Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I join my colleagues, Senators Bond and Mikulski, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, on which I serve, in supporting an increase in funding for the National Service Program. This amendment provides $403 million for the National Service Program in fiscal year 1996. I voted in support of establishing this program in 1993 because it gives young people a chance to serve their communities and earn education awards to finance their education. Currently, there are over 450 participants in Colorado's AmeriCorps programs who are engaged in serving low-income communities, tutoring at-risk youth, mentoring students, helping young people stay out of gangs, and providing health services in rural areas. The Corporation for National Service sponsors important service programs for native Americans nationwide. Current activities in this area include improving safety on reservations, constructing community facilities, improving access to medical services for low-income elders, tutoring students, and reducing violence among young people. The Ute tribes in my State and over 20 other tribal organizations throughout the country are benefiting from the National Service Program. The Corporation also is working with the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Dedicated individuals are serving homeless veterans by providing them access to health care, substance abuse treatment, and training to seek jobs. It is my hope that the Corporation for National Service continue and expand its support under this amendment for programs assisting those in our communities that need it the most and continue to build bridges with programs assisting veterans, tribal organizations and at-risk youth.

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, March 21, 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. 305, a bill to establish the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields and Commission in the Commonwealth of Virginia; H.R. 1091, a bill to improve the National Park System in the Commonwealth of Virginia; S. 1225, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory of historic sites, buildings, and artifacts in the Champlain Valley and the upper Hudson River Valley; S. 1226, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a study of battlefields of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, to establish an American Battlefield Protection Program; and Senate Joint Resolution 42, a joint resolution designating the Civil War Center at Louisiana State University as the ``United States Civil War Center,'' making the center the flagship institution for planning the sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War. 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 rise today to talk about the District of Columbia appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1996. I would like to recognize my colleague, Senator Jeffords, for all of his efforts to move this bill along. Under his chairmanship, Senator Jeffords has been given the task of managing the delicate balancing act between fiscal restraint and social responsibility, and as a result, he has been subject to pressure from all sides. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, it has been difficult for me personally to keep the process moving and support what I believe is right in this legislation, in spite of what I think is fundamentally wrong with this legislation. That is why I supported the conference report when it was reported out of the appropriations subcommittee. In an effort to keep the process moving forward I will support the motion to invoke cloture, however my concern with several provisions that remain in this conference report will cause me to vote against final adoption of the conference report, even though it contains much needed funds for the District of Columbia. Mr. President, the conferees on the D.C. subcommittee worked diligently to craft a conference report that provided adequate funding for the District of Columbia. Notably, the funding issues were never a point of contention, rather there were several legislative provisions that have been the focal point of all of our discussions. First, the bill places clear restrictions on a women's right to choose. The final language in this bill specifically makes an exception for the life of the mother, and in cases of rape or incest, but I feel that even this language is too restrictive and dictates who can receive an abortion and when. This is a role I do not believe the Government should be playing. Second, and most importantly, I have had difficulty with the school voucher provision of this bill. While this conference report includes a compromise on the initial voucher proposal, it still provides $5 million for the implementation of a voucher program. I have always been concerned that there may not be adequate accountability from private and parochial schools that they are, in fact, providing the best education for low income students. Vouchers are often looked at as a cure-all for the ills of public education. While I think it is unreasonable to claim that public education is failing our children, I do believe that our schools need reform. We need to infuse our public educational system with creative and innovative new ways to approach the rapidly changing demands of our society. Our public schools need to be empowered, not ignored, and I believe that vouchers would do just that: ignore the problems by providing an out--a choice to abandon the public schools. Our Nation must have a strong public education system, that provides opportunities for both excellence and equality. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join me in an effort to think of new ways the Federal Government can better serve the States and the school districts to combat the modern challenges of public education. It is only by directly addressing the problems, through which solutions can be found. In closing Mr. President, it was clear that the two Chambers came to the table with very divergent views on how to develop this conference report. The conference report before us represents many compromises that were made in order to move this bill forward. However, these compromises represent a conference report that I cannot support.

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, March 7, 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. 745, a bill to require the National Park Service to eradicate brucellosis afflicting the bison in Yellowstone National Park; S. 796, a bill to provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the removal of such horses; H.R. 238, a bill to provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the removal of such horses; and S. 1451, a bill to authorize an agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a State providing for the continued operation by State employees of national parks in the State during any period in which the National Park Service is unable to maintain the normal level of park operations. 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 rise today on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague, Senator Brown, the senior Senator from Colorado. I know I speak for him as well, as I address the Senate today. On April 1, 1954 President Eisenhower signed Public Law 325, the Air Academy Act. On June 24, Secretary of the Air Force Harold Talbott announced that Colorado Springs would be the permanent site of the U.S. Air Force Academy and Denver would serve as the temporary site. Senator Ed Johnson stated, ``This is the greatest thing that has happened to Colorado since Pikes Peak was discovered by Zebulon Pike.'' The U.S. Air Force Academy was officially activated at Lowry Air Force Base, July 27, 1954, and proceeded to build in strength pending the arrival of the first class of cadets--July 11, 1955--which date marks the official dedication and opening of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Dedication Day began with the arrival of the 307 young men who would comprise the Class of 1959. The morning was spent in processing, uniforms, hair cuts, and so forth, and by 11 a.m. they were lined up for intensive close order drill instruction. That afternoon, with the stands filled with 4,159 military and civilian dignitaries, public officials, the foreign attache corps, cadets from West Point and Annapolis, the press and parents, with a formation of B-36 bombers flying overhead, and with the U.S. Air Force Band playing, the 307 cadets marched on the field in such perfect formation it brought tears in the eyes of the spectators. At the end of the ceremonies, the guests were invited by the Denver Chamber of Commerce to attend a real chuck wagon buffalo barbecue at the Red Rocks Park Amphitheater, a fitting climax to a historic day. We Coloradans are, indeed, proud that Colorado was chosen as the location of the temporary and permanent sites of the U.S. Air Force Academy. The Nation is, indeed, proud of the outstanding leaders who have graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy--both in the Air Force and civilian life. We would also like to pay tribute to those officers whose wisdom and foresight in the Academy's inception insured a great measure of the success that has been achieved by the Academy. Among these are Lt. Gen. Hubert R. Harmon, the first Superintendent and Father of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Col. (later Brig. Gen.) Robert M. Stillman, Commandant of Cadets; Col. (later Brig. Gen.) Robert F. McDermott, Dean; Col. William B. Taylor III, Assistant Chief of Staff (Special Projects), and Col. Robert V. Whitlow, Director of Athletics. Lt. Gen. Hubert R. Harmon, first Superintendent and Father of the U.S. Air Force Academy President Eisenhower personally selected his close friend and West Point classmate Lt. Gen. Hubert R. Harmon to be the new Air Force Academy's first Superintendent as he knew ``Doodles'' Harmon would be, by far, the best man for the job. General Harmon was from a prominent military family as his father and two brothers were West Point graduates, as were the husbands of his two sisters. His wife, Rosa May Kendricks' father was U.S. Senator John B. Kendricks (Wyoming). He had a distinguished military career being equally at home at an Academy football game--even though he weighed only 146 pounds, he won his ``A'' in football--piloting a combat airplane--the distinguished flying cross with cluster--on the golf course with President Eisenhower; as Air Attache at the Court of St. James; and at the United Nations where he was the Senior U.S. Military Representative. In December 1949, he was given the additional duty of Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Air Force Academy Matters charged with all details of developing ideas into an operational Air Force Academy. For the next 5 years, General Harmon and his team conferred endlessly with distinguished educators from all parts of the country; sifted and weighed the curriculum of universities and Service Academies in the United States and abroad, searching out the best features of each so painstaking by examining every suggestion referred to them by Congress or the Defense Department for its merit and workability. Every effort was made to select the finest officers for each segment of the Academy, to prepare the academic and military course material and, as required, to send officers to universities for specific academic training. During the numerous meetings held in the Pentagon, the Bureau of the Budget and in the House and Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, General Harmon was the star witness, selling the U.S. Air Force Academy concept, which led to the passage of Public Law 325, 83d Congress, the Air Academy Act signed by President Eisenhower April 1, 1954. On June 24, Secretary Talbott announced that the Academy would be located at Colorado Springs and pending the design and construction of the permanent facilities, the Academy would be located at a temporary site at Denver (Lowry). On August 14, General Order No. 1 announced the official establishment of the Academy at Lowry--effective July 27--with General Harmon as its superintendent. He was a very meticulous person and was involved in all major aspects of the Academy, that is, rehabilitation of Lowry's buildings, the phasing in of all personnel; insuring that all items required to operate all facets of the Academy were procured and in place and, most important, that the new Academy would attract the most outstanding young men who were to be the future leaders of the Air Force. General Harmon was an outstanding example of the ideal leader, a brilliant, thoughtful, dynamic, respectful, understanding officer whose men would gladly follow him anywhere. With the arrival of the Academy's first class of cadets at Lowry on July 11, 1955, the U.S. Air Force Academy was born, with Lt. Gen. Hubert R. Harmon overseeing them as the Academy's ``Proud Father!'' As President Eisenhower later wrote ``Hubert was loved and admired by many; to Mamie and me he always seemed the ideal classmate and so we had for him a boundless affection.'' This was shared by Gen. Thomas D. White, Air Force Chief of Staff, who wrote, ``The Air Force has lost one of its most inspiring leaders and the Father of our new Air Force Academy.'' Senator Gordon Allott (Colorado), who served under General Harmon in World War II, wrote, ``Few have had as much courage and set so fine an example as he did. His quiet, fair and, above all, his genuine qualities have been stamped on the entire Academy and I believe will be reflected in every student who graduates.'' Brig. Gen. Robert M. (Moose) Stillman Brig. Gen. Robert M. (Moose) Stillman was the ideal officer to be appointed the first Commandant of Cadets. He was a leader's leader having been a star football player and line coach at West Point, 8th Air Force Bomb Group Commander, POW at Stalag Luft III, and, while serving in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, was involved in the early planning of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Moose was more mature than most of the other key Academy officers as he was West Point 1933, whereas McDermott, Whitlow and others were West Point 1943. He was a burly, genial man with a great sense of humor and was an avid sportsman. Colorado was his State as he grew up in Pueblo and attended Colorado College in Colorado Springs before entering West Point. As there were no upper classmen to supervise the ``Doolies'' (plebes), outstanding young officers, many with Korean combat records, were assigned to be the Air Training Officers and Air Officer's Commanding to fill this vital role. As their careers progressed, many of these officers became key U.S. Air Force officials, that is, Chief of Staff, Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and so forth. ``Moose'' Stillman used a modified version of the West Point Commandant of Cadets system which proved to be most successful in the installation of command and leadership into the future Air Force leaders. The basic fundamentals of this system are incorporated into today's curriculum. The training function as envisioned by General Stillman was divided into three main components: Military training, flying training, and physical training, thus the individual cadets would experience a 4-year laboratory exercise in command and leadership. At all stages of the planning for the Academy, the philosophy of a ``sound mind in a sound body'' was recognized as a fundamental principle. To assist him in running the Commandant of Cadets Department, he hand picked outstanding young Majors, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels, many of whom were later promoted to General Officer and held major Air Force positions. When General Stillman turned over the Command of the Cadet Wing on August 1, 1958, the mould had been set which other Commandants were prepared to implement. It is only fitting that the Academy Parade Ground has recently been named the Maj. Gen. Robert M. Stillman Parade Ground in honor of this outstanding officer. Col. (Brig. Gen.) Robert F. Mc Dermott McDermott, as his close friends call him, attended Norwich University for 2 years before entering West Point, graduating in 1943. After service as a fighter pilot in the European theater he served as a personnel staff officer in the Pentagon and then to Harvard for his MBA. From 1950 to 1954 (when he was assigned to the faculty of the new U.S. Air Force Academy) he was an instructor in the West Point Department of Social Studies under the tutelage of two distinguished military educators, Col. Herman Blukema and Col. George Lincoln. From the Academy's inception in 1954 he served as Professor and Head of the Department of Economics with additional duties as Faculty Secretary, Vice Dean, Acting Dean and later Dean (replacing Brig. Gen. Don Zimmerman). McDermott was a visionary in that he realized that the university educational system was undergoing a drastic change and that the new U.S. Air Force Academy's curriculum must reflect this change in order to meet the educational and technological challenges of the modern world. The first major change was the Academy's Enrichment Program which was designed for the gifted cadets and those who had completed college level courses at other institutions. The Enrichment Program broadens the field of study, challenging the cadet to advance academically as far and fast as the cadet was able to accomplish. The introduction of the curriculum enrichment program was the first major departure from the traditional service academy philosophy--that all students should pursue and be limited to a prescribed course of study-- and was an outstanding success. He also introduced the whole man concept in selecting cadets for appointment, which gave weighted recognition to the physical, athletic, moral and leadership attributes of a candidate as well as his academic potential and registered scholastic achievements. This soon became the standard admission policy of all Service Academies and earned McDermott,the award of the Legion of Merit. During his long tenure as Dean, McDermott established programs and policies which two decades later still influence established programs and policies. He created a tenure associate Professor Program designed to keep the Academy's doctoral level to that in civilian universities. He established a sabbatical leave program for all tenure professors. He started a faculty research program in support of graduate level teaching and related Air Force research programs, etc. McDermott was an extraordinary individual. His educational background, with its vigorous training and grueling workload, had given him confidence in his ability to achieve his goals. His influence came from hard work, mastery of detail, and from his remarkable ability to express his ideas and express his proposals in a forceful way--as his verbal skills were second to none. Under his leadership the Academy experienced unprecedented academic achievements. By the time of McDermott's retirement in 1968, graduates had won 9 Rhodes Scholarships, 20 Fulbright Scholarships, and 73 other fellowships and scholarships, which no other institution of higher learning has achieved in such a short time of its inception. The Academy and the U.S. Air Force was indeed fortunate to have in its formative years a dean with the wisdom and foresight of Robert F. McDermott. Col. William B. Taylor III Col. William B. Taylor III played two major roles. First as the Legislative Officer, representing the Secretary of the Air Force, and, in coordination with Lt. Gen. Harmon, was tasked with the Air Force and interservice coordination; White House approval and, action through the Congress of legislation to establish a U.S. Air Force Academy. To accomplish this, Colonel Taylor absorbed and organized an abundance of information--which had accumulated for more than 6 years--running the gauntlet of wishfulness to projections of an operating Academy with a history of tradition, picking out the essential information, monitoring its organization, and presentation in a manner essential to its passage. Colonel Taylor's efforts in behalf of the Air Academy legislation were of inestimable value to the Air Force and it is difficult to conceive of anyone who could have performed this mission more effectively and in such an outstanding manner. Second, as Assistant Chief of Staff (Special Projects) from January 1955-July 1958, Colonel Taylor had a major input in almost every major staff action. He was project officer for the dedication of the U.S. Air Force Academy, July 11, 1955, at Lowry which the arrival of the 307 initial cadets, flyovers, speeches, important military and civilian guests, cadets from West Point and Annapolis, parents, receptions, and entertainment signified the Academy's first operational day. As the Liaison Officer, Air Force Academy Foundation, he replaced the foundation's professional fundraiser and played a major role in the planning and implementation of the following projects: the Eisenhower championship golf course, the Farrish Memorial Park Cadet Recreational Center, the Professional Football Exhibition Benefit Game program, the drafting of the initial fundraising plans for the Academy stadium, the Visitors Center, and other projects adopted by the foundation. He organized and was secretary to the Board of Visitors 1956-1958. The board's secretary must show great tact and inspire confidence while representing the Academy during the critical annual inspection period. Representative J. Edgar Chenoweth (CO), Chairman of the Academy's first Board of Visitors, congratulated Colonel Taylor on his performance, stating the Board's Report was the best he had seen. Similar comments were received from Representative Errett Scrivner and Gen. Carl Spaatz, the 1957 and 1958 chairman. Cecil B. DeMille, at the request of Secretary Talbott, agreed to design the cadet uniforms. Colonel Taylor headed the team that worked with Mr. DeMille, and associates from Paramount and Western Costume to create their successful uniform designs. Colonel Taylor, due to personal contact with Col. Richard Gimbel and Col. Robert Elbert, played a main role in the Gimbel Collection of Aeronautical Memorabilia--the world's finest--and the Elbert paintings ``The Duke of Wellington (Laurence),'' ``Sir Robert Peele,'' and ``The Duke of Douglas (Romney),'' which are worth many million dollars, being given to the Academy. In order to achieve nationwide support for the Academy, Colonel Taylor instituted the Candidate Advisory Program utilizing the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Air Force ROTC, Air Force Recruiting Service, Air Force Retired Personnel, and others to appear before the 26,000-plus high schools and public audiences to promote the U.S. Air Force Academy. This program has been an outstanding success. Colonel Taylor implemented the Civic Leaders Program whereby civic leaders, educators, clergymen, the press, and others from major cities were brought to the Academy for briefings and indoctrination to insure that on their return they would use their influence to assist the Academy in securing the finest type of young men. As an example of the effectiveness of this program, Dr. Edwin D. Harrison, president of Georgia Tech, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, wrote Superintendent M/G James E. Briggs ``In closing, I feel it imperative to mention that I believe Col. William B. Taylor to be one of the finest officers and the finest gentleman it has ever been my pleasure to meet. I am sure he will leave an indelible mark on the formative period of the Academy.'' On his assignment to Spain in July 1958, Colonel Taylor had been associated with the Air Academy project longer than anyone in the U.S. Air Force. Col. Robert V. Whitlow Col. Robert V. Whitlow, the Director of Athletics, played a major role in the Academy. He was an athlete's athlete. Bob excelled in football in high school and, at UCLA for 3 years before entering West Point, where he won 3 major letters--in football, basketball, and track. After service as a pilot in World War II, he was assigned to the Collegio Militar, Mexico's West Point as an exchange English instructor and football coach. In 2 years, they won Mexico's national football championship. During his next assignment, at the Air Defense Command, Colorado Springs, he played golf with key generals and dignitaries such as Gen. Rosie O'Donnell, General Harmon, and to be Secretary Harold Talbott, thus paving the way for his selection as Director of Athletics. Whitlow believed that football was the way to get the new Academy the widest publicity and football was the best way to raise money quickly so that an aggressive athletic program could be launched. His initial goal was to get sixty top flight athletes as cadets as soon as possible. Bob was a very determined and intense man, with supreme confidence in his ability to whip the new cadets into a formidable football team. A most astute move on his part was to hire Buck Shaw, former coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, to coach the football team. He then proceeded to schedule games with top ranked colleges to present the team with the utmost challenge, an almost impossible task--which was farther compounded when you realize the entering first class was only 307 cadets, the second 300 cadets, the third 306 cadets, and the fourth 453 for a total of only 1,366 cadets--all representing a brand new college that had just entered the collegiate athletic world. It is almost inconceivable that at the end of the fourth football season, largely due to the spirit, drive and determination of Bob Whitlow, Coach Buck Shaw and assistants--and Col. George Simler and Coach Ben Martin who followed Whitlow and Shaw--the Air Force Academy football team battled Texas Christian to a scoreless tie in the Cotton Bowl--an unbelievable feat not to be duplicated by any team from a brand new college. This performance immediately paved the way for the successful fund raising effort to build the Falcon Stadium at the Academy.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Nunn for 25 minutes, Senator Coats for 45 minutes, and Senator Graham for 20 minutes. Following morning business, the majority leader stated that it would be his intention for the Senate to consider any of the following items that are available: The House message to accompany H.R. 1868, the foreign operations appropriations bill, the District of Columbia appropriations conference report, and the continuing resolution. Senators should therefore be aware that rollcall votes are possible throughout today's session of the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments on the conference report to H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 spending bill for the Department of Commerce, State, Justice and related agencies. I appreciate the diligent work of the respective House and Senate subcommittees to craft a conference report that seeks to maximize funding that will be allocated to the Department of Commerce, Department of State, the Department of Justice and the 18 other agencies included in this appropriations measure. It has been made clear from the development of H.R. 2076, that this measure would be subject to a Presidential veto. Today, as we debate this conference report it is apparent the President will follow through to veto this measure. While I will support the conference agreement today, because it contains vital funding for very meritorious programs, I want to express my serious reservations with legislative language included in this measure that may seriously undermine the ability of law enforcement officials to effectively address crime in their respective States and cities. As you know, I have been a strong supporter of the 100,000 cops program. This program, which passed with widespread bipartisan support as part of the 1993 crime bill. In that bill, Congress authorized funds to go directly to where the problem exists: that is the shortage of law enforcement personnel. This important program would be administered in a block grant under the legislation now being considered. I am concerned that scarce dollars would be spend by some mayors on anything that can arguably be construed as law enforcement under a block granting scheme. [[Page S 18167]] Also, I want to once again, reiterate my strong support for drug- court funding. In Denver, our drug court is a tough, law-enforcement oriented solution to society's drug problem. It has already begun to show success. It would be a mistake to eliminate this valuable tool for enforcement of our drug laws. Understanding this bill will be vetoed by the President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to reach a middle ground in a subsequent appropriations bill.

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 Tuesday, December 12, 1995, 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. 873, a bill to establish the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor; S. 944, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Ohio River Corridor Study Commission; S. 945, a bill to amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Act of 1984 to modify the boundaries of the corridor; S. 1020, a bill to establish the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia; S. 1110, a bill to establish guidelines for the designation of national heritage areas; S. 1127, a bill to establish the Vancouver National Historic Reserve; and S. 1190, a bill to establish the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor in the State of Ohio. 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. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this evening to address an issue which is of great concern to this Nation and to many of my colleagues--and that is Bosnia. This past Monday, the President took his proposal to the American people and he appears to have listened to the majority of Americans by coming forward and stating his case for the United States' involvement in Bosnia. Although the President was wise to come to the American people, I like many of my colleagues, cannot support the President's decision to send troops because I do not know that he has fully explained what ``American values'' are at stake in Bosnia. In my home State of Colorado, I have five offices. Without exception, the phones have been ringing and my constituents have been voicing their concerns, their fears, their anger, and their opposition to the President's proposal. Today they see no threat to our national security or to our way of life, although they do have great empathy for the people in Bosnia. Bosnia has proven to be a quagmire time and time again. I, like many of my colleagues, do not want to see our troops placed in harm's way in this region. We surely do not want to repeat the problems that we had in either Vietnam or Somalia. I believe the new-found peace in Bosnia is untenable and cannot be guaranteed. I believe there are 120,000 Serbs over there who basically said the same thing. It is foolish for us to believe that there will not be mission changes during our proposed 12-month involvement in the region. The environment in Bosnia will continue to change as time goes on, and we cannot predict what will be asked of us during the next 12 months. What starts out to be a peacekeeping mission will certainly became a nation- rebuilding mission at the expense of the American taxpayers. I do not believe the President fully appreciates the fact that you cannot, under the best of circumstances, give a definitive end date for involvement in that military mission. By nature, military missions are unpredictable. We have no way to determine how long it will take before peace is freestanding in the region. In 12 months, the Bosnian peace may be at a pivotal stage so that we cannot pull out, we cannot bring our troops home, and that is what I fear the most. That region has a history of internal struggles. The country is torn and has always been torn by deeply held religious beliefs, and we cannot socially engineer a peace. Peace will never come easily to this region, and there are still those today who oppose the agreement. I am most concerned that the United States will be making up 30 percent of the NATO force in addition to all of the air support and the logistics of the mission. This is far more than any of the other 15 NATO members. As a result, we will also be contributing a large part of the funds for this mission. In this time of fiscal restraint of asking everyone to do more with less, I cannot understand how the President can ask us to ante up for this commitment, continue to insist on increased levels of domestic spending, and still work to balance the budget in 7 years as he has indicated he would. I support our treaty obligations to NATO. However, in this instance I feel our obligations simply do not outweigh our concerns for our American youngsters that we have to send into harm's way. We all support the efforts to end the atrocities and suffering. However, I do not believe that we have any vital national security interests in that region, as we did in the Gulf war. I also believe that we have a humanitarian interest in the region, but I do not think the American people solely support the humanitarian rationale as justification for sending our ground troops into Bosnia. Certainly Coloradans do not. Above all, we cannot afford to forget the reality of the situation we are sending our troops into: A newly founded and untenable peace. In that environment, there will undoubtedly be continued hostilities. I am absolutely convinced that we will have American dead by Christmas, if not by hidden enemy, certainly from one of the 6 million buried mines that still exist. The parents and families of these Americans we are asking to go to Bosnia are those the Congress and the President must answer to. I believe that we should be most thoughtful before this administration puts us in a position where we might have American youngsters dead by Christmas. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for 5 [[Page S 17767]] minutes without the time being charged to the bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I introduce a piece of legislation that has been a long time coming; to the State of Colorado and in particular, the western slope of my State, as well as to myself. Today, I am introducing legislation to create the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Complex. This represents, in my view, an innovative approach to protecting unique natural resources for future generations in the most fiscally responsible manner possible. Madam President, this legislation does far more than simply create a new national park from what is now a national monument on the western slope of Colorado. This legislation establishes a cooperative approach to managing this natural resource and calls for all affected resource management agencies in the area, to play key collaborative roles. Madam President, I want to stress that equally important to what this legislation does, is what it does not do: this legislation does not require additional Federal expenditures, it does not require additional land acquisitions, and the collective management approach that this legislation creates does not in any way require, imply, or contemplate an attempt by the Federal Government to usurp State water rights and State water law. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture will manage the entire area as it should be managed--as a single, interrelated and inseparable unit, connected by the magnificence of the Gunnison River itself. Establishment of the complex will afford the Secretaries the opportunity to share both fiscal and human resources in the administration and management of this unique resource. This legislation will eliminate duplicative management operations and form a coordinated, streamlined and fiscally responsible management structure. Implementation of this act will cost next to nothing. It is good business. No land acquisitions will be needed, no new areas will be created and this will not be an additional burden to the taxpayer. In fact, implementation of this act will save money by enabling the agencies to cooperate and share resources to a much greater extent than the current management allows. Beginning at the upper most reaches of the proposed complex, this legislation will create the Curecanti National Recreation Area. This area has a long history of being operated by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation as a widely popular recreation area. The new Curecanti National Recreation Area will encompass three lakes created by the three dams on the Gunnison River which form the heart of the area. Together, these lakes are a recreationalist's paradise and a fisherman's heaven, regardless of the season. Within the recreation area will be created the Curecanti Archaeological District. This area contains prehistoric sites dating as far back as 10,000 years. These unique sites may provide dramatic information that will significantly augment our knowledge of early human occupation of the high mountain valleys in the mountains of Colorado. New chapters will be added to what is known about southwestern archaeology. This legislation will also establish the Denver and Rio Grande National Historic Site at Cimarron, within the recreation area. This site is a monument to the talents of the early mountain railroad builders and is a focal point to illustrate the crucial role of the narrow gauge railroad in realizing the development of western Colorado and the entire west. The Gunnison National Forest forms the other boundary of the national park complex. This forest offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities as well as incredible scenic views. Portions of the forest have been included within the complex and will be managed in concert with the other resources in this area. What is now the Gunnison National Monument lies immediately upstream of the recreation area. Visitors to this wonderful site describe this resource with adjectives such as gorgeous, awesome, and spectacular. Everyone who has visited this 2,000 foot deep, nearly impenetrable canyon go on to say that [[Page S 17491]] those words are inadequate to describe the impact of this glorious national wonder. This area is clearly worthy of the designation ``National Park,'' and all the protections and management policies that designation bring to it. This legislation, when enacted, will designate the monument as the newest national park in the National Park System, again with practically no cost to the agency or the taxpayer. Visitors will be able to look over the side of the sheer canyon walls, hear the roar of the river, feel its strength, and view the canyon which, today, is no different than the day thousands of years ago when the first humans visiting the area failed to cross its chasm. Upstream and adjacent to the new national park, the Bureau of Land Management will administer and manage the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area which would also be created by this act. This 64,139-acre tract will be managed for the protection and visitor use of the canyon. Recreational opportunities from raft trips, to hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking offer a wealth of opportunities to enjoy the natural resources at their very best. This area clearly deserves increased protection for future generations, as well as for today's visitors. The national park complex which will be created by this legislation, taken in its entirety, is a world class site. Managed cooperatively as an interagency project, it can only improve. It is important to note, Madam President, that while all Americans will benefit by the creation of this national park complex, my constituents living in Gunnison, Montrose, and the other nearby communities, will be impacted most. For this reason, the legislation I am introducing today is not a finished product and I am looking forward to detailed hearings to receive the advice and counsel of all interested parties. My subcommittee staff will immediately begin soliciting feedback on this legislation, and hearings in the early spring will follow. Following those comments and hearings, my staff and I will make the appropriate technical changes to this legislation and will work closely with leadership in the full committee, our leadership in the Senate and our colleagues in the House to promptly move this legislation and present it to the President for his signature. Throughout this process, my staff and I are eager to listen to the views of all concerned and to fine-tune this legislation cooperatively and in good faith with all who wish to participate. Finally, Madam President, I would take a moment to pay special tribute to three special--and new--members of my staff who have worked with special drive and determination on this legislation. Ms. Rhea Suh, of my personal staff, Ms. Kathryn ``Kayci'' Cook, and Jim O'Toole of the committee staff, have been invaluable to me in the process. In previous years, I have introduced Black Canyon legislation that, quite simply, went nowhere. It was written in an attempt to be all things to all people and that, unfortunately, resulted in nothing more than printed chaos. In the 104th Congress, we threw away all the old concepts and started, quite literally, from ground zero. It was only with the fresh, energetic, and creative minds of these fine professionals that, together, we were able to come up with an entirely new concept. This concept which I am introducing today, presents our Nation with the opportunity to provide the greatest protection of a unique resource through the least amount of bureaucracy and expenditure. Now, finally after all these years, I am introducing legislation which I am confident will meet with broad support and which will, finally, become the law of the land. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I introduce a piece of legislation that has been a long time coming; to the State of Colorado and in particular, the western slope of my State, as well as to myself. Today, I am introducing legislation to create the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Complex. This represents, in my view, an innovative approach to protecting unique natural resources for future generations in the most fiscally responsible manner possible. Madam President, this legislation does far more than simply create a new national park from what is now a national monument on the western slope of Colorado. This legislation establishes a cooperative approach to managing this natural resource and calls for all affected resource management agencies in the area, to play key collaborative roles. Madam President, I want to stress that equally important to what this legislation does, is what it does not do: this legislation does not require additional Federal expenditures, it does not require additional land acquisitions, and the collective management approach that this legislation creates does not in any way require, imply, or contemplate an attempt by the Federal Government to usurp State water rights and State water law. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture will manage the entire area as it should be managed--as a single, interrelated and inseparable unit, connected by the magnificence of the Gunnison River itself. Establishment of the complex will afford the Secretaries the opportunity to share both fiscal and human resources in the administration and management of this unique resource. This legislation will eliminate duplicative management operations and form a coordinated, streamlined and fiscally responsible management structure. Implementation of this act will cost next to nothing. It is good business. No land acquisitions will be needed, no new areas will be created and this will not be an additional burden to the taxpayer. In fact, implementation of this act will save money by enabling the agencies to cooperate and share resources to a much greater extent than the current management allows. Beginning at the upper most reaches of the proposed complex, this legislation will create the Curecanti National Recreation Area. This area has a long history of being operated by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation as a widely popular recreation area. The new Curecanti National Recreation Area will encompass three lakes created by the three dams on the Gunnison River which form the heart of the area. Together, these lakes are a recreationalist's paradise and a fisherman's heaven, regardless of the season. Within the recreation area will be created the Curecanti Archaeological District. This area contains prehistoric sites dating as far back as 10,000 years. These unique sites may provide dramatic information that will significantly augment our knowledge of early human occupation of the high mountain valleys in the mountains of Colorado. New chapters will be added to what is known about southwestern archaeology. This legislation will also establish the Denver and Rio Grande National Historic Site at Cimarron, within the recreation area. This site is a monument to the talents of the early mountain railroad builders and is a focal point to illustrate the crucial role of the narrow gauge railroad in realizing the development of western Colorado and the entire west. The Gunnison National Forest forms the other boundary of the national park complex. This forest offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities as well as incredible scenic views. Portions of the forest have been included within the complex and will be managed in concert with the other resources in this area. What is now the Gunnison National Monument lies immediately upstream of the recreation area. Visitors to this wonderful site describe this resource with adjectives such as gorgeous, awesome, and spectacular. Everyone who has visited this 2,000 foot deep, nearly impenetrable canyon go on to say that [[Page S 17491]] those words are inadequate to describe the impact of this glorious national wonder. This area is clearly worthy of the designation ``National Park,'' and all the protections and management policies that designation bring to it. This legislation, when enacted, will designate the monument as the newest national park in the National Park System, again with practically no cost to the agency or the taxpayer. Visitors will be able to look over the side of the sheer canyon walls, hear the roar of the river, feel its strength, and view the canyon which, today, is no different than the day thousands of years ago when the first humans visiting the area failed to cross its chasm. Upstream and adjacent to the new national park, the Bureau of Land Management will administer and manage the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area which would also be created by this act. This 64,139-acre tract will be managed for the protection and visitor use of the canyon. Recreational opportunities from raft trips, to hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking offer a wealth of opportunities to enjoy the natural resources at their very best. This area clearly deserves increased protection for future generations, as well as for today's visitors. The national park complex which will be created by this legislation, taken in its entirety, is a world class site. Managed cooperatively as an interagency project, it can only improve. It is important to note, Madam President, that while all Americans will benefit by the creation of this national park complex, my constituents living in Gunnison, Montrose, and the other nearby communities, will be impacted most. For this reason, the legislation I am introducing today is not a finished product and I am looking forward to detailed hearings to receive the advice and counsel of all interested parties. My subcommittee staff will immediately begin soliciting feedback on this legislation, and hearings in the early spring will follow. Following those comments and hearings, my staff and I will make the appropriate technical changes to this legislation and will work closely with leadership in the full committee, our leadership in the Senate and our colleagues in the House to promptly move this legislation and present it to the President for his signature. Throughout this process, my staff and I are eager to listen to the views of all concerned and to fine-tune this legislation cooperatively and in good faith with all who wish to participate. Finally, Madam President, I would take a moment to pay special tribute to three special--and new--members of my staff who have worked with special drive and determination on this legislation. Ms. Rhea Suh, of my personal staff, Ms. Kathryn ``Kayci'' Cook, and Jim O'Toole of the committee staff, have been invaluable to me in the process. In previous years, I have introduced Black Canyon legislation that, quite simply, went nowhere. It was written in an attempt to be all things to all people and that, unfortunately, resulted in nothing more than printed chaos. In the 104th Congress, we threw away all the old concepts and started, quite literally, from ground zero. It was only with the fresh, energetic, and creative minds of these fine professionals that, together, we were able to come up with an entirely new concept. This concept which I am introducing today, presents our Nation with the opportunity to provide the greatest protection of a unique resource through the least amount of bureaucracy and expenditure. Now, finally after all these years, I am introducing legislation which I am confident will meet with broad support and which will, finally, become the law of the land. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to what is now title III of the continuing resolution. I might say that I did vote for the original Senate language. I opposed this provision as part of the Treasury-Postal conference committee. And I will tell you why. This measure, if adopted, would effectively eliminate the ability of nonprofits throughout this Nation to express their political views to their elected representatives at every level--at the Federal level, State level, local level, and tribal level. This legislation, I think, slams the door of Congress in the face of hundreds of thousands of grassroots organizations. In the Senate Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, this body adopted an amendment to keep large, well-financed nonprofit organizations from abusing the lobbying regulations. Certainly they should not use taxpayers' money by the millions simply to lobby to get more taxpayers' money. But the House-passed version, on the other hand, goes much further and muzzles grassroots organizations and puts roadblocks in the way of legitimate advocacy efforts. It would affect, as I understand it, churches, Boy Scouts, tribes, art groups, chambers of commerce, water conservancy districts, and hundreds of other very diverse nonprofit groups. In effect, it would muzzle the free speech of millions of people. These groups are the same groups that as elected officials we are supposed to be here to defend and represent. I see a clear difference, as many of my colleagues do, between the high-powered, well-financed professional lobbying firms, who hire well-financed professional lobbyists, and the grassroots-based community organizations. I think my colleagues see the difference too. For the last couple of months the Senate has focused its efforts on getting Government out of people's lives. Well, this provision would do just the opposite because it would tell the nonprofits how they could spend their private moneys. By law, these organizations cannot spend Government funds for lobbying activities, which I think makes sense. What does not make any sense to me is that we are stepping in and legislating how nonprofits can spend their privately raised funds on advocacy efforts. It is wrong for us to do that. That is why I will offer a motion to strike title III. This provision is bad for our communities because it treats State and local organizations and their national affiliates as one. This provision is bad because the definition of advocacy is too broad. This provision is bad because it hamstrings the many organizations that, with reduced Government, we will have to rely on more heavily than ever to deliver services to our communities. It also is bad because this provision casts a net so wide it will muzzle political advocacy groups in our towns, our communities, in our States. In short, it is bad language. The administration has already threatened to veto it, as the Chair knows. I think it is important to send a message to our constituents that we will not allow them to be silenced. We want Government out of people's lives, but we do not want to keep people out of Government. With that, Mr. President, I would move to strike title III of the continuing resolution, and send an amendment to the desk, and ask for the yeas and nays after the motion. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

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, November 9, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., instead of 2 p.m., as previously scheduled, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 231, a bill to modify the boundaries of Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona; H.R. 562, a bill to modify the boundaries of Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona; S. 342, a bill to establish the Cache La Poudre River National Water Heritage Area in the State of Colorado; S. 364, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the operation of certain visitor facilities associated with, but outside the boundaries of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado; H.R. 629, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the operation of certain visitor facilities associated with, but outside the boundaries of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado; S. 489, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an appropriate form of agreement with the town of Grand Lake, CO, authorizing the town to maintain permanently a cemetery in Rocky Mountain National Park; and S. 608, a bill to establish the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park in New Bedford, MA. 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. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the November 16, 1995, hearing which had been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on S. 873, a bill to establish the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor; S. 944, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Ohio River Corridor Study Commission; S. 945, a bill to amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Act of 1984 to modify the boundaries of the corridor; S. 1020, a bill to establish the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia; S. 1110, a bill to establish guidelines for the designation of National Heritage Areas; S. 1127, a bill to establish the Vancouver National Historic Reserve; and S. 1190, a bill to establish the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor in the State of Ohio, has been canceled. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to commend the conferees to the energy-water development appropriations bill for their action on the Animas-La Plata water project. This conference, led ably by Senators Domenici and Johnston and Congressmen Myers and Bevill, has taken a decisive step toward the expedient completion of the Animas-La Plata water project. In 1868, more than 125 years ago, the Ute Bands signed a treaty with the United States. This treaty entitled the Utes to water. One hundred years later, the Ute Tribes were not receiving their entitlement. Finally, in 1972, the United States filed suit on behalf of the Ute Tribes in an effort to quantify the native Americans' water rights. Mr. President, the Ute Tribes have encountered procedural hurdles and stiff opposition at every turn. Even though the United States promised this water to these tribes, who more than 100 years ago had been relegated by the Federal Government to dry, arid, lands, the fact is that the Utes have not been provided the water that they were clearly entitled to in the middle of the last century. In 1984, events took a turn for the better. All the interested parties, including the Ute Mountain Utes, the Southern Utes, Federal agencies, the States of Colorado and New Mexico, the local water districts, and other involved parties sat down at the negotiating table. They worked together, and within 2 years, in 1986, they came to an agreement on how water would finally be provided to the Utes. Mr. President, I suggest to my colleagues that this was a rare display of cooperation. Water rights disputes in the arid West can be bitter, emotional fights of deep acrimony and enormous economic consequence. The Utes could have asserted their Winters Doctrine priority water rights in a manner that would simply have disrupted the social and economic health of the Four Corners area. Instead, they chose good faith negotiation. And we are not holding up our end. The agreement, in essence, was this: The United States shall provide water to the Ute Tribes, and in return, the Ute Tribes shall defer their precious senior water rights. The Utes surrendered their most valuable tribal asset, in return for which the United States promised to provide water. The United States would provide water not by taking it away from neighboring towns, farms and mines. Rather, the United States would build the Animas-La Plata project so water could be acquired. This project would create an off-stream reservoir, so that it would not be necessary to dam the Animas River, which would in turn supply the Ute Tribes and non-Indians in the region with water. In 1988, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced legislation to implement and ratify this agreement. The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin, and it passed this body without a dissenting vote. After Congress decided to provide water by building the Animas-La Plata project, the Ute Tribes discovered a new and unexpected enemy: The professional environmental advocacy groups of this country. Mr. President, when we passed the Settlement Act in 1988, at that time the Animas-La Plata project had already met, and was in full compliance with, all the requirements of our environmental statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. A final environmental impact statement had already been completed, all the appropriate consultations had occurred, all the necessary permits were in place. When we ordered the Bureau of Reclamation to build the project, we expected the Bureau to do just that. But environmental groups have advanced claim after unfounded claim against this project. Environmental groups contend that more studies and more reviews are needed to complete this project, when in fact, this project has been the focus of years of study and five reports issued pursuant to environmental statutes. This project has been the subject of two separate biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act, an environmental impact statement and a draft supplemental environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, and a section 404(r) permit exemption under the Clean Water Act. This project has been reviewed with a fine-toothed comb, but environmental groups have threatened more years--40 years, to quote one of them--of litigation and delay. Their avowed purpose is to kill the Animas-La Plata project. Mr. President, I have heard talk of alternatives to this project. Opponents of this project suggest that we should consider more alternatives. Any party is free to propose an alternative at any time. Some have even suggested that there may be a viable alternative to the Animas-La Plata project. However, those who claim that we should consider more alternatives are simply seeking to kill this project. They are not interested in providing water to the Ute Tribes as the 1988 Settlement Act requires. If a so-called alternative does not meet all of the terms of the settlement, then it is no alternative at all. Some groups claim they can muster an alternative, but the only proposed alternatives would take water away from parties to the 1986 agreement. Mr. President, that is not an alternative. That is a sham and a dealbreaker. Why does this situation exist? It exists because environmental extremists simply oppose all major water projects --even an off-stream project like this one, designed to minimize environmental impact. They ignore the social, recreational and economic benefits a water project and settlement such as this can bring to an arid Western region. They disagree with the congressional policy decision to meet the water demands of the Ute Indian Tribes and other water consumers. They do not want the Animas-La Plata project to be built, even though that is what Congress has ordered. Because they oppose large water projects, they use environmental statutes as an underhanded subterfuge to tie up projects in court. With crafty attorneys, they can delay a project for years, and maybe even kill it. Mr. President, this is what the environmentalists want. They do not care about economic security or even the unsatisfied water claims of two tribes of native Americans. They will stop at nothing to meet their extreme ideological agenda. Frankly, I am also disappointed that this administration has placed the ideological goals of the Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA ahead of its trust responsibility to native Americans. If the project dies, then this Nation will have again broken its word to native Americans. I urge my colleagues not to follow this shameful path of dishonor and deceit. There are enough of these unfortunate incidents in the history of this Nation's dealings with native Americans. Mr. President, the language before the Senate in the Energy-Water Development Appropriations conference report directs the Secretary of the Interior to proceed, quote, ``without delay'' and construct the Animas-La Plata project. I urge my colleagues to support this action. This project is the best alternative, in the eyes of Congress, to settle this water rights dispute. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Energy-Water Development Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, for his fine efforts on behalf of the Animas-La Plata project. The Senator's efforts are a credit to his uncompromising dedication to the native Americans of Colorado and New Mexico, and I'm sure the people of New Mexico appreciate his service as much as my constituents in Colorado. biofuels energy systems

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, November 16, 1995 at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 873, a bill to establish the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor; S. 944, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Ohio River Corridor Study Commission; S. 945, a bill to amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Act of 1984 to modify the boundaries of the corridor; S. 1020, a bill to establish the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia; S. 1110, a bill to establish guidelines for the designation of National Heritage Areas; S. 1127, a bill to establish the Vancouver National Historic Reserve; and S. 1190, a bill to establish the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor in the State of Ohio. 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. Another issue that has arisen is regarding the relationship between the legislation and the Endangered Species Act. In particular, questions have been raised regarding the effect of the payment of $600,000 by the districts for use as a part of the Colorado River Endangered Species Fish Recovery Program, and whether a section 7 consultation will be required for the transfer. My understanding of the legislation is that it has no effect on the Endangered Species Act, and that no determination has been made regarding the existence of any obligation or liability of the Collbran project or other existing water supply projects in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado with respect to species listed and critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, because the transfer is mandatory, and will not involve any change in project operations or additional review or approval by any Federal agency, there is no need for a section 7 consultation on the transfer.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to confirm with my colleague from Alaska the committee's intent with respect to part E, subpart III of S. 1357, which provides for the sale and transfer of the Collbran project located in western Colorado. This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the Collbran project to the Collbran Conservancy District and Ute Water Conservancy District in the last fiscal quarter of the year 2000 in return for the payment of $12.9 million by the districts to the United States. The transfer to the districts includes the listed facilities and other assets that comprise the Collbran project, but excludes the Vega recreation facilities owned by the United States or the State of Colorado. Several questions have been raised regarding the legislation. First, some have raised a concern that it may include or affect the Plateau Creek pipeline replacement project which has been proposed independently by the Ute Water Conservancy District.