom and Democracy Day and to renew civic responsibility. The two main objectives of this legislation are first, to broaden and increase voter turnout, and second, to restore appreciation for our country's most fundamental expression of freedom and its democratic underpinnings--the right to vote. As a nation, we must all be concerned that voter apathy is so high, while voter participation is so low. Voting, it seems, has become a neglected, if not cumbersome, privilege of Americans. In the past 20 years, voter participation in presidential election years has remained barely above 50 percent, and during midterm congressional election years it has not been more than 50 percent. I am alarmed at the unfortunate fact that voter participation has declined to the point that it is now among the lowest of any democratic nation. The rate of voter participation among younger Americans--the future leaders, teachers, and business executives--has declined significantly. It is our responsibility as elected officials, and, more importantly, as American citizens, to support additional efforts to strengthen the electoral process, to encourage civic awareness, and to promote active participation in the exercise of liberty. Therefore, the first goal of the bill is to renew civic spirit and highlight the importance of Americans to fulfill their civic responsibilities by making Election Day a legal public holiday, known as Freedom and Democracy Day. This designation gives new meaning to the importance of voting on the first Tuesday in November. We need to stress the importance of self-government, encourage Americans to exercise their freedom and liberty as citizens by voting, and encourage Americans to reinvigorate their support for their civic duties. Although my bill designates this day as a legal public holiday, I want to emphasize that Freedom and Democracy Day will remain a regular workday. The bill specifically does not reference statutes relating to pay and leave of federal employees, and it does not affect the regular operations of the federal government. We as legislators and as citizens should do more to promote voter turnout and increase understanding of the value and importance of the right to vote. That is why the second objective of this bill is to encourage communities, schools, civic organizations, charitable organizations, companies, radio and television broadcasters, and public officials at all levels of government to support and celebrate Freedom and Democracy Day. The legislation encourages these key segments of society to sponsor and publicize appropriate celebrations and events which stress the importance of participation in self government. Their programs and support will send a strong message that the legitimacy of the democratic process is created from the consent of the governed, and voiced in the full participation of an informed, aware and active citizenry. I believe my bill provides a starting point for a renewed spirit and appreciation of freedom and democracy. It is my sincere hope that given more incentive to vote, more Americans will seize and exercise this expression of freedom. It is a small step in the overall effort to encourage all American citizens to take pride and participate in their representative system of government. Much of the voter apathy reflects many citizens' lack of faith in all levels of government. In America, power is supposed to be delegated from the citizen and loaned to the government. The Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for a new country, knew that as a nation we must leave room for change and growth and development. They knew the nation they left for us would modernize, rethink, and restructure. Let us be vigilant in remembering that the American idea of democracy is a government ``of the people, by the people, for the people.'' This is the idea of freedom and liberty; uniquely American. And, it is the goal of this bill to strengthen the American people's right to freedom and celebrate the spirit of democracy in the country which first empowered citizens with ``certain unalienable rights.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will conduct three Field Hearings as follows: on Tuesday, April 7, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. to conduct a Hearing on Tribal Sovereign Immunity, in Seattle, Washington; on Wednesday, April 8, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on Jurisdiction Issues in the State of Montana, in Billings, Montana; and on Thursday, April 9, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. to conduct a Hearing on Economic Development in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, April 1, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a mark-up on the following business: (1) the nomination of Katherine Archuleta of Denver, Colorado to serve on the Board of Directors of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development; (2) S. 1279, Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act Amendments of 1997; and (3) S. 1797, the Reduction in Tobacco Use and Regulation of Tobacco Products in Indian Country Act of 1998 to be followed immediately by a hearing on amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, related to the procedures of the Secretary of the Interior in the Indian gaming statute. I oppose this amendment first and foremost because it will make permanent changes to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act without a single hearing on the matter. Later today I intend to introduce a freestanding bill to amend the Indian gaming statute. In fact, I was rather surprised this amendment would come forward on a bill that is designed to be an emergency supplemental for our troops in Bosnia and the gulf and to address natural disasters. Beginning this Wednesday, our committee will conduct the first of several hearings this year dealing with difficult and complex issues involving Indian gaming tribes and Indian gaming in itself. These issues include: Should there be uniform standards governing Indian gaming? What level of regulation of tribal gaming is needed? Is the Federal Gaming Commission adequately funded? What remedies do tribes have in the wake of the Supreme Court's Seminole decision? That is the committee of jurisdiction, and that is the forum through which the Senator from Wyoming should have addressed his concerns. When Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the States were invited to play a significant role in the regulation of gaming activities that take place on Indian lands. In fact, the statute required tribes to have a gaming compact before the State commenced any casino-style gaming within tribal lands. Though few have come to understand how significant such a provision is, it was and is a major concession by Indian tribes and one that has worked fairly well for the last 8 years. Congress also realized that tribes need a mechanism to encourage States to negotiate these compacts and provided for tribal lawsuits against reluctant States. Up until 1996, if a Federal court determined that a State was negotiating in bad faith, or if the State decided not to negotiate at all, the tribe had the option of filing a lawsuit to bring about good-faith negotiations. In 1996, the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Seminole Tribe of Indians v. The State of Florida. This decision said that a State may assert its 11th amendment immunity from lawsuits and preclude tribes from suing it in order to conclude a gaming agreement. Just as I believe we should respect each State's sovereign right, it seems to me we should recognize those of tribes, too. Next week at the committee hearing, one of the issues surely to arise again will be the matter of whether, in the absence of a State-tribal compact, the Secretary of the Interior can issue procedures to govern casino gaming on Indian lands. Senator Enzi's amendment would preempt the efforts of the committee to fully and fairly look at the issues regarding Indian gaming. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement from the administration that opposes this amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 1998 to reform the federal components of Indian gaming regulation. I wish to begin by acknowledging the work in this area by the two distinguished individuals who preceded me as the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye. This legislation builds upon their extraordinary efforts to listen to all sides of this debate and broker a fair and equitable compromise. I seek to continue this tradition by providing a starting point for negotiations among all of those with an interest in Indian gaming, and by addressing those areas that are most in need of immediate reform. This bill will revitalize the National Indian Gaming Commission, by ensuring that it has the authority to develop and impose a series of minimum federal standards on all Indian gaming operations. It will reform and restore the compact negotiation process by providing an alternative compact negotiation process in those instances where a state wishes to exercise its 11th Amendment immunity from lawsuits and its 10th Amendment right to decide for itself whether it wishes to regulate on-reservation gaming. Finally, this bill addresses the two issues that in my opinion are most in need of immediate reform. First, the bill applies the standard post-employment restrictions for former federal officials who are employed by any tribe that stood to benefit from any gaming-related decisions the officials made while they were federal employees. Second, the bill will prohibit the acquisition of off-reservation lands for gaming activities unless the tribe and the state agree to do so. Ten years ago the Congress enacted the Indian gaming legislation that many will agree needs to be updated. In 1988 most Indian gaming consisted of high stakes bingo and similar types of games. Since then, it has grown to become a billion dollar activity and has provided many tribes and surrounding communities with much-needed capital and employment opportunities. For those tribes lucky enough to be well situated geographically, gaming has proven successful. Where welfare rolls once bulged, tribes are employing thousands of people--both Indian as well as non-Indian. Once entirely reliant on federal transfer payments, many tribes are beginning to diversify their economies and provide jobs and hope to their members. For most tribes, however, gaming is not a viable development alternative. Indeed, only one-third of all federally-recognized tribes have any form of gaming and most of that is more like charitable bingo than Las Vegas or Atlantic City. On-line gaming, as well as competition from local and international operations, has created a very tight market. In Washington State, for example, as well as in other parts of the country, market saturation is leading some tribes to close their operations for good. Over the past ten years, the statute has only been significantly amended one time--in 1997 I introduced a measure to provide the federal National Indian Gaming Commission with the resources it needs to monitor and regulate certain Indian gaming operations. Today, a strengthened commission is beginning to fulfill its obligations under the statute and help maintain the integrity of Indian gaming nationwide. The lack of uniform standard operating procedures for Indian gaming continues to cause anxiety for many of those inside and outside of Indian country. Many Indian tribes, in cooperation with the states where gaming is located, have developed sophisticated gaming regulatory procedures and standards. Many tribes have put in place standards regarding the rules of play for their games, as well as financial and accounting standards governing those games. Not all tribal-state gaming compacts mandate such sophisticated regulatory frameworks. By setting threshold standards at the federal level, this bill will mean that Indian gaming customers throughout the nation can be assured that every Indian gaming establishment must comply with a federally established level of regulation, operation, and management, just as they are already assured that gaming proceeds may only be spent for certain purposes set out in the Act. When the Congress enacted the IGRA in 1988, states were invited, for the first time ever, to play a significant role in the regulation of activities that take place on Indian lands. The statute required tribes to seek to negotiate a gaming compact with a state before commencing any casino-style gaming. Though there were bumps along the way, this was a major concession by Indian tribes and one that worked reasonably well for 8 years, and which will continue to be available if it is chosen by both a state and a tribe. Under IGRA, before a tribe may commence casino-style gaming, it must seek to negotiate a gaming compact with the state where the gaming will occur. Up until 1996, if a federal court determined that the state was negotiating in bad faith or if the state decided simply not to negotiate, the tribe had the option of filing a lawsuit to bring about good faith negotiations. In 1996, the Supreme Court turned this process upside down when it handed down its decision in Seminole Tribe of Indians v. State of Florida. This decision said that a state may assert its Eleventh Amendment immunity from lawsuits to preclude tribes from suing it in order to conclude a gaming agreement. Also, some states have asserted that the IGRA may force them to regulate reservation-based gaming in violation of their 10th Amendment rights. My bill will allow tribes and states to continue to use the existing process to negotiate compacts if that is their desire. As I believe the Act should respect each state's sovereign right to absent itself from this process if it chooses to, we must also respect the Supreme Court's decision that Indian tribes have the sovereign right to offer gaming activities that do not violate the public policy of the state where those activities are offered. This approach is consistent with what the Congress intended in 1988. Finally, there are ongoing Congressional investigations of the so- called ``Hudson Dog Track'' matter involving whether the Interior Department denied an application by certain Indian tribes to acquire off-reservation lands for gaming purposes because of campaign contributions by a rival group of tribes. Even before these allegations surfaced, I expressed strong concerns about the acquisition of off- reservation lands for gaming purposes. The IGRA requires the Interior Secretary to consult with local officials, local communities, and nearby tribes in evaluating the tribe's application to take lands into trust. The Act also provides State governors with an absolute veto over such applications. In my opinion, federal laws and regulations already make it very difficult for the Secretary to take land into trust for a tribe if it is located away from a tribe's reservation or previous homeland. As a result, few tribes apply to have off-reservation lands taken into trust, and even fewer are successful. The IGRA imposes additional requirements on such acquisitions if there is any possibility that the lands will be used for gaming purposes. As a result of these requirements, I am aware of only two or three such acquisitions. Yet the opposition to Indian gaming that results from the mere possibility of such acquisitions is significant. This opposition far exceeds that speculative possibility that the Secretary, a local community, and a state's governor will all concur with such an acquisition. Thus, my bill will preclude off-reservation acquisitions unless the tribe and the state reach agreement to allow those lands to be used for gaming purposes. This provision will therefore encourage tribal-state cooperation rather than tribal-state conflict when it comes to gaming matters. My bill will also remove the argument that those Indian groups that are laboring to achieve federal recognition as tribes are doing so only to develop gaming. Achieving federal recognition is difficult enough, I do not believe it should be further complicated by squabbles over gaming. My bill will eliminate any appearance that federal officials and employees who are responsible for making decisions about Indian gaming are ``cashing in'' on their activities when they leave government service. By closing an existing loophole, my bill will establish that those federal employees who have made decisions concerning a tribe's gaming activities are bound by the same policies, procedures, and criminal laws that prevent other federal employees from profiting from decisions they made when working for the government. But it also preserves those provisions in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which have dramatically reduced the number of federal employees by encouraging their employment by the tribes that contract to provide federal services under self-governance compacts and self-determination act contracts. I believe this bill addresses the most pressing concerns raised by states, local governments, and Indian tribes. Like all attempts at compromise, few parties will be completely satisfied. The legislation I am introducing will both please and disappoint the states as well as the tribes. Nonetheless, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, demonstrating a willingness to serve as an honest broker will, in my opinion, do more to foster genuine and lasting reform than simply becoming an advocate for one side or one point of view. Let there be no question of my commitment to ensure that Indian gaming be operated fairly and consistently with all relevant laws, and that the goals and objectives of the IGRA are fully achieved. As I have indicated, the Committee will address these and related issues in the coming weeks. By introducing this legislation, it is my hope that those with concerns with the regulation of Indian gaming work with me in the Committee to fully and fairly debate the issues before any actions are taken to amend the Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 1998 to reform the federal components of Indian gaming regulation. I wish to begin by acknowledging the work in this area by the two distinguished individuals who preceded me as the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye. This legislation builds upon their extraordinary efforts to listen to all sides of this debate and broker a fair and equitable compromise. I seek to continue this tradition by providing a starting point for negotiations among all of those with an interest in Indian gaming, and by addressing those areas that are most in need of immediate reform. This bill will revitalize the National Indian Gaming Commission, by ensuring that it has the authority to develop and impose a series of minimum federal standards on all Indian gaming operations. It will reform and restore the compact negotiation process by providing an alternative compact negotiation process in those instances where a state wishes to exercise its 11th Amendment immunity from lawsuits and its 10th Amendment right to decide for itself whether it wishes to regulate on-reservation gaming. Finally, this bill addresses the two issues that in my opinion are most in need of immediate reform. First, the bill applies the standard post-employment restrictions for former federal officials who are employed by any tribe that stood to benefit from any gaming-related decisions the officials made while they were federal employees. Second, the bill will prohibit the acquisition of off-reservation lands for gaming activities unless the tribe and the state agree to do so. Ten years ago the Congress enacted the Indian gaming legislation that many will agree needs to be updated. In 1988 most Indian gaming consisted of high stakes bingo and similar types of games. Since then, it has grown to become a billion dollar activity and has provided many tribes and surrounding communities with much-needed capital and employment opportunities. For those tribes lucky enough to be well situated geographically, gaming has proven successful. Where welfare rolls once bulged, tribes are employing thousands of people--both Indian as well as non-Indian. Once entirely reliant on federal transfer payments, many tribes are beginning to diversify their economies and provide jobs and hope to their members. For most tribes, however, gaming is not a viable development alternative. Indeed, only one-third of all federally-recognized tribes have any form of gaming and most of that is more like charitable bingo than Las Vegas or Atlantic City. On-line gaming, as well as competition from local and international operations, has created a very tight market. In Washington State, for example, as well as in other parts of the country, market saturation is leading some tribes to close their operations for good. Over the past ten years, the statute has only been significantly amended one time--in 1997 I introduced a measure to provide the federal National Indian Gaming Commission with the resources it needs to monitor and regulate certain Indian gaming operations. Today, a strengthened commission is beginning to fulfill its obligations under the statute and help maintain the integrity of Indian gaming nationwide. The lack of uniform standard operating procedures for Indian gaming continues to cause anxiety for many of those inside and outside of Indian country. Many Indian tribes, in cooperation with the states where gaming is located, have developed sophisticated gaming regulatory procedures and standards. Many tribes have put in place standards regarding the rules of play for their games, as well as financial and accounting standards governing those games. Not all tribal-state gaming compacts mandate such sophisticated regulatory frameworks. By setting threshold standards at the federal level, this bill will mean that Indian gaming customers throughout the nation can be assured that every Indian gaming establishment must comply with a federally established level of regulation, operation, and management, just as they are already assured that gaming proceeds may only be spent for certain purposes set out in the Act. When the Congress enacted the IGRA in 1988, states were invited, for the first time ever, to play a significant role in the regulation of activities that take place on Indian lands. The statute required tribes to seek to negotiate a gaming compact with a state before commencing any casino-style gaming. Though there were bumps along the way, this was a major concession by Indian tribes and one that worked reasonably well for 8 years, and which will continue to be available if it is chosen by both a state and a tribe. Under IGRA, before a tribe may commence casino-style gaming, it must seek to negotiate a gaming compact with the state where the gaming will occur. Up until 1996, if a federal court determined that the state was negotiating in bad faith or if the state decided simply not to negotiate, the tribe had the option of filing a lawsuit to bring about good faith negotiations. In 1996, the Supreme Court turned this process upside down when it handed down its decision in Seminole Tribe of Indians v. State of Florida. This decision said that a state may assert its Eleventh Amendment immunity from lawsuits to preclude tribes from suing it in order to conclude a gaming agreement. Also, some states have asserted that the IGRA may force them to regulate reservation-based gaming in violation of their 10th Amendment rights. My bill will allow tribes and states to continue to use the existing process to negotiate compacts if that is their desire. As I believe the Act should respect each state's sovereign right to absent itself from this process if it chooses to, we must also respect the Supreme Court's decision that Indian tribes have the sovereign right to offer gaming activities that do not violate the public policy of the state where those activities are offered. This approach is consistent with what the Congress intended in 1988. Finally, there are ongoing Congressional investigations of the so- called ``Hudson Dog Track'' matter involving whether the Interior Department denied an application by certain Indian tribes to acquire off-reservation lands for gaming purposes because of campaign contributions by a rival group of tribes. Even before these allegations surfaced, I expressed strong concerns about the acquisition of off- reservation lands for gaming purposes. The IGRA requires the Interior Secretary to consult with local officials, local communities, and nearby tribes in evaluating the tribe's application to take lands into trust. The Act also provides State governors with an absolute veto over such applications. In my opinion, federal laws and regulations already make it very difficult for the Secretary to take land into trust for a tribe if it is located away from a tribe's reservation or previous homeland. As a result, few tribes apply to have off-reservation lands taken into trust, and even fewer are successful. The IGRA imposes additional requirements on such acquisitions if there is any possibility that the lands will be used for gaming purposes. As a result of these requirements, I am aware of only two or three such acquisitions. Yet the opposition to Indian gaming that results from the mere possibility of such acquisitions is significant. This opposition far exceeds that speculative possibility that the Secretary, a local community, and a state's governor will all concur with such an acquisition. Thus, my bill will preclude off-reservation acquisitions unless the tribe and the state reach agreement to allow those lands to be used for gaming purposes. This provision will therefore encourage tribal-state cooperation rather than tribal-state conflict when it comes to gaming matters. My bill will also remove the argument that those Indian groups that are laboring to achieve federal recognition as tribes are doing so only to develop gaming. Achieving federal recognition is difficult enough, I do not believe it should be further complicated by squabbles over gaming. My bill will eliminate any appearance that federal officials and employees who are responsible for making decisions about Indian gaming are ``cashing in'' on their activities when they leave government service. By closing an existing loophole, my bill will establish that those federal employees who have made decisions concerning a tribe's gaming activities are bound by the same policies, procedures, and criminal laws that prevent other federal employees from profiting from decisions they made when working for the government. But it also preserves those provisions in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which have dramatically reduced the number of federal employees by encouraging their employment by the tribes that contract to provide federal services under self-governance compacts and self-determination act contracts. I believe this bill addresses the most pressing concerns raised by states, local governments, and Indian tribes. Like all attempts at compromise, few parties will be completely satisfied. The legislation I am introducing will both please and disappoint the states as well as the tribes. Nonetheless, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, demonstrating a willingness to serve as an honest broker will, in my opinion, do more to foster genuine and lasting reform than simply becoming an advocate for one side or one point of view. Let there be no question of my commitment to ensure that Indian gaming be operated fairly and consistently with all relevant laws, and that the goals and objectives of the IGRA are fully achieved. As I have indicated, the Committee will address these and related issues in the coming weeks. By introducing this legislation, it is my hope that those with concerns with the regulation of Indian gaming work with me in the Committee to fully and fairly debate the issues before any actions are taken to amend the Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the ``Reduction in Tobacco Use and Regulation of Tobacco Products in Indian Country Act of 1998''. After many hard months of negotiations between the states Attorneys General, class action plaintiffs, and the tobacco representatives, in June, 1997, a proposed settlement was agreed to. The proposed agreement tries to accomplish a number of goals: avoiding costly and lengthy lawsuits that will enrich the trial lawyers; creating a multi-billion pot of money to be used by the states and the tribes for tobacco-related health problems; and implementing a comprehensive set of advertising limits that the companies would agree to voluntarily. In reviewing the proposed settlement agreement, the objective of the Committee on Indian Affairs was to review the matters under its jurisdiction and make recommendations on how to implement that agreement on Indian lands. After two Committee hearings I am confident that as to the Indian issues, we have crafted a bill that addresses the concerns of both the tribes and the parties that seek enactment of the proposed agreement. In its hearings the Committee heard testimony on the use of tobacco products by Native Americans and how the proposed tobacco settlement would impact tobacco-related activities on Indian lands. Even though smoking is on the decline in other segments of American society, available statistics show that smoking and use of smokeless tobacco in Native American communities is at crisis levels. The percentage of Native American kids who use tobacco is breathtaking--in some parts of the country 80% of Indian high school students use tobacco products. Further, the health problems Native Americans face such as alcoholism and diabetes are compounded by the use of tobacco products. Vigorous efforts need to be made at the federal and tribal levels to prohibit access to tobacco and reduce youth smoking in Native communities. After hearing the concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed settlement by Indian tribal leaders, state Attorneys General, federal health and legal experts, and Indian legal scholars, a bill was crafted which addresses the major issues involved in tobacco regulation on Indian lands. The legislation I am introducing today includes legal protections for traditional and ceremonial uses of tobacco by tribal members; respects tribal sovereignty and authority to make and enforce laws on Indian lands; includes a commitment to provide the necessary licensing and enforcement funding to tribal governments that is consistent with allocations the states will receive; and a commitment to ensure sufficient funding to treat tobacco-related illnesses and reduce the epidemic of tobacco abuse in Indian country. I am hopeful that if a comprehensive agreement is enacted, the principles and provisions contained in this bill are included to make the agreement applicable to tobacco-related activities on Indian lands, to protect the traditional use of tobacco by Native Americans, and preserve tribal authority to make and enforce laws to govern themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today not only as a concerned citizen but also as a concerned lawmaker. As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee which oversees the White House budget, I have some serious concerns about the taxpayer funds being used to pay for the President's personal legal defense. In addition, I have to also state that I am concerned about the lack of response to committee requests. Specifically, on March 3, a request was made to the White House from this committee to provide responses to two simple questions: First, has the size of the legal staff within the Executive Office of the President, funded by appropriated money, changed significantly between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998? And, second, what is the current specific number of lawyers detailed to the Executive Office, and has that number changed significantly during this time? In a recent report, Mr. President, it appears that the cadre of attorneys at the White House has ballooned from 4 to 39 in just the last year and a half or 2 years. Fully one-tenth, according to that newspaper article, one-tenth of the White House budget now goes to pay those attorneys. A number of them were transferred from other agencies. And in this year's budget request from those agencies, they are asking for a full FTE for those attorneys. It appeared at the time that this information was both readily available and easy to provide, yet the White House has not given us any specifics. As of about a half an hour ago, we did get some partial answers but not nearly clear enough. During this same time, I continued to get Members and constituents asking me, as the chairman of the Treasury Subcommittee which appropriated the White House's budget, to provide them with some answers. Finally, on this past Friday, March 13, I wrote a letter in an attempt to get a response from the White House. In that letter I requested that I receive the information by them by 12 o'clock yesterday, March 18. In that letter, I also asked the White House to provide me with a list of the total number of attorneys detailed to all of the Executive Office and from which agency they came. Yesterday, the subcommittee received a call from the General Counsel's Office stating that we would receive that information by 9 o'clock this morning. And as I have mentioned, we did receive a partial answer. So now it is March 19, Mr. President, exactly 16 days after the initial request for information was made, and we still do not have the full answer. We are now preparing to do a hearing, as many of my colleagues know, Mr. President. I believe the American taxpayers have the right to ask some specific questions. The 12 attorneys that were so-called ``borrowed'' from the other agencies to help the President with his personal legal problems command very good salaries for which we expect them to do work in keeping with the mission of their agency and for what they were hired to do. What I would like to ask the Executive Office is, was the work of those attorneys in their agencies important? If it was important, then who is doing their work while they are temporarily borrowed or reassigned to the Executive Office? And if it was not important enough to keep them at their job, why did we hire them in the first place in the agencies? What concerns me here is that as an appropriator I have the responsibility to follow up on these matters, and I take that very seriously. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable and certainly do not want to just pile on the President. But this is taxpayer money and we have a right to make sure it is being spent wisely. We need to verify that the White House is not using appropriated funds for the President's personal legal defense. It is already illegal for any Government entity to use appropriated funds for anything other than what Congress appropriated the money. In addition, there are many Government regulations from the Office of Government Ethics and the Justice Department which support the position that Government attorneys are to provide their services for Government interests only and not personal ones. That seems pretty clear and pretty well cut and dry to me. I do not request the answers to the questions that I believe are unnecessary. And I do not make frivolous requests. These are very important questions, plain and simple. Finally, Mr. President, I announce that our committee intends to hold a hearing on the Executive Office's fiscal year 1999 request before the Easter recess and fully expect their response to this inquiry prior to that hearing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter that we did send to Mr. Erskine Bowles, the Chief of Staff to the President, on March 13, 1998.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the ``Reduction in Tobacco Use and Regulation of Tobacco Products in Indian Country Act of 1998''. After many hard months of negotiations between the states Attorneys General, class action plaintiffs, and the tobacco representatives, in June, 1997, a proposed settlement was agreed to. The proposed agreement tries to accomplish a number of goals: avoiding costly and lengthy lawsuits that will enrich the trial lawyers; creating a multi-billion pot of money to be used by the states and the tribes for tobacco-related health problems; and implementing a comprehensive set of advertising limits that the companies would agree to voluntarily. In reviewing the proposed settlement agreement, the objective of the Committee on Indian Affairs was to review the matters under its jurisdiction and make recommendations on how to implement that agreement on Indian lands. After two Committee hearings I am confident that as to the Indian issues, we have crafted a bill that addresses the concerns of both the tribes and the parties that seek enactment of the proposed agreement. In its hearings the Committee heard testimony on the use of tobacco products by Native Americans and how the proposed tobacco settlement would impact tobacco-related activities on Indian lands. Even though smoking is on the decline in other segments of American society, available statistics show that smoking and use of smokeless tobacco in Native American communities is at crisis levels. The percentage of Native American kids who use tobacco is breathtaking--in some parts of the country 80% of Indian high school students use tobacco products. Further, the health problems Native Americans face such as alcoholism and diabetes are compounded by the use of tobacco products. Vigorous efforts need to be made at the federal and tribal levels to prohibit access to tobacco and reduce youth smoking in Native communities. After hearing the concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed settlement by Indian tribal leaders, state Attorneys General, federal health and legal experts, and Indian legal scholars, a bill was crafted which addresses the major issues involved in tobacco regulation on Indian lands. The legislation I am introducing today includes legal protections for traditional and ceremonial uses of tobacco by tribal members; respects tribal sovereignty and authority to make and enforce laws on Indian lands; includes a commitment to provide the necessary licensing and enforcement funding to tribal governments that is consistent with allocations the states will receive; and a commitment to ensure sufficient funding to treat tobacco-related illnesses and reduce the epidemic of tobacco abuse in Indian country. I am hopeful that if a comprehensive agreement is enacted, the principles and provisions contained in this bill are included to make the agreement applicable to tobacco-related activities on Indian lands, to protect the traditional use of tobacco by Native Americans, and preserve tribal authority to make and enforce laws to govern themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague from Colorado. We fought for fairness when it came to water legislation when we were in the House of Representatives together, and here in the Senate too, apparently our battles are not over. But I certainly do appreciate the support. I know we are on the right side of fairness for the people of our State. Mr. President, I ask unanmous consent that additicnal material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague Senator Allard. This bill represents our Nation's last opportunity to live up to an agreement we made with the two Indian Tribes in the State of Colorado. In 1976, the United States filed a claim asserting the historic rights of these Tribes to much of the water in the rivers in Southwestern Colorado. Rather than continue this disruptive and divisive litigation, the two Ute Tribes were parties to a Settlement Agreement in 1986, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan in 1988. So far, we have failed to construct any of the facilities promised in this agreement; even though Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have consistently supported full funding for this Project. I was reluctant to introduce this measure because I still believe that this country, this Congress, and especially the United States Senate can be trusted to fulfill the solemn commitment that was made to these Tribes in 1988, when I was a member of the House of Representatives. Of course the United States Senate has consistently and without exception, voted to abide by every term of this agreement. But the Ute Tribes point to the 472 treaties broken by the United States. Rather than allowing their 1988 Settlement to become the 473rd, they are willing to modify the terms of this agreement to move it forward. The original agreement called for construction to start in 1990. Here it is 8 years later and we have not even started. These tribes have provided the United States with their last chance to honorably live up to the promises we have made to them. If the United States fails to provide these tribes with a water supply through the Animas-La Plata Project, the tribes will have no choice but to go back to court. Millions of dollars will then have to be spent in needless, expensive, and divisive litigation. One of our distinguished former colleagues, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, was fond of saying that in Arizona it is so dry that the trees chase the dogs. Mark Twain said that the West is so dry that we can't afford to drink water, we are too busy fighting over it. What he said was, ``Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.'' Throughout the history of this region, the need for water has dominated and dictated our development. About 85% of the water used in the West is stored in mountain reservoirs during spring run-off so it can be used during the hot summers. For thousands of years this has been a fact of life for those who live in the arid West. We are following the example of the Anasazi Indians who also knew the need to collect and store water for dry spells 2,000 years ago in the same area proposed for the Animas-La Plata. In fact, when the Animas-La Plata Project was authorized in 1968, a number of other projects were authorized along with it, including the Central Arizona Project in the Lower Colorado Basin and projects in the Upper Basin. These facilities have already been constructed. We constructed these projects to meet the pressing needs of people and development. Only the Animas-La Plata languishes. The 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act was a fair and honest agreement with the two Indian tribes in my state. Furthermore, it was a compromise. The parties participating in these Settlement discussions and negotiations included a number of water conservancy districts, the states of Colorado and New Mexico, and numerous federal agencies. Congress and the President made this Agreement the law of the land. The two Tribes have every legal and moral right to hold the United States to the terms of the 1988 Agreement we enacted. Like any party to a binding agreement, they have the right to continue to demand that the United States live up to its commitment to build the entire Animas-La Plata Project. But the Tribes have made what one of the largest newspapers in my state refers to as a ``generous offer.'' This bill is that offer. If Congress passes these amendments, we will be paying for our obligations under the 1988 agreement with a few cents on the dollar. It was once estimated that it would cost almost $700 million to fulfill our obligations to these two tribes. Now we can do it for $257 million. These two tribes have provided us with the opportunity to fulfill our legal obligations to them under the 1988 Act at a bargain basement price. Under the terms of the bill I introduce today, the legal claims raised by the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute tribes will be resolved once the Interior Department constructs the following facilities: A pumping plant to divert no more than 57,100 acre-fee of water per year from the Animas River; a facility to convey this water to an off- river reservoir; and a reservoir to hold this water until it is needed for municipal, industrial, instream flow or other authorized and approved uses. Mr. President, the quantity of water that will be diverted and used by this project was not set by the project's beneficiaries, it was not set by the Bureau of Reclamation, it was not set by me; rather, it was set by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I quote the Service's recent Biological Opinion: An initial depletion not to exceed 57,100 acre feet for the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado squafish or razorback sucker nor adversely modify or destroy their critical habitat. The Service then goes on to agree that this level of depletion is consistent with the construction of the facilities that I have just mentioned. In addition: Two-thirds of water made available from these project components will be available to the two Ute tribes, with most of the balance available for municipal and industrial water, small irrigators in Colorado and New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation. The facilities to be constructed have been on the drawing board for decades. I think I can safely say that no project components in the history of developing water projects have gone through more environmental changes and more environmental regulations than this. In fact, here on the desk, I brought just the final supplement that was done after 1986, and it stands about half a foot high. If we stacked all of the different regulations that we have compiled end on end, we would have a stack over 3 feet high. I did not even bother bringing all of it to the Floor. But we have done virtually everything required to get this project developed. This represents only a portion of the environmental studies of this project conducted by just one of the Federal agencies involved. Those who have opposed this project in the past have had their own agendas: None of these agendas was concerned with this Nation's obligations to these two Indian tribes. Some complained about the price of the project while they conspired to inflate the cost by insisting upon wasteful study after study of this project. I think the tribes feel that they know there are certain interests who oppose the project and that they are the same interest groups that have opposed every project. They know that by driving the price up too much, it makes it much more difficult to build. But I think the United States' claim on being a trustee for tribes can only be fulfilled when we realize that our obligations under this original Water Rights Settlement Act must be complied with. The State of Colorado has done its part. It has expended $35 million to construct the pipeline needed to supply domestic water. The tribes have received their development funded of $57 million and derailed their water rights lawsuit in anticipation of the United States fulfilling its obligations. This Settlement proposal is the absolute minimum that we can ask these tribes to accept. More important, the most expensive part of this Project is the delay in constructing it. When I first became involved with the A-LP, about 15 years ago, the entire project could be built for around $315 million. When I think of the promises that were made to the Ute Tribes in my State, I am reminded of the words of Chief Joseph, the great Indian leader of the Nez Perce Tribe. When Chief Joseph came here to Washington he had this to say about the promises and assurances he received: I have heard talk and talk, but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Good words will not give my people good health and stop them from dying. Good words will not give my people a home where they can take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all of the good words and broken promises. As this bill is presently drafted, it enjoys widespread support among the people of Colorado, especially the people, local governments, and Indian tribes in Southwestern Colorado. State government, and literally all of our major newspapers. It is a significant attempt to compromise and make concessions by all parties involved. I believe we have come a long way. This bill is the product of significant attempts at compromise and concessions by all of the parties involved. I am pleased that the bill begins its legislative journey this far along. I know that not all of the parties who are affected by this bill agree with every one of its terms. While I can not respond to all of the concerns that have been raised, I can assure everyone that we will continue to work to address any legitimate concern raised about this legislation through the committee process. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation and meet the solemn commitments made to the Ute tribes in 1988. Mr. President, several newspapers, public officials and water Development Boards, and both of the Indian tribes in my state have supported the idea of modifying the Settlement in this manner. Since My legislation incorporates this approach, I ask unanimous consent that these editorials and Resolutions be included in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague from Colorado. We fought for fairness when it came to water legislation when we were in the House of Representatives together, and here in the Senate too, apparently our battles are not over. But I certainly do appreciate the support. I know we are on the right side of fairness for the people of our State. Mr. President, I ask unanmous consent that additicnal material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield any remaining time to Senator Allard, and I thank the Senator.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to amend the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague Senator Allard. This bill represents our Nation's last opportunity to live up to an agreement we made with the two Indian Tribes in the State of Colorado. In 1976, the United States filed a claim asserting the historic rights of these Tribes to much of the water in the rivers in Southwestern Colorado. Rather than continue this disruptive and divisive litigation, the two Ute Tribes were parties to a Settlement Agreement in 1986, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan in 1988. So far, we have failed to construct any of the facilities promised in this agreement; even though Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have consistently supported full funding for this Project. I was reluctant to introduce this measure because I still believe that this country, this Congress, and especially the United States Senate can be trusted to fulfill the solemn commitment that was made to these Tribes in 1988, when I was a member of the House of Representatives. Of course the United States Senate has consistently and without exception, voted to abide by every term of this agreement. But the Ute Tribes point to the 472 treaties broken by the United States. Rather than allowing their 1988 Settlement to become the 473rd, they are willing to modify the terms of this agreement to move it forward. The original agreement called for construction to start in 1990. Here it is 8 years later and we have not even started. These tribes have provided the United States with their last chance to honorably live up to the promises we have made to them. If the United States fails to provide these tribes with a water supply through the Animas-La Plata Project, the tribes will have no choice but to go back to court. Millions of dollars will then have to be spent in needless, expensive, and divisive litigation. One of our distinguished former colleagues, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, was fond of saying that in Arizona it is so dry that the trees chase the dogs. Mark Twain said that the West is so dry that we can't afford to drink water, we are too busy fighting over it. What he said was, ``Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.'' Throughout the history of this region, the need for water has dominated and dictated our development. About 85% of the water used in the West is stored in mountain reservoirs during spring run-off so it can be used during the hot summers. For thousands of years this has been a fact of life for those who live in the arid West. We are following the example of the Anasazi Indians who also knew the need to collect and store water for dry spells 2,000 years ago in the same area proposed for the Animas-La Plata. In fact, when the Animas-La Plata Project was authorized in 1968, a number of other projects were authorized along with it, including the Central Arizona Project in the Lower Colorado Basin and projects in the Upper Basin. These facilities have already been constructed. We constructed these projects to meet the pressing needs of people and development. Only the Animas-La Plata languishes. The 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act was a fair and honest agreement with the two Indian tribes in my state. Furthermore, it was a compromise. The parties participating in these Settlement discussions and negotiations included a number of water conservancy districts, the states of Colorado and New Mexico, and numerous federal agencies. Congress and the President made this Agreement the law of the land. The two Tribes have every legal and moral right to hold the United States to the terms of the 1988 Agreement we enacted. Like any party to a binding agreement, they have the right to continue to demand that the United States live up to its commitment to build the entire Animas-La Plata Project. But the Tribes have made what one of the largest newspapers in my state refers to as a ``generous offer.'' This bill is that offer. If Congress passes these amendments, we will be paying for our obligations under the 1988 agreement with a few cents on the dollar. It was once estimated that it would cost almost $700 million to fulfill our obligations to these two tribes. Now we can do it for $257 million. These two tribes have provided us with the opportunity to fulfill our legal obligations to them under the 1988 Act at a bargain basement price. Under the terms of the bill I introduce today, the legal claims raised by the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute tribes will be resolved once the Interior Department constructs the following facilities: A pumping plant to divert no more than 57,100 acre-fee of water per year from the Animas River; a facility to convey this water to an off- river reservoir; and a reservoir to hold this water until it is needed for municipal, industrial, instream flow or other authorized and approved uses. Mr. President, the quantity of water that will be diverted and used by this project was not set by the project's beneficiaries, it was not set by the Bureau of Reclamation, it was not set by me; rather, it was set by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I quote the Service's recent Biological Opinion: An initial depletion not to exceed 57,100 acre feet for the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado squafish or razorback sucker nor adversely modify or destroy their critical habitat. The Service then goes on to agree that this level of depletion is consistent with the construction of the facilities that I have just mentioned. In addition: Two-thirds of water made available from these project components will be available to the two Ute tribes, with most of the balance available for municipal and industrial water, small irrigators in Colorado and New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation. The facilities to be constructed have been on the drawing board for decades. I think I can safely say that no project components in the history of developing water projects have gone through more environmental changes and more environmental regulations than this. In fact, here on the desk, I brought just the final supplement that was done after 1986, and it stands about half a foot high. If we stacked all of the different regulations that we have compiled end on end, we would have a stack over 3 feet high. I did not even bother bringing all of it to the Floor. But we have done virtually everything required to get this project developed. This represents only a portion of the environmental studies of this project conducted by just one of the Federal agencies involved. Those who have opposed this project in the past have had their own agendas: None of these agendas was concerned with this Nation's obligations to these two Indian tribes. Some complained about the price of the project while they conspired to inflate the cost by insisting upon wasteful study after study of this project. I think the tribes feel that they know there are certain interests who oppose the project and that they are the same interest groups that have opposed every project. They know that by driving the price up too much, it makes it much more difficult to build. But I think the United States' claim on being a trustee for tribes can only be fulfilled when we realize that our obligations under this original Water Rights Settlement Act must be complied with. The State of Colorado has done its part. It has expended $35 million to construct the pipeline needed to supply domestic water. The tribes have received their development funded of $57 million and derailed their water rights lawsuit in anticipation of the United States fulfilling its obligations. This Settlement proposal is the absolute minimum that we can ask these tribes to accept. More important, the most expensive part of this Project is the delay in constructing it. When I first became involved with the A-LP, about 15 years ago, the entire project could be built for around $315 million. When I think of the promises that were made to the Ute Tribes in my State, I am reminded of the words of Chief Joseph, the great Indian leader of the Nez Perce Tribe. When Chief Joseph came here to Washington he had this to say about the promises and assurances he received: I have heard talk and talk, but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Good words will not give my people good health and stop them from dying. Good words will not give my people a home where they can take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all of the good words and broken promises. As this bill is presently drafted, it enjoys widespread support among the people of Colorado, especially the people, local governments, and Indian tribes in Southwestern Colorado. State government, and literally all of our major newspapers. It is a significant attempt to compromise and make concessions by all parties involved. I believe we have come a long way. This bill is the product of significant attempts at compromise and concessions by all of the parties involved. I am pleased that the bill begins its legislative journey this far along. I know that not all of the parties who are affected by this bill agree with every one of its terms. While I can not respond to all of the concerns that have been raised, I can assure everyone that we will continue to work to address any legitimate concern raised about this legislation through the committee process. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation and meet the solemn commitments made to the Ute tribes in 1988. Mr. President, several newspapers, public officials and water Development Boards, and both of the Indian tribes in my state have supported the idea of modifying the Settlement in this manner. Since My legislation incorporates this approach, I ask unanimous consent that these editorials and Resolutions be included in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 1771 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Texas.