Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 2, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 742, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to limit acquisition of land on the 39-mile segment of the Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota, designated as a recreational river, to acquisition from willing sellers; S. 879, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to limit acquisition of land on the 39-mile headquarters segment of the Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota, designated as a recreational river, to acquisition from willing sellers; S. 1167, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to exclude the South Dakota segment from the segment of the Missouri River designated as a recreational river; S. 1168, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to exclude any private lands from the segment of the Missouri River designated as a recreational river; S. 1174, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and S. 1374, a bill to require adoption of a management plan for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to support the health insurance reform bill, offered by Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Reforming our Nation's health care system has been a concern for many Americans. I believe the bill before us today, although limited to the health insurance industry, is a significant step toward addressing some of the issues we face with health insurance--cost, portability, and preexisting conditions. Although this legislation will not fix all of our health care problems, I think we all need to recognize that it does make some progress toward addressing these issues. Currently, reports indicate there are an estimated 40 million uninsured Americans. This, in and of itself, highlights one of the biggest problems within the health care industry--the availability of affordable, flexible insurance policies. All too often, people are forced into a situation where they feel they must remain in a job they would rather leave just because they have long-term health care needs and have no other source for insurance other than through their employer. This ``job lock,'' coupled with skyrocketing health care costs, makes the prospect of paying for your own medical costs without insurance, a frightening, and financially crippling situation. People simply can't afford to take this risk. Over the past few years, my home State of Colorado has taken a very progressive approach in dealing with the issues of health insurance portability and preexisting conditions and has worked cooperatively with the health insurance industry to develop what everyone seems to recognize as a positive step forward. I have often had constituents tell me how surprised they are to learn how little other States have done in the area of health insurance reform. The Colorado State legislature was instrumental in making this law, and in conjunction with employers, have forged a partnership that seeks to cover as many Coloradans as possible in the most cost-effective manner. In fact, many of the safeguards and reforms already instituted within the State of Colorado are very similar to the Kassebaum, Kennedy bill. Currently, there are roughly 20 States that don't have this kind of insurance protection, and I believe that through this bill, we can cooperatively work to mirror at the Federal level some of the provisions the State of Colorado already enjoys. I feel this bill will establish a much-needed standard for the health insurance industry and will work toward achieving the goal that all Americans have access to more cost-effective and affordable insurance. I don't believe anyone can deny the need for this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to make a few brief comments on the immigration proposals that we will be debating over the next few days. My first observation is to recognize the distinct set of issues that relate to and will be debated with respect to legal and illegal immigration. I commend the work of the Judiciary Committee for recognizing the merits of considering two separate bills rather than one package, and I strongly endorse the committee's position. Mr. President, what I hear from many of my constituents on the issue of immigration is the growing costs absorbed by the system, that is Federal, State, county, and local governments, to continue to provide public services and benefits to the immigrant community. And recently, in my home State of Colorado, the increasing number of illegal immigrants, in particular, has been a growing concern. Further, recent statistics, compiled by the Congressional Research Service and other recent studies, clearly document the enormous financial burden placed on Government entities to provide services to the immigrant community. It is my belief that without significant changes to curb the flow of illegal immigration, and to revisit current benefits bestowed to legal and illegal immigrants, this financial burden will continue to increase dramatically. For example, a recent study out of Rice University, concluded that immigration costs to the United States exceeded $50 billion in 1994 alone. While the conclusion reached in this study are subject to debate, there is nonetheless a compelling need for significant change. With over 4 million illegal aliens currently in this country, and over 300,000 arriving annually, the increasing burdens on our society demand our attention. I would like to point out that in my home State of Colorado, for the 5-month period from November 1995 through March 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], contacted a total of 3,486 illegals. Of those, 2,014 were deported, while 1,472 were let go. Mr. President, I would like to bring your attention to a newspaper article from the Denver Post dated April 12, 1996, that reads in part, ``Last week, a van filled with 29 illegal immigrants was stopped on Interstate 70 in Grand Junction, but a lack of detention funds kept the INS from arresting them or their driver.'' These incidents come just days after the INS Operation Mountain Passes ended. As a result of this program, designed to specifically crack down on smugglers, roughly 1,300 illegal immigrants were stopped, arrested, and deported. However, and not so ironic, when the money ran out this program ended. Again as recently as Monday, in Colorado Springs, CO, a van containing 13 suspected illegal immigrants was stopped by the Colorado State Patrol. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason the INS could not respond. Because the State patrol does not have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants, these individuals were released. This represents the second time in less than a week that suspected illegal immigrants have been released because of inadequate INS response capability. As a result of changes in the dynamics of illegal immigration migration Colorado has now become a major corridor for illegal immigrants migrating east. Without the assistance of increased law enforcement efforts, such as Operation Mountain Passes, I am concerned that these successful efforts may be curtailed. While I support efforts to increase law enforcement efforts to curb illegal immigration, both at the border and to other impacted States, I do have concerns with provisions adopted in the House measure that may be considered in this Chamber. Primarily, I am concerned with the provisions adopted in the House bill that seek to deny public education to illegal immigrant children as a means of reducing the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. Congress should not be so overzealous in its endeavor to reduce the influx of illegal aliens that we adopt stopgap measures that are actually destined to increase the demands on public funding by expanding the number of America's undereducated and unemployed. Any provision that seeks to deny children access to education will place a massive burden upon our already overburdened community services, schools, and local law enforcement agencies. At a time when local and State leaders are making strenuous efforts to keep kids off the streets and in school, education should be employed as an important tool to help solve America's problems, not used as a weapon against its most helpless victims. Mr. President, reducing the flow of illegal immigrants must first focus upon measures that will actually restrict and hopefully prevent illegal immigrants from entering this country. I support provisions in S. 1664, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, that provides for more border patrol agents, as well as the addition of 300 full-time Immigration and Naturalization Service investigators for each of the next 3 fiscal years. I believe these provisions will provide a much needed boost to the understaffed and overworked agencies that we entrust to keep illegal aliens out of this country. Our focus, again, should be on the prevention and control of illegal immigration, rather than on retribution for illegally immigrating to this country. Each of my colleagues brings a certain perspective to the immigration debate. I have listened to much of the debate and realized that the great lot of us are products of immigrant families. Personally, I believe I have unique perspective to add to the debate. Over 60 years ago, my mother legally immigrated from Portugal. Like many people during that time she wanted the opportunity to make a better life for herself and an opportunity to succeed, but to do so in a law abiding way. While on the other hand, my father comes from people, the Northern Cheyenne people, who can document their ties to this land, to this continent for hundreds of years prior to the first explorers of this continent. If I were to take his advice, and the advice of many native American people, they might suggest that we all pack our bags and go home. Obviously reality dictates real and pragmatic solutions. However, I might also observe that it seems ironic that if this same debate were to take place 100 years ago many of my colleagues, including myself, might not be here today. In closing, I look forward to the debate on these immigration proposals and hope that this Chamber can adopt fair and effective immigration reform. Let us remember that, with few exceptions, we are all ancestors of immigrants. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of an article that appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, on immigration, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, ever since the conclusion of the gulf war, returning veterans have complained about a variety of symptoms including dizziness, nausea, loss of equilibrium, and depression. All of us have visited veterans in our States. And through a series of hearings, those of us on the Veterans' Affairs Committee have been dismayed by the steadfast denial on the part of the Pentagon and the Department of Defense to acknowledge these brave men and women are suffering the after effects of all airborne or waterborne agent or agents that have caused their sickness. As late as this week, Mr. President, the Pentagon issued a statement saying that after spending $80 million of taxpayer money, they found no evidence of sickness-inducing agents during the gulf war. Kind of sounds like Vietnam and agent orange all over again. Well, lo and behold, Mr. President, thanks to an extensive study done by the University of Texas through a grant given by Ross Perot, those complaints from our men and women in uniform appear to be true, and the culprit was a combination of three agents acting in concert with each other. One agent was a common pesticide. Last night the Pentagon, somewhat sheepishly admitted their mistake. My only questions are these, Mr. President. One, what the heck did they study with the $80 million? And two, if they are that incompetent they must be in an unmendable state of denial in helping our returning veterans. Hooray for the University of Texas--boo on the Pentagon.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 25, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 902, a bill to amend Public Law 100-479 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the construction of a building to be used jointly by the Secretary for park purposes and by the city of Natchez as an intermodel transportation center; S. 951, a bill to commemorate the service of First Ladies Jacqueline Kennedy and Patricia Nixon to improving and maintaining the Executive Residence of the President and to authorize grants to the White House Endowment Fund in their memory to continue their work; S. 1098, a bill to establish the Midway Islands as a National Memorial; H.R. 826, a bill to extend the deadline for the completion of certain land exchanges involving the big Thicket National Preserve in Texas; and H.R. 1163, a bill to authorize the exchange of National Park Service land in the Fire Island National Seashore in the State of New York for land in the Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County, NY. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 17, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 128, a bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in the State of New York; S. 695, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas; and S. 1476, a bill to establish the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Committee on Energy and National Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to offer my full support for the farm bill conference report. I believe this bill, carefully crafted after many months of hard work and compromise, will offer much needed stability to farmers across America. In addition, it symbolizes a new path for our agricultural industries, leading us away from the Depression-era policies of the past and towards a freer, more flexible system which will empower our farmers to face the challenges of the 21st century. I am particularly pleased and supportive of the conservation and nutrition components of the bill, which I believe illustrates the strong bi-partisan collaborative work that crafted this compromise. The environmental provisions will help farmers protect agricultural lands through specific appropriations that will conserve farmland from development. With my homestate of Colorado facing a tremendous growth in population, this will enhance the precious preservation of private land, open space and wildlife habitat from developers and subdivisions. In addition, by recognizing the inexorable ties between agriculture and water, this bill will provide much needed support to farmers to help protect our water supplies and maintain water quality. I also want to congratulate the managers of this bill--Senators Lugar and Leahy, and the conferees in maintaining and extending the Food Stamp Program. This will reiterate the commitment of the Federal Government to families, women and children that rely on this vital program for their daily subsistence. I know there are many issues that still need to be resolved for welfare reform legislation, but I am glad that the farm bill recognizes the importance of the Food Stamp Program. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my statement by reiterating the fundamental importance of agriculture to my homestate of Colorado's economy, environment, and identity. The importance of this bill to my constituents is tremendous, and I hope these dramatic reforms will breathe new life into the farms of America to revitalize the industry for the next century.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity today to clarify my position on the pending Kennedy amendment to increase the minimum wage. As with any debate that takes place in this Chamber, we debate both the merits of a particular legislative initiative as well as, and equally important, the procedures and timing of bringing a legislative initiative to the floor for debate. Mr. President, last year during debate on S. 1357, the Balanced Budget Act adopted by this Congress, I supported a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to debate and vote on the merits of increasing the minimum wage. While I have been supportive of past minimum wage increases, I don't believe H.R. 1296, the Presidio Act, the underlying bill currently being considered, provides a proper vehicle to increase the current minimum wage. This bill, and the fact that the pending amendment prevents further consideration of this bill, is not conducive to properly address some of its more contentious issues regarding a minimum wage increase. For example, just as minimum wage opponents may believe the highest proportion of low-wage workers to be young people, proponents of a higher minimum wage often portray the minimum wage work force as largely adult and, therefore, much more in need of an increase. However, we must recognize that this debate hinges upon how one defines youth. If, for example, one defines a youth as between 16 and 19 years of age, then about 36 percent of workers, paid hourly at the minimum wage, are youths and 64 percent adults. However, if one adopts a definition of youth as one between 16 and 24 years of age, then about 60 percent of the work force at the Federal minimum wage are youths and only 40 percent are adults. Indeed, this discrepancy alone warrants further debate. Mr. President, this brings me to the second, and equally important issue, that of the procedure and timing of this discussion. I believe this debate on the minimum wage deserves to be debated as a vehicle unto itself, and not as a proposal to be attached to each and every legislative initiative that comes up on the floor in this Chamber, in this case H.R. 1296, the Presidio legislation. The procedure of appending the minimum wage initiative to H.R. 1296, in my view Mr. President, is to attach a nongermane element to a bill that deserves to be debated on its own merits. In this case, it is a bill that has several elements that are important to my State of Colorado. As a small business owner and former minimum wage laborer, I can truly understand where both sides of this debate are coming from. While a compromise increase of 45 cents over 2 years is something I would consider, Congress should approach this issue with full deliberation; over 80 million workers are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage, and its impacts would undoubtedly be far reaching. Therefore, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue in the future, and I am hopeful a more suitable legislative vehicle will be found in which we can properly address the issue of raising the Federal minimum wage.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my substitute amendment for the Presidio bill, offered in conjunction with the Senator from Alaska and the majority leader. Many people have been waiting a long time for this bill. I know the Senators from California and Congresswoman Pelosi have put a great deal of time and energy into this legislation, as have the staff from the Energy Committee and personal offices. In our efforts to try to reach consensus on all levels, we have managed to craft a bill that will provide enough balance and flexibility to incorporate all points of view. This bill offers a unique, creative and innovative approach to provide for the long-term protection and preservation of one of our Nation's greatest cultural, historical, and natural treasures. When I was a college student at San Jose State University, my buddies and I would often take off for the weekend to ``the city.'' One of my favorite places back then was the Presidio, and I spent a lot of time exploring the batteries and bunkers along the coast. It is just a spectacular site, situated on the threshold of the Golden Gate Bridge, overlooking the entire bay area. Last fall, I had the opportunity to visit the Presidio, and found that the base had changed very little in the years since I was a college student at San Jose. There is something very special about the Presidio. The natural beauty, as well as the impressive history of the site captivated me 40 years ago, and continues to captivate millions of tourists, locals, and even some politicians today. Before Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World, the indigenous tribes of Ohlone and Miwok inhabited the area known now as San Francisco. Taking advantage of this unique natural harbor, these tribes flourished from fishing in the plentiful bay. When the land was finally taken over by the white new immigrants, the Presidio almost immediately became a strategic military post. For over 220 years, the Presidio is the oldest continually operated military post, commanded first by Spain in 1776, then Mexico and finally the United States in 1846. The Presidio has played a supporting role in almost every single major military conflict the United States has ever engaged in, starting with the Spanish-American War to the Civil War, World War I, and of course, World War II. The Presidio served also as a refuge for an estimated 16,000 people after the great earthquake and fire of 1906, and was the very first Army airfield established in the Nation in 1921. Mr. President, the history of this national historic landmark is indeed distinguished and celebrated. I comment on it to describe to my colleagues the unique nature of this site and thus to explain the particulars of the legislation it requires. For the past 7 years, since the Base Closure and Realignment Commission [BRAC] included the Presidio on its list of bases to be closed, the fate of the Presidio has been somewhat uncertain. When the National Park Service took control of the post in 1994, along with the addition of one of the most glorious parks to the system, the Park Service was faced with one of their most complex and challenging management problems. Aside from its spectacular natural beauty, the Presidio is unlike any other national park. Scattered throughout the grounds are over 1,200 residential units, more than 6.2 million square feet of building space, and dozens of miles of paved roads. Because of the nature of the historic facilities, the cost of maintenance and management of this site is a whopping $25 million a year, making it our most expensive national park. Faced with the fiscal realities that we, in the Federal Government, must confront, the question that was posed to Congress was this: How can we continue to protect and preserve the Presidio for the benefit of all Americans without draining the already limited reserves of the National Park Service? Mr. President, I believe the substitute amendment offered by Senators Dole and Murkowski and myself answers this question and in so doing, strikes the balance that we are all looking for. The bill before us today establishes a mechanism that will reduce the need for appropriations to operate the Presidio. Rather than seeing the infrastructure in the Presidio as obstacles to the preservation of the park, this bill will utilize these buildings to generate revenues that will be recycled back into the funds that manage the park. By weaning the Presidio off of Federal taxpayer dependency, this bill will eventually create a self-sustaining park. The management structure created by our bill will enable the Presidio to be used in such a way that it will pay for itself. Mr. President, our legislation will create a public-private management entity--the Presidio Trust--to provide for the management of the leasing, maintenance, and repair of the property within the Presidio. In addition, the National Park Service will continue to provide its expert guidance for interpretive services, visitor orientation, and educational programs. Under the structure of cooperative management, this bill will allow the trust (made up of private sector real estate and finance experts) and the Park Service to manage what they manage best, thereby eliminating costly bureaucratic blunders. If the bill is enacted, the Presidio will be the only unit of the National Park System, that will cost significantly less in 10 years than it costs today. Mr. President, as I mentioned, I had the opportunity to tour the base facilities in San Francisco, as well as meet with the various interest groups last fall. While there were some differences on what the legislation affecting the Presidio should include, the groups were unanimous in their belief that the base should remain as a unit of the National Park System. People expressed real fears that there was a movement to sell the Presidio to a private developer, and I stated, at the time, that a sale would happen, ``over my dead body.'' Many of my colleagues feel the same way. This bill will not enable private interests to develop swank upscale condos, or private dining clubs. This bill will cater only to the interests of all Americans, by protecting the invaluable cultural, historic, and natural resources of the Presidio for this generation and generations to come. It is quite simply a good government approach that strikes a balance with the fiscal realities of our time with the need for continued conservation and preservation. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy piece of legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to start by saying how much I admire Senators Hatch and Bennett for working on this bill-- particularly Senator Hatch, who has worked on some form of this bill for almost two decades. Having worked 10 years on the Colorado wilderness bill, I know of the difficulty of doing it, because they are all highly charged, emotional debates. I think the American public may not quite know what they want with a balanced budget amendment or with health care, but, believe me, they all know what they want when it comes to their land. All of them own the public lands, the areas in or without wilderness, either one. But some want to hunt on it, or run their off-road vehicles on it, and some want to graze on it, and some want to fish or take pictures, or dig for gold and use timber. And they would like everybody else off of it. Coming from a western State, the Presiding Officer certainly knows the difficulty we get between the special interest groups, who understand that it belongs to everybody, but would prefer that their particular interest gets a priority in using that public land. But it does not happen that way. For 3\1/2\ hours, we have been talking about one section of this bill, really--the title of the Presidio omnibus bill, not the Utah wilderness bill. Utah Wilderness is just 1 title of 33. There are 33 titles in this bill, and all of them are very important. In just title II alone, in fact, there are 16 different areas that probably will not get too much debate because they are not as controversial as the Utah wilderness bill, which is just 1 title. Certainly, when we are something like 30 years behind on finding the money to purchase land that we have already authorized to go into the Park Service and over 20 years behind on the appropriations for building the buildings in the parks, those are all just as important as any other section. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to several bills within the Omnibus package that are of particular interest to me and my home State of Colorado. Each of these bills deserves distinction in its own right, being crafted with years of collaborative hard work and dedication. I would like to make brief comments on each of them, and urge my colleagues to support these noncontroversial bills in final passage. One little section under section 224, ``Volunteers in Parks Increase.'' I do not think anyone has a doubt that in this day of fiscal responsibility that we are supposed to be trying to save some money. But the importance of volunteers throughout America is going up. That probably will not get into the debate today and tomorrow. But there are many others. Over 50 Senators, it is my understanding, either have sponsored or cosponsored some of these titles, and many of them are extremely important. The Corinth, MS, Battlefield Act, the Walnut Canyon National Monument Boundary Modification, Greens Creek Land Exchange, Butte County Land Exchange, on and on. Title XXIII, Colonial National Historical Park-- all extremely important. And yet, because the Utah wilderness bill, which is just one section, is so controversial, it seems to be getting all of the debate so far. Let me just talk a little bit about the things that we have worked so hard for in Colorado that are also part of this bill. Title IV, Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Center is one of the largest and most visited in America. This bill provides the authority for the National Park Service to use appropriated and donated funds to operate a visitor center outside of the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park. We worked on this a number of years. And it is a good bill. But it is only one part of the bigger omnibus bill. The Park Service has been in need of a visitor's center at the eastern entrance to Rocky for many years now, but due to fiscal constraints, they have been unable to get adequate appropriations. Thanks to a generous private-public partnership proposal, the Park Service has an opportunity to provide a visitor service outside the park boundaries. This legislation would simply make this type of partnership possible for the Park Service. This type of private-public opportunity is exactly what the Federal Government should be taking advantage of these days, and I am encouraged by the proposal for the Fall River visitor center that has been put forth. This center would help the thousands of visitors that flock to the park each year, and would save the Government millions in taxpayer dollars.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I stepped on the floor a few minutes ago, something happened. I have a friend that came here from Colorado. He ranches out there. He was teasing me, and he said, ``What is Congress' only Indian doing in here defending the cowboys?'' I have to tell you, Mr. President, I had a good laugh with him, but this is not about cowboys and Indians. This is about real families. Some happen to be Indians, who are cowboys, by the way. Anybody who knows the ranch lifestyle out West knows that ranchers grew up with guns. They learn how to use them from childhood, and they get good with them. They use them for protection and for hunting. I guess the first thing they learn about guns is that you try to hit what you aim at. I have to tell you, I admire my colleague from Arkansas and, certainly, Senator Jeffords, too, but they are not going to hit what they are aiming at. As I understand both of their amendments, it is like hunting a wolf that gets in your lambs or your calves with a shotgun. You may get the wolf, but with a scatter-gun approach, you get everything else, too. I believe Senator Bumpers' amendment and Senator Jeffords', too, is really aimed at corporate freeloaders. But by putting everybody in the same category, it is certainly going to hit ranchers that are full-time ranchers, with no other income except ranching. I think that is a very sad mistake. I think they should both be opposed. To put them in the same category is simply not fair. They are trying to define, as I understand both amendments, the difference between real ranchers and nonranchers. But the approach they have taken puts the large ranchers and the small ranchers in the same category as the nonranchers. And so when we hear the debate, they often use Hewlett-Packard, Simplot, Anheuser-Busch, and many of the big corporations who, somehow, in the past, have gotten some of the permits and, in fact, probably use them as tax writeoffs or some kind of a tax structure in order to get tax breaks from the products they are producing. But they are not what we call ``real ranchers.'' I do not think anybody here from the West is trying to defend people who have used the ranching industry for a tax writeoff. What we are trying to defend and protect are the real ranchers, the family ranchers. There was some reference made to ranchers who have made it big. Clearly, some ranchers have made some money. As Senator Gramm, our friend from Texas, said, ``Welcome to America.'' What is wrong with that if they made it by honest labor, made the ranch grow, and have weathered storms, drought, wolves, cats, and everything, and they managed to make a little more money and invest in something else or buy some more land? What in the world is wrong with that in this country? Yet, when they succeed, they are sort of put in the category of preying on the American public and somehow taking advantage of the American public because they have succeeded. I think that also is not only unfair but it is wrong. This shotgun approach very clearly of putting the ranchers in the same category as those people who use ranching as a tax break is simply wrong to do. Senator Bumpers said yesterday--I mentioned it last night --that we should watch where the money goes. And I have to tell you, I live among family ranchers. I know where the money goes. It goes to Main Street by and large--to the hardware stores, to the movie theaters, to the used car lots, to the school districts through property taxes, to the fire district, and to every other special district you can imagine. Very little goes to recreational pursuits. If they have any money left usually it is put back into the herd, or into the land, or some way to improve their own family lot. They do not, I know, take vacations to Nice, France, or to Montserrat, or somewhere else like the corporate people do that the Senator is aiming to get. So I think both of these amendments are probably going to miss the target and get the wrong people. We also dealt a little bit last night with the question about fair market value. And the accusation, of course, is that ranchers on public lands are not paying a fair market value because, if you compare it with what the rancher is paying on private lands, it is much lower. That is right. It is probably much lower. We have a small ranch. And we sometimes let other ranchers rent some of our pasture. And I know there is a difference. But there is also a difference in the amount of work they have to put up with on private land, whether it is rotating the fields, whether it is irrigation, or a lot of other things that come into play that make the difference. To try to charge the person on public lands the same amount I frankly just think would simply run a lot of them out of business, and it simply will not work. I often compare that question of fair market value with some of the other things that we have out West. I live near Durango, CO. Durango is near a world famous archaeological site called Mesa Verde, a cliff dwelling that everybody in this country knows about. It is run by the National Park Service. If you go to the cliff dwellings it costs you $3--as I recall from the last time I went--to go in, for an adult to get really a great historic cultural experience. You can stay in there for half a day, or all day, for that $3. Just down the road apiece in downtown Durango is another cultural and historic activity. It is in private ownership. It is the old train called ``The Durango to Silverton Train.'' It has been there 100 years. That old train carries about 250,000 people every year, and you get a marvelous western experience. But it costs you about $30 to go on that train. If you say that we are not getting fair market value from the things that are being done on public land, maybe we ought to raise the park fee to $30 to compare it with the other experiences that people are getting a few miles away on the train. If you said that to the people in this audience, or to the people watching the proceedings today, most of them would tell you that you are nuts. They simply will not pay it. Yesterday, I mentioned the zoo in Denver. It cost $6 when you go to the zoo. You see wild animals. They are caged but they are basically wild, whether it is deer, or elk, or bear, or wolves. Yet, when you go into the national forests you can often see those same animals for free. Maybe we ought to charge everybody that goes in the forests $6 so we get a fair market value for viewing those animals as they get when they go to the zoo. I could go on and on about the difference it would cost. Go cut a Christmas tree. You need a $5 permit from the Forest Service. But it cost $5 per foot if you go downtown. If you suggested to people that we are going to charge $5 a foot when they go into the forest to cut a Christmas tree, you would have a rebellion on your hands. So I think the whole discussion of fair market value simply does not wash. So I want to come in and restate my opinion on this. I think we ought to leave this bill alone. It has been worked on for virtually years. I have been involved in it myself for over a decade. Senator Domenici has taken a leadership role in bringing to the floor of the Senate what I think is about as good a balance as we could put together. I hope my colleagues will resist any attempt to change that and oppose both the Bumpers amendment and the Jeffords amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. About 10 minutes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, raising the grazing fees under the Bumpers amendment is fundamentally unfair to ranchers. This proposal does not fully consider the investments that ranchers already have made in building their lots. In addition, the profit margins for many ranchers is small, and many ranchers already have fallen into bankruptcy. Raising the fees as this amendment proposes to do will make things even more difficult for ranchers and may force more ranchers to exit the business during the next few years. Mr. President, a look at the increasing losses suffered by ranchers paints a bleak picture. In the business of ranching, analysts consider the industry average for the ``estimated calf break-even'' prices in tracking trends. In the industry, we refer to the ``calf break-even price'' to mean the cost of supporting a cow to produce a calf for a year divided by the weight of the calf. There are many costs associated with supporting cows, such as summer pasture, winter feed, breeding costs, health costs, veterinary visits, and medications. Producers in the northern regions, including my home State of Colorado, have even higher winter feed costs and have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses for the winter. In the fall of 1993, the estimated industry average calf break-even price was $81.95 per 100 weight. The average profit was $42 per head. Since then, however, the industry average shows increasing losses. In 1994, the break-even price was $80.78 per 100 weight, but there was a $12 per head loss. In 1995, the break-even price was $80.41 per 100 weight, but the losses increased to an average of $59 per head. For 1996, industry analysts already are predicting another year of losses which will be even to or greater than the losses incurred in 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Record a table which shows the industry average for the ``estimated calf break-even'' prices and the average losses sustained by the producers. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed a second table in the Record which reflects the average sale price and profit or loss per hundred weight.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the issue grazing fees on public lands. As I mentioned before in my opening statement, I believe there is a grave misperception about ranchers who utilize public lands. For those of you unfamiliar with ranchers or the ranching business, let me tell you that it is not a lucrative business. I believe it is this misperception that drives the efforts to try to hike up the grazing fees to unacceptable heights. Opponents of the new fee structure proposed in S. 1459, argue that ranchers don't pay fair market value. Well, I would like my colleagues to explain to the rest of us, how one can determine what fair market value is. For example, when doing a fair market value appraisal, appraisers compare the value of similarly situated pieces of property--they compare apples with apples. When opponents of the proposed grazing fee compare the prices charged to lease private or State lands with the grazing fees ranchers pay for BLM or Forest Service lands, however they are comparing apples with oranges. They simply are not the same thing. My friends from Arkansas and Vermont, are attempting to draw comparisons between apples--State lands, and oranges--Federal lands, to legitimize their logic. States fees are structured under an entirely different scenario than Federal fees. State lands are administered for completely different purposes and goals compared to Federal lands. To compare the fee dollars and cents on a chart is simply not fair. With their amendments, my colleagues are attempting to utilize the State fee structure to create a more fair return to the Government and taxpayer. However, as I have stated before, this logic is flawed. If we follow this rationale utilized in this amendment, by implementing the State rate fees, we might as well streamline the process and manage the public lands according to State management systems. Heck, if we charge a grazing fee according to State rates, manage the Federal lands like State lands, we might as well turn the whole operation and ownership over to the States. I suspect there are many Members in this body that would not agree with this type of logic. Furthermore, the grazing fee structure in the Bumpers amendment is fundamentally unfair to ranchers. This proposal does not fully consider the investment that ranchers already have made in building their lots and stock ponds. In addition, the profit margins for many ranchers is small, and thousands of ranchers have already fallen into bankruptcy. Raising the fees as this amendment proposes to do will drive even more ranchers into economic insolvency. Mr. President, the fee structure proposed by S. 1459 would establish a fair system. It is a very simple and straightforward method for calculating the grazing fee that would apply to western BLM and Forest Service lands. Quite simply, you would take the 3-year average of the total gross value of production of beef cattle for the 3 years preceding the grazing fee year--based on data supplied by the Economic Research Service of the USDA--and multiply that number by the 10-year rolling average of 6-month Treasury bills. That number would be divided by 12, the number of months in a year. The dividend would be the grazing fee, expressed in dollars per animal unit month. S. 1459 would increase the fee by an average of about 50 cents per AUM. Anyone who truly understands the grazing fees, will understand that there is only one agency that really attempts to compile data about private leased lands--it is the USDA's Economic Research Service--and that is why they are the source of the critical data used in this fee formula. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about this misperception of grazing fees that has become a symbol representing unfair subsidies and environmental degradation. Fee increases are imminent, and most people here understand that. However, these increases must be carefully structured with appropriate data. S. 1459 achieves this, by establishing a grazing fee formula that protects the rancher while allowing for equitable returns to the Federal Government. I would like to abbreviate my comments because I know my colleagues want to get out of here at a decent hour this evening. I was over in the office listening to the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Vermont, and I have to tell you I think they are just simply missing the target. I would ask my colleagues to oppose both their amendments. As I understand the Jeffords amendment in the second degree, is attempting to put corporate interests in the same category as the family rancher, who has spent years and years of hard work to make his ranch grow. I think that is a mistake. It seems to me that we are confusing the issue of large and small ranchers and real ranchers with corporate operations. I know in our State of Colorado we give special 100-year awards to ranchers and farmers. If the family has stayed with the land for 100 years, we give them an award at our State fair every year to try to encourage them to stay on the land. Many of those ranchers have sacrificed a great deal and their families have sacrificed too in order to make the ranch grow. Some have done well over the years and invested in other things, but their primary income still comes from the ranch. This reality is a little different than the reality I have heard described by the two Senators and their amendments. I understand that the amendments that are being offered now are an attempt to try to get the corporate people out of ranching, and both Senator Bumpers and Senator Jeffords mentioned Anheuser-Busch and Hewlett-Packard and a number of others, Simplot and Texaco, and so on. I think most of us recognize that there are corporations in America that have bought ranches or bought permits to use as some kind of a tax shelter. I understand that. Most of us understand that. That is not who we are trying to protect. I know the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] and I have a lot of friends who fall into the first category that I was trying to describe. Those people who have worked the land, stuck to the land and sacrificed to keep the land are the ones we are concerned about. We are not in any way trying to protect the big corporations from using ranching legislation as a tax writeoff. It would seem to me what they should introduce perhaps is an amendment to prevent nonranchers from buying permits, or to specify the criteria for permittees. It seems to me that is who they are trying to identify are those people who are abusing or misusing, if I can use their words, the system of ranching and the system of using permits. Now, I wanted to also respond to the Senator from Arkansas question of quote, ``Where does the money go?'' I will tell you where the little money ranchers gain in profit goes. It goes onto Main Street. It goes into hardware stores, and it goes into the grocery stores, and it goes into the used car lot and everyplace else-- the banks, too, if there is some left over. Maybe it even goes for recreation or vacations. For the most part, however, usually the little that is left over goes back into the ranch to improve the ranch. I don't think people understand that ranching is the economic backbone for many rural communities in the West. When one rancher goes down, the whole community is affected. People up in the administration like to talk about the interconnectedness of ecosystems. Well, the rural ranching communities are a great example of an interconnected community. One element goes down, and the whole system crashes. It seems to me, knowing what I do, as a western Senator, about ranching, when you kill the ranching industry--you also kill Main Street. I believe a disproportionate increase in a fee could do just that, and there are many studies that have indicated that a fee increase would indeed have devastating repercussions for the rancher and the community. This is obviously a serious issue to many small towns in the West, in probably eight or nine States at the very least. A blind and politically driven fee increase would result in putting real hard-working people on the welfare lines, and destroying property tax bases in our region. I do not think that is what our goal ought to be. The Senator from Arkansas also mentioned one person in particular which he used to convince folks, in his catch-all kind of shotgun attack, that large ranchers are the same as corporate ranchers. That man was a man by the name of Dan Russell. I happen to personally know Dan Russell, although I do not know him well. I met him years ago, clear back in the 1960's. I disagree strongly with the Senator from Arkansas' characterization of his operation as some type of heartless, profit-driven corporate industry. Dan Russell's family has ranched for almost 100 years on both sides of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California and Nevada, too. He probably made 98 percent of his money or more from ranching, although he has probably invested in other things, too. Yes, he did make money, but I do not think that is against the law and it should not be against the law. Dan Russell may have made money, but one factor that the Senator from Arkansas failed to mention is that Dan is known as one of the most community-minded people in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Dan's profit has been a profit for his community. If you go to Folsom, CA, a small town northeast of Sacramento, you find the Dan Russell Arena, which Dan donated. A lot of events are held there for the community. He is known as a civic leader and community-minded citizen who has made his money through real ranching, not because he had an interest in Texaco or something else. Dan's contributions to his local community should be commended, not condemned. I would now like to address the issue of fair market value. This issue comes up in this debate time after time. There is a great misperception about the fees for public lands, as if, somehow, ranchers in the West are ripping off the taxpayer because they do not pay the same amount for their AUM as a rancher in some other State that has to rent private land. I have private land. My wife's family used to have permits. I can tell you there is a big difference between private land and permits on public lands. The public land permits do not have the same sorts of benefits you could get on private land. Developments, improvements, anything you would not have to pay or provide on private lands, you have to pay for out of your own pocket on public lands. You get a lot more for your money with private rentals than you do with the permits. I think it is simply a bad comparison. I would like to illustrate the ludicrous nature of this comparison with a couple of examples. I live out West where, if you want to go get your own Christmas tree at Christmas, you can do it on public lands. You can get a $5 permit from the Forest Service and go cut a tree. Virtually any tree of any size that you can carry out of there, is only $5. Yet, if you go downtown to any city in America and you buy a tree on the lot, it will probably cost you $5 a foot. So how do you go about comparing the two? If you use the same rationale in the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, we should start charging folks $5 a foot for the trees on Forest Service land. I have a hunch though, that if you told everybody who wanted to go out in the forest and cut his or her own Christmas tree, many of whom have built traditions off of this practice year after year, that we were going to charge them $5 a foot for any tree they pack out of the forest, they would probably get pretty darned angry about it. Is it fair? How about this example: In Denver, CO, if you go to the zoo to see eagles, hawks, coyotes, snakes, alligators, elk, and deer or whatever kind of animal, you pay $6. If you drive about 30 minutes from the zoo to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, you could easily see a lot of these animals, and you wouldn't be charged a cent. Under the Senator from Arkansas' logic with fair market value, maybe we ought to charge anybody who wants to see a deer, who goes out in the forest, $6 to go out and look at deer. There would be a national uprising if we even suggested something like that. This business about fair market value is simply a classic case of apples and oranges. It does not fit and it is not fair. Finally, I would like to address another example that demonstrates the difficulties in ranching on public lands. Currently, under the rangeland reform regulations and the Bingaman substitute amendment, the permittees on public lands who have put money into improvements are not allowed to have any ownership over the investments they make. The ranchers simply have to put in that money themselves--there are no Federal grants to assist them--and they get very little in return in the end. Under the Domenici bill, there are real incentives for permittees to improve their allotments. Unless you provide real incentives for the rancher, the condition of the range will continue to be substandard. This is not the fault or responsibility of the rancher. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government. It just makes sense--people have to feel empowered, they have to feel like they have a stake in what they work on, in order for them to be proactive in improving the conditions. In any event, I did want to come down just for a moment and voice my opposition to both the Jeffords amendment and the Bumpers amendment. I think they are both just shots in the dark, and by trying to go after the big corporations they will create casualties amongst the hard- working family ranchers of the West. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Public Rangelands Management Act, and for the courageous efforts of my distinguished colleague and neighbor, Senator Domenici. While I was sitting here, I was just reading a disparaging ad that was taken out in the Wednesday, March 13, 1996, issue of the Albuquerque Journal, the largest city in New Mexico. I have to tell you, nothing could be farther from the truth than this ad. It accuses the Senator from New Mexico of trashing the public lands, of drying up the streams, of driving people off the land, and practically everything except raping the West. I thought it was very unfortunate that the shrillness of the debate has gotten to that point. But I guess that is what we all face when we try to make changes around here--that we have to face some pretty angry people. But, from my perspective, the Senator from New Mexico has shown great courage in trying to solve the problem that we have been dealing with for decades here in the U.S. Congress. As many of you know, the showdown in the West over cattle and grazing rights has been going on for a long time. In the old days, the differences were simply settled over a shot of whiskey or with a shot from the Winchester. But today, with our elevated laws and regulations, we attempt to settle our differences using the power of legislative language and administrative rulemaking. However, it is clear when you read ads like that, that the raw passions and emotions over the management of livestock on public lands often persevere and drive these very strong debates. Unfortunately for the family rancher whose very livelihood is dependent on the fate of these laws and regulations, our debates have reached such emotional heights that we have almost forgotten what actually happens to the family that has to make a living on the land. But this issue should not be about emotions or politics. It should not be driven along partisan lines. The debate today should not be about who is right and who is wrong, on whichever version of rules and regulations we are looking at. It should not be about the environmentalists versus the ranchers. The debate should be about how to best nurture sustainable ecosystems on the public lands in the West while still maintaining a consistent, healthy, and viable environment for ranchers and farmers to make a living on the public lands. I believe the bill of the Senator from New Mexico does that. He has worked on it with a number of us from the West for many months. We have gone through trial and error and met with a great resistance. I think perhaps we finally have something that can pass. I ask my colleagues for a moment to put themselves in the shoes or boots, as the case may be, of the western rancher today. There is a lot of mystique over who they actually are and what they do. Oftentimes we hear debates in the Senate about the so-called welfare ranchers or the rich CEO's or tycoons or perhaps surgeons who bought some land out West, and have some grazing permits but do not actually know how to ranch. We hear these stories of people taking advantage of the system. But I am here to tell you most of us who really believe in the West and ranching in America are not here to defend them. We are here to try to defend our friends, and neighbors. These are the people we know who have helped build Western America and who have a very strong belief in taking care of the land. Contrary to perception that these folks somehow make a mint off the public lands, most independent cattle ranchers today are struggling with weak and unpredictable markets and increasing instability of rules and regulations that govern the way they do their daily chores. The uncertainty of Federal legislation often puts ranchers in a precarious position when they have to borrow money from their local bank. They have no idea what to tell the banker regarding the stability of their permit, given the inability of Congress to resolve this issue. Raising livestock is a tough business, and I venture to say that those who have survived the back breaking work, the tough climate, the market fluctuations and the political pressures, too, are simply in it because they love the land and animals that subsist off it. These are people who care about the land not only because they have to, but because they want to. I think I can tell you with certainty that any rancher who does not take care of the land simply does not stay in business. I know for a fact that they are better stewards than they are often given credit for. Over the last few years, the Department of Interior, in my opinion, has engaged in kind of a deceitful and arrogant attempt to override westerners and our ability to make decisions for ourselves. The underlying message of the Department of Interior's rangeland reform basically states that we are not smart enough to figure out what is good for us. Indeed, according to the regulations promulgated last summer by the Secretary of Interior, we apparently need the assistance of beltway bureaucrats, national environmental groups, and virtually everyone else in the country with a peripheral interest in our business in order to make even the smallest decisions on our ranches, including where to put a water holding tank or a cattle guard. Unlike the administration's proposal, the Public Rangelands Management Act, which Senator Domenici has introduced will empower local people to make the decisions that affect them directly. This bill does nothing to prevent broader public participation in management plans or recreational activities on the public lands. Under S. 1459, affected interests are given the opportunity to comment on seven different kinds of proposed decisions affecting grazing allotments. By managing the public participation process, S. 1459 will provide much needed relief for permittees and Federal land managers from frivolous protests from out-of-State activists who oppose any use of the public lands whatsoever. I believe that the Department of the Interior's rangeland reform is an undermining effort to overturn a lifestyle that has been part of the history of this Nation. In its zealous attempt to increase the diversity of the biological life on the range, it is threatening that lifestyle and operation that is already endangered. As I mentioned earlier, ranching is a tough business and it has become increasingly more difficult. Literally hundreds of ranchers in the West who were in business just 5 or 6 years ago, have already gone into bankruptcy. In my own State of Colorado, many real estate developers are taking advantage of the unstable market and buying ranchers out to split up their land and subdivide the property into small units and tracts. Ironically, by attempting to increase diversity on the range, the rangeland regulations as they are promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior will only assist the paving over of the brush, the grassland, and the fields, putting them all under concrete and plywood. I think even the most ardent environmentalists would prefer to see cattle in those meadows and fields rather than pavement and condominiums. In fact, if we look at the Department of the Interior's own reports, we can see evidence that indicates that the rangelands are in some of the best conditions they have ever been and continue to improve. For example, according to the Deer and Elk Management Analysis Guide published in 1993 by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado's elk population is estimated to have increased from 3,000 animals in 1900 to 185,000 in 1990. That report also indicates that Colorado's deer population is estimated to have increased from 6,000 animals in 1900 to 600,000 in 1990. As a western Senator who has worked closely with grazing for many years, I truly understand the difficulty of trying to achieve a consensus on this issue. I have to say that the time has run out, and S. 1459 presents us with the best and I think perhaps the last chance to balance the concerns of the environmentalists with the concerns of the ranchers in a constructive manner. If you take away all the rhetoric, you will find that this bill has been crafted from collaboration and compromise. In closing, Mr. President, I submit for the Record two resolutions. One was passed by the Colorado State Joint House and Senate Memorial Committee supporting the Public Rangelands Management Act. The second is a resolution from Club 20 which is an organization built from 20 counties in western Colorado which also declares their support for Senator Domenici's bill. I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. So with that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor and simply urge my colleagues to support this well-crafted legislation. Under the leadership of Senator Domenici, it has taken many of us much time and effort. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Denver Post editorial of March 13 of 1995. Although I will not read the whole thing, which endorses S. 1459, I wish to read the first paragraph which states under the headline, The Domenici Grazing Bill Fosters Better Stewardship: Some Eastern-based environmental groups have been waging a political holy war against the Public Rangelands Management Act authored by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, but it seems clear that both the long-term environmental and economic interests of the West would be well served by this legislation to provide some badly needed stability and balance to the management of the public lands. This is from one of our State's largest newspapers.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator. As the Senator may recall, the Senate report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 contained language concerning the $30,000,000 mandated cut from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [BMDO] program management and support program element. It is also my understanding that based on the additional management requirement, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee directed that none of the program management and support account reduction be applied to the programs, activities, or functions of the Army Space and Strategic Defense Command. As a result of this report language, the National Test Facility [NTF] will take approximately a $4 million reduction in funding. As a result, there will be insufficient funds to do the much needed upgrade of the communications of the national test bed network. Also, a computer essential to the NTF's mission may not be able to support its operational requirements. I am advised that this facility is essential to the BMDO's mission, and therefore, cannot withstand any further reduction in funding. I would like to ask the Honorable Chairman, Senator Stevens, if he would work to include the National Test Facility as another program not be affected by the BMDO program management and support account reduction?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the Senator from Alaska yield a few moments at this time to enter into a brief colloquy?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly with regard Senate Concurrent Resolution 44, a resolution which I and several colleagues submitted last week, that would reauthorize the Specialty Equipment Market Association, in consultation with the Architect of the Capitol, to stage an event on the Capitol Grounds on May 15. As a motor enthusiast, I believe it is important to recognize the contributions the motor sports industry has made to improve the quality, performance and, more importantly, the safety of most all motor vehicles on the road today. Certainly, the American public has demonstrated a continuing love affair with motor vehicles since their introduction over 100 years ago in this country, enjoying vehicles for transportation and recreational endeavors, ranging from racing to show competitions, and as the way of creating individual expression that has been extremely popular in the last 100 years. In addition, research and development connected with motor sports competition and specialty applications has provided consumers with such life-saving safety mechanisms, including seatbelts, airbags, and many other important innovations. As a result, the motor sports industry has grown tremendously over the years, where today hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional participants enjoy motor sports competitions each and every year throughout the United States, attracting attendance in excess of 14 million people, making the motor sports industry one of the most widely attended of all U.S. sports. And equally important, as an economic engine, sales of motor vehicle performance and appearance enhancement parts and accessories annually exceeds $15 billion, and employ nearly 500,000 people. Mr. President, Senate Concurrent Resolution 44 seeks to authorize the Specialty Equipment Market Association, in consultation with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, to conduct an event to showcase innovative automotive technology and motor sports vehicles on the Grounds of the Capitol on May 15 of this year. I hope my colleagues will share in the recognition of the motor sports industry and support Senate Concurrent Resolution 44. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for a period of 4 minutes.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the Northern Cheyenne and native Americans across the country are mourning the loss of an elder, statesman, and ambassador for our people, and I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to this extraordinary man whose death is a great loss not only for all Indian nations but for the entire country. William ``Bill'' Tallbull's life exemplifies service and dedication to one's country and people. A World War II veteran, Bill spent much of his life on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation serving his tribe, including a position as a councilman for the Northern Cheyenne. He retired in 1972, and while most people dream of retirement, Bill was not the type of man to be idle. He came out of retirement a few short years later, and went on to serve his tribe and his country for another two decades. Bill's list of accomplishments is a long and impressive list. He has done more in his lifetime than most people ever dream of doing. He became an assistant history professor at Dull Knife Memorial College, located on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, teaching oral traditions and ethno-botany classes. From 1983 through 1995, he served as chairman of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Cultural Resource Program, and in 1990, he received the Montana State Historic Preservation Award becoming the first native American so honored by the State of Montana. Bill was also instrumental in the formation of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, having worked with former Senator Melcher of Montana on the initial draft of that legislation. He was later appointed by former Secretary of the Interior Manual Lujan, Jr., to sit on the committee which wrote the regulations for this act. Bill was the only native American to serve on that committee. In his ongoing efforts to safeguard the native American culture and heritage, Bill was a founder of the Medicine Wheel Alliance, an organization committed to preserving the Medicine Wheel National Historic Landmark in the Bighorn Mountains. This commitment to landmark preservation led President Clinton, in 1994, to appoint Bill to become the first native American ever to serve on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a national panel committed to protecting historical landmarks across the country. A professor, author, historian, and ethno-botanist, Bill was also a devoted husband, father, and tribal elder. He was admired and respected by all who knew him, and his commitment to the promotion of cultural awareness and to the protection of the native American heritage benefited all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. I was honored to have known this distinguished tribal leader, and his death is a great loss for all of us. However, I'm certain Bill would not have wanted his death to create a void where his work is concerned. We can all learn from this great man and continue his work for cultural awareness and spiritual integrity of the land. There could be no better tribute to such a man as Bill Tallbull.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address this important issue. If one needs a reminder as to why we must make the Hate Crime Statistics Act mandate permanent, one need look no further than today's headlines. Throughout the South, Federal and State authorities are investigating a rash of arson against African-American churches reminiscent of the violence perpetrated three decades earlier. In California, a native American was brutally stabbed by skinheads. My home State of Colorado has not been immune from the scourge of hate violence. In Morrison, CO, a swastika was burned on a woman's lawn. While in Aurora, a man shot his neighbor with a BB gun because of hatred for his Asian neighbor. In 1995, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Klanwatch Project counted 267 active hate groups in the United States including 6 in Colorado. And, in 1994, because of the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, law enforcement agencies in the United States were able to identify 5,852 hate crimes. Hate crimes are a growing problem--one that cannot merely be measured by numbers alone. If we are going to be successful in our battle against the scourge of violent hate crime, one thing is certain--we must have hard, reliable, information about the nature and the scope of the problem. Mr. President, this bill calls for a permanent mandate for the collection of hate crime data by the Justice Department. This important piece of legislation received broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in 1990. Data collection is crucial to this effort for other reasons as well. According to an article in Stanford Law & Policy Review entitled ``Bias Crime; A Theoretical and Practical Overview,'' data collection has proven to be a gateway for other important initiatives in the battle against crime. These other responses include enhanced investigative techniques, improved services for victims and the establishment of inter-agency coordination. There is another important purpose to this legislation as well. It sends a strong, symbolic message that we, as a nation, will not tolerate this kind of behavior. Mr. President, I proudly cosponsor this legislation which will make the Hate Crimes Statistics Act a significant and permanent addition to our framework of anti-crime laws.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address this important issue. If one needs a reminder as to why we must make the Hate Crime Statistics Act mandate permanent, one need look no further than today's headlines. Throughout the South, Federal and State authorities are investigating a rash of arson against African-American churches reminiscent of the violence perpetrated three decades earlier. In California, a native American was brutally stabbed by skinheads. My home State of Colorado has not been immune from the scourge of hate violence. In Morrison, CO, a swastika was burned on a woman's lawn. While in Aurora, a man shot his neighbor with a BB gun because of hatred for his Asian neighbor. In 1995, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Klanwatch Project counted 267 active hate groups in the United States including 6 in Colorado. And, in 1994, because of the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, law enforcement agencies in the United States were able to identify 5,852 hate crimes. Hate crimes are a growing problem--one that cannot merely be measured by numbers alone. If we are going to be successful in our battle against the scourge of violent hate crime, one thing is certain--we must have hard, reliable, information about the nature and the scope of the problem. Mr. President, this bill calls for a permanent mandate for the collection of hate crime data by the Justice Department. This important piece of legislation received broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in 1990. Data collection is crucial to this effort for other reasons as well. According to an article in Stanford Law & Policy Review entitled ``Bias Crime; A Theoretical and Practical Overview,'' data collection has proven to be a gateway for other important initiatives in the battle against crime. These other responses include enhanced investigative techniques, improved services for victims and the establishment of inter-agency coordination. There is another important purpose to this legislation as well. It sends a strong, symbolic message that we, as a nation, will not tolerate this kind of behavior. Mr. President, I proudly cosponsor this legislation which will make the Hate Crimes Statistics Act a significant and permanent addition to our framework of anti-crime laws.