[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 622-628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2027. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to design and 
construct a warm water fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, Montana; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


         the fort peck fish hatchery authorization act of 2000

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort 
Peck Fish Hatchery Authorization Act of 2000. As you may know, the Fort 
Peck project was built in the 1930s to dam the Upper Missouri River. 
The original authorization legislation for the Fort Peck project, and 
subsequent revisions and additions, left a great many promises unmet. A 
valley was flooded, but originally Montana was promised increased 
irrigation, low-cost power, and economic development. Since the 
original legislation, numerous laws have been enacted promising 
increased recreational activities on the lake, and also that the 
federal government would do more to support the fish and wildlife 
resources in the area.
  In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming 
more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife 
numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First, 
the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the 
region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana. 
It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it 
continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or 
failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave 
the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the 
area's fisheries.
  We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given, 
the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery 
operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding 
these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers. 
A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make 
the federal government keep its promises.
  Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation 
subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp 
to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of 
the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to 
ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a 
feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the 
bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure. 
Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our 
mouth is.
  Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is 
diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends 
predominately on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't 
going to help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a 
stronger recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things 
up.
  A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has 
been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project. 
Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to 
count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense 
support. It is a good investment in the area, and it helps the federal 
government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its promises.
  Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that this legislation is still a 
work in progress and many of the specifics will change as the Corps 
completes its feasibility study on the project. It may cost slightly 
more. It may cost less. The cost share requirement may need to be 
altered to make the project work, but I feel this legislation must be 
introduced now to expedite its consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2028. A bill to make permanent the moratorium enacted by the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act as it applies to new, multiple, and 
discriminatory taxes on the Internet; to the Committee on

[[Page 623]]

Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    internet non-discrimination act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Internet Non-
Discrimination Act. The central principle of this bill is that our tax 
policy should not discriminate against the most vibrant part of our 
nation's economy. The legislation would extend indefinitely the 
Internet Tax Freedom's Act's three-year moratorium on discriminatory 
taxes against the Internet and electronic commerce. I am pleased to be 
joined in this effort by Senators Abraham and Leahy.
  Three years ago, when Congressman Chris Cox and I introduced the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), we said you can't squeeze the new 
economy into a set of rules written for smokestack industry. At that 
time, opponents predicted that retailers would vanish from Main Streets 
across America. Transcripts from hearings held on the legislation in 
the summer of 1997 are replete with opponents' predictions that a 
parade of horribles would be visited on every small merchant in every 
town in the United States. I am pleased to report that none of the 
horribles has come to pass.
  In fact, this is what has happened in the 15 months since the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed by the Senate 98-2 and became law:

  States and localities have continued to collect sales and use taxes, 
and state budgets ended fiscal l999 with a $35 billion surplus. In 
California--one of the most wired states--1999 sales tax collections 
are up 20 percent over 1998.
  Traditional bricks and mortar retailers had one of their best holiday 
seasons, recording a nearly 8% jump in sales over the previous year.
  A recent survey of 1,500 Main Street businesses nationwide found that 
74 percent have gone online since l997.
  E-commerce has become part of the retail landscape, but still 
accounts for only \3/10\s of one percent of total retail sales.
  States with the highest level of Internet use are also those with 
some of the largest gains in tax revenues.
  It is clear to me that while state and local tax collectors sat 
wringing their hands, America's merchants were working on web pages. 
Main Street merchants seized the opportunity to expand their sales to 
new markets by going online. They also recognized the efficiencies of 
conducting their business-to-business transactions online. Rather than 
weaken Main Street merchants, the Internet has strengthened them. 
Rather than drain state and local tax coffers, the technological 
neutrality of the Internet Tax Freedom Act allowed online business to 
grow and state and local authorities to continue to collect lawful, 
nondiscriminatory taxes. The technological neutrality of the ITFA 
contributed to the rapid transformation of a bricks and mortar economy 
into a clicks and mortar economy.
  I want the success of the bricks and clicks economy to continue, but 
consumers and businesses need some certainty. They need to know they 
won't have to start paying new taxes targeted specifically at e-
commerce when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. That's 
why the ban on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and e-commerce 
should be made permanent.
  The Internet Non-Discrimination Act we are introducing today will do 
just that. It continues the policy of technological neutrality. It 
allows state and local tax authorities to continue to collect lawful, 
nondiscriminatory sales or use taxes on online sales. It will give the 
governors time to see if they can move forward with their technological 
fix for collecting remote sales and use tax--a voluntary plan which 
will require the cooperation of every business in this nation, from 
Bandon, Oregon to Bangor, Maine. And, finally, it extends permanently a 
policy that has worked well for the last 15 months and under which 
consumers, businesses and state and local tax collectors have lived--
and thrived.
  In about two months the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce 
will issue its final report. After having talked yesterday with the 
Chairman of the Commission, Virginia Governor James Gilmore, I am 
hopeful that the Commission will endorse the approach we are taking in 
this bill.
  If Congress does not act this year to extend the technologically 
neutral policy that is at the heart of the Internet Non-Discrimination 
Act, consumers and businesses will face thousands of tax authorities in 
this country jumping into their pockets when the current moratorium 
expires in October 2001. Consumers and businesses want certainty that 
they won't suddenly be facing an onslaught of new, confusing and 
discriminatory taxes.
  A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives 
today by Congressman Chris Cox, with whom I've worked on this issue for 
four years now. I am hopeful that this, our fourth bipartisan Internet 
effort, will be as successful as our previous three. I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2028

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Nondiscrimination 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPLACEMENT OF MORATORIUM WITH PERMANENT BAN ON NEW, 
                   MULTIPLE, AND DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON THE 
                   INTERNET.

       Section 1101(a) of title XI of division C of Public Law 
     105-277 is amended by striking ``during the period beginning 
     on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on or after October 
     1, 1998.''

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Wyden, in introducing legislation to extend indefinitely the 
current moratorium on new and discriminatory Internet taxes. Once 
again, Senator Wyden has demonstrated his grasp of the crucial issues 
surrounding electronic commerce and has moved rapidly to assure that 
potential barriers to the new economy are eliminated before they do any 
harm. I am pleased to join him in his latest effort.
  By now, it is obvious to everyone that e-commerce is the wave of the 
future. As a matter of fact, it's safe to say that the future is 
already here. During the week of December 6 alone, Americans bought 
$1.22 billion of merchandise online. Sales for 1999 should reach $64.8 
billion. Beyond shopping, 5.3 million households had access to 
financial transactions like electronic banking and stock trading by the 
end of last year.
  The rate of growth for Internet commerce has been exponential for the 
past several years. Unfortunately, it's also a tempting target for 
taxation by the Federal Government, States and localities. And that 
could slow the growth of e-commerce and of our entire economy.
  We responded to this potential problem by passing Senator Wyden's 
legislation in 1998, to place a three-year moratorium on new or 
discriminatory Internet taxes, fees or charges. That legislation also 
established a Commission to explore the issue of Internet taxation and 
to submit to Congress a list of recommendations on how the Federal 
Government should legislate in this area.
  We are only halfway through the moratorium, but already it seems 
there are only two possible conclusions to the Commission. The first is 
that the wide differences of opinion within the Commission will make it 
impossible for the members to muster the majority of support necessary 
to submit a report. This is worrisome, Mr. President, because, unless 
action is taken by this Congress, the moratorium will expire and the 
door will be opened to new, discriminatory taxes on the Internet.
  The other possibility, more recently offered, is that the Commission 
may actually recommend an extension of the current moratorium. Whatever 
the conclusion therefore, the role of Congress is clear; the Internet 
Tax Moratorium must be extended indefinitely. And because of the 
limited number of legislative days scheduled in this election year, the 
process of doing so should begin now.
  As everyone knows, the current moratorium only precludes new and 
discriminatory taxes. It does not address

[[Page 624]]

the more difficult question of how to apply existing, State sales taxes 
to Internet transactions. The Supreme Court has spoken to this issue, 
ruling that States can indeed impose taxes on transactions much like 
Internet sales--namely catalog sales. However, States cannot force a 
business to collect sales taxes on purchases made to States where they 
have no physical presence or ``nexus.'' This discrepancy in sales 
taxation between main street businesses and those that sell goods over 
the Internet will be difficult to address for the following reasons:
  First, very soon every business will be an e-business in the sense 
that they will be using the Internet for sales, supplies, contracting 
and other purposes. We couldn't stop this process if we wanted to, and 
we shouldn't want to. According to one recent survey, 74 percent of 
brick and mortar, main street businesses have added ``click and 
mortar'' Internet services to their business.
  Second, the border less nature of the Internet is going to make it 
difficult--if not impossible--to determine what constitutes ``nexus.'' 
For example, what happens when someone in California uses America 
Online in Virginia to order fudge from the ``shopmackinac'' website in 
Michigan, and ships them to a friend in Rhode Island? Which State 
should claim ``nexus?''
  Perhaps a ``destination-based'' Internet sales tax regime would be 
more effective in terms of collecting State sales taxes. Whatever the 
eventual outcome, I believe that in light of the present uncertainty it 
would not be proper for Congress to intervene on this issue. The States 
must have every opportunity to debate and possibly even initiate a 
model for addressing the current impasse.
  What is necessary is Congressional action to ensure that new, 
discriminatory taxes are not levied on the Internet by States or 
localities as a means of substituting perceived lost revenue. Many 
Governors--including Governor Engler of Michigan--support an extension 
of the current Internet tax moratorium.
  Access fees and similar Internet taxes, whether imposed by the 
States, localities, or the Federal government, pose a grave threat to 
the continued evolution of the Internet. America is experiencing a 
record period of growth and prosperity. In my view, the continued 
expansion of the economy is due primarily to electronic commerce. The 
spirit of entrepreneurship which has energized our nation, the adoption 
of new business models to more fully explore marketing and sales 
possibilities and the dramatic increase in consumer and business 
services are all largely the product of our new e-economy. Why on earth 
would anyone, or any government, want to threaten this dynamic medium 
when it is still in its infancy by increasing the cost of doing 
business over the Internet? I certainly do not, and I will continue to 
work to ensure that neither the Federal government nor other units of 
government threaten electronic commerce.
  If we are able to keep the government focused on removing impediments 
to electronic commerce rather than interfering in the development and 
implementation of new technologies then very soon the e-economy will 
simply be the economy, and our nation will be more prosperous as a 
result.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Robb, Ms. Collins, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 2029. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 
telemarketers from interfering with the caller identification service 
of any person to whom a telephone solicitation is made, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    THE KNOW YOUR CALLER ACT OF 2000

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join today with my friend 
from Tennessee, Senator Frist, to introduce the Know Your Caller Act of 
2000--a bill that will make a real and immediate difference in the 
lives of all Americans.
  Not a week goes by that I don't hear from Virginians about the 
intrusion of telemarketers into their homes. Although Congress passed 
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, in 1991, the law is 
widely abused--telemarketers openly disregard the law, refusing to 
identify themselves when asked, and ignoring requests to be placed on 
``do not call lists.''
  In recent years, consumers have turned to caller ID services to help 
them screen out unwanted calls and report those who violate current law 
to the authorities. Unfortunately, most telemarketers actively block 
their number from being displayed on caller ID systems, making it 
difficult to determine the name and employer of the telemarketer. We 
already require telemarketers to identify themselves when they call, 
and we should apply this same requirement to their caller ID 
information.
  The Know Your Caller Act of 2000 will prevent companies from blocking 
their identities on caller ID. Our legislation will require every phone 
solicitor to reveal the name of the telemarketer who is making the 
call, as well as a valid telephone number where that company can be 
reached for purposes of being placed on the do-not-call lists required 
under current law.
  It's time that we gave consumers a way to fight back against these 
intrusions into their homes, and this bill is the perfect way to do so: 
by putting an end to caller ID blocks, we can empower the consumer to 
take action against violators of the TCPA and regain control of their 
telephones. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Frist and me in 
supporting this important consumer protection bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2032. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
address the issue of mother-to-child transmission of human 
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


               mother-to-child hiv prevention act of 2000

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my 
distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, the Mother-to-
child HIV Prevention Act, a bill that seeks to address mother-to-child 
transmission of HIV in developing regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America.
  According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 
nearly 4.5 million children below the age of 15 years have been 
infected with HIV since the AIDS epidemic began. More than 3 million 
have already died of AIDS. Children are becoming infected at the rate 
of nearly one child every minute, and the overwhelming majority of 
these children acquired the infection from their mothers.
  In July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on 
the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine (NVP) in preventing 
mother-to-child transmission of HIV. NVP is given just once to the 
mother during labor and once to the baby within three days after birth. 
It costs $4 per tablet. The discovery of this relatively simple and 
inexpensive drug regimen--along with others like it--has created an 
unprecedented opportunity for international cooperation in the fight 
against the vertical transmission of HIV.
  USAID is currently engaged in four of the eleven vertical 
transmission pilot projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These 
studies will be completed within the year, at which point the 
intervention programs can undergo a significant increase in scale. But 
additional funding is needed.
  The cost-effectiveness of these programs is clear. New antiretroviral 
drug strategies can be a force for social change, providing the 
opportunity and impetus needed to address long-standing problems in the 
health care system and the profound stigma associated with HIV-
infection and the AIDS disease.
  Naturally, primary prevention strategies should remain the top 
priority in the fight against AIDS, which is why I am requesting these 
funds in addition to our current efforts. This legislation

[[Page 625]]

would give the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) an 
additional $25 million every year--for the next five years--to address 
the growing international dilemma of child victims of the AIDS 
epidemic.
  Mr. President, this bill has the potential to improve the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of children whose lives are marred by this 
disease. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge 
its swift passage into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2034. A bill to establish the Canyons of the Ancients National 
Conservation Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       the canyons of the ancients national conservation area act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will help ensure that priceless public lands, including the Yellow 
Jacket Canyon in the Southwestern corner of my beautiful home state of 
Colorado, are preserved and managed in the most farsighted and balanced 
manner possible.
  I have developed this legislation with the Department of the Interior 
and the local government bodies. It successfully takes into account the 
concerns of all interested parties. The lands I hope we can protect 
were the home to a rich civilization before the existence of this 
hemisphere was known to the western world.
  It is imperative we protect these lands now in a reasonable manner to 
recognize the historical, archeological and cultural value they hold. 
But, I do not believe we should lock these lands from the public. When 
public lands are suddenly grabbed away by executive decree it creates 
ill feelings and distrust.
  The hardest hit are those people who live near the land, know it the 
best and whose livelihood is most connected to it. These are almost 
always hard working families. Elected local and state governments are 
also losers. Land grabs seriously erode the very tax base that enables 
towns, counties and states to provide the services the people need, 
including schools, law enforcement, and fire protection. Finally, 
participatory democracy, our nation's bedrock, also loses when an 
executive decree is used to end run the American people and those they 
have chosen to represent them in Congress.
  Through close consultation with the acting BLM director, Tom Fry, I 
have drafted a bill which should take into consideration the views of 
interested parties. I will submit for the record at the conclusion of 
my statement a number of letters from local organizations and elected 
officials who support this effort to designate a National Conservation 
Area. It will allow many of the area's current uses to stay intact 
while preserving the ancient treasures found there.
  I consider the declaration of national monuments by this 
administration by executive order another example of restricting the 
use of more public land without working with Congressional delegations, 
local officials, and other interested parties, as was the case with the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument designation in Utah.
  My bill makes sure that the involved parties take part in land 
management decisions in Colorado. I am trying to ensure that all of the 
concerns of the people who live and work in the area are heard and 
addressed before any designation is made by the administration on these 
public lands.
  My bill would require public hearings which would allow everyone 
involved from local ranchers, recreational users, and all local elected 
officials to be involved with preserving this area.
  As I stated in a letter to Interior Secretary Babbitt on June 8, 
1999, Coloradans do not want to see another Grand Staircase-Escalante 
Monument designation in Colorado. Secretary Babbitt in a letter to Mr. 
Ed Zink dated November 9, 1999, declared his intent to designating the 
Anasazi area a national monument by the authority of the Antiquities 
Act of 1906. My bill proposes a compromise to preserve this area with 
local input, and avoid the heavy handed action of a monument 
designation by the President.
  My legislation will create a National Conservation Area which will 
allow the historic uses to take place while efforts are made to 
conserve the area. I am introducing this legislation to alert the 
president and the secretary that the citizens in Southwest Colorado 
desire protection of the area but oppose an executive action that 
bypasses Congress. This can be accomplished through the legislative 
process with a hearing scheduled on my bill early this year during the 
second half of the 106th Congress.
  Some in the administration will say that they are currently trying to 
work with the local community since they held a series of six scheduled 
town meetings on the proposed withdrawal. From the input that I have 
received, no one seems sold on the idea at the local level that a 
monument designation is the only option available to protect the 
ancient treasures in Southwestern Colorado.
  The Southwest Resource Advisory Council was formed to bring forth a 
wide variety of issues to take into consideration before the Secretary 
of the Interior moves forward with his intended move to remove the 
public from the area. The report addresses everything from recreation 
and tourism to oil and gas development in the area which is how these 
small communities survive economically. In our efforts to preserve the 
culture of the area, we cannot continue to lock up all of our public 
land which so many small towns in the West depend upon.
  Our small communities in Southwestern Colorado know how to be good 
stewards of the land and my bill allows everyone from the local 
citizens, the Department of Interior, and Congress to work in a 
collective effort to save this area for future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. I 
ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2034

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Canyons of the Ancients 
     National Conservation Area Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that certain areas located in 
     Dolores and Montezuma Counties, Colorado--
       (1) contain unique and valuable historical, cultural, 
     scientific, archaeological, natural, and educational 
     resources; and
       (2) should be protected and enhanced for the benefit and 
     enjoyment of present and future generations.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish the 
     Canyons of the Ancients, Colorado, as a National Conservation 
     Area.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' 
     means the Canyons of the Ancients National Conservation Area 
     established by section 4(a).
       (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Canyons of the 
     Ancients National Conservation Area Advisory Council 
     established under section 5(a).
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan developed for the Conservation Area under 
     section 4(e).
       (4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Canyon 
     of the Ancients National Conservation Area Proposal'' and 
     dated January 6, 2000.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.

     SEC. 4. CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Canyons of the 
     Ancients National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado.
       (b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of 
     approximately 164,000 acres of public land in Dolores and 
     Montezuma Counties, Colorado, as generally depicted on the 
     Map.
       (c) Maps and Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a map and legal description of the Conservation Area.
       (2) Force and effect.--The map and legal description shall 
     have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, 
     except that the Secretary may correct clerical and 
     typographical errors in the map and legal description.
       (3) Public availability.--Copies of the map and legal 
     description shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in--

[[Page 626]]

       (A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management;
       (B) the appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management 
     in Colorado; and
       (C) the offices of the county clerks of Montezuma and 
     Dolores Counties, Colorado.
       (d) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the 
     Conservation Area in a manner that--
       (A) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the 
     Conservation Area specified in section 2(a); and
       (B) is in accordance with--
       (i) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (ii) other applicable law, including this Act.
       (2) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the 
     Conservation Area as the Secretary determines will further 
     the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established.
       (3) Vehicular activity.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and 
     as needed for administrative purposes or to respond to an 
     emergency, use of motorized vehicles or mechanized transport 
     in the Conservation Area shall be permitted only on roads and 
     trails designated for vehicular use under the management 
     plan.
       (B) Access to leases.--Nothing in this Act prohibits 
     vehicular access to any oil, gas, or carbon dioxide lease by 
     road or pipeline right-of-way.
       (4) Withdrawals.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights 
     (including lease rights) and historic rights of access, and 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B), all Federal land 
     within the Conservation Area and all land and interests in 
     land acquired for the Conservation Area by the United States 
     are withdrawn from--
       (i) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       (ii) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (iii) disposal under the mineral leasing, mineral 
     materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
       (B) Oil and gas leasing.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), 
     nothing in this Act prohibits the leasing of oil, gas, or 
     carbon dioxide (including resulting operations) within the 
     Conservation Area under the mineral leasing laws.
       (5) Hunting and trapping.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     nothing in this Act affects hunting and trapping within the 
     Conservation Area conducted in accordance with applicable 
     laws (including regulations) of--
       (i) the United States; and
       (ii) the State of Colorado.
       (B) Hunting and trapping zones.--The Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, may 
     promulgate regulations designating zones where and 
     establishing periods when no hunting or trapping shall be 
     permitted in the Conservation Area for reasons of--
       (i) public safety;
       (ii) administration; or
       (iii) public use and enjoyment.
       (6) Grazing.--The Secretary shall issue and administer any 
     grazing leases or permits in the Conservation Area in 
     accordance with the same laws (including regulations) and 
     executive orders followed by the Secretary in issuing and 
     administering grazing leases and permits on other land under 
     the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (e) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan for the long-range protection and 
     management of the Conservation Area.
       (2) Purposes.--The management plan shall--
       (A) describe the appropriate uses and management of the 
     Conservation Area in accordance with--
       (i) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (ii) other applicable law, including this Act;
       (B) incorporate, as appropriate, decisions contained in any 
     other management or activity plan for the land within or 
     adjacent to the Conservation Area;
       (C) take into consideration any information developed in 
     studies of the land within or adjacent to the Conservation 
     Area; and
       (D) give appropriate consideration to the historical 
     involvement of the local community in the interpretation and 
     protection of the resources of the Conservation Area.
       (f) No Buffer Zones.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be no protective perimeter or 
     buffer zone around the Conservation Area.
       (2) Activities outside conservation area.--The fact that an 
     activity on land or a use of land in the Conservation Area is 
     not permitted inside the Conservation Area shall not preclude 
     the activity on land or use of land outside the boundary of 
     the Conservation Area (or, in the Conservation Area, on land 
     that is privately held), consistent with other applicable 
     law.
       (g) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire non-federally 
     owned land in the Conservation Area only--
       (A) from a willing seller; and
       (B) through purchase, exchange, or donation.
       (2) Modification of boundary.--On acquisition of land under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall modify the boundary of the 
     Conservation Area to include the acquired land.
       (3) Management.--Land acquired under paragraph (1) shall be 
     managed as part of the Conservation Area in accordance with 
     this Act.
       (h) Interpretive Sites.--The Secretary may establish sites 
     in the Conservation Area to interpret the historical, 
     cultural, scientific, archaeological, natural, and 
     educational resources of the Conservation Area.
       (i) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act constitutes an 
     express or implied reservation of any water right.
       (j) Wilderness Acts.--Nothing in this Act alters any 
     provision of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) or 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.) that applies to wilderness resources within the 
     Conservation Area.
       (k) National Park Service Lands.--Nothing in this Act 
     affects the management of land that is within the 
     Conservation Area and under the jurisdiction of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory council to be known as the ``Canyons of the Ancients 
     National Conservation Area Advisory Council''.
       (b) Duty.--The Council shall advise the Secretary with 
     respect to preparation and implementation of the management 
     plan.
       (c) Applicable Law.--The Council shall be subject to--
       (1) the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and
       (2) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (d) Members.--The Council shall consist of 15 members, to 
     be appointed by the Secretary, as follows:
       (1) A member of or nominated by the Dolores County 
     Commission.
       (2) A member of or nominated by the Montezuma County 
     Commission.
       (3) 13 members residing in, or within reasonable proximity 
     to, southwestern Colorado with recognized backgrounds 
     reflecting--
       (A) the purposes for which the Conservation Area was 
     established; and
       (B) the interests of the stakeholders that are affected by 
     the planning and management of the Conservation Area.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                  ____

                                                 General Assembly,


                                    State of Colorado, Denver,

                                                 January 10, 2000.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washingon, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: We are writing in support of your 
     efforts to introduce National Conservation Area legislation 
     to address the future of the BLM Anasazi ACEC in Southwest 
     Colorado. Our support is predicated on legislation that 
     addresses the concerns and recommendations outlined in the 
     Working Group Report that was issued by the local ACEC 
     Subcommittee and transmitted by the Southwestern RAC in 
     August of 1999.
       We are in agreement with the Montezuma County Commission 
     that the Working Group Report provides the local consensus 
     upon which to develop a legislative framework that addresses 
     the protection of archaeological resources in a manner that 
     protects critical multiple uses on BLM land, respects 
     adjacent private property rights, and insures future 
     opportunities for meaningful local involvement. The prospects 
     for a constructive and locally acceptable outcome through an 
     open legislative process are far superior to a unilateral 
     National Monument designation, which would be totally 
     unacceptable to the local community.
       We offer our assistance to you and the coalition that is 
     emerging in support of a responsible and locally acceptable 
     legislative resolution concerning the future of the ACEC in 
     Southwest Colorado.
           Sincerely,
     Mark Larson,
       State Representative.
     Kay Alexander,
       State Representative.
     Jim Dyer,
       State Senator.
                                  ____

                                                 Montezuma County,


                                Board of County Commissioners,

                                    Cortez, CO, December 13, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: We are writing to ask for your 
     leadership in the drafting of National Conservation Area 
     Legislation for the BLM Anasazi ACEC, most of which lies in 
     Western Montezuma County. We ask that the NCA legislation be 
     drafted in keeping with the summary report drafted by the 
     ACEC Working Group.
       After carefully considering the public input reflected in 
     the Working Group Report, we have spent several months 
     exploring our

[[Page 627]]

     options. We have concluded that NCA Legislation is the only 
     way to avoid a unilateral National Monument designation which 
     would be totally unacceptable.
       We are prepared to work with you and the Department of 
     Interior in any way necessary to support the development and 
     adoption of NCA legislation that is in keeping with the goals 
     and concerns outlined in the Working Group Report.
           Sincerely yours,
       G. Eugene Story.
       Glenn E. Wilson, Jr.
       J. Kent Lindsay.
                                  ____



                                         Colorado Farm Bureau,

                                    Denver, CO, December 27, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: Colorado Farm Bureau, the state's 
     largest farming and ranching organization, opposes the 
     designation of the Anasazi Cultural Area of Critical 
     Environmental Concern (ACEC) as a national monument. As an 
     alternative, we encourage you to introduce legislation that 
     would designate the Anasazi Area of Critical Environmental 
     Concern as a National Conservation Area. After reviewing many 
     options with our members, we feel that legislation to 
     designate the area as a National Conservation Area would be 
     in the best interests of farmers and ranchers in southwest 
     Colorado.
       Farm Bureau policy supports local communities, counties, 
     landowners and cities must be allowed input into any 
     designation of national monuments, national parks or 
     conservation use areas as these designations change the 
     current multiple use of public lands and adversely effect 
     adjacent private property rights.
       It is our understanding that a National Conservation Area 
     designation would allow continued multiple use on these 
     lands, a Farm Bureau priority. There would also be increased 
     funding to the Bureau of Land Management to protect 
     significant archaeological sites and develop a management 
     plan. A designation would also allow for more local input and 
     avoid a National Monument designation by the administration, 
     which Farm Bureau is opposed to.
       Colorado Farm Bureau would like to thank you for your 
     continued support of multiple uses on public lands and offers 
     any assistance in developing legislation. If you have any 
     further questions, please contact Bob Frankmore, Director, 
     National Affairs, (303) 749-7508.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ray Christensen,
     Executive Vice-President.
                                  ____

         CLUB 20, ``Voice of the Western Slope, Since 1953,''
                             Grand Junction, CO, January 17, 2000.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of the Board of Directors 
     of CLUB 20, I would like to convey our support of legislation 
     designating a National Conservation Area which will encompass 
     the Anasazi ACEC. CLUB 20 has been following the efforts of 
     Montezuma County and the BLM RAC group throughout their study 
     process. Designation of the area to be protected needs to be 
     done by legislation, not administrative directives!
       CLUB 20 will make every effort to support you and our 
     Montezuma County membership in attaining a legislative 
     solution to the needs of the resource to be protected.
       On February 8, 2000, our Natural Resources and Public Lands 
     Committee will be meeting to review issues and recommend 
     resolutions to our Board of Directors. If you feel it 
     beneficial, I will recommend they take action on a definitive 
     resolution that supports the National Conservation Area 
     legislation.
       Please keep us posted and let me know how we can help your 
     effort. Thanks for your continued hard work on West Slope 
     issues!
           Sincerely,
                                                      Stan Broome,
     President.
                                  ____

         Colorado Environmental Coalition--Sierra Club--The 
           Wilderness Society,
                                                December 26, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: We are writing concerning the 
     management of the Anasazi Area of Critical Environmental 
     Concern (ACEC) in Southwest Colorado. As you know, Secretary 
     Babbitt convened a working group of local interested parties 
     to gather and compile public input on how the area should be 
     managed so as to protect its plethora of archaeological sites 
     and natural values. The ACEC contains not only the highest 
     concentration of ancient Puebloan sites anywhere in the 
     nation, but pristine wilderness values as well. We have long 
     advocated for the designation of the Cross, Cahone, and 
     Squaw/Papoose Wilderness Study Area (WSA) in the ACEC as 
     wilderness, as the most effective way to protect these unique 
     resources.
       There are several options for protecting the area's 
     resources that would provide real protection for sensitive 
     sites, and maintain the region's traditional character. 
     First, the Montezuma County Commission has proposed a draft 
     budget for BLM management of the ACEC that significantly 
     increases the funding for research, site preservation, NEPA 
     analysis, and law enforcement. We think that this budget is a 
     good starting point for discussions on how to adequately fund 
     needed management by the BLM.
       In addition, two protective designations for the area have 
     been discussed: National Monument and National Conservation 
     Area. We believe either of these could provide the needed 
     management for the area if they provide strong protection for 
     archaeological sites from impacts of motorized recreation and 
     oil and gas development. However, in deference to local 
     concerns about increased impacts of tourism with a National 
     Monument, our preference is for the delegation to work 
     together on legislation establishing a National Conservation 
     Area, including the designation of the above-mentioned WSA's 
     as wilderness. We believe this represents the best middle 
     ground mechanism for protecting the area's archaeological 
     resources while also maintaining its rural character.
       Wilderness designation for Cross, Cahone, and Squaw/Papoose 
     Canyons would give the best protection to their 
     archaeological sites, while allowing the continuance of 
     traditional activities such as the grazing leases currently 
     in effect. There would be little effect on oil and gas 
     development in the area, since there has been no activity in 
     the canyons, and any future development of existing leases 
     could be accommodated with directional drilling from outside 
     the wilderness boundaries.
       Finally, we support Montezuma County's notion of funding 
     part of BLM's management activities for the area through 
     royalties from oil and gas production. Since oil and gas 
     development represents some of the greatest impacts in the 
     area, it stands to reason that some of the royalty funds 
     should remain in the area and provide for its protection.
       We urge you to consider these various approaches--
     increasing funding for management of the area, and 
     designating a National Conservation Area, with wilderness 
     status for the most pristine parts of the ACEC--as a workable 
     solution that addresses local concerns as well as critical 
     protection needs. We look forward to working with you on 
     legislation to address all of these needs.
           Sincerely,
     Jeff Widen,
       Colorado Environmental Coalition.
     Mark Pearson,
       Sierra Club.
     Suzanne Jones,
       The Wilderness Society.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S.J. Res. 39. A joint resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of 
the Korean War and the service by members of the Armed Forces during 
such war, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


     resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the korean war

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President. This year will mark the 50th anniversary 
of America's effort in Korea to halt the spread of Communist 
aggression. Today, I am introducing a bill that is of great importance 
to me and the more than 1.5 million American men and women who so 
valiantly fought and supported the U.S. effort in Korea.
  On June 25, 1950, the Communist North Korean military invaded South 
Korea, provoking a swift U.S. response. Two days later, President 
Truman ordered the intervention that eventually involved 22 nations. In 
the three years that the U.S. led this multinational force, more than 
54,000 Americans gave their lives in the fight to preserve our freedom 
and democratic way of life. As many as 92,000 soldiers were wounded and 
more than 8,000 were left behind.
  Despite this struggle and sacrifice, I can clearly remember as a 
young man, returning home from my years in Korea, feeling as if no one 
knew that we had ever been gone. It was a harsh, painful conflict that 
America very quickly wanted to place well behind it. I knew then and 
understand now why Korea came to be known as ``The Forgotten War.''
  If you visit the Korean War Memorial at the end of the Mall here in 
Washington, you will see the patrolling squad of 19 weary soldiers 
frozen in motion, their rustled ponchos and obstacles beneath them a 
testament to the harsh conditions and terrain that were endured each 
day of ground combat. On the adjacent granite wall, one will see the 
faint etchings of 2,400 unnamed faces of the men and women who 
contributed in the effort in so many different ways. Clearly displayed 
beyond

[[Page 628]]

these images is the message that so profoundly reminds us, ``Freedom is 
Not Free.''
  Mr. President, the joint resolution that I introduce today marks the 
passage of these 50 years since the Korean War and recognizes its 
extraordinary significance in our history. Most importantly, it thanks 
and honors the brave men and women who fought so hard to defeat the 
spread of Communism and preserve our freedom and democracy. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to recognize our 
nation's Korean War veterans and mark this historic anniversary.
  I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 39

       Whereas on June 25, 1950, Communist North Korea invaded 
     South Korea with approximately 135,000 troops, thereby 
     initiating the Korean War;
       Whereas on June 27, 1950, President Harry S Truman ordered 
     military intervention in Korea;
       Whereas approximately 5,720,000 members of the Armed Forces 
     served during the Korean War to defeat the spread of 
     communism in Korea and throughout the world;
       Whereas casualties of the United States during the Korean 
     War included 54,260 dead (of whom 33,665 were battle deaths), 
     92,134 wounded, and 8,176 listed as missing in action or 
     prisoners of war; and
       Whereas service by members of the Armed Forces in the 
     Korean War should never be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress--
       (1) recognizes the historic significance of the 50th 
     anniversary of the Korean War;
       (2) expresses the gratitude of the people of the United 
     States to the members of the Armed Forces who served in the 
     Korean War;
       (3) honors the memory of service members who paid the 
     ultimate price for the cause of freedom, including those who 
     remain unaccounted for; and
       (4) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation--
       (A) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean War and 
     the sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces who served 
     and fought in Korea to defeat the spread of communism; and
       (B) calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
     such anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                          ____________________