[Pages S328-S334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

<bullet> 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.

[[Page S329]]

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.<bullet>
______

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 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.

[[Page S330]]

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 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.

[[Page S331]]

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 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.

[[Page S332]]

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--
(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

[[Page S333]]

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 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,

[[Page S334]]

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 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.

____________________