Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici and Vice Chairman Inouye in introducing the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997, to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. [ISTEA]. More than any other communities in the United States, Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages suffer from a lack of adequate infrastructure, and the necessary tools to build and maintain that infrastructure. The United States has a special responsibility to Indian tribal governments to help them achieve economic self- sufficiency and political self-determination. Economies today, whether State, tribal, or national, are increasingly dependent on interstate and international commerce for their livelihoods. Solid physical infrastructure is the foundation for those economies. Federal ISTEA funding to tribal governments has lagged behind spending for States and local governments over the years, despite acute and unmet needs in Indian country. Poor and unsafe roads and highways, crumbling bridges, and nonexistent transit and transportation systems all contribute to and result in tribal economies that are third world in nature. In addition to facilitating the delivery of basic social services such as health, education, and nutrition to tribal members, solid physical infrastructures act as an incentive to outside investors to invest in tribal economies and to locate their businesses on tribal lands. The legislation I am cosponsoring today recognizes the special Federal obligations, and will assist in the development and maintenance of Indian transportation infrastructures and in the process pave the way for higher levels of economic growth and job creation. By increasing the funds available for the Indian reservation roads program, this bill will provide immediate relief to those tribes that have a backlog of road development and maintenance. By strengthening the capacity of tribes through transportation enhancement activities, the reservation bridges programs, and technical centers, this legislation will ensure that Indian tribes are not precluded from building stronger, more vibrant communities. I urge my colleagues to join in enacting this legislation so critical to tribal governments and economies across the Nation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I appreciate being able to speak on behalf of Mr. Pena for a couple of minutes. I have known Federico Pena personally and professionally for over 15 years, Mr. President. I know him first as a friend and I know him as a professional with the highest integrity. He was that kind of a legislator when he was the minority leader of our State legislature. He was that kind of a mayor, as the mayor of our largest city of Denver. He was that kind of person when he was Secretary of the Department of Transportation. His resume reflects an unsurpassed commitment and dedication to public service. His achievements display remarkable leadership, vision, and hard work. Mr. Pena leaves an indelible mark on every project he undertakes. The now famous Denver International Airport was a product of his foresight and leadership. The Department of Transportation, where he served as a Secretary for 4 years, is now leaner and more effective than it once was--success in taming and trimming a vast bureaucracy that can only be accomplished with discipline, determination, and hard work that Federico Pena was willing to put in. Despite the many professional attributes Mr. Pena has, and the many dimensions of professionalism he brings to public service, perhaps none are so important in our work as his honesty and integrity. This is a quality the Federal Government cannot afford to turn down. Having known him for the many years that I have, I am convinced that Federico Pena will bring to the Department of Energy the same integrity, honesty, and leadership for which he is known. That is his indelible mark that he has left on our State and our U.S. Government. I simply urge my colleagues to support the nomination when it comes up this afternoon, and I thank the Senator for yielding these couple of minutes. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, March 12, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Building with the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to conduct a joint oversight hearing on Indian housing programs operated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, March 11, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485, Russell Senate Building to approve the committee's letter to the Committee on the Budget relating to the budget views and estimates for fiscal year 1998 for Indian programs. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, who has put so much effort into this issue. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares for the final vote on the balanced budget constitutional amendment, I again offer my support for the passage of this critical piece of legislation. Over the course of the last several weeks, I have listened to many of my colleagues as they have come to the floor to debate the merits or the detriments of the amendment. I have listened to many of my constituents during my travels through Colorado, most recently at town meetings in Colorado Springs, Trinidad, Longmont, Greeley, and Golden. I also have reviewed mail that has come into my office here in Washington, DC, addressing this important issue. And I must say I am greatly pleased by the large number of people who support the balanced budget constitutional amendment. As I've indicated, I have been conducting a series of town meetings in my home State of Colorado. When the discussion turns to balancing the budget, the majority of Coloradans realize that we can only begin to address this issue with constitutional authority. I have also received numerous letters from special interest groups located here in Washington, DC, asking me to vote against the will of the American people and against the amendment. Well, I am not going to do that. I support the balanced budget constitutional amendment and have supported it since becoming a Member of Congress back in 1987. I believe this amendment is in the best interest of the future of this country, and I become frustrated to hear some of the arguments against this amendment, such as in the letters I receive from special interest groups. For instance, opponents claim that the amendment would limit the Federal Government's ability to address short-term economic crises or threats to our national security. Well, we have heard this argument on numerous occasions over the past few weeks, as well as over the years. Many of my colleagues have addressed this issue, and in fact, we have even voted on several amendments relative to these concerns. Section 1 and section 5 of the amendment, as it is currently written and was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, provide Congress with the ability to waive the requirements of the amendment, so I do not find this argument against the amendment to be particularly compelling. Another often repeated argument against the amendment claims that Congress can balance the budget on its own without passing the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Well, folks, I have been a member of this institution for 10 years now, and I have yet to see a balanced budget or one that even approaches balance. In fact, there has not been a balanced budget since 1969. Congress has even passed deficit- reduction legislation on numerous occasions in an effort to achieve a balanced budget, and we still cannot get to a balanced budget. This constitutional amendment will make the Federal Government accountable to the Constitution when formulating a budget, and by doing so, this amendment will force the Federal Government to behave in a fiscally responsible manner just as more than half of the States are already required to do. Again, opponents argue that a balanced budget constitutional amendment will only lead to devastating cuts to many federally funded programs. Well, I certainly do not argue that this amendment will not force Congress and the administration to make some tough choices. Tough choices need to be made in order to balance the budget. But what is the alternative? Because of our inability to balance the budget, we continually run a deficit each year. Our country currently has a national debt of over $5.3 trillion--and it is growing--and each and every year the Federal Government pays interest on this debt. In fiscal year 1996, this Government spent $344 billion on interest costs, roughly 15 percent of the entire Federal budget for that year. Let me repeat this. The Federal Government spent $344 billion on interest costs last year, and of this $344 billion, not $1 of it went to education, law enforcement, highways, or even healthcare. At 15 percent of the Federal budget, interest costs are our third largest expenditure, and it continues to grow. What does this mean? It means that our national debt is strangling the rest of the budget. My friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, has been on this floor each and every day of this debate arguing in favor of this amendment, and I believe he best put this whole issue of interest payments in perspective. If my colleagues will indulge me, I would like to reiterate some of my colleague's comments from a couple of weeks ago because I think they need to be continuously repeated in order to drive home the importance of balancing the budget and ending the escalation of our national debt. As my friend from Utah stated once before, the Federal Government spent more money last year on net interest payments than it did for the combined budgets of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the Department of Transportation. Our inability to balance the budget over the years has contributed to an enormous debt which requires more money to service annually than we are able to put toward the combined budgets of ten departments within the Federal Government. If we do not get a handle on the budget, we will continue to add to our national debt. In the long-term this debt, and the costs that accrue in interest, will endanger the funding for those programs that truly need, deserve, and require Federal funding. Of course, as this problem continues to escalate, it will be our children and our children's children who will be forced to deal with this problem. It will be they who will be hurt by low levels of funding--all because we did not seize the opportunity to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. And yet, there are still those who oppose the balanced budget constitutional amendment--who think that Congress can balance the budget on its own. Well, we have not done so in the last 28 years, and without this amendment I see no possible way that we can do so. If we were able to pass a budget plan this year which would balance the budget by the year 2002, without the constitutional requirement there is nothing to stop future Congresses and future administrations from implementing unbalanced budgets. And each year we fail to balance the budget, we run a deficit. These deficits will continue to add to the debt, increasing it and the size of the interest payments on the debt we leave to our children. It is estimated that in the year 2002 the interest payments will be $412 billion. It will continue to increase thereafter unless we find the fortitude to control our spending. You know, as legislators we should realize that our constituents expect certain things of us and of the Federal Government, and they rightly should. They trust us when we pledge our support for legislation such as this, and they have a right to expect our support when the time comes to vote. All of us meet with constituents and constituency groups, and barely a day goes by that we do not hear someone asking for our support for funding for certain programs or to work to increase funding for others. However, the fact of the matter is that money is scarce, and if we continue to run deficits and add to the national debt, it is going to become increasingly difficult to fund programs at the level they need and deserve. This body is going to vote on the balanced budget constitutional amendment, and it makes me angry to think it may fail to pass--once again by possibly only one vote. It makes me angry because this legislation and all of the same debates will continue to come up in future Congresses until one Congress has the good sense and courage to pass this measure and send it on to the States where it rightly belongs for ratification. As Members of the United States Congress, we often think that we know best on every single issue. Well, this is an issue we should send to the States and the American people, to finally provide them with the opportunity to debate the merits of this amendment and allow them to have the final decision. Mr. President, for 3 weeks we have seen every chart, we have viewed every graph, we have heard every point of view, and in some cases we have looked for every hole in which to hide in an effort to scuttle the balanced budget amendment. In my view, the American people are not buying any more excuses, nor should they. The American people know that their elected leaders, just like the wage earner in their household, cannot spend themselves into prosperity. Regardless of our own personal and varying views in this Chamber, one inescapable question remains. That question is: Do we trust the people of this Nation? By not passing this amendment we are telling them that we do not trust them, that we don't trust them to do the right thing in making decisions that will affect our lives. We, from our lofty perch in the U.S. Senate, will relieve them of the decision by not letting them discuss the balanced budget amendment in their State legislatures and in their hometowns. No one knows if the necessary 38 States would actually ratify the balanced budget amendment. But to not even allow the citizens of our home State the opportunity to review it, I find rather arrogant on our part. Let's not insult our constituents with that denial. They do not take this issue lightly any more than we do. But they also know that eight balanced budgets out of 66 years simply isn't good enough for America. Let's pass this important bill and give this Nation a chance. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with mixed emotions. I'm glad because a colleague is moving on to new opportunities, but I'm also saddened by the fact that the Senate, and in particular the Committee on Indian Affairs, is losing a great friend, Steven Heeley. Steve's work on native American issues goes back many years, to when he started with Senator McCain as the deputy minority staff director and Counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 1989. He moved across the Hill to the House of Representatives, where I first had the pleasure of working with him, when Steve served as the deputy counsel on Indian affairs for the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs under Chairman George Miller. Later he became the counsel to the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Natural Resources Committee of the House. Steve returned to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 1995 to become Chairman McCain's staff director and chief counsel. His lengthy list of accomplishments represents the kind of man Steve is: hard working and committed to Indian Country. Steve's work on environmental issues in Indian country includes the Clean Water and Clean Air Act amendments, solid waste disposal, leaking underground storage tanks and the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act. His broad range of knowledge was crucial in passing the Self- Determination Act amendments, as well as self-governance legislation, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. Steve's work to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, his work with tribal courts and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act show his concern for native Americans and most important, our mutual heritage. The work that has been important to Steve was the work that was important to Indian people across this country. Much of his work, including reorganizing the Bureau of Indian Affairs and amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is not yet complete, but his mark will certainly be on the changes when they do occur. Steve's work on behalf of Indian people goes back before his time here in Washington. He served as the assistant general counsel for the Gila River community in Arizona and was a staff attorney for the Four Rivers Indian Legal Services Program at Gila River. Now, Steve is going back to Arizona, where I'm sure he's been missed, as we're going to miss him here. I would like to offer my personal thanks to Steve for the invaluable service he has provided to me as I took over as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. His wise counsel to both me and my staff has made a difficult job more easy and has helped to make sure that the leadership Senator McCain brought to this committee will continue. Steve has been an outstanding advocate, leader, and friend to Indian country. On behalf of all of us who have been lucky enough to work him, we thank him, we wish him good luck, and we look forward to working together again.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet to conduct an oversight hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on the President's budget request for fiscal year 1998 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and Indian Health Service [IHS]. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, February 27, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. to approve the letter to the Committee on the Budget concerning the Committee's budget views and estimates for fiscal year 1998 for Indian programs. The meeting will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On January 8, 1997, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a business meeting during which the members of the committee unanimously adopted rules to govern the procedures of the committee. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I am submitting for printing in the Congressional Record a copy of the rules of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The rules follow: Rules of the Committee on Indian Affairs committee rules Rule 1. The Standing Rules of the Senate, Senate Resolution 4, and the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, to the extent the provisions of such Acts are applicable to the Committee on Indian Affairs and supplemented by these rules, are adopted as the rules of the Committee. meetings of the committee Rule 2. The Committee shall meet on the first Tuesday of each month while the Congress is in session for the purpose of conducting business, unless, for the convenience of the Members, the Chairman shall set some other day for a meeting. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary. open hearings and meetings Rule 3. Hearings and business meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public except when the Committee by a majority vote orders a closed hearing or meeting. hearing procedure Rule 4(a). Public notice shall be given of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be held by the Committee at least one week in advance of such hearing unless the Chairman of the Committee determines that the hearing is noncontroversial or that special circumstances require expedited procedures and a majority of the Committee involved concurs. In no case shall a hearing be conducted with less than 24 hours notice. (b). Each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the Committee, at least 48 hours in advance of the hearing, an original and 50 copies of his or her written testimony. (c). Each Member shall be limited to five (5) minutes in questioning of any witness until such time as all Members who so desire have had an opportunity to question the witness unless the Committee shall decide otherwise. (d). The Chairman and Vice Chairman or the Ranking Majority and Minority Members present at the hearing may each appoint one Committee staff member to question each witness. Such staff member may question the witness only after all Members present have completed their questioning of the witness or at such other time as the Chairman all Vice Chairman or the Ranking Majority and Minority Members present may agree. business meeting agenda Rule 5(a). A legislative measure or subject shall be included in the agenda of the next following business meeting of the Committee if a written request by a Member for such inclusion have been filed with the Chairman of the Committee at least one week prior to such meeting. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the Chairman of the Committee to include legislative measures or subjects on the Committee agenda in the absence of such request. (b). Notice of, and the agenda for, any business meeting of the Committee shall be provided to each Member and made available to the public at least two days prior to such meeting, and no new items may be added after the agenda is published except by the approval of a majority of the Members of the Committee. The Clerk shall promptly notify absent Members of any action taken by the Committee on matters not included in the published agenda. quorums Rule 6(a). Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), eight (8) Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of the Committee. Consistent with Senate rules, a quorum is presumed to be present unless the absence of a quorum is noted by a Member. (b). A measure may be ordered reported from the Committee unless an objection is made by a Member, in which case a recorded vote of the Members shall be required. (c). One Member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting a hearing or taking testimony on any measure before the Committee. voting Rule 7(a). A recorded vote of the Members shall be taken upon the request of any Member. (b). Proxy voting shall be permitted on all matters, except that proxies may not be counted for the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum. Unless further limited, a proxy shall be exercised only on the date for which it is given and upon the terms published in the agenda for that date.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, for the past ten years I have spoken out in favor of a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, and have supported and voted for this measure each time I have had the opportunity to do so. In fact, in preparing for this statement, I looked back on my career in Congress to see how many times I have supported this measure, and I noted with interest that in January 1987, my first month of being a member of the House of Representatives, I joined as an original cosponsor to the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. One of the primary sponsors of the legislation on the House side was my colleague, Senator Craig, and on the Senate side, Senator Hatch was in the forefront introducing the measure in this body. It is with great pleasure that I join my friends in this effort once again, along with well over 50 of my Senate colleagues. Opponents believe it would be easy to give up on the idea of passing the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. For a number of years, despite the hard work of many individuals, this measure has failed to pass through Congress and move on to the states for ratification where it belongs. I believe passage of this Amendment is in the best interest of the future of our country because it will force us to make the tough decisions now that need to be made to balance the budget and eventually eliminate the staggering debt that threatens the economic well-being of every American. Now, there are those that believe there is no need for the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment--that the federal government can be fiscally responsible without being mandated by the Constitution to do so. Well, I have been a Member of Congress for 10 years now, and I have yet to see Congress or the administration bite the bullet, balance the budget, and tackle our enormous debt. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office released one of its annual reports making projections on the economic and budget outlook for Fiscal Years 1998-2007. According to CBO, last year's deficit was $107 billion, making it the fourth year in a row that the deficit has decreased. However, the news is not all good. CBO also projects that the deficit will increase for Fiscal Year 1997 to become $124 billion. And, if we do not commit ourselves to balancing the budget, and discretionary spending keeps pace with inflation, this country will be faced with a deficit estimated at $278 billion in 2007. What does all this mean? It means that nothing ever changes. Year after year we are faced with huge deficits and an increasing national debt. Year after year we talk about doing the right thing, the responsible thing, and passing a balanced budget. And yet, once again, here we are debating the merits of the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Back in my home state of Colorado, I have been conducting a series of town meetings, discussing a wide range of issues with my friends and constituents. When the discussion turns to balancing the budget, Coloradans realize that if we do not address this important issue with Constitutional authority, the amount of the federal budget devoted toward paying off the interest on the debt and the entitlement programs will increase to the point that there will be barely any money left for those programs which deserve and require Federal funding. Currently, more than half of the $1.6 trillion in spending goes toward the entitlements and mandatory spending. According to CBO, ``if current policies remain unchanged, mandatory spending will be twice as large as discretionary spending by 2002.'' In addition, another 15 percent of all outlays goes toward interest costs on the debt. This is money that does not go toward education, law enforcement, national security, or even our national parks and monuments. As far as I am concerned, it is wasted money. My constituents realize this, and on their behalf I continue to fight for the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Now, I am not saying that this Amendment will be the silver bullet which solves all of our problems. However, it will make us accountable to the Constitution and to the will of a majority of Americans and force us to get our fiscal house in order. If we achieve a balanced budget and reduce the deficit, we can expect even lower interest rates, an increased savings rate, and increased economic growth for every American. Essentially, Americans can expect an increase in their standard of living, and I think that is something everyone of us wants and deserves. Congress came within one vote last session of passing the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. I am optimistic that this year we can pass this legislation and send the measure on to the states for their deliberation. It is time to allow the American people and the state legislatures the opportunity to debate the merits of the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, and I hope that the Congress will see fit to entrust this measure to those who must ratify or reject it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I announce this agreement will allow us to begin debate on the balanced budget amendment on Wednesday. Senators may make opening statements on Wednesday; however, no amendments will be in order. I also ask the Senate not be in session late tomorrow to accommodate a number of Senator's schedules.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Further, Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, in accordance with this agreement, the mammogram resolution will be debated this afternoon, with a vote occurring at 5 p.m.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 today the Senate begin consideration of a Senate resolution submitted by Senator Snowe regarding mammograms. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided between Senators Snowe and Mikulski, with an additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator Specter; further, no amendments be in order, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time the resolution be temporarily set aside with a vote to occur on the adoption of this resolution at 5 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint session to be held at 9 o'clock p.m. this evening, Tuesday, February 4, 1997.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today my colleagues, Senators Chuck Grassley and Byron Dorgan, introduced legislation which will correct a tax problem facing many farmers across the country, including many in the State of Colorado. Along with over 40 of my Senate colleagues, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and Dorgan as an original cosponsor to this bill. Farmers have typically used the deferred payment contract system as a means for managing their business income. It is common for a farmer to forward contract to sell a product. Under this type of contract, a farmer may deliver the product in a given tax year, and he may not receive one lump-sum payment at the time of delivery. In fact, the payments may be spread over 2 tax years. Up until recently, the farmer was taxed on this income only for the actual amount received in a given tax year. However, last October, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling which disallows this practice. Under the ruling, all payments received under a deferred payment contract are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Now, regardless of whether the actual payments under the contract are spread out over a multiple year period, the payments will be taxable in the year the contract is made. Needless to say, this ruling requiring farm families to pay a tax on income they have not yet received places an unfair burden on those families. Farmers cannot control the weather, especially in Colorado where farmers fall victim to everything from tornados to droughts. Because of the uncertainties inherent in farming, deferred payment contracts offer farmers a critical financial management tool. We must allow them to manage the risks without unfairly penalizing them. With the farmers' early filing deadline looming on the horizon, there is a need to act upon this legislation as quickly as possible. Many farmers are already calculating their taxes for their early deadline and without a reversal of the IRS' ruling, they will be forced to comply at what will no doubt be a severe financial burden for many. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and pass it in a timely manner.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today my colleagues, Senators Chuck Grassley and Byron Dorgan, introduced legislation which will correct a tax problem facing many farmers across the country, including many in the State of Colorado. Along with over 40 of my Senate colleagues, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and Dorgan as an original cosponsor to this bill. Farmers have typically used the deferred payment contract system as a means for managing their business income. It is common for a farmer to forward contract to sell a product. Under this type of contract, a farmer may deliver the product in a given tax year, and he may not receive one lump-sum payment at the time of delivery. In fact, the payments may be spread over 2 tax years. Up until recently, the farmer was taxed on this income only for the actual amount received in a given tax year. However, last October, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling which disallows this practice. Under the ruling, all payments received under a deferred payment contract are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Now, regardless of whether the actual payments under the contract are spread out over a multiple year period, the payments will be taxable in the year the contract is made. Needless to say, this ruling requiring farm families to pay a tax on income they have not yet received places an unfair burden on those families. Farmers cannot control the weather, especially in Colorado where farmers fall victim to everything from tornados to droughts. Because of the uncertainties inherent in farming, deferred payment contracts offer farmers a critical financial management tool. We must allow them to manage the risks without unfairly penalizing them. With the farmers' early filing deadline looming on the horizon, there is a need to act upon this legislation as quickly as possible. Many farmers are already calculating their taxes for their early deadline and without a reversal of the IRS' ruling, they will be forced to comply at what will no doubt be a severe financial burden for many. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and pass it in a timely manner.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, for many years I have spoken out in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, and have supported and voted for this measure each time I have had the opportunity to do so. Now, once again, I join many of my colleagues as an original cosponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment which is being introduced today, and I applaud Senator Orrin Hatch, Majority Leader Trent Lott, and the leadership for making this particular item a top priority for the 105th Congress. It would be so easy to give up on the idea of passing the Balanced Budget Amendment. For a number of years, despite the hard work of many individuals, this measure has failed to pass through Congress and move on to the states for ratification where it belongs. However, I believe passage of this Amendment is in the best interest of the future of this country. It will force us to make the tough choices that need to be made to balance the budget and eventually eliminate the staggering debt. There are those that believe there is no need for the Balanced Budget Amendment, that Congress can continually balance the budget without being mandated by the Constitution to do so. However, I have been a member of this institution for ten years now, and I have yet to see Congress and the administration bite the bullet, balance the budget, and tackle our enormous debt. If we do not address this important issue, the amount of the federal budget devoted toward paying off the interest on the debt and the entitlement programs will increase to the point that there will be barely any money left for those programs which deserve and require federal funding such as education, law enforcement, national security, or even our national parks and monuments. I think we owe more to the American people and to future generations. For those of us who remain committed to this effort, this piece of legislation is a vital tool for tackling the difficult task of balancing the budget. I would like to see an increase not only in our standard of living and national savings rate but also in the amount of money the Federal Government devotes to worthwhile and beneficial programs--programs which could suffer due to our financial troubles. Congress came within one vote last session of passing the Balanced Budget Amendment. I am optimistic that this year we can pass this legislation and send the measure on to the states for their deliberation. It is time to allow the American people and the State legislatures the opportunity to debate the merits of the Balanced Budget Amendment, and I hope that the Congress will see fit to entrust this measure to those who must ratify or reject it.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for submitting this statement for the Record on my behalf during my absence from the Senate due to an accident. Were I able to be on the Senate floor today, I would make a few brief comments about the distinguished senior Senator from Colorado, my colleague and friend, Senator Hank Brown. As he departs this Chamber after the adjournment of the 104th Congress, his service and contributions to this body, both as a person and a legislator, will leave an indelible impression upon us all. I believe that anyone who knows Senator Hank Brown shares my belief that he possesses a great passion for public service and has committed a good part of his professional career to providing the people of Colorado with distinguished and honorable service. As we reflect on his career, it is apparent that Hank Brown's' leadership abilities were evident at a very early age, and he has built on each successive milestone to achieve great acclaim for himself and for the people of Colorado. Hank was born in Denver, CO, on February 12, 1940. He received his bachelors degree and law degree from the University of Colorado in 1960 and 1969, respectively. His leadership skills were exemplified as he served as student body president while completing his undergraduate studies. Adding to his collegiate achievements was his ability to also compete and earn a letter as a member of the University of Colorado wrestling team. Hank served our country as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam war. His leadership abilities earned him several decorations-- an Air Medal with two gold stars, a Vietnam Service medal, a National defense medal, and a Naval Unit Citation. He also served in the Colorado State Senate from 1972 to 1976, where he was the assistant majority leader for 2 years. In 1973, he was named ``Outstanding Young Man of Colorado.'' Hank came to Washington in 1980 where he served five terms in the House of Representatives. Following his achievements while representing the people of Colorado's Fourth Congressional District, Hank Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1990. His service in the Congress has had many memorable highlights--from creating a wild and scenic designation for the Cache LaPoudre River and working to expand the Rocky Mountain National Park, to playing a pivotal role in pushing through a monumental Colorado wilderness bill. In addition, he has been a vocal advocate in the private property rights movement and has been instrumental in efforts to find innovative legislative solutions while working to achieve a balanced budget. Hank has also been an outstanding leader on military, foreign policy and trade issues. His efforts to resolve the dispute with Pakistan over certain weapons transfers is certainly a notable highlight. His efforts to forge a compromise between Congress and the administration will greatly serve our national interests as well as those of India and Pakistan. As the 104th Congress adjourns for the year, we will remember the contribution and leadership that Hank has exhibited throughout his career. I believe each of my colleagues shares my sentiments that we will miss Hank. As the junior Senator from Colorado, I believe Hank has been a true friend to the people of Colorado and an outstanding legislator who consistently strived to do what was best for our Nation. My friendship with Hank has always transcended political affiliation. He and I were friends when I was a member of the Democratic Party, and that friendship has grown since I've been a Republican. Such an enduring friendship is a rare gift, one I value deeply. Hank and I also have shared many experiences. Both of our wives are teachers. We both raised families in Colorado while serving in Congress. Let me offer one example of the depth of my friendship with Hank Brown. He and his wife Nan, once let me keep my horse in their yard at their home in Colorado while I was attending the Greeley Independence Stampede celebration. Mr. President, I won't give you the graphic details, but suffice it to say, there were a few less flowers and a more fertile environment in that back yard the following morning. Anybody who has seen the Senators' vehicles parked outside of the Capitol can see that Hank has remained fiscally conservative. Hank's old red pickup is just as famous or should I say infamous, among the Colorado delegation. On days that I'm forced to drive four wheels, both Hank's and my staff debate who drives the worst vehicle between Hank and his old red pickup and me and my old white coupe. With all due respect to my departing colleague, I think you win that contest hands down Hank. Mr. President, let me close on a serious note. Hank Brown's presence and wisdom will be sorely missed in this body when the next Congress convenes early next year. I join my colleagues in congratulating and commending him for his public service and wish him and his family well as he moves on.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to review S. 1539, a bill to establish the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area along the Lower Rio Grande Texas-Mexico border; S. 1583, a bill to establish the Lower Eastern Shore American Heritage Area; S. 1785, a bill to establish in the Department of the Interior the Essex National Heritage Commission; and S. 1808, a bill to amend the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915), as amended, establishing a program for the preservation of additional historic property throughout the Nation on Thursday, September 19, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC has been canceled. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161. Subcommittee On Oversight and Investigations

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to make just a few brief comments on one important provision adopted into the conference report to accompany H.R. 3816, the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriation measure. However, I would first like to recognize and commend the work of the conference committee for their efforts to develop a conference agreement that is acceptable to many Members of this Chamber, recognizing and settling several controversial issues that had to be dealt with in conference. Mr. President, one provision the conference committee had to address during its deliberations was the issue of continuing funding for the Animas-LaPlata participating project in southwestern Colorado. I appreciate the efforts of the conference committee for appropriating $9 million in fiscal year 1997 to permit the Bureau of Reclamation to continue their efforts with construction costs associated with the A-LP project. As was discussed in great length and voted upon previously in both Chambers of the Congress, the completion of the A-LP participating project has both tremendous Federal Indian policy implications as well as an incalculable tangible impact for many water users in southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico. When the Congress passed, and President Reagan signed into law, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, the Federal Government guaranteed to the two Colorado Ute Indian tribes a final settlement of their outstanding water rights claims in a solution that would also allow them to put to use their entitled share of settlement water. In addition, the 1988 Settlement Act reconfirmed the commitment of the Federal Government to assist water users in the San Juan River basin in the development of an adequate water storage system. Cities such as Durango, CO, to Farmington, NM, stand to benefit from completion of the A-LP project, and equally important, traditional agricultural users will also benefit. While I am glad the conference committee provided funding based on the practical merits of the A-LP project, I am dismayed that actions of the administration, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], continue to cause undue and very costly delays to full implementation of the 1988 settlement. One very clear example of the egregious behavior on the part of the EPA is their inability to work actively and constructively with the Bureau of Reclamation and other Department of Interior agencies to resolve outstanding environmental compliance issues on the project. As recently as a few weeks ago, the EPA again requested of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation an additional 90 days to review the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [FSEIS]. Mr. President, this action comes after the EPA had already requested one other 90-day extension for review. Further, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and independent agencies in May of this year, EPA Administrator Carol Browner testified that by August 26, 1996, the EPA would make a determination to, either, sign off on the project or refer the matter to the President's Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. Well, here we are, September 17, and no decisions have been made. I make this point, because as a Member of this Chamber, each of us is responsible and accountable for every taxpayer dollar we spend. When the actions of an agency, such as the EPA, continue to stall the full implementation of a statute signed into law in 1988, merely for political purposes, who loses? The taxpayer loses due to added costs associated with further delay. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the energy and water conference committee for their continued support for the A-LP project, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the respective committees of jurisdiction to ensure that adequate congressional oversight is put in place to permit the timely progression of the project. Corect Program

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator from Alabama. As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction, the Senator from Alabama is aware of the drug problem facing the entire country. I would like to point out the efforts of the Rocky Mountain Division of the Drug Enforcement Agency. In cooperation with numerous State and local law enforcement agencies, DEA has presented a proposal to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to have the region identified as a high intensity drug trafficking area. For example, at the Treasury, Postal and Government Operations Subcommittee hearing of June 26, the ONDCP Director, General McCaffrey, cited the drug smuggling problem in Denver, CO. Thorough investigations by law enforcement personnel indicate that the trafficking problem centered in Denver impacts not only the neighboring States of Utah and Wyoming, but also the rest of the Nation. In addition, evidence suggests that Denver serves as a transshipment point between Los Angeles, Mexico, and the east coast. Based upon the actions taken by the appropriate law enforcement agencies in the Rocky Mountain region, as well as the advanced stage of their pending request to be identified as a high intensity drug trafficking area, I take this opportunity to request that the Senator continue to work with me to address this matter.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his consideration and I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to join my distinguished colleagues from the West in recognizing the alarming rise in drug trafficking plaguing our region of the country. Included in the committee report to accompany this measure, there is language giving consideration for this problem, with special consideration for the State of Colorado. The committee further directed the Office of National Drug Control Policy to evaluate the drug problem in the Rocky Mountain region and elsewhere, and report its findings back to the committee. Would the Senator from Alabama yield a few moments at this time to enter into a brief colloquy?