Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank Senator Inouye for those very thoughtful comments. Until he introduced a bill just a few years ago that established a museum of the American Indians as part of the Smithsonian--and I was a House sponsor when I was on the House side-- until that happened, there was a common saying here in Washington, DC, by Indians throughout the Nation. That saying was, ``There are more dead Indians in Washington than live ones.'' It was because at that time there were over 16,000 remains, mostly skulls, but other body parts, housed by the Smithsonian. Senator Domenici, when he was here, I think put it in a good and proper perspective. We are dealing with a couple of sections. My primary opposition was not that I was trying to lock anybody out from debate, but I felt it was the wrong vehicle for putting these very, very important policy changes on an appropriations bill. But Senator Domenici put it in a proper perspective. Since he did, I will make a point of that, too. Senator Inouye mentioned the number of treaties that were dealt with. It is my understanding that 374 were ratified by the U.S. Senate and 374 broken--every single one--but not by the Indians. That is something that ought to be in a historical perspective when we talk about section 120 or 118. Most of the things that the Indians lost in the centuries past were done through two manners: either at gunpoint or through some subterfuge. Certainly if they had known the value of Long Island, they would never have sold it for $27 worth of beads. In the case of the Black Hills, they did not have a choice; it was at gunpoint, as many other lands were, too. Some authorities, including Herman Viola, head of the National Archives and a prominent author on American Indians, has written about 14 thoughtful books on American Indians, and he says in some writings that estimates are as high as 30 million aborigine people--30 million-- died in North and Central America between 1492 and 1992--30 million. It was not like this place wasn't inhabited. There were complete nations. If you go back in history and you look at the great cities of Cahokia, which disappeared 400 years before the landing of Columbus, which had 20,000 acres in cultivated crops and astronomers, doctors, artists, and every imaginable kind of profession in their own way-- gone, 400 years before anybody landed on a boat here from any of the European countries. The great city of Tenochtitlan, which the modern city of Mexico City is built on top of, had thousands of years of their own history before the coming of post-Columbian people. I live about half an hour from Mesa Verde, called the Cliff Dwellings. They were there before Christ walked the Earth, the people living on the mesas, planting their corn, raising their kids, praying to their Lord, passing on generation to generation. They left there almost 400 years before Columbus even got here. So when we talk about who owes what to whom around here, I think it is very important that we remember that Senator Domenici and Senator Inouye have tried to put this in a proper perspective. They were a culture. They did not have prostitution. They did not have jails. They did not have communicable diseases. They did not have unemployment. They did not have taxes, by the way, Mr. President. They did not have welfare, mental institutions, literally all of the social problems that we now think are consuming America, eating up America. They did not have those. They could not even swear. They could not even swear. They had no swear words in the Indian language. They were a pretty good culture. We could learn a lot from them. We did not learn very much because we found it was easier to take things at gunpoint or to get one to sell out another. That was common in those days. If the negotiators with the Federal Government could not talk some of the chiefs out of the land, they would simply say, ``OK, we will set up our own chiefs. We will set up these guys over here. They belong to the tribe. We will say they are the guys that have the authority to sign the agreements and the treaties.'' That is the way some of the land disappeared. If we decided we could not deal with the Government of France or Great Britain or any other foreign country, we would simply say, we will set up our own puppet leaders in your country and then we will sign an agreement with them and that will become the law of the land. That is how a lot of the land disappeared. They had none of these problems. It was not in their nature and it was not in their culture. They inherited it all. Many, many tribes are still trying to find their center, find their way, and make a better life for themselves and their kids. It is an uphill battle all the way because this Government, by and large, has never been very sensitive of their needs. If you remember, historically, in fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was not part of the Department of the Interior when it was set up. It was part of the Department of War. Do you think anybody that sets up a framework to try to find fairness after fighting decades of battle, where some of their own people were lost in their battles, do you think they will be fair? Probably not. That is what led to the rise of the Surgeon General in the 1800's asking the War Department to send out a request to collect body parts from American Indians. If they were already dead, that was OK, dig them up and send them in. If they were not, kill them and then send them in. The point of that whole study is a matter of historical record. It was to do one thing: They took measurements of the skulls, the bones; they measured how far apart were the eyes, and the cranial cavity and so on, and in their infinite wisdom decided, because those measurements were different from the Anglo majority of this country, they could not have had the intelligence to own land. That was one of the reasons and one of the driving forces of westward expansionism. I didn't want to get into a big history lesson here, but that is all a matter of record. It seems to me that if Senator Domenici and Senator Inouye did anything, they tried to put this in a proper perspective. There have been many, many bills and many laws passed dealing with American Indians where they have had very little input and no voice in this body. All they are asking now is to have a voice in this body by having these bills introduced in a legislative forum so they can speak to them, too, and not just slipped in in an appropriations bill. In the past, there have been many devastating laws passed by this Congress. Certainly one was simply called relocation. That was not so long ago, it just happened in the 1950's, in which Congress decided Indians had lived on reservations long enough and they could be assimilated, and they uprooted families and sent them to the city and taught them to be electricians, plumbers, automobile mechanics, and after they finished school, they dumped them on the streets of Los Angeles, New York, Fresno, and all over this country with no jobs and no skills or ability to get the jobs with which they could make a living doing the things they had been taught under relocation. That is the reason why we have such high alcoholism rates among urban Indians now, still to this day, 40 years after the relocation act. In its infinite wisdom, this body decided, through the Termination Acts of the 1950's, they would arbitrarily say the Indians have been living around the city long enough, therefore we will not call them Indians now but terminate them as a legal body. The heck with the whole treaties, the heck with what we agreed to, our word is no good, we will terminate them. I have never understood that. It is like telling a black American you have been around the cities long enough, you are no longer black. I don't know how they could have even done that, but they did it. To this day, many of those tribes that were terminated and left in limbo, not quite in the Anglo world and certainly not in the Indian world because they were no longer legally Indians, and they have been trying to find their center. That is why in the last few years we have allowed more and more tribes to go through the Bureau's procedure to be reinstated as tribes. I guess in closing I should say we do an awful lot around here based on the law book. It seems to me we ought to do a little more based on the Good Book. You can be legally right and morally wrong. Everybody in this body knows that. I think we can put something in place that might be legally right and stand up in any court of law, but we have to ask ourselves, was that the right thing to do? Was that a fair thing to do to 2 million people without their input, without them knowing, without them having a voice? I don't think so. If you look at the unemployment rate on the charts that Senator Gorton showed, it was 95 percent on the reservation in Pine Ridge, SD. When you talk about a 9 percent unemployment nationwide, this country comes unglued. We think we are in a major catastrophe if we have a 9 percent unemployment. Try 40, 50, 80, 90, or 95 percent, like in Pine Ridge, SD, and all the dysfunctional problems, including fetal alcohol syndrome. One out of five or six babies born is destined to lead a life in an institution because his mother drank too much because she didn't know the difference or did not know it would hurt her unborn baby. Try to apply those statistics to the outside world. Half of our high school kids don't finish high school. We have kids sniffing glue, eating paint, blowing spray paint in their face, burning our their mind. They don't know what they are doing because they have not had proper education or training. We have a suicide rate on some reservations where one out of every two girls, one out of every two, tries suicide before she is out of her teenage years, and one out of every three boys, and too many of them succeed. That is the historical perspective that I try to put this in when I say we went the wrong way in trying to add this to an appropriations bill with no input. I am delighted and honored that so many Senators came forward and spoke to this, and at least for this year, we got it right and we are telling people this Nation is no better than a human being when we give our word. We are now in the process of dealing with fast-track for NAFTA, expanding that; we dealt with the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty, and we are dealing with another treaty dealing with landmines. They are all going to affect millions of people. It just seems to me that if this Nation can give their word in treaties to everybody else in the world that live halfway around the world, we can darn sure give our word to the first Americans and keep it. With that, Mr. President, I would like to get back to the amendment and clarify that. I did ask unanimous consent on the pending question that is now referred to as section 118, beginning on page 52, line 16; is that correct?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not sure. Did I ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment referred to as section 120, beginning on page 55, line 11, be withdrawn.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I wasn't going to speak to that, but I might make one comment. As I read the language of the bill, there were so many unanswered questions. One that came to mind was this. As I understand section 120, tribes who did not want to give up their sovereign immunity would be denied Federal funds. If they did willingly give up Federal funds, then they would not have had to give up their sovereign immunity, which seemed strange to me because the tribes that are the most destitute and therefore the most dependent on Federal help, would have been the ones who would have had to give up immunity and therefore would have been sued more, where the very few, perhaps 1 out of 100, who do have a casino and have some money, simply would have said we don't want Federal money, we have enough; therefore, their immunity would have been intact. It seems that paradox should be the thing that we discuss in a proper forum, which is the committee legislation. With that, I have no further comments, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will move to section 120. Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 55, Line 11

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and other colleagues in recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month and to offer a few remarks regarding the Hispanic tradition in my home State of Colorado and their many contributions to our great country. To begin with, Colorado is the Spanish word for red, thus we owe the name of our State to Hispanics. The town where I live is Ignacio which is Spanish for Ignatius, and the county I live in is La Plata which is Spanish for silver. To the east you will find Alamosa, San Luis, Monte Vista, Antonio, Las Animas and La Junta, to name but a few towns in Colorado. As you can see, Mr. President, in my State it is next to impossible to look in any direction without being reminded of Hispanic heritage and influence. More than two thirds of the territory of the 48 contiguous States was discovered, settled or governed by Spanish speaking people. The Hispanic tradition in the United States is as new as the families who enter every year in search of a better life and as old as 1513 when Ponce de Leon landed on the east coast of the peninsula he called La Florida. Hispanics have enriched us with their cultural traditions and their commitment to la familia, the family. Their language, art, music, literature and food are today very much part of the American landscape. These contributions help make America stronger. Let us not forget their contributions in defense of our country. Hispanic blood has been spilled in every conflict and war since the Civil War when John Ortega of the U.S. Navy was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor on December 31, 1864, and as late as May 24, 1970 when it was awarded to Louis Rocco of Albuquerque, NM, for service in Vietnam. In between these two distinguished soldiers, Hispanics have been awarded 36 more medals making them the most decorated minority in our history proportionate to their numbers. Jose P. Martinez of Ault, CO, is also a past recipient of this highest honor we can bestow on our fighting men and women. Equality is a value central to the promise of America, and we must be conscious and proactive in insuring that equal opportunity is available to all who serve and contribute to the betterment of our country. Hispanics have fought for the idea and ideals of America and are deserving of an equal share of all of its rewards, not more, not less, but equal. That is the promise of America, and it is the promise we must make, and keep, to America's Hispanics. Mr. President, throughout my life, both personal and public, Hispanics have honored me with their friendship and support. It is with great pleasure I honor them here on the floor of the U.S. Senate in recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Wednesday, September 17, 1997, at 9 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a joint oversight hearing on the problem of youth gang activity in Indian country. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, because the concept of nonacquiescence is so often mired and hidden in the bureaucratic processes of our Government agencies, few realize the magnitude of its true implications. I am extremely concerned that so many Federal agencies currently fail to comply with established case law when dealing with American's rights and legal claims. Instead, the very agencies whose function it is to serve the people of this country have been ignoring the law through the policy of nonacquiescence. Specifically, nonacquiescence occurs when an agency refuses to comply with judicial precedent and instead, relies on agency policy to determine the outcome of a claim. For example, if a beneficiary has a social security claim, the agency can rule against the claimant even if the judicial precedent in that circuit is entirely in favor of the beneficiary. Agency wins-- claimant loses--end of story. The only recourse that beneficiary has is to relitigate that same issue in court. The beneficiary can't bypass the agency and go directly to court, because he or she must first exhaust all administrative remedies. This is an extremely expensive burden on any person with a claim against an agency. In fact, it is a financial burden on the entire judicial system and on the American taxpayer who eventually pays the cost of relitigation. Stare decisis--``let the decision stand''--is the fundamental doctrine of law upon which our entire judicial system is based. It is a concept of fairness and equity that has withstood the test of time. We require the American people and courts to adhere to judicial precedent. This policy of nonacquiescence completely undermines that principle. It allows the agency to completely ignore judicial precedent and instead rely solely on agency interpretation. The most glaring examples of nonacquiescence have surfaced in a select few agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Internal Revenue Service. This year alone, the Social Security Administration itself indicates that tens of thousands of claims involving nonacquiescence may be litigated. In a recent judicial opinion, the appellate judge stated that ``if a [social security] claimant has the determination and financial and physical strength and lives long enough to make it through the administrative process he can turn to the courts * * *'' and ultimately prevail. Similarly, the NLRB and the IRS have invoked this policy and were the subject of inquiry during a recent House hearing which investigated the alarming rise of agency nonacquiescence. The true residual dangers of the nonacquiescence policy, however, lie in its more far-reaching implications. Theoretically, any agency can invoke this policy to avoid the law. When the Bureau of Land Management recently proposed reform regulations for grazing permits, ranchers challenged the new provisions. After exhausting all administrative remedies, the ranchers took their case to court. Following lengthy and costly litigation, the appellate court ruled in favor of the ranchers. However, under the nonacquiescence policy, the BLM could refuse to abide by this ruling each and every time this issue arises. Now grazing permits may not seem like a big deal to people here in Washington, but like many Western States, more than 30 percent of all the land in my home State of Colorado is Government-owned and under the control of a Federal agency. In western Colorado, almost 60 percent of the land falls into this arrangement. A rancher waiting for a grazing permit may be unable to get a loan or conduct necessary planning, which could force that rancher out of the livestock industry altogether. At the very least, each time a claim is relitigated, it involves tens of thousands of dollars and years of financial uncertainty for the claimant. Such a refusal to adhere to judicial precedent sends a clear message to the American people--a message of unfairness and inequality which in turn breeds mistrust against the Government. If the people must adhere to judicial precedent, we should require no less of Government agencies. This problem has been around for decades, but Congress first addressed this issue when it was considering the Social Security Act of 1984. The conference report for that legislation highlighted the magnitude of concern over this policy when it stated: By refusing to apply circuit court interpretations and by not promptly seeking review by the Supreme Court, the Secretary forces beneficiaries to re-litigate the same issue over and over again in the circuit, at a substantial expense to both beneficiaries and the federal government. This is clearly an undesirable consequence. At that time, Congress allowed the agencies to address this problem internally rather than by statute. Now in 1997, 13 years later, nonacquiescence is alive and well and it would be a gross understatement to say that this problem continues to be an undesirable consequence. In fact, Congress' failure to act 13 years ago has allowed the nonacquiescence policy to grow into a bureaucratic nightmare. This is nothing less than bureaucracy run amuck. It is now our duty to address this situation before any more time and money is wasted. Because I believe it is important to hold Federal agencies accountable, today I am introducing legislation which would require a Federal agency to comply with Federal court precedents within the circuit where a claim is filed. However, this bill also allows an agency to deviate from such precedent under certain circumstances, thus giving the agency additional avenues when there is a conflict between judicial precedent and agency regulations. In contrast to the present policy of nonacquiescence, in which the general public has no additional avenue except to relitigate an issue at personal expense, my bill upholds the fundamental concept of stare decisis and will in turn provide stability, economy and equality for all Americans. The House version of this legislation was introduced earlier in this Congress by Congressman Gekas and Congressman Frank and has been reported favorably out of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. This bill is supported by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Americans for Tax Reform, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and the American Bar Association. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, because the concept of nonacquiescence is so often mired and hidden in the bureaucratic processes of our Government agencies, few realize the magnitude of its true implications. I am extremely concerned that so many Federal agencies currently fail to comply with established case law when dealing with American's rights and legal claims. Instead, the very agencies whose function it is to serve the people of this country have been ignoring the law through the policy of nonacquiescence. Specifically, nonacquiescence occurs when an agency refuses to comply with judicial precedent and instead, relies on agency policy to determine the outcome of a claim. For example, if a beneficiary has a social security claim, the agency can rule against the claimant even if the judicial precedent in that circuit is entirely in favor of the beneficiary. Agency wins-- claimant loses--end of story. The only recourse that beneficiary has is to relitigate that same issue in court. The beneficiary can't bypass the agency and go directly to court, because he or she must first exhaust all administrative remedies. This is an extremely expensive burden on any person with a claim against an agency. In fact, it is a financial burden on the entire judicial system and on the American taxpayer who eventually pays the cost of relitigation. Stare decisis--``let the decision stand''--is the fundamental doctrine of law upon which our entire judicial system is based. It is a concept of fairness and equity that has withstood the test of time. We require the American people and courts to adhere to judicial precedent. This policy of nonacquiescence completely undermines that principle. It allows the agency to completely ignore judicial precedent and instead rely solely on agency interpretation. The most glaring examples of nonacquiescence have surfaced in a select few agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Internal Revenue Service. This year alone, the Social Security Administration itself indicates that tens of thousands of claims involving nonacquiescence may be litigated. In a recent judicial opinion, the appellate judge stated that ``if a [social security] claimant has the determination and financial and physical strength and lives long enough to make it through the administrative process he can turn to the courts * * *'' and ultimately prevail. Similarly, the NLRB and the IRS have invoked this policy and were the subject of inquiry during a recent House hearing which investigated the alarming rise of agency nonacquiescence. The true residual dangers of the nonacquiescence policy, however, lie in its more far-reaching implications. Theoretically, any agency can invoke this policy to avoid the law. When the Bureau of Land Management recently proposed reform regulations for grazing permits, ranchers challenged the new provisions. After exhausting all administrative remedies, the ranchers took their case to court. Following lengthy and costly litigation, the appellate court ruled in favor of the ranchers. However, under the nonacquiescence policy, the BLM could refuse to abide by this ruling each and every time this issue arises. Now grazing permits may not seem like a big deal to people here in Washington, but like many Western States, more than 30 percent of all the land in my home State of Colorado is Government-owned and under the control of a Federal agency. In western Colorado, almost 60 percent of the land falls into this arrangement. A rancher waiting for a grazing permit may be unable to get a loan or conduct necessary planning, which could force that rancher out of the livestock industry altogether. At the very least, each time a claim is relitigated, it involves tens of thousands of dollars and years of financial uncertainty for the claimant. Such a refusal to adhere to judicial precedent sends a clear message to the American people--a message of unfairness and inequality which in turn breeds mistrust against the Government. If the people must adhere to judicial precedent, we should require no less of Government agencies. This problem has been around for decades, but Congress first addressed this issue when it was considering the Social Security Act of 1984. The conference report for that legislation highlighted the magnitude of concern over this policy when it stated: By refusing to apply circuit court interpretations and by not promptly seeking review by the Supreme Court, the Secretary forces beneficiaries to re-litigate the same issue over and over again in the circuit, at a substantial expense to both beneficiaries and the federal government. This is clearly an undesirable consequence. At that time, Congress allowed the agencies to address this problem internally rather than by statute. Now in 1997, 13 years later, nonacquiescence is alive and well and it would be a gross understatement to say that this problem continues to be an undesirable consequence. In fact, Congress' failure to act 13 years ago has allowed the nonacquiescence policy to grow into a bureaucratic nightmare. This is nothing less than bureaucracy run amuck. It is now our duty to address this situation before any more time and money is wasted. Because I believe it is important to hold Federal agencies accountable, today I am introducing legislation which would require a Federal agency to comply with Federal court precedents within the circuit where a claim is filed. However, this bill also allows an agency to deviate from such precedent under certain circumstances, thus giving the agency additional avenues when there is a conflict between judicial precedent and agency regulations. In contrast to the present policy of nonacquiescence, in which the general public has no additional avenue except to relitigate an issue at personal expense, my bill upholds the fundamental concept of stare decisis and will in turn provide stability, economy and equality for all Americans. The House version of this legislation was introduced earlier in this Congress by Congressman Gekas and Congressman Frank and has been reported favorably out of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. This bill is supported by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Americans for Tax Reform, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and the American Bar Association. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to express my deep sorrow over the loss of Mother Teresa. At the age of 87, she had made infinite strides in promoting peace and goodwill throughout the world. In a long overdue gesture, the Senate recently bestowed upon Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal for her role as head of the Missionaries of Charity. For a woman of her stature, it was a humble honor. As I listened this weekend to the many replays of interviews with Mother Teresa, I could not help but be stunned by endless depths of her compassion. Her desire to hug and touch people otherwise reviled by society, the strength of her hands and enormity of her presence despite her diminutive size, are just a few images which come to mind. Mother Teresa was a woman who measured and understood the rest of humanity in a way few, if any, others do. In recognizing her today, it is with reverence and the utmost respect for a person who labored as a living saint on behalf of mankind. She will never be forgotten. Her charitable mission will be carried on in her adopted home of India, as well as the dozens of countries where her works have been taken up by others. While Mother Teresa is irreplaceable, we can only hope to learn and live by her example in the future.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. The amendment would dedicate an additional $100 million to research on Parkinson's disease, an effort driven by my accomplished mentor and dear friend, Morris K. Udall. The statistics are staggering. While over a million Americans battle Parkinson's at a cost of $26 billion annually, the Federal commitment to Parkinson's research is only $27 million. While it is not only impossible but unfair to try and determine what disease should get more funding for research while another gets less, these statistics say unequivocally that Parkinson's deserves more. While I have many fond memories of Mo, his thirty years of unparalleled service to this country, his ever present wit and his statesmanship, one of my fondest memories is of a circumstance in which he exhibited rarely matched courage and integrity. While both in the House of Representatives, I had the honor of crusading with Mo to remove a painting from a wall in the Capitol that was both offensive and demeaning to Native Americans. That painting, that symbol of dominance, hung for years. Mo Udall took it down. He took down many such injustices during his tenure in Congress. Parkinson's has robbed us of too many valuable people. I feel very strongly that the 64 Members of the Senate who cosponsored this bill should follow through on their initial--overwhelming--show of support and adopt the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, back in May of this year, the leadership and the administration reached a historic agreement. That agreement was then supported overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate when the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 came before the two bodies for consideration, putting forth the blueprint by which the Federal Government could reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. This week the Congress and the administration have reached yet another monumental agreement, ensuring passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and its companion, the Taxpayer Fairness Act. These two bills, together, put forth the spending and revenue changes for the next 5 years. And, the passage of these measures and their subsequent enactment into law will signify the first balanced budget since 1969. For 28 years, the Federal Government has run a deficit and has talked about the need to balance the budget. Finally, due to the extraordinary leadership of the House and Senate, as well as the incredible amount of bipartisanship and cooperation, Americans are witnessing the Federal Government take the necessary action to get its fiscal house in order. The tax portion of this agreement will provide Americans with the first major tax cut in 16 years. This bill provides for a net tax cut of more than $90 billion over the next 5 years. This is slightly more than the $85 billion agreed upon in the budget agreement of earlier this year, and I am delighted that the budget negotiators were able to provide a little extra for this country's hard-working families and individuals. Specifically, this bill is an investment in our children. After years of trying to get a child tax credit enacted, the Taxpayer Fairness Act will provide families with a $500 per child tax credit for children under the age of 17. Over the years I have received many a letter from Coloradans who are supportive of this tax credit, and finally, they are going to be able to take advantage of it. Imagine what a family of four can do with a $1,000 credit. They can use the money to invest in their two children's education. They can put the money toward a downpayment on a house or simply use the money to ease their financial burdens. This child tax credit will mean different things to each of the millions of families that is eligible for it. But what it means to me is that this Government cares enough about this country's children and the hard-working parents struggling to raise their children to offer them some much-needed and well-deserved tax relief. And the benefits for families and their children do not stop there. Once a child is ready to go on to higher education, millions of taxpayers will benefit from the tuition tax credit and millions more will benefit from the student loan interest deductions. Equally important to my home State of Colorado are the benefits from capital gains and estate tax relief. I cannot begin to quantify how many Coloradans--homeowners, small business owners, farmers, ranchers-- have written or spoken with me over the years urging the Federal Government to ease the burden from these taxes, and while I would have liked to see these provisions go a little farther, I am pleased about the benefits this bill will bring to the many farmers, ranchers, and small business owners in my State. Capital gains and estate tax relief, in combination with other tax provisions in this bill including IRA expansion, will contribute to economic growth and create jobs, thereby once again assisting America's families. In all, the tax bill represents a major step forward for the economy as a whole and for the pocketbooks of taxpayers. Out of every dollar earned by an individual today, roughly 25 cents of that goes toward the individual's Federal tax burden--this is just the Federal taxes. And, today, we are going to do some truly significant by passing a bill which will provide major tax cuts, benefiting Americans at every stage of life. While the accompanying spending bill is more contentious by nature, it provides for several important and necessary reforms to our Nation's largest entitlement programs. The Medicare Program, which was facing certain insolvency within the next 5-year span of the balanced budget agreement, is now actuarially sound for the next decade. Most importantly, the savings achieved in the program are not unfairly achieved on the backs of beneficiaries, but rather through expanded choice, competition and a curbing of the rampant fraud and abuse. The Department of Health and Human Services cites $23 billion in fraud and waste under the current Medicare structure. This bill finally provides us with a mechanism to protect those taxpayer dollars. Further reforms in Medicaid, the section 8 assisted housing program, and improvements to the welfare to work legislation of last year have resulted in a historic starting point for meaningful and fair reform. I make no bones about my dissatisfaction with certain provisions included in the bill, as well as the exclusion of others, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these concerns. However, the benefits and the great need for the reforms this legislation precipitates have won it my support. On a larger scale, this tax bill and the Balanced Budget Act, taken together, will finally get the budget balanced. Since first coming to Congress in 1987 as a Member of the House of Representatives, I have been a proponent of a balanced budget and have supported efforts to achieve this goal. And, I am pleased to be here today to be a part of this historic moment. I would be completely remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work of the House and Senate leadership, including the chairmen and ranking members of the Budget and Ways and Means committees. In 10 years in Congress, I have never before witnessed a budget bill, and a balanced one at that, which has passed with such ease and cooperation. With that, Mr. President, I will vote for these two bills, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, it gives me great personal pleasure to introduce the Buffalo Nickel Commemorative Coin Act of 1997. I am also pleased to add Senators Inouye, Conrad, and Wellstone as cosponsors of this legislation. For those of us old enough to remember or for those who have seen one, the buffalo nickel holds a special place in history. This coin was in general circulation from 1913 to 1938, and it featured an Indian head design on one side with a buffalo design on the reverse. The coin's history is an interesting one, and I would like to share it with my colleagues. The artist who designed this coin, James Earle Fraser, wanted to produce a coin which was truly unique and American. I believe Mr. Fraser put it best himself when he said, In designing the buffalo nickel, my first object was to produce a coin which was truly American, and that could not be confused with the currency of any other country. I made sure, therefore, to use none of the attributes that other nations had used in the past. And, in my search for symbols, I found no motif within the boundaries of the United States so distinctive as the American buffalo or bison. According to historical sources, the Indian head on the nickel was created by Mr. Fraser based upon three models: Iron Tail, an Oglala Sioux; Two Moons, a Northern Cheyenne; and Big Tree, a Seneca Iroquois. Supposedly all three Indians were performers appearing in wild-west shows in New York City at the time they posed for Mr. Fraser. As for the buffalo, historians generally agree that the model was Black Diamond, a bull bison residing in the Central Park Zoo. Unfortunately, after being immortalized on the buffalo nickel, Black Diamond was slaughtered. The end result was a coin which was, indeed, truly unique. It has been roughly 60 years since the U.S. Bureau of the Mint ended production of the buffalo nickel. The bill I am offering today would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a limited-edition commemorative buffalo nickel coin to begin in the year 2000. I believe it is fitting to reintroduce this beloved coin to new generations of Americans. These coins will also serve another important purpose appropriate to its heritage. Profits from the sale of the coins will go to the endowment and educational funds of the National Museum of the American Indian. Authorized in 1989 by the National Museum of the American Indian Act, Public Law 101-185, the museum is set to begin construction in order to meet its scheduled opening date in the year 2002. The facility, to be located on the Mall here in Washington, DC, will house over 1 million artifacts and is expected to draw millions of visitors each year. By contributing funds to the endowment and educational programs of the museum, the buffalo nickel will be assisting with the preservation of native artifacts and offer visitors to the museum the opportunity to appreciate and learn more about native cultures. The origins of this bill actually began some time ago when an individual contacted my office with this idea. Following that, my friend and former colleague, Tim Wirth, sent me a note saying he thought it was a great idea, and since then I have received hundreds of postcards from people across the country expressing their desire to see the return of the buffalo nickel. With that, I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, and the U.S. Treasury in order to make the buffalo nickel a success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Gaming Enforcement and Integrity Act of 1997. The purpose of this legislation is to reform the current regulatory fee structure administered by the National Indian Gaming Commission [NIGC], the regulatory agency responsible for monitoring and regulating Indian tribal government gaming. The essence of any regulatory agency is in its ability to monitor activities within its purview and to act decisively in enforcing violations of the law. The NIGC is no different and it has depended on regulatory assessments and Federal appropriations to carry out these vital roles. When Congress enacted and the President signed into law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act [IGRA], two principal goals were sought: To provide a statutory basis for the operation of Indian gaming as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments; and, second, to provide a statutory basis for the regulation of the Indian gaming industry to shield it from corrupting influences. Since its enactment in 1988, the Indian gaming industry has grown tremendously, where today it is a multibillion dollar industry. As a result, the IGRA is beginning to provide many tribal governments with the wherewithal to provide basic services to their members. Where poverty once reigned on Indian reservations, economic opportunity now abounds. In many cases, tribal governments are able to employ large numbers of their own members, as well as non-Indians from surrounding communities. Further, it is no coincidence that in many communities around the Nation, welfare rolls have dropped and employment has risen as a direct result of tribal gaming. The second objective of the IGRA is to provide adequate regulation to shield Indian gaming from corruption influences and to ensure the games are fair, and conducted in accordance with all applicable laws. IGRA established the National Indian Gaming Commission and empowered it to monitor Indian gaming and to regulate certain aspects of Indian gaming. The act authorizes the Commission to assess regualtory fees on these gaming activities. In addition to these assessed fees, the act authorizes an annual Federal appropriation to complement the funds available for the efficient operation of the Commission. To date, the Commission is responsible for monitoring and regulating 273 Indian gaming establishments operated by 184 tribes in 28 States. While it attempts to keep up with this tremendous growth, the Commission is currently statutorily constrained from securing the level of funding it needs to fulfill its mandates under the law. Current law authorizes the NIGC to assess fees on class II gaming activities at a level not to exceed $1.5 million per year. In addition to Federal appropriations of $1 million over the last 3 fiscal years, and other fees collected, the NIGC has been operating on a budget that slightly exceeds $3 million. To further illustrate the funding dilemma of the NIGC, the Committee on Indian Affairs conducted an oversight hearing on July 10, 1997 to review the current Indian gaming regulatory fee structure. Testimony provided to the committee indicated that for fiscal year 1997, the Commission has an overall operating budget of $4.3 million which consists of, a $1 million direct appropriation, $1.5 million in fees assessed on class II tribal gaming revenue, and $1.8 million in unobligated funds from prior years. However, for fiscal year 1998 it is indicated that funds from prior year unobligated balances would be nearly depleted, resulting in a projected operational budget of $2.5 million to $3.0 million for fiscal year 1998. According to the NIGC, without additional funding reductions in staff would take place, with a commensurate decrease in its regulatory, compliance and enforcement efforts. Further, testimony indicated that greater resources need to be available to the NIGC in order to meet their statutorily mandated responsibilities. To accomplish this the NIGC proposed expanding their collection to class III gaming activities As a result of the hearing, I have developed legislation that reflects testimony provided by the NIGC and tribal interest. This legislation will require the NIGC to assess minimum mandatory fees on each gaming operation that conducts a gaming activity regulated under the act. In addition to these minimum fees, the Commission is authorized to assess fees on class II gaming and on class III gaming. In order to provide a reasonable fee assessment approach, the legislation provides for maximum rates of not more than 2.5 percent on the gross revenues of class II activities; and not more than .5 percent on the gross revenues of class III activities. In addition to these maximum rates, the bill provides for a phased in approach so that fees collected on class II activities shall not exceed $5 million in fiscal year 1998, $8 million in fiscal year 1999, and $10 million in fiscal year 2000. Similarly, fees collected on class III activities shall not exceed $3 million in fiscal year 1998, $4 million in fiscal year 1999, and $5 million in fiscal year 2000. The Commission is required to take into account its duties and the services it provides to Indian tribal gaming in setting the annual fees under the act. The legislation creates a special fund in the U.S. Treasury for amounts equal to the fees paid by the gaming operations, and requires that all amounts deposited into the special fund shall be used only to fund the activities of the Commission under the IGRA. Because the United States maintains a special relationship with the Indian tribes, and given its legitimate role in providing services to the tribes, the bill I am introducing retains a Federal appropriation to defray the costs incurred by the Commission in carrying out its duties under the IGRA. As I have stated before, it is our obligation to make sure that we protect the interests of Native Americans and, at the same time, protect the interest of those who participate in Indian Gaming. This legislation seeks to ensure the integrity of the Indian gaming industry by providing the tools necessary to the agency responsible for regulating this industry. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. to mark-up S. 569, a bill to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978; to be followed immediately by an Oversight Hearing on the Special Trustee's ``Strategic Plan'' to reform the management of Indian Trust Funds. The hearing will be held in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I wanted to thank our hard working staff: Barbara Retzlaff, Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, Frank Larkin, and Pat Raymond. And in particular I wanted to thank our ranking member, Senator Kohl, for his advice and his leadership on this bill. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his interest in this important program. While the committee chose not to fund modernization for fiscal year 1998, I support appropriation of funds at that time in the future when the contract is awarded. I am pleased to put this on the record. Otherwise, those in the private sector spending extensive funds helping develop the concept of performance--based contracts, reviewing the ``Request for Comment,'' and lending their expertise to the IRS so that the ``Request for Proposal,'' when issued, is in the best possible shape, may stop doing so because of uncertainties about Congress' commitment to fund the procurement.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each of the votes in this series.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask the Senator, is this the Bingaman amendment he had offered, amendment No. 937.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now consider amendment No. 937, offered by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman].

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, if I could ask for just a moment?