Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the committee chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking member, Senator Nunn, for working with me and with the senior Senator from Colorado to craft an amendment to the bill concerning the Naval Oil Shale Reserves. Section 3302 of the bill before us today would direct the Secretary of Energy to study the Naval Oil Shale Reserves and the Naval Petroleum Reserves, with the exception of the NPR 1 at Elk Hills, for the purpose of determining how the Federal Government, and the U.S. taxpayer, would best be served in the management and disposition of these reserves. I support that goal. Last year the Energy Committee, of which I am a member, passed my bill which would have directly transferred jurisdiction over the Naval Oil Shale Reserves from the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior. Since that time the Armed Services Committee has raised a concern that we may not have the appropriate scale of information to determine how we best maximize the Federal interest in these resources. These are federally owned resources; in these days of tough, difficult decisions on how we reduce the federal deficit, it is critical to me that the Federal interest be protected. I commend the committee for addressing this issue. However I believe that this bill should take the next step. The amendment that I have worked out with the chairman and ranking [[Page S 11318]] member of the Armed Services Committee simply provides the Secretary of Energy with the authority to take that next step and implement whatever course of action is recommended by the study. Indeed, the Department of Energy asked, and I strongly agreed, that the time for endless study of the oil shale reserves must end and we should move expeditiously to develop these resources. I have worked very carefully with the Department of Energy, whose staff requested nearly a dozen changes in the amendment, virtually all of which I made. Under my amendment, three options for disposition of these resources could be considered. The reserves could be competitively leased by the Department of the Interior just the same as the other millions of acres of federally owned, energy resource lands in America. They could be leased by the Department of Energy. And they could be sold by the Department of Energy. Some background may be appropriate. Two executive orders, in 1916 and 1924, withdrew public lands for the purpose of establishing three Naval Oil Shale Reserves. The purpose of the reserves was to ensure the military sufficient oil from the oil shale in the event of a cutoff of strategic oil supplies during a war. Naval Oil Shale Reserve 1 (40,760 acres) and 3 (14,130 acres) are located in northwest Colorado near Rifle, and Naval Oil Shale Reserve 2 (90,400 acres) is in eastern Utah. Ironically, the critical resource within these properties is not oil shale, but natural gas. Profitable development of shale oil currently is considered to be decades away. Management of the reserves was transferred from the Department of the Navy to the Department of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act in 1977. The Department of Energy has a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Land Management to manage the surface resources of the reserves. The reserves located in Colorado are situated on portions of three large natural gas producing fields, the Parachute, Rulison, and Grand Valley, and are estimated to contain substantial natural gas hydrocarbons. There has been significant private natural gas drilling and extraction activity on the southern border of the third reserve since 1978. Since 1980, 277 private wells have been drilled contiguous to the boundaries of Reserve 1 and 2; and through fiscal year 1992, 89 commercial producing gas wells were drilled by private industry within one mile of the boundary of the reserves. The Department of Energy determined in 1983 that the potential existed for drainage of natural gas from the reserves due to the private development outside of the reserves. To prevent drainage of public resources, the Department of Energy began a protection program, drilling 35 offset and communitization wells. According to the Department of Energy's Annual Report of Operations for fiscal year 1992, natural gas production between fiscal years 1977 and 1992 totalled 5.4 billion cubic feet. Revenues from the reserves totalled $5 million between fiscal years 1977 and 1992; expenditures for the same period totalled $24.8 million. Clearly, this is a giant money loser under Department of Energy stewardship. These reserves should be revenue raisers, not simply a black hole for Energy Department spending and bureaucracy. Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, the Secretary of Energy has discretionary authority to undertake certain activities, such as oil and gas development in the reserves, but only as necessary to protect, conserve, maintain or test the reserves. Production for other purposes may take place only with the approval of the President and Congress. That production--for commercial purposes-- is the business we are doing today. Mr. President, I have worked closely with the Department of Energy these past months. The DOE leadership wants very badly to be able to end the study phase and get on with the development phase. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for working with me on an amendment which will move us forward toward the actual development of these important natural resources in my State.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I introduce the National Heritage Act of 1995. Today, most of my colleagues are aware that the opportunity to create new park units is most difficult in light of the current condition of the National Park System. The Park Service, facing a 37-year backlog in construction funding, a 25-year backlog for land acquisition, and a shortfall of over $846 million for park operation and management, is clearly in trouble. However, these difficulties are compounded by the growing popularity in Congress to recognize and designate important areas of our country for inclusion in the National Park System. Over the last 10 years alone, Congress has designated over 30 new units of the Park System. These new additions, while meritorious, have added significantly to this huge backlog of funding facing the agency. It is well known that when you create a new unit, limited fiscal and human resources must be taken away from existing park units. Unfunded and poorly managed parks will only contribute to the continued erosion of the existing Park System. As a result, it can be fairly stated that in our current system new additions can actually hinder rather than enhance the Park Service System. I am aware of approximately 110 areas, some of which have already been introduced in Congress, that may be suitable for inclusion into the Park System as heritage areas. I know of eight areas in my own State of Colorado, that may deserve recognition. However, under the current system, the National Park Service may not be able to afford any new area, no matter how deserved it may be. Thus, the question of how to lighten this overwhelming load on the Park Service, while maintaining Congress' ability to recognize and protect precious areas of our country's heritage is before us. I believe that my legislation will provide the solutions to this problem. National heritage areas can be created and established as an alternative to the traditional National Park Service designation. This can be accomplished in a very cost effective and efficient method, without creating unnecessary Federal management and expense to the taxpayer. My bill, when enacted, will encourage appropriate partnerships among Federal agencies, State, and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector, or combinations thereof, to conserve and manage these important resources. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical assistance and limited grants to State and local governments and private nonprofit organizations, to study and promote the potential for conserving, maintaining, and interpreting these areas for the benefit of all Americans--now and in the future. In addition, this legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to set the standards by which areas may be eligible and designated as national heritage areas. Mr. President, most important, this legislation, when enacted, will empower individuals, groups, and organizations to be true partners with the Federal Government. By giving the groups the decisionmaking authority, as well as a share of the fiscal responsibility, they will be able to maintain local control and ultimate oversight of the very areas they work so hard to save. Who better to manage our natural and cultural heritage, than those who are already going above and beyond their duties as Americans to preserve, restore, and protect these wonderful areas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the benefit of my colleagues.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Brown, in introducing legislation to transfer the Collbran project from the Federal Government to its real owners-- the people who have paid for and own the water produced by this project. This legislation will complete the repayment to the American people the amounts owed by the users of this project. Because this legislation involves a substantial payment from the Collbran and Ute Water Conservancy Districts to the Federal Treasury, this legislation helps us reduce the Federal deficit by a small, but important, amount. Millions of people live, work, and play in Colorado and the other Western States. People are drawn to the rural areas of the West because these communities offer an attractive mix of economic opportunity and access to world-class natural resources. This high quality of life would not exist if it were not for the water and power provided from Federal reclamation projects constructed under the 1902 Reclamation Act. The original vision of the Reclamation Act was that Congress would facilitate the construction of locally sponsored and locally controlled projects. Congress achieved this result by providing financing for these projects, subject to the requirement that a local entity repay the Federal investment in the irrigation portion of the project, and that power users in the West repay the remaining costs of the project. Congress explicitly stated the water rights for reclamation projects were to be obtained in accordance with State law, and Federal courts have consistently ruled that the real owners of the water from reclamation projects are the people who put the water to beneficial use. The important point is that Federal ownership of these projects was always for the purpose of ensuring that the Federal investment was repaid; the Federal partnership in reclamation of the west was never intended to perpetuate Federal control over the use of land and water at the local level. Water from reclamation projects allowed the development of irrigated agriculture, which provides an important complement to other industries such as mining, recreation, and tourism. Power from reclamation projects was and is an important part of extending the benefits of electricity beyond cities to people in the country. In short, the Reclamation Act has achieved its primary goal--the development of healthy and stable communities throughout the West. While there is a continuing obligation to honor previous Federal commitments to complete reclamation projects, it is now time to reassess the Federal involvement in those projects which have been completed. In particular, the Federal Government should not be spending scarce resources on the operation and maintenance of projects when the project beneficiaries have or will repay all of their financial obligations to the United States. In these cases, the Federal Government should transfer the project to the local beneficiaries, subject to the requirement that the project continue to be operated for the purposes for which it was authorized. The Collbran project meets these criteria. The project was authorized in 1952 for agricultural and municipal purposes, and included a power component. The project provides an important water supply for irrigated lands in the Collbran Conservancy District. In addition, the water released from the project provides an important domestic water supply for over 55,000 people in the Grand Valley served by the Ute Water Conservancy District. This legislation requires the districts to pay the net present value of the revenues which the United States would otherwise receive from the project, plus a premium of $2,000,000 and a significant contribution to promote additional protection for the Colorado River ecosystem. The Federal goals of the project have been attained. It is now appropriate to transfer the project to the districts, with the United States retaining only its commitment to the State of Colorado on recreational facilities. This legislation not only establishes a good precedent for transfer of projects to reduce the Federal debt, but also fulfills the original vision of the 1902 Reclamation Act by ensuring that the project will continue to be used to benefit the people and communities for whom it was built.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to share with you the story of Marla Garber, a free spirit who rode the length and breadth of the United States on her motorcycle accompanied only by her dog Skooter. She was a remarkable young woman; one of those ``rugged individualists,'' constantly seeking adventure in her life and traveling into the depths of the country in her pursuit of it. She shared the stories of the fascinating people she met on her journey's and the memories of the places she had seen with much of the American public, writing for several motorcycle magazines. In this way, she was able to leave her mark on society and the people of the country. Marla Garber was a woman of vision and strength, a pioneer in her time. A friend of hers described her as one of those who ``followed their callings to and beyond the ends of the known world and came back overflowing with stories of strange places * * * and wondrous things they'd seen.'' Marla Garber was unique for this day and age, and I admire her spirit. We all suffer from her loss, as surely as we all benefitted from having her among us.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the majority leader's resolution to lift the arms embargo. I do not make this decision lightly, and I have no illusions that our vote today will do anything to stop this conflict. In fact, we can be sure that lifting the arms embargo will intensify the fighting and lead to more pain and suffering. I do not see what other choice we have, though. The U.N. peacekeeping force has failed to defend the misnamed ``safe havens'' or to protect Bosnians from Serb aggression, and the most honorable thing we can do is allow the Bosnians to defend themselves. I will be the first to admit, Mr. President, that I did not expect Bosnia to become such a difficult and divisive issue for our country. When communism collapsed and the walls fell in 1989, I was as excited as anyone over the end of the cold war and the prospect of a world finally at peace. I expected that old ethnic and national tensions would flare up, but I figured that European and U.N. diplomacy and a few peacekeepers could handle the job, with limited U.S. involvement. The United States had just won a 40-year-long cold war, and we deserved to rest on our laurels. So when this conflict first started in 1991 after Slovenia and Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia, like most Americans, I barely took notice of it. I supported the creation of the U.N. Protection Force [UNPROFOR] in February 1992, and I did not argue with UNPROFOR's extension to Bosnia in June 1992, putting my faith in efforts to cobble together a political settlement. But this wound refuses to heal. Instead it festers, fed by historical conflicts and prejudices reaching back 500 years. I worry that this gangrenous conflict threatens to contaminate all of Europe. As this conflict continued to worsen and Bosnians continued to suffer, I still held out hope for reason to prevail over aggression and imperialism. Last July, I voted against this very same resolution to lift the arms embargo. I wanted to give the administration more time to pursue a multilateral agreement on the arms embargo, and negotiators more time to find an agreement the Serbs would accept. In the past year, the situation only got worse. This civil war cost the lives of several U.N. peacekeepers, and almost killed a brave American pilot. The Serbs continue to press their attacks, to ethnically cleanse by driving Bosnians out of their homes, and to kill civilians by shelling Bosnian safe areas. The only honorable thing to do is to admit that without unrestrained military commitments, U.N. peacekeepers cannot stop the Serbs, and let the Bosnians begin to fight Serbs on equal terms. Regardless of the final wording of this legislation, I hope we all accept our commitment to helping U.N. peacekeepers withdraw from Bosnia, if necessary, with the massive involvement of United States ground troops. Senator Dole set forth a set of reasonable guidelines on the use of U.S. forces in a withdrawal, designed to reduce risks, which I support. But despite the risks, it is our responsibility as a member of NATO to help our allies save their people stuck in Bosnia. Mr. President, this is not a political or partisan issue for me. I think our Defense Secretary, Secretary Perry, called this legislation the ``lift-and-pray'' option, and that is as good a description as any. This difficult situation has no easy solutions, and highlights our own difficulties in coming to grips with the realities of a post-cold-war world. It seems like the new world order looks a lot like old world disorder. As much as anybody, I want peace in Bosnia--but not a peace bought with the wholesale slaughter of Bosnians by Serbs. It is time to admit that we do not have the answers here, and to do the only honorable thing--let the Bosnians get weapons they need to fight for their homes and their lives.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation. The hearing will take place Saturday, July 29, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Scott Hart Auditorium of the Department of Agriculture Building in Helena, MT. 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. 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, 304 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 in strong support of the amendment by the Senator from Montana. Count me in among those who believe that there are serious problems with the superfund program and the Energy Department cleanup program. It is plain to me that we are spending a lot more money, and a lot more time, on lawyers and bureaucracy than we are on getting these cleanups underway. I agree that the superfund program is not working, and I think we need to make major changes to make it work better. But not at the price of further delay and further bureaucracy that will delay these cleanups even longer. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal outside of Denver was used for years as a production facility for chemical munitions by the Defense Department. Since the 1950's it was used to produce pesticides. The defense department and the Shell Oil Co. left a pretty tough mess. In 1984 the site was listed as a national superfund site, and it is now more than a decade that the site has been under study, and significant cleanup has already occurred to resolve immediate threats to human health and the environment. Just last month a conceptual agreement was reached on a final cleanup plan at the arsenal. That agreement must go through the public comment process and a final decision should be made by early next year. If this amendment is not accepted, the door will be open to anyone to file a new challenge to this long, tortuously negotiated accord based on the new rights created under this bill to seek additional cost benefit and risk analysis studies. Some Senators may be familiar with the Summitville mine disaster; since that mining company declared bankruptcy and left my State with a massive cleanup problem, we've seen decisions made and cleanup projects begun. Again, I don't want this bill to be the cause of any further delay in getting this critical work underway. I have other, tough cleanup problems in my State, at Leadville, at Clear Creek, and many other sites. I want this program to work better, and I'll be supporting major changes in the program when we consider reauthorization later this year. As any of my colleagues who are involved with superfund know, that process takes too long and our constituents get very frustrated when they see a lot of planning and not much actual cleanup. I don't want to extend that process even a day longer than necessary, and so I urge my colleagues to support the Baucus amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on an article which appeared in the June 29, 1995, issue of the Washington Post, regarding the Animas La Plata water storage project in my home State of Colorado. There were a great many omissions in that article which, unfortunately, created a false impression that the Animas La Plata project was unneeded, which I consider to be very unfair and certainly untrue. It is especially appropriate that I respond to that article and the false impression it created, since the House of Representatives is taking up the Interior appropriations bill this week. I trust that my colleagues in the House will be advised of my comments today. In fairness to the Washington Post, I will presume that its editors were simply unaware of several key considerations which mandate the Federal Government's full support of this crucial project. Otherwise, it would appear that the Post is knowingly joining in a deliberate misinformation campaign on the part of high-dollar environmental groups seeking to describe the Animas La Plata as one of the last great dam projects to be built in the American West. There is no dam on the Animas River. There is no dam on the La Plata River and there is none planned. There is, however, a small, off-river dam proposed on a small arroyo which is necessary to create a water storage reservoir. The entire project entails a pumping plant, nothing more, on the bank of the Animas River at Durango, CO. Under the project plan, water could be pumped out of the river and into the Ridges Basin Reservoir. Pumping would cease if the water level reaches a certain minimum flow necessary to protect fish. Most water would be pumped during flood stages. The fact is that the Ute Indian Tribes own the senior water rights to the Animas, La Plata, and Florida River systems--as well as four other rivers--by virtue of various treaties with the U.S. Government. These treaty rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States when disputes have arisen in other States. Those disputes took the form of expensive and protracted litigation in the Federal courts. The tribes and the water districts chose negotiation over litigation. Rather than engage in expensive and divisive legal battles, the tribes and the citizens of Colorado and New Mexico chose to pursue a negotiated settlement. The Ute Nations agreed to share their water with all people. The people came together in partnership and cooperation with the Federal Government to reach a mutually beneficial solution: the Animas La Plata project. Their settlement agreement [[Page S 9648]] was executed on December 10, 1986. The Settlement Act was ratified by Congress and signed into law on November 3, 1988. The Settlement Act is Federal law: the law of the land. It also provided a cost-sharing agreement. The water districts and the States of Colorado and New Mexico have ``put their money where their mouth is'' and have already lived up to the terms of these agreements: First, the State of Colorado has: Committed $30 million to the settlement of the tribes' water rights claims; Has expended $6 million to construct a domestic pipeline from the Cortez municipal water treatment plant to the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation at Towaoc; and Has contributed $5 million to the tribal development funds. Second, the U.S. Congress has appropriated and turned over to the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes $49.5 million as part of their tribal development funds, and Third, water user organizations have signed repayment contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. The construction of the Animas La Plata project is the only missing piece to the successful implementation of the settlement agreement and the Settlement Act. It is time that the U.S. Government kept its commitment to the people. Historically, this country has chosen to ignore its obligations to our Indian people. Members of the Ute Tribe had been living in a state of poverty that can only be described as obscene. Their only source of drinking water was from ditches dug in the ground. I find it most distressing that the same groups and special interests who are now scrambling to block this project also, in other contexts, hold themselves out as the only real defenders of minority rights in this country. Hogwash. This project would provide adequate water reserves to not only the Ute Nation, but to people in southwestern Colorado, northern New Mexico, and other downstream users who rely on this water system for a variety of crucial needs which range from endangered species protection to safe drinking water in towns and cities--perhaps even filling swimming pools for some of our critics. Opponents of the Animas La Plata project have alleged that the Bureau of Reclamation [BUREC], has not adequately analyzed alternative projects. That is not true. BUREC has performed a thorough analysis of all reasonable alternatives. No new circumstances exist which require reevaluation of the prior alternatives studies. Exhaustive studies, involving extensive public participation have demonstrated that there is no realistic alternative to the Animas La Plata project. This public alternatives process involved an advisory team consisting of representatives of all of the entities potentially interested in receiving water from the project and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the San Juan Ecological Society. The advisory team met 11 times in a 2\1/2\-year period. In addition, 10 other public meetings were held with specific groups during that same period. The advisory team evaluated alternatives by comparing critical items for each alternative; alternatives were eliminated until the best overall plan was identified. Critical items included: impact on wildlife habitat, fisheries, any potential visual degradation, conservation impacts, construction costs, operation costs, water conservation, river flows for rafting and fishery protection, power usage, recreation, impact on national historic monuments, and others. Over 60 reservoir sites were identified by the team, approximately 20 in the La Plata River drainage and the remainder in the Animas River drainage. The best potential site in the La Plata River drainage is the Southern Ute Reservoir site included in the 1979 Definite Plan Report [DPR]. The Ridges Basin Reservoir site was determined to be the best site in the Animas River drainage from an engineering and environmental perspective. In both La Plata County, CO, and San Juan County, NM, public elections were held on Reclamation's decision to move forward with the A/LP project. All of the so-called current objections were raised and discussed in public forums during the course of the election campaigns in those communities, including the following issues: no analysis of alternatives, adverse impact on rafting, no water for the Indians, reduced flows in the Animas River, ability of farmers to pay for water, effect on wetlands, and the impact on trout and elk habitat. At the end of the process, the general public voted overwhelmingly, on December 8, 1987, in La Plata County, CO, and on April 17, 1990, in San Juan County, NM, to endorse Reclamation's construction of the A/LP project. In a last ditch effort, two environmental organizations, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, again raised ``environmental concerns.'' Additional meetings were held to address those unstated concerns and the groups simply decided not to show up. When asked why, they just responded that they would ``get back to us.'' They never did. Since then, they have chosen to simply funnel money into opposition campaigns. These groups have no real suggestions to make. They simply believe themselves to be somehow more pure, environmentally, than anyone else. The only alternative these groups suggest is to ``buy off'' the Indians. Of course, the proposed ``buy off'' would be funded by hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars but the groups do not care about that. The Animas La Plata project is a good deal for the taxpayers. The Southern Ute Indians and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes have rejected the buyout proposals. Just like everyone else in our country, they simply want decent and reliable water supplies--using their own water--for their people. In exchange, all the people of the area will benefit. Opponents are apparently willing to spend even more tax dollars to ``buy off'' the Indians than it would cost to complete the project. So, as the Washington Post suggested, there are, indeed, ``politics'' behind the Animas La Plata controversy. I would suggest, however, the political ``games'' are not being played by project supporters, but rather by a few elite and select high dollar special interest groups--``beltway environmentalists''--and their ensconced cronies in the Department of the Interior and the EPA. It is time to end the trail of broken treaties and fulfill our commitments. Great nations, like great people, keep their words of honor. I implore my colleagues in the House to help us keep our word to the people of Colorado and New Mexico. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this morning, the leader time has been reserved, and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 9:45 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. At 9:45 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. Rollcall votes can be expected throughout today's session of the Senate. Also, the Senate will be in recess between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CAMPBELL. A further question. The Senator mentioned a drunken driver. Let me see if I have the scenario right and maybe the Senator can inform me. Let us say there is a man driving down the road and is dead drunk and runs over 10 people. One he happens to run over is a motorcyclist parked by a stop sign who does not have a helmet on. The drivers are also injured in all these wrecks. As I understand the Hutchison amendment, the drunk that runs over the 10 people is going to get Medicaid, if he needs it, because he is injured, but the guy he ran over who was just sitting there will not because he does not have a helmet. Is that the way the Senator from Maine reads it, too?

Mr. CAMPBELL. In my opinion, this opens up Pandora's box of amendments we do not want to deal with. I have to tell you, as I understand the amendment of the Senator from Texas, it would deny Medicaid to people who are not wearing a helmet. I am going to prepare an amendment to hers, if it is adopted, that simply would require Medicaid for everybody who is riding with a helmet, if we are going to open up that Pandora's box. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator further yield? I know the Senator from Maine has a pretty considerable background of law. I do not. Does the Senator also see this as a singling out of one class of people that could question the constitutionality of the amendment?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President. They say here on some bills that everything that can be said about an issue has been said, but not every Senator has said it. Yesterday we were in debate well over 2 hours on the Smith amendment. I would like to point out there was a very clear difference. We had some people yesterday who said that if the amendment did not deal with seatbelts, they thought they could support it. I would like my colleagues to know that the Snowe amendment does only deal with helmets and, in fact, does not repeal anything. It simply stops the blackmailing by the Federal Government of States to pass mandatory helmet laws. In my opinion, the 25 States out of compliance are not going to change. A number of States have repeatedly voted down mandatory helmet laws, as has our State of Colorado. I think they will continue to do so. If a Senator is from a State that is out of compliance, I think the Senator will be asked by constituents, when they go home, why did that Senator vote to continue penalizing a State if that Senator did not support the Snowe amendment? Why did Senators take the right away from citizens in their own State to make that choice? Those States include Alaska, they will be penalized over $2 million, $2.7 million; Arizona will be penalized over $2 million; my State of Colorado will be penalized $1.9 million; Connecticut will be penalized $2.3 million; Delaware, $735,000. I will read all of them so those Senators who may not know if their State is out of compliance or not, will know at the end of this. Hawaii will be penalized $1.334 million; Illinois, $6.12 million; Indiana, $2.934 million; Kansas, $1.6 million; Maine, $853,000; Minnesota, $2.192 million; Montana, $1.6 million; New Hampshire, $800,000; New Mexico, $1.9 million; North Dakota, over $1.1 million; Ohio, over $4.6 million; Oklahoma, $1.9 million; Rhode Island, $700,000; South Carolina, over $1.734 million; South Dakota, $1.1 million; Utah, $1.69 million; Wisconsin, the State from which we just had the letter introduced in the Record, Governor Thompson's State, penalized $2.4 million, yet they have repeatedly voted down mandatory helmet laws; and Wyoming, your State, Mr. President, will be penalized over $1 million if the Snowe amendment does not pass. My State of Colorado has no helmet law. We had one until 1977. Have not had it since then. The Colorado State Legislature has repeatedly refused any attempt to implement one. The last time it was up, it lost in committee by 6 to 1. We do not need the U.S. Senate or any Federal agency second-guessing our legislature on that issue. Yet that is exactly what we are doing in Colorado and the other 24 State legislatures if this amendment is not adopted. I do not think there is any question that helmet laws do not prevent accidents, nor do they make safer drivers. For the 14-year period between 1977 and 1990, States with mandatory helmet laws had 12.5 percent more accidents and 2.3 percent more fatalities than did States that did not have mandatory helmet usage. In the past decade, motorcycle fatalities have decreased 38 percent and accidents have plummeted 41 percent. I think those figures are particularly impressive because the Federal Highway Administration estimates that the average vehicle miles traveled by motorcyclists has increased 85 percent since 1975. These statistics are unmatched in any other category of road user, passenger, or commercial. The opponents of the Snowe amendment will tell you the reason those numbers of deaths and injuries have gone down is because of mandatory helmet laws. We disagree. We believe in most cases they have gone down because we have better trained riders, that through rider education training throughout America we simply are getting more people who are riding that understand the dangers and are better riders. What can account for the decrease in accident fatalities? Evidence clearly indicates that the most effective way to reduce motorcycle accidents is through comprehensive education programs. Many of us think, in fact, it should be established in the schools just as driver education is for automobiles. Currently, 42 States have established and funded some sort of safety programs. They have done that without the Federal Government mandating that they do so. The national average of motorcycle fatalities per 100 accidents is 2.95 per 100. States with rider education programs and no helmet laws, however, have the lowest death rate, 2.56 fatalities per 100 accidents. States with mandatory helmet laws and no rider training have a significantly higher rate of 3.09 fatalities per 100 accidents. We are talking on the floor almost every day about Federal mandates. I do not remember the exact vote, but some [[Page S 8748]] months ago we overwhelmingly passed the unfunded mandates bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate in which we basically said we heard from our constituents across America who said, ``Get the Government somewhat out of our business and curtail some of the mandates you are making in the U.S. Congress that forces States to do things against their will.'' Many believe in part that message in the last election was almost all about getting Government reduced in size and out of our personal decisions. I happened to see a license plate the other day from the State of my friend, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, that I thought was rather interesting. It was a license plate made by the State of New Hampshire. On the license plate it says, ``Live Free Or Die.'' That may sound a little arcane in this day and age, but the fact of the matter is many Americans still believe they have enough Government imposed on them and they should be able to make more decisions in their own private lives. While it can be argued that mandating these things would be good for America's citizens--and I am sure some of the opponents of the Snowe amendment may so argue--is it right to have the Federal Government intrude in our lives to the extent they tell us how to dress for recreational pursuits? I think that is absolutely wrong, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Snowe amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That was the point I was going to make. Is it my colleague's belief, as it is mine, that people who pay into the highway users trust fund under the gasoline tax, whether it is Texas or Maine or Colorado or wherever, if they have the right to get that money back unfettered? They paid it in. Do they have a right to get it back without us putting a whole bunch of strings attached to it before they get their money back?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The Senator from Texas referred several times to Federal funding. Is it the belief of the Senator from Maine, as it is mine, that there is no funding here, that this money that is here comes from the taxpayers?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, not without my colleague. I would like to retain my time. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey is still here. Senator Lautenberg talked about missions and our mission here. I can say that missions change, because when the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit was implemented, it was not to save lives. It was to save gasoline--everyone knows that--because of the energy crunch. Somehow the mission changed as people began to look at their relationship to speed and safety. Missions change. I would like to point out what I guess in my old-fashioned way is still considered to be the original mission of this body, and that was to uphold the Constitution. As I read the 10th amendment--not having the background and a lot of the legal skills as some of my colleagues do--the 10th amendment still says: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' There is nothing here that says we will mandate helmet laws. Nothing says we will be punitive and deduct money that they paid in their gas tax if they do not comply with some kind of an arbitrary rule we set back here. It does not say anything like that. It says we will not take away the States' rights to decide. That is the original mission. That is why we are here. I think that the Hutchison amendment opens up a Pandora's box of any further amendments. If her amendment passes, it can be amended. Is somebody going to offer an amendment that, if they do not have a helmet, we do away with their food stamps? Or we do away with their farm subsidies? If they are not wearing a helmet, they will not receive money under the crime bill? The list can be endless. That is why this amendment is a killer amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment or to table it when that motion is offered. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I tell you, with all deference to my friend and colleague, Senator Hutchison, for whom I have great admiration and respect, I think, very frankly, this is a terrible amendment. First of all, if we are trying to deal with helmet use, we do not want to fool around with the money that goes through our Medicare system to States. I think it is a real mistake to open up that issue because we would have to have a whole bunch of amendments dealing with that. I can tell you that I am not a constitutional attorney, but I think when you discriminate against one class of people, when you tell them that they will be denied funding under these programs because they do not wear helmets, but they will not be denied the same money if they get injured through any other kind of pursuits. I think in the courts it would be fairly unconstitutional. I look forward to finding that out, if this amendment does pass. Second, I do not know where it would leave the 25 States that are not in compliance now. Are we going to tell millions, if not hundreds of millions of Americans, in those 25 States that we are going to add another burden and we refuse to grant them some kind of Federal help under these services if they do not comply with the mandatory helmets under ISTEA? So I just tell you, I think it is a terrible mistake, and opens up a can of worms that could be amended further and further dealing with all kinds of recreational pursuits. I hope that my colleagues will reject it. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. He enjoys great respect in this body and is looked to by many of the Members for his leadership. I think he has spoken in very clear terms on what this debate is all about. It is really a State rights issue. An implication has been made that if we repeal this mandatory section of ISTEA, there is going to be a pell-mell rush by States to repeal whatever they have in place now. Some States have helmet laws for everyone; some have it for 18 and under; some have it for under 1 year of experience. It is a hodgepodge of things now. Very clearly, 25 States do not have full compliance. I do not see them changing. I think that in a number of States, they have dealt with this over and over, and they simply see this as a Federal blackmail system, and they are not going to give up. I can tell my colleagues on the other side of this issue that I do not intend to give up, and I am sure Senator Snowe will not. The people who believe in States rights and the 10th amendment will not give up. We talked almost 3 hours on this issue yesterday, and another 2 hours today. I say to my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, that I am willing to stay here all night, and I am sure others are, too. I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island if he will consider some kind of a time agreement on which we can end this debate and have a vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota added an element that has not been discussed, and that is the financial implications. I point out--he probably already knows this--according to the South Dakota Tourism Council, motorcyclists put $57 million a year into the South Dakota economy. Three years ago, a study was done by the town of Sturgis that he mentioned, at which about 150,000 to 200,000 people show up every summer for a big celebration. The Chamber of Commerce did a study of the people that were there 3 years ago, and they asked the people that came to South Dakota if they would come back to South Dakota to Sturgis if the State of South Dakota had a mandatory helmet law. I do not have the exact statistics, but the number was very close to 50 percent said they would not come back to South Dakota if they passed a mandatory helmet law. There are a lot of other elements to the financial picture, too. My friend from Rhode Island mentioned California--he mentioned that several times--and the reduction of deaths after helmets were introduced. What he failed to mention was that it was also at the same time that the same training that my colleague from South Dakota went through was implemented and expanded in California. It is one of the leading States for motorcycle training. So deaths also went down because of the training. In addition to that, he also failed to mention in the 3-year period of time, registrations of new motorcycles in California dropped by 50 percent. There were simply fewer people riding fewer miles, so that also would have an impact on the injuries and deaths. I point that out because it is something that has not been discussed in this whole debate about choice. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. If the Senator can speak on his own time. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Colorado Department of Transportation that lists the three highest priorities for the Colorado Department of Transportation, one being the repeal of the mandatory section of ISTEA which the Snowe amendment does. I would like to point out again for my friends who are watching this debate in their offices on television, this is not a question of whether you should or should not, as my colleague implies. It is a question of who makes the decision, whether it should be done in the U.S. Senate or whether it should be done at the State level. There also is no question that we are getting sidetracked a little bit, because it seems to me that his statements imply that somehow helmets prevent accidents. They do not. They do not prevent accidents. They may prevent some deaths, but clearly we have a number of studies also that say rider education training prevents more. So somewhere along the line, we have to define what it is we are talking about, and we are not talking about whether you should or should not, we are talking about who makes the decision. I do not want to monopolize the time. I see my colleague from South Dakota on the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I make any comments, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry. If the Hutchison amendment is adopted, then is this further subjected to a second-degree? Does this become a first-degree?