Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, on January 26, 1915, Congress passed legislation creating a 265,726-acre Rocky Mountain National Park. In 1892, long before the park was created, the town of Grand Lake established a small, less than 5-acre community cemetery that lies barely 1,000 feet inside the western edge of the park. Apparently, in the early 1950's, the National Park Service took notice of the cemetery and issued the town a formal special use permit, which has been renewed over the years. In 1991, Rocky Mountain National Park apparently informed the town of Grand Lake that it would issue one final 5-year special use permit. This 103-year-old cemetery has become part of the community's heritage. Grand Lake residents have very strong emotional and personal attachments to it and need to be assured of its continued use and designation as a cemetery. The current permit is due to expire in 1996. All parties have agreed that a more permanent solution was needed to meet the needs of the community and the resource preservation and protection intended by the establishment of the park. Existing measures available to the National Park Service, including special use permit authority, do not provide for a permanent solution that satisfies both the park and the community. In addition, special uses apparently can only be permitted for a maximum period of 5 years. Given that the town and park agree that the small cemetery is a permanent use, continued renewal of a 5-year permit is not a realistic solution. In an effort to avoid future difficulties, park and town representatives have agreed that this legislation would offer the best solution to this problem. Authorizing the continued existence of the cemetery with specific size and boundaries within the park also protects park resources. The community has expressed a strong willingness and desire to assume responsibility for permanent management of the cemetery. This legislation would authorize the development of an agreement to turn maintenance responsibilities for the cemetery and road over to the town, resulting in a financial savings to the park. It also recognizes the cultural significance of the cemetery and its strong ties with the history of the Grand Lake area, which includes the story of Rocky Mountain National Park. This legislation would negate the need for repeated negotiations between the community and the National Park Service, and the chance for misunderstandings. The National Park Service and Grand Lake representatives have worked long and hard on developing this proposal. Enactment of this legislation would go a long way in maintaining and enhancing the spirit of cooperation and goodwill between park and community that has been achieved during the development of this resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. When we began this debate, I spoke on the floor in favor of this constitutional amendment as a means to ensure a strong economy and protect our children from rising interest payments and the debt. There is no doubt that passage of this amendment will raise our Nation's savings rate and standard of living. Today, I speak in favor of the amendment because I believe the American people and the States have the right to make the decision to either approve or reject the balanced budget amendment. It's often repeated on this floor that the American people want this constitutional amendment. Most surveys show that about 80 percent of Americans favor it. Likewise, Governors and Realizing that the American people want this, and that a general feeling of frustration and distrust exists among voters, we should hand it to States and ask, ``Do you really want a balanced budget or not?'' We should bring the debate closer to the people, to the States. States have a profound interest in this legislation because their budgets will be affected. Of the 50 States, 44 rely on the Federal Government for at least one-fifth of their budgets. Alabama relies on Federal funds for 58 percent of its budget, and Mississippi relies on Federal funds for 41 percent of its budget. If elected officials in the States are worried that the sky will fall under a balanced budget, as so many have predicted, they can vote against the Amendment in the State legislatures. On the other hand, if the States think a balanced budget is necessary to ensure a strong economy and protect our children from rising interest payments and the debt, they can vote for the amendment in the State legislatures. Opponents claim a constitutional amendment is bad policy, and that the voters are not ready for the necessary spending cuts. If that is true, let the American people and the State legislatures reject it. A recent editorial in the Durango Herald, a newspaper that actually opposes the constitutional amendment, yet realizes the need to get our fiscal house in order, says, ``Since it's clear this thing is not going to just wander off and die, let's get on with it'' and approve it so the States can decide. The point is that this debate will not end until it is won or lost. This debate will not end until the States have the opportunity to either approve or reject the balanced budget amendment. In other words, to quote the Durango Herald, ``Let's get on with it.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Durango Herald be printed in the Record. Thank you.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on legislation I introduced last week entitled the ``Native American Financial Services Organization Act,'' S. 436. This legislative initiative is the culmination of extensive deliberations between officials from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury, the USDA, members of my staff, and staff of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The primary purpose of the Native American Financial Services Organization Act is to begin to look at innovative funding mechanisms to address the critical housing needs prevalent in most native American communities. The cornerstone of this legislation is the establishment of a native American Financial Services Organization as a limited-government chartered corporation that would have the authority to: Assist native American communities to create local financial institutions that will attract capital investment in housing and economic development in Indian communities. And, to develop and provide specialized technical assistance on how to overcome barriers to primary mortgage lending on native American lands, such as issues relating to trust lands, discrimination, and inapplicability of standard underwriting criteria. As a matter of consistency this legislation is intended to supplement, not duplicate, the efforts of any other government- sponsored enterprise or organization. Through a cooperative agreement with the Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund established in the Riegle Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement Act, the Native American Financial Services Organization will provide technical assistance to native American financial institutions pursuant to the provisions of the CDFI fund. Mr. President, last week Secretary Cisneros testified before the Committee on Indian Affairs. In his remarks, he discussed HUD's reinvention blueprint for native American programs in the context of overall HUD reorganization. I was particularly impressed with his commitment to revitalize and reorganize the Department of Housing and Urban Development so that local communities, and in this instance Indian communities, are further empowered to administer housing programs with greater flexibility. In addition to consolidating many existing programs into funds, which will be administered as block grants, the Secretary reiterated his commitment to seek out alternative, innovative funding mechanisms that could be a catalyst for supplementing existing Federal dollars with greater private investment. Mr. President, as the Chair is probably aware, housing on Indian reservations is terrible. The existing housing conditions prevalent in many Indian reservation communities are so bad an estimated 50,000 families are in need of new homes. And further, according to a study completed by the Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, the total backlog of needed homes approaches 5,500 or an estimated cost of $460 million. I think it is realistic to say that under our current fiscal constraints, Congress will probably not be able to appropriate the necessary funding to meet such a large backlog of basic housing needs. It is for this very reason that I believe the Native American Financial Services Organization Act is a viable solution to existing housing crisis in our Indian reservation communities. I want to thank my colleagues Senator McCain, Senator Inouye, and Senator Daschle for cosponsoring this important legislative initiative and look forward to its speedy passage.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about another bill, but I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague from Alaska on our energy crisis and would like to associate myself with his comments. I know, as does he, that we are more dependent now, I guess, than at any time in our history on foreign oil. And anyone who thinks that the war in the gulf was anything other than a war over oil is being naive. I think, as my friend from Alaska, that trading the blood of American soldiers is a pretty darned poor trade for oil. But clearly, if we do not have some kind of coherent energy policy and if we do not move to develop our resources, we are destined to do more battle on foreign lands. It also is interesting to me to note that when we do have public hearings about developing America's natural resources, some of the people who protest the development show up in automobiles getting about 4 miles to the gallon. At any rate, I look forward to working with the chairman on trying to enhance production of American resources.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation entitled the Native American Financial Services Organization Act. I am pleased to add my distinguished colleagues, the chairman and vice- chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye, and Senator Daschle, as cosponsors of this important legislation. Mr. President, there is a continued need for assistance to improve the housing conditions that exist in many Indian reservation communities, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian communities. Statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated in 1993 that as many as 90,000 native American families were in need of improved housing and nearly 50,000 families need new homes. Further, a study completed by the Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, found that housing shortages and deplorable living conditions are at crisis proportions in many native American communities. In its study the commission documented several obstacles that stand between Indian people and affordable, adequate, and available housing. The Commission found there is currently little, if any, conventional lending available to native people seeking to purchase a home. In addition, many Indian housing authorities lack the expertise to manage, coordinate, and maintain viable programs. And importantly, tribal governments have had to rely primarily on Federal Government grant and loan programs to finance housing and economic development projects. As a result of the study, the Commission recommended the creation of an entity that could serve as an intermediary financing institution with the authority to package mortgage loans, provide technical assistance, and serve as a clearinghouse of information for alternative financing programs. Mr. President, the Native American Financial Services Organization Act is the culmination of extensive deliberations between officials from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Treasury, the USDA, members of my staff, and staff of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of this legislation is to create a financial infrastructure for commercial financing opportunities by and for Indian people. The primary mechanism that will bridge Indian tribes with the commercial lending markets will be the creation of a Native American Financial Services Organization. The Native American Financial Services Organization would establish a limited Government-chartered corporation. A Federal grant would capitalize the federally chartered organization, which would cease to exist upon a designated date. At that point the charter would become a private corporation. More specifically, the legislation is designed to: First, establish and organize native American community lending institutions, that will be called Native American Financial Institutions. These lending institutions could be any type of financial institution, including community banks, credit unions and saving banks, that together, could provide a wide range of financial services; Second, develop and provide financial expertise and technical assistance to the Native American Financial Institutions, including methods of underwriting, securing, and selling mortgage and small commercial and consumer loans; and Third, develop and provide specialized technical assistance on how to overcome barriers to primary mortgage lending on native American lands, including issues related to trust lands, discrimination, and inapplicability of standard underwriting criteria. Importantly, this legislation will work in conjunction with the Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund established in the Reigle Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement Act, signed into law by the President last year. Under a cooperative agreement with the CDFI fund, this legislation will provide technical assistance and other services to Native American Financial Institutions. This week, Secretary Cisneros testified before the Committee on Indian Affairs. In his remarks, he stated that this legislation will ``neither conflict nor duplicate the functions of CDFI or any other Government-sponsored enterprise, but is intended to supplement the efforts of existing organizations.'' In short, the Native American Financial Services Organization would help provide financial independence to the native American community and would begin to address the housing deficiencies by working to attract private capital into the Indian housing market. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by making reference to a letter I recently received from the chairperson of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, that I believe illustrates the great necessity for this legislation. The letter states that the shortage of housing in the community is so severe that among the approximately 1,500 tribal members, 400 are without a permanent home and that a waiting list for new housing approaches 300 people. It is for this reason, that I believe the Native American Financial Services Organization is much needed. Statistics such as this merit the need for an innovative financing mechanism the Native American Financial Services Organization can provide. Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record immediately following the full text of my statement and that the statements of Senators McCain and Inouye, who are both original cosponsors, appear in the Record immediately following the bill. I also ask unanimous consent to include letters from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Native American Indian Housing Council, and HUD's Secretary Henry Cisneros to be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the amendment introduced by my friend, the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid] and my other distinguished colleagues on this side. Social Security, as well as Medicare, has been one of the more successful government-run programs in the history of this country. Every hard-working, taxpaying American participates in these programs-- we all have a vested interest in the Social Security program whether we are present or future beneficiaries. As it stands now, Social Security is set up to go bankrupt in 2029. Only a few years ago, the Social Security program was projected to go broke in 2036. I acknowledge the fact that Social Security may be on the caboose of this balanced budget train because of its current surplus versus other more problematic programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but this program is still connected to the budget as a whole. This Senator believes Social Security is vital to a high quality of life for all Americans. It is my belief that the Senators who are offering this amendment are doing so because they, too, believe Social Security is vital to our Nation. There are indications that an exemption for Social Security is the only way to get the balanced budget amendment through the Senate. As a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, I hope that is not the case. Even so, to keep one of the largest programs in the country out of the balanced budget discussion is fiscally irresponsible and wrong. It is wrong because it would provide constitutional protection to a single statutory program--Social Security. The Constitution should not be used for this purpose. There are sound reasons to consider ways to keep Social Security solvent beyond 2029 in the coming years. Codifying Social Security in the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from considering anything that may in fact be intended to preserve Social Security for the future. The Constitution is not the place to set budget priorities, nor to enshrine statutes passed by Congress. Congress can exempt Social Security through statute. I would also ask why not, if Social Security, any other worthy program? The argument that Americans have paid into Social Security and should not be denied getting those benefits rings hollow when we all know for a fact that a majority of current and past retirees are receiving or will receive far more in benefits than what they paid into Social Security plus interest. Americans also pay into a variety of very good and worthy programs as well, in the form of taxes. Should those worthy programs also be exempted using that kind of argument? Keep in mind that the balanced budget amendment does not specify where the cuts will take place. This language only forces Congress to balance the budget by the year 2002. Year after year, Congress will have the authority, should this measure pass, to choose what cuts will come from what programs. Social Security would not necessarily have to be cut. This hype we are getting about how necessary it is to have a Social Security exemption in order to preserve benefits is driven by powerful lobbying groups and is unjustified. You and I know that Congress will not vote to cut Social Security benefits to those who need those benefits. There may be trimmings of benefits for the wealthiest of Americans, but we are not about to vote to deny benefits to the millions of Americans who rely on Social Security as their only source of retirement income. So a constitutional exemption is not necessary. To prioritize which program or programs are worthy of exemption in the balanced budget amendment will only chip away, piece by piece, the value of a balanced budget amendment and pit one program against another. Let me take just a few more minutes and read to you a couple letters I have received this month from Coloradoans regarding the treatment of Social Security and Medicare, the two largest entitlement programs in our Federal budget. Take for example, Donald Kynion, from Walsenburg, CO, who says: I feel you should do what is best for the country. If changes in Social Security and Medicare are necessary then make them. Cut spending and too much government! Or listen to 72-year-old Edith Seppi from Leadville, CO, who says: I hope you will be fair to all Americans and pass legislation that will cut the debt, even if we all must be a part of the cuts. I hope interest groups will not control the decisions you make. I hope you do what you believe is best for our country. So, count me in on the side that says do the best that you can. Doing the best that we can, is not allowing certain privileged programs to be exempt from this difficult task of balancing our budget. If a family was forced to balance their budget for the month, could they be successful by omitting their mortgage payments? Where should this family then get the money to make this payment? Where then should Congress find the funds to pay the baby boomers when they retire?I beg my colleagues not to exempt any program, no matter how successful or useful it is to us, from the balanced budget amendment. If we are forced to balance the budget, all programs on this train, whether they are Medicare, veteran's pensions, unemployment compensation, SSI, and Social Security, will have a chance for a better tomorrow if we balance our budget today. The balanced budget amendment gives this country hope for a better quality of life further down the tracks. Let us not derail this effort.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the amendment introduced by my friend, the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my other distinguished colleagues on this side. Social Security, as well as Medicare, has been one of the most successful Government-run programs in the history of this country. Every hardworking, tax-paying American participates in these programs-- we all have a vested interest in the Social Security program whether we are present or future beneficiaries. As it stands now, Social Security is set to go bankrupt in 2029. Only a few years ago, the Social Security program was projected to go broke in 2036. I acknowledge the fact that Social Security may be on the caboose of this balanced budget train because of its current surplus versus other more problematic programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but this program is still connected to the budget as a whole. This Senator believes Social Security is vital to a high quality of life for all Americans. It is my belief that the Senators who are offering this amendment are doing so because they, too, believe Social Security is vital to our Nation. There are indications that an exemption for Social Security is the only way to get the balanced budget amendment through the Senate. As a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, I hope that is not the case. Even so, to keep one of the largest programs in our country out of the balanced budget amendment discussion is fiscally irresponsible and wrong. It's wrong because it would provide constitutional protection to a single statutory program--Social Security. The Constitution should not be used for this purpose. There are sound reasons to consider ways to keep Social Security solvent beyond 2029 in the coming years. Codifying Social Security in the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from considering anything that may in fact be intended to preserve Social Security for the future. The Constitution is not the place to set budget priorities, nor to enshrine statutes passed by Congress. Congress can exempt Social Security through statute. I would also ask why not, if Social Security, any other worthy program? The argument that Americans have paid into Social Security and should not be denied getting those benefits rings hollow when we all know for a receiving or will receive far more in benefits than what they paid into Social Security plus interest. Americans also pay into a variety of very good and worthy programs as well, in the form of taxes. Should those worthy programs also be exempted using that kind of argument? Keep in mind that the balanced budget amendment does not specify where the cuts will take place. This language only forces Congress to balance the budget by the year 2002. Year after year, Congress will have the authority, should this measure pass, to choose what cuts will come from what programs. Social Security would not necessarily have to be cut. This hype we are getting about how necessary it is to have a Social Security exemption in order to preserve benefits is driven by powerful lobbying groups and is unjustified. You and I know that Congress will not vote to cut Social Security benefits to those who need those benefits. There may be trimmings of benefits for the wealthiest of Americans, but we are not about to vote to deny benefits to the millions of Americans who rely on Social Security as their only source of retirement income. So a constitutional exemption is not necessary. To prioritize which program or programs are worthy of exemption in the balanced budget amendment will only chip away, piece by piece, the value of a balanced budget amendment and pit one program against another. Let me take just a few more minutes and read to you a couple letters I have received this month from Coloradans regarding the treatment of Social Security and Medicare, the two largest entitlement programs in our Federal budget. Take for example, Donald Kynion, from Walsenburg, CO, who says ``I feel you should do what is best for the country. If changes in Social Security and Medicare are necessary then make them. Cut spending and too much government!'' Or listen to 72-year-old Edith Seppi from Leadville, CO, who says ``I hope you will be fair to all Americans and pass legislation that will cut the debt, even if we all must be a part of the cuts. I hope interest groups will not control the decisions you make. I hope you do what you believe is best for our country. So, count me in on the side that says do the best that you can.'' Doing the best that we can, is not allowing certain privileged programs to be exempt from this difficult task of balancing our budget. If a family was forced to balance their budget for the month, could they be successful by omitting their mortgage payments? Where should this family then get the money to make this payment? Where then should Congress find the funds to pay the baby boomers when they retire? I beg my colleagues not to exempt any program, no matter how successful or useful it is to us, from the balanced budget amendment. If we are forced to balance the budget, all programs on this train, whether they are Medicare, veterans pensions, unemployment compensation, SSI, and Social Security, will have a chance for a better tomorrow if we balance our budget today. The balanced budget amendment gives this country hope for a better quality of life further down the tracks. Let's not derail this effort. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Mr. President, I too, rise to speak on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As a person who has been a prime cosponsor of this legislation three different times and on the House side voted for it, I am very permanently committed to it. In fact, in the 102d Congress, as the Presiding Officer well knows since he was also a supporter when we served together over there, we missed it by just six votes. It signed a procedure in which to take the amendment directly to the floor, and we could not even get it out of committee of the 101st Congress, as I remember. So there have been a lot of efforts to move this along, and basically do what people are saying now--that is, save us from ourselves. I know in the course of this debate, which may last a week or even 2 weeks, there are going to be a lot of efforts to weaken it, lots of efforts to get us to succumb to the feeling by some Americans that we really do not need to balance the budget, and in fact will hurt jobs or hurt individuals. I do not subscribe to that, and would oppose weakening this in any way, shape, or form. As better speakers before me have already alluded to on the floor, we are simply in a downward spiral. Last year, $200 billion was wasted on interest payments. As the Senator from Utah said, not one dime of that money helped build a square yard of highway, or helped build one cell for a hardened criminal, or helped one youngster in need of counseling. All we got for our efforts in the last few years was an $18,000 bill as they said for every man, woman, and child in America. There is no question in my mind--and I think everyone knows--that balancing the budget will be perceived as hurting some people in the short run. But in the long run balancing the budget will raise the Nation's standard of living and the rate of savings. According to GAO, a balanced budget by the year 2001 would produce a 36-percent improvement in our standard of living by the year 2020. OMB Director Alice Rivlin estimates that balancing the budget within 5 years would raise the national savings rate to 6.1 percent. Yet, if we fail to pass a balanced budget, the savings rate will be a mere 3.7 percent--that certainly means trouble for the United States in a competitive global economy where other nations save far more. Our voters told us that it is time to draw the line. We know that we cannot pass a constitutional amendment to solve every problem. Certainly this is not an ordinary problem. This amendment is required because history has proven, as other speakers have said, that legislation simply will not work. I remember very well the days of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act in which we ended up before we could finally get it passed exempting something like 72 percent of all spending and thereby trying to balance the budget on the remaining 28 percent of the revenues. And it simply will not work. If we make all kinds of exemptions to this legislation, this will not work either. In an ideal world, this amendment will not be necessary. But, in the real world, it is necessary. I do not think that in fact the elected officials should take all the blame for it because I know my office, like many offices, is inundated with people who say in one breath, ``Balance the budget, reduce my taxes, and get me $10 million more for my special project.'' Those special interests, which we sometimes called the third House around here, has had so much influence in protecting turf that we simply cannot balance the budget by legislation. Just look at the recently disbanded Kerry-Danforth bipartisan entitlement commission. It spent $1.8 million but failed to come up with a unified proposal on where to cut entitlement spending, which is the largest sector of Government spending. This amendment gives Congress and the public a constitutional reason to bite the bullet. Congress will have to bite the bullet--we will have plenty of tough choices. Clearly, popular programs probably will be cut, and in fact some good programs may be cut. We must make our very best effort to concern ourselves with the most vulnerable in our society and make sure that they do not get unduly hurt. According to most estimates, about $1.2 trillion of spending cuts are going to be needed to balance the budget in the next 7 years. Already, nearly 50 percent of spending programs have been removed from the new leadership's deficit reduction plan--Social Security, defense, and net interest. In addition, Congress will probably be required to find more cuts to offset the middle-class tax cut proposals, and other tax cut proposals, that are being circulated around the Capitol. Certainly, the challenge is enormous. Congress has a responsibility to come up with spending cuts before it passes any tax cuts, and our eyes narrowly focused on a balanced budget in 7 years. the right to know Congress also has a responsibility to tell the American people how it will accomplish a balanced budget before it passes one. That is why I support Senator Daschle and Senator Exon in their efforts in the right- to-know budget amendment. Congress must be honest with voters because they have a right to know what we already know. Congress cannot allow its knees to buckle at the prospect of making spending cuts. We have a duty to fill in the blank lines of the promise of a balanced budget, so that Americans can understand what it means for their lives. three-fifths tax limitation Some have suggested that a provision be added to require a three- fifths approval for income tax increases. I oppose such a provision. It would scare away many supporters of last year's version which almost passed. We have worked far too long to see this opportunity missed. I also worry that this provision would allow a zealous minority to hijack our Nation's budgetary policies. More importantly, I think a three-fifths requirement undermines the amendment's flexibility. The amendment should be flexible, able to last the ages, and not dictate the path to a balanced budget. Congress will pass the balanced budget amendment this year. Passage of this amendment will not be the silver bullet to kill the deficit-- only tough choices will do that. I hope we can work together in a bipartisan, responsible fashion for a balanced budget and the future of our Nation and our children. Certainly, the challenge is enormous. Congress has the responsibility, and I am certainly willing to step to the plate, as many of my colleagues are. I yield the floor, and just say in passing that I certainly commend both Senator Simon and Senator Hatch, who are going to be spending an awful lot of hours here on the floor in the next week, for their leadership on this balanced budget amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. If I might say, too, in that report, it indicates that because of some severe actions we have taken in the last year or two the deficit is going down a little bit now. But, clearly in next few years, it is going to start to rise again. What we do legislatively is not going to amount to a hill of beans, but it is still going to go up without this constitutional balanced budget amendment. I look forward to supporting this amendment, and thank the Senator for his nice comments. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Campbell pertaining to the introduction of S. 262 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, trapped beneath the naval oil shale reserves, two of which are located in Garfield County, CO, are billions of cubic feet of natural gas. I am sending legislation to the desk that will: Allow the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy to work cooperatively to establish a program to competitively lease or sell this resource; Allow the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, to manage the surface of these lands pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; and to require that a royalty be paid to the Federal treasury. 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 oil supplies during a war. Naval Oil Shale Reserve Nos. 1, 40,760 acres, and 3, 14,130 acres, are located in northwest Colorado near Rifle, and Naval Oil Shale Reserve No. 2, 90,400 acres, is in eastern Utah. Profitable development of shale oil currently is considered to be decades away. The reserves are owned by the Federal Government and are operated by the Department of Energy [DOE]. 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. 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. 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 Nos. 1 and 2; and through fiscal year 1992, 89 commercial producing gas wells were drilled by private industry within 1 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 totaled 5.4 billion cubic feet. Revenues from the reserves totaled $5 million between fiscal years 1977 and 1992; expenditures for the same period totaled $24.8 million. This legislation does not specify what royalty should be collected. The royalty could be anywhere between 12.5 and 25 percent. The Secretary will have the discretion to decide what that royalty should be. There is no evidence, however, supporting a royalty rate at higher than 20 percent. Leases outside the reserve that mandate a royalty above this rate have not been executed. The royalty rate that is eventually chosen should reflect fair market value. It should not be set too high, discouraging development, nor too low, depriving the Government of needed revenues. It has clearly been Congress' intent to make oil and gas leasing a profitable enterprise. It is time for the DOE to get out of the gas producing business. The Vice President's Performance Review is seeking to avoid duplication and save money. Requiring the DOE and the Department of the Interior to cooperatively lease the resources of the naval oil shale reserves will generate revenue, save money, help private industry, enrich local governments, and protect the environment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I make comments, I would like to associate myself with the comments of my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, with whom I have had the privilege of serving for the last 8 years here in the U.S. Capitol. He brings out certainly another example, and we have heard one after another, about the punitive action of the Federal Government in forcing States to comply with unfunded mandates. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Campbell pertaining to the introduction of S. 234 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation which will provide relief to 25 of those States that have been penalized by one such mandate. The Intermodal Transportation Act of 1991 penalized States which did not pass laws mandating seatbelt and helmet usage by October 1 of 1993. The penalties involve a required transfer of scarce transportation and construction dollars to section 402 safety programs. The penalties are assessed regardless of whether the State already has the funds dedicated to safety programs and regardless of the State's individual safety record. Like many of my colleagues, Mr. President, I am not opposed to safety programs and I certainly support them. I am not opposed to the use of helmets. On the contrary, I am opposed to the Federal Government blackmailing States, as many other Senators are. It is not a good policy to force States to channel funds from one transportation activity to another, using threats of withholding Federal money for these programs. This bill would give States the option of implementing their own safety programs, which they can tailor to the specific needs of their individual States. If they choose to design a safety program or already have such a program in place, it would not be subject to the section 153 penalties. They still would have the option of passing such laws if they want it. In fact, it would not mandate that any States repeal existing laws. I believe encouraging and providing support to States and local communities to establish training programs would be a much more effective means of improving motorcycle safety on the roads and the highways. The Federal Government should redirect their role to establishing basic guidelines regarding the programs, rather than forcing States to dip from one transportation fund to another. Mr. President, as the Senate has been debating the issue of unfunded mandates, I am introducing legislation that will provide options and relief to the 25 States which have been financially penalized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 for not having passed laws mandating helmet use by the deadline of October 1, 1993. This is not only a burdensome Federal mandate placed on the backs of State legislatures, but also an erosion of civil liberties and personal freedom. Twenty-five States face penalties in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. In accordance with ISTEA, they are required to transfer scarce transportation and construction dollars to section 402 safety programs. This shift will force States to spend 10 to 20 times the amount they are currently spending on section 402 safety programs. These penalties are assessed regardless of whether the State already has funds dedicated to helmet safety programs and regardless of the State's individual safety record. Initially, these States are being forced to shift 1.5 percent of their Federal highway dollars. This transfer effects three programs: the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Those States which did not enact helmet laws by September 30, 1994, are required to shift 3 percent of their Federal highway funds from these important programs into safety programs. My bill would repeal the section 153 penalties and, upon enactment of this legislation, gives States until fiscal year 1996 to either pass helmet laws, or establish motor safety programs, exempting those States which already have safety programs in place. Mr. President, let me be clear. I am not opposed to people wearing helmets. Quite the contrary. What I am opposed to is the Federal Government blackmailing States to pass laws. It simply is not good policy to force States to funnel funds from one State transportation activity to another. It should be pointed out that the money the Federal Government wants to redirect, is tax revenue already paid by State residents. Safety education programs are desirable. That is the point of my bill. I firmly believe, and I'm sure my colleagues would agree, that we must do everything we can to make our roads and highways safer. My bill would give States the option of implementing safety programs, instead of mandating the use of helmets and remove the section 153 penalties. My own State of Colorado has no helmet law. The Colorado Legislature has repeatedly shot down any attempt to implement one. Colorado, however, has a motorcycle fatality rate almost 30 percent below the average for States with mandatory helmet laws. Of the top 12 States with the best motorcycle safety records, only one has a helmet law. On the other hand, half of the 12 States with the worst safety records have helmet laws. Comparing States with and without mandatory helmet laws as a whole, figures show that 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 States that did not mandate helmet usage. In the past decade, motorcycle fatalities have decreased 38 percent and accidents have plummeted 41 percent. These 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 by any other category of road user--passenger or commercial. What can account for this decrease in accidents and fatalities? Evidence clearly indicates that the most effective way to reduce motorcycle accidents and motorcycle fatalities is through comprehensive education programs, as opposed to mandating helmet usage. Currently 42 States have established and funded some sort of safety program. The national average of motorcycle fatalities per 100 accidents is 2.95. however, have the lowest average death rate, 2.56 fatalities per 100 accidents. States with mandatory helmet laws and no rider education programs have a significantly higher rate of 3.09 fatalities per 100 accidents. Police accident reports indicate that well over 45 percent of motorcyclists involved in accidents did not have a motorcycle license, 92 percent did not have any rider training, and over 50 percent had less than 6 months riding experience. Some 62 percent of the accidents and 50 percent of the fatalities involved riders between the ages of 17 and 26. Clearly, mandating helmet use will not address the real problem of rider inexperience and lack of training. I believe that encouraging and providing support to States and local communities to establish motorcycle training programs would be a much more effective means of improving motorcycle safety on our roads and highways. The Federal Government should redirect its role to providing uniform national guidelines regarding these safety programs, rather than mandating where the money to pay for them should come from. I realize the motivations behind ISTEA and those who wish to force States into passing helmet and seatbelt laws are doing so out of concern for the safety of the traveling public, but I think their efforts are misguided. Forcing States to pass laws, or throwing money at safety programs is not the answer. Throughout my career in politics, I have always strived to protect the interest of States and communities by allowing them to make the important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. When Congress blackmailed the States regarding highway speed limits, I thought that was wrong. The same goes for helmet laws. I have stuck with the philosophy that each State and each community should, to the best of their abilities, be allowed to make its own policy decisions. I own a motorcycle, that's no secret. Where helmets are required to be worn, I wear them. Where they are not, I don't. I make no bones about the fact that my dislike for the Federal mandate requiring States to pass helmet laws is in part inspired by my interest in motorcycling. But, I also think personal freedom is an issue. I am prochoice. I do not think the Federal Government should dictate to the States, or its citizens, on matters of individual liberty. The choice of wearing a helmet, or not doing so, should be left up to the individual--not forced by Government extortion. And those who contend that it is not simply a personal responsibility because motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets can become a ``public burden,'' are using faulty logic. It would then follow that we should mandate helmets for skiers, horsemen, skateboarders, and automobile drivers. Mr. President, in closing, I want to strongly encourage my colleagues to reconsider the position Congress took in ISTEA in mandating that States pass helmet and seatbelt laws. It is wrong to blackmail the States into passing laws. And, if motorcycle safety programs are desired, we should work toward establishing effective program guidelines, rather than force States to dip from one transportation pot to fill another. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am sending legislation to the desk that Federal rangelands. I introduced this bill last Congress, with 14 of my colleagues including my friend who is across the floor today, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig]. This bill was not acted on but we think it is an important bill that should be reintroduced. The formula included in this proposal was developed by several economists who worked at land grant colleges in the West. The formula abandons the old Public Rangelands Improvement Act formula, which has been much maligned, in favor of a formula that sets a realistic value on the opportunity to graze livestock on public lands. It will result in a fee that is about 23 percent higher than the current fee. Having been very active on this issue for many years, I know congressional debate about grazing fees has been polarized. Opponents of the current fee argue that ranchers do not pay fair market value, while some ranchers would like to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, ranchers in many cases think the fee should not go up at all. But many of us who have worked on it believe ranchers are the family farmers of the West. The establishment of a fair and equitable grazing fee formula is still necessary to ensure their survival. I also think the rancher is key to the rural Western economy. Not only does this add billions to the Nation's economy, in much of the West, it is the single largest source of economic activity and tax revenue. Every Western ranching job creates as many as four jobs on Main Street. If those ranchers go under, so will the tractor, truck and automobile dealers, the gas, grocery and feed store owners, the veterinarians, doctors, and dentists, and many others who make up the commercial and social fabric of rural Western towns. A fee not based on sound science and careful study will destabilize the entire livestock industry and the rural Western economic infrastructure it supports. The new formula is based on a principle: on the private forage market. It reflects the higher operational costs and lower returns derived from Federal lands. This results in a formula that provides economic parity between producers who use Federal land and private livestock producers. Secretary of the Interior Babbitt has already said that he intends to drop his efforts to raise grazing fees. He also said that he intends to finalize his regulations within the next 6 months for how our public lands should be managed for grazing. It is clear to me that environmentalists care about management issues, that is, the Department's ability to effectively steward the resources it manages. To cattlemen, however, the single most important issue is the fee. If it is too high, ranchers go out of business. The ranchers I have talked to realize they will eventually have to pay more for the privilege of grazing on public lands, but as business people, they need stability--stability that can only be provided if a bill passes to lock a higher fee into place. Many Western Senators believe that the issue of grazing fees should be separated from management reforms. This has been done, but it does not mean that our Government has forgotten that a commitment was made 2 years ago by the ranching industry to pay their fair share. Reintroducing this bill is an attempt to keep our end of the bargain. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.