Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is fine. Has Senator Dodd spoken yet?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask the leader, has Senator Inouye been here yet?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think 10 will be enough. Perhaps I can ask unanimous consent if it is not; that is, 10 minutes for Senator Inouye and 10 for me?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is my understanding.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, point of information: What time will the vote on the Dodd amendment take place?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no objection.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I have made most of my comments already. I don't know who else will be here on the floor to speak against the Dodd-Lieberman amendment, but I would like to respond to just two small points that were made by our friend, Senator Lieberman. First, though, let me thank Senator Inouye for a very eloquent statement. He really does speak from the heart. When you hear him talk about basic fairness and justice that American Indians deserve and need, I think Senator Inouye's own experience and background as a Japanese-American and what his people went through in World War II gives him a very special insight, and certainly a very special feeling for what Indian people face. Let me make two very short comments on Senator Lieberman's remarks. He made reference that this would not affect existing tribes. He is right, I guess, in some respects. But I think we need to look at that in historical context. First of all, when the original recognition process was done--clear back in the early 1800s--it was done so that the Federal Government could provide rations, blankets, and so on, to the Indian tribes that were deprived at that time of their hunting rights and restricted to certain areas. That is why it was originally set up. They had to find out who qualified to get some benefits, and that is what trust authority is about. It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber to know that there were some people even at that time who did not want recognition. Certainly some of them hid out in the hills of the Carolinas because of the Trail of Tears, when their cousins and brothers and fathers were rounded up and driven at gunpoint clear across the Nation to Oklahoma. The ones who hid out in the Southeast States--would you want to tell some government bent on killing your people you want to be recognized? Not likely; that would be a pretty dumb thing to do. There have been Indian people in some parts of this country all along who were not ``recognized'' by the U.S. Government. It didn't mean they were not Indian. It didn't mean anything of the sort. They knew very well what would happen to them if they were so-called recognized. The second point I want to make is during the 1950s, during what was called the Termination Act, the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, decided many Indian tribes were no longer tribes. I guess that meant they were no longer Indians, at least not of a group of Indians. That has always rather confused me because I have always likened it to maybe telling African Americans that they were no longer Black. I mean, you are what God made you. That's it. But through the Termination Act of the 1950s--I don't remember the exact number, and I don't have it in my notes--as I just offhand remember, there were over a hundred, if not several hundred, tribes who were told by the Federal Government: You are no longer Indian tribes. Many of them are still trying to be rerecognized. The ones that were terminated in the 1950s, they have to get recognized through a different process. They have to do it through legislation. But the point is the fact that many of them that historically had ancestors on this continent maybe for 10,000 years were being told by a government set up by new immigrants that they were no longer Indian tribes still confuses me. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building located at 1244 Speer Boulevard, Denver, CO., as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building.'' Cesar E. Chavez was an ordinary American who left behind an extraordinary legacy of commitment and accomplishment. Born on March 31, 1927 in Yuma Arizona on a farm his grandfather homesteaded in the 1880's, he began his life as a migrant farm worker at the age of 10 when the family lost the farm during the Great Depression. Those were desperate years for the Chavez family as they joined the thousands of displaced people who were forced to migrate throughout the country to labor in the fields and vineyards. Motivated by the poverty and harsh working conditions, he began to follow his dream of establishing an organization dedicated to helping these farm workers. In 1962 he founded the National Farm Workers Association which would eventually evolve into the United Farm Workers of America. Over the next three decades with an unwavering commitment to democratic principals and a philosophy of non-violence he struggled to secure a living wage, health benefits and safe working conditions for arguably the most exploited work force in our country, that they might enjoy the basic protections and workers right to which all Americans aspire. In 1945, at the age of 18 Cesar Chavez joined the U.S. Navy and served his country for two years. He was the recipient of the Martin Luther King Jr. Peace Prize as well as the Presidential medal of Freedom, the highest award this country can bestow upon a civilian. Chavez's efforts brought dignity and respect to this country's farm workers and in doing so became a hero, role model and inspiration to people engaged in human rights struggles throughout the world. The naming of this building will keep alive the memory of his sacrifice and commitment for the millions of people whose lives he touched. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building located at 1244 Speer Boulevard, Denver, CO., as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building.'' Cesar E. Chavez was an ordinary American who left behind an extraordinary legacy of commitment and accomplishment. Born on March 31, 1927 in Yuma Arizona on a farm his grandfather homesteaded in the 1880's, he began his life as a migrant farm worker at the age of 10 when the family lost the farm during the Great Depression. Those were desperate years for the Chavez family as they joined the thousands of displaced people who were forced to migrate throughout the country to labor in the fields and vineyards. Motivated by the poverty and harsh working conditions, he began to follow his dream of establishing an organization dedicated to helping these farm workers. In 1962 he founded the National Farm Workers Association which would eventually evolve into the United Farm Workers of America. Over the next three decades with an unwavering commitment to democratic principals and a philosophy of non-violence he struggled to secure a living wage, health benefits and safe working conditions for arguably the most exploited work force in our country, that they might enjoy the basic protections and workers right to which all Americans aspire. In 1945, at the age of 18 Cesar Chavez joined the U.S. Navy and served his country for two years. He was the recipient of the Martin Luther King Jr. Peace Prize as well as the Presidential medal of Freedom, the highest award this country can bestow upon a civilian. Chavez's efforts brought dignity and respect to this country's farm workers and in doing so became a hero, role model and inspiration to people engaged in human rights struggles throughout the world. The naming of this building will keep alive the memory of his sacrifice and commitment for the millions of people whose lives he touched. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, the result now, of course, is that on the Animas River, which goes through the town of Durango, dead fish are littering the banks because so much mud has come into the water. Mike Japhet of the Colorado Division of Wildlife said that in some places fish are actually trying to get out of the water because they cannot breath. He received one report that fish were actually ``gasping for air'' as they tried to stay alive. The local county has spent over $100,000 just clearing mud from roads and ditches near the Lemon and Vallecito Reservoirs that were affected by this fire. I want to add my voice to the Craig-Domenici amendment. I just want to point out from a local point of view the catastrophic results. Our little town of Durango in fact relies heavily on tourism. An old train takes tourists through the mountains. They had 28,000 cancellations in just 2 weeks because of that fire. Those cancellations, of course, result in money lost to the local community. The estimated loss of revenue during the month after that fire in the town of Durango was estimated to be about 40 percent from the normal resources they would have been able to rely on from tourists who stay in motels and who eat in the restaurants. The facts are clear: unnaturally dense forests result in unnaturally hot burning and fast moving fires, like we experienced in Colorado. Our proposal would address the problem in a balanced way--even providing greater review of projects than the majority leader's plan that takes care of his own state that he managed to attach to the emergency supplemental bill. We know what needs to be done, but now opponents are opposing our bill and offering counterproposals that will do absolutely nothing to help forest managers thin these forests to reduce the risk of these catastrophic fires, nor allow for any salvage operations to help pay for the rehabilitation of these areas. What does the counterproposal do? Their proposal does nothing more than sell the public a false bag of goods--it does nothing but create false expectations in the public. My state of Colorado has experienced enough from prior bad policies. I am offended that some would now suggest new ones. Since my friends on the other side know what needs to be done, why are they proposing such ineffective policy? Because we are in an election year and some politically-active environmental groups are drafting the policy. It is not a secret. They say there is a lot of campaign money at stake--television and radio ads that could be poured into your State if you oppose doing the right thing. It is time to do the right thing. It is time for these environmental groups to start looking at policies that benefit the environment rather than maintaining the political hammerlock they have on the Forest Service and BLM. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, who has spoken to the broader issue of the problem we face, and the firefighters. And Senator Crapo elaborated on that some. Let me speak for a moment about why I support the Craig-Domenici amendment from a local standpoint. It certainly provides a critical tool in doing the job that we know needs to be done. We know there are counterproposals floating around. From my perspective, that does not accomplish what we need to have done. Let me speak a couple of minutes about what happened near the town of Durango, CO. I live about 18 miles from there. In fact, during the Missionary Ridge fire, we watched it with great anticipation from our porch at our ranch. Durango is a very scenic town in Colorado, home of one of only 13 gold medal trout streams in the whole country, and has some of the finest mountain biking areas in the West. Two months ago, there was a fire called the Missionary Ridge fire, declared under control on July 28, but only after we had lost over 70,000 acres of forest, 56 homes, 27 adjoining buildings, and the collective cost of $40.6 million to fight that fire. More importantly, large areas around the Lemon and Vallecito Reservoirs burned so intensely that the soil had become hydrophobic and unable to keep water back. Downstream, the La Plata, Aimas, Los Pinos, and Florida Rivers were now all at risk. When I was home this past weekend, I was reading in the local newspaper about several homes that were washed off their foundations by the mud slides as a result of that loose soil caused by the fire and the burning of all of the underbrush and trees. That $40.6 million lost, to put it in context, is more than double the amount of funding allocated for recreation for all of the 11 forests in Region II, which is Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nebraska. It is four times the amount of funding for wildlife for all 11 forests in Region II for fiscal year 2002. It is nearly double the amount of money allocated to the region for hazardous fuels reduction work for fiscal year 2002. So in a little over 1\1/2\ months, we spent more allowing that area to be destroyed by fire than we would have spent on wildlife habitat management on all 11 forests over 4 years. Speaking of wildlife, when the Missionary Ridge fire was at its highest level of intensity, I happened to have a chance to talk to one of the firefighters who had been on the front line. He told me he estimated the fire to be moving at about 50 miles an hour--literally out of control--and actually saw birds being burned out of the sky because they were unable to outfly that fire, and that a number of small animals literally burned alive because they could not outrun that fire. There are just terrible stories about what happened. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some excerpts of stories in the local newspapers in Durango of September 8, 10, 13, and 14.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act.'' The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act, which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system. Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant- making program, including providing an Internet-based application process. There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing, drug courts help get people clean. Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration. For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave speeches in support of drug courts. According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, there are nearly 700 Drug Courts in operation all across the United States. This includes 483 Adult Drug Courts, 167 Juvenile Drug Courts, and 37 Family Drug Courts. An additional 400-plus new Drug Courts are in the planning process. The report goes on to state that approximately 220,000 adults and 9,000 juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system and of those, 73,000 adults and 1,500 juveniles have graduated. The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide, the drug courts have helped more than 1,000 to be born drug free, more than 3,500 parents to regain custody of their children, and 4,500 parents to resume making their child-support payments. The retention rate is over 70 percent, with 73 percent of the participants managing to keep their jobs or successfully find new work. These are encouraging successes, and not just for the individuals involved, but for society as a whole. These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities. Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time. Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and watch their futures get squandered away. Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act. Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to participate in the new Federal program. Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU, has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep students clean and in school. Under the pioneering leadership of Cheryl Asmus, the drug court inspired program helped 26 out of 30 students who would have otherwise been kicked out of school stay there during the last spring semester alone. As I understand it, two of the four were dismissed from school for not meeting the Day IV program's treatment requirements and the other two left school for other reasons. In any case, a success rate approaching 90 percent is a wonderful accomplishment, both for the university and especially for the 26 students who have managed to pull themselves back from potential disaster. Our drug court system is making a difference all across our Nation. In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``drug courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower after participation, especially for graduates.'' Far too many of our Nation's college students are falling by the wayside as they get sidetracked by crippling drug and alcohol abuse problems. Not only are academic careers being impacted and ended, entire lives are being thrown into limbo. Our Nation's drug court system is a good example of a viable and productive partnership between the Federal Government, our State governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the State and local judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court system. I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Stuart VanMeveren, District Attorney for Colorado's Eighth Judicial District, and Colorado State University President Albert Yates for their letters of support for the Campus CORT legislation I am introducing today. Their support for this bill is appreciated. I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of support and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act.'' The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act, which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system. Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant- making program, including providing an Internet-based application process. There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing, drug courts help get people clean. Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration. For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave speeches in support of drug courts. According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, there are nearly 700 Drug Courts in operation all across the United States. This includes 483 Adult Drug Courts, 167 Juvenile Drug Courts, and 37 Family Drug Courts. An additional 400-plus new Drug Courts are in the planning process. The report goes on to state that approximately 220,000 adults and 9,000 juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system and of those, 73,000 adults and 1,500 juveniles have graduated. The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide, the drug courts have helped more than 1,000 to be born drug free, more than 3,500 parents to regain custody of their children, and 4,500 parents to resume making their child-support payments. The retention rate is over 70 percent, with 73 percent of the participants managing to keep their jobs or successfully find new work. These are encouraging successes, and not just for the individuals involved, but for society as a whole. These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities. Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time. Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and watch their futures get squandered away. Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act. Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to participate in the new Federal program. Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU, has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep students clean and in school. Under the pioneering leadership of Cheryl Asmus, the drug court inspired program helped 26 out of 30 students who would have otherwise been kicked out of school stay there during the last spring semester alone. As I understand it, two of the four were dismissed from school for not meeting the Day IV program's treatment requirements and the other two left school for other reasons. In any case, a success rate approaching 90 percent is a wonderful accomplishment, both for the university and especially for the 26 students who have managed to pull themselves back from potential disaster. Our drug court system is making a difference all across our Nation. In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``drug courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower after participation, especially for graduates.'' Far too many of our Nation's college students are falling by the wayside as they get sidetracked by crippling drug and alcohol abuse problems. Not only are academic careers being impacted and ended, entire lives are being thrown into limbo. Our Nation's drug court system is a good example of a viable and productive partnership between the Federal Government, our State governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the State and local judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court system. I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Stuart VanMeveren, District Attorney for Colorado's Eighth Judicial District, and Colorado State University President Albert Yates for their letters of support for the Campus CORT legislation I am introducing today. Their support for this bill is appreciated. I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of support and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I would defer to Senator Inouye, our chairman, if he wishes to speak first. Madam President, I support a motion to table the Dodd amendment. Let me say at the outset, though, that no one questions Senator Dodd's commitment to the Indian people of America. He has an exemplary voting record, and he has always been there when we needed help. My problem with his amendment is that there has been almost no input from tribes themselves, and in the past they have opposed any moratorium. We all know the problem that exists now with the recognition process. We all know it needs to be streamlined and needs to be changed. It is replete with problems. We have heard it over and over. We have had a couple hearings on this already in the Indian Affairs Committee, and we intend to take it up again. Whether we have run out of time this year has yet to be determined. But I was not aware there was going to be some discussion on a compromise amendment. And because the unanimous consent request was entered into yesterday, many of us, including me, have made reservations on planes that we can't change. So I hope I am going to be able to be here to speak to it, but knowing how these things sort of creep, I may not be able to do so. So from my own standpoint, if I do have to leave, I am going to defer to our chairman, Senator Inouye. The Indian Affairs staff is working with Senator Dodd's staff on an amendment that may be acceptable, but I will certainly defer to my chairman in his decision of whether to support that amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the Craig- Domenici amendment to improve the tragic health of our Nation's forests. Years of complete fire suppression has resulted in unnaturally dense forests. In many places out West where nature would have 50 trees per acre, there are 500 trees per acre, this tremendous build-up in hazardous fuels significantly increases fire danger and makes trees more prone to insect infestations. The facts are clear: Unnaturally dense forests result in unnaturally hot burning and fast moving fires. The Forest Service and other land management agencies have known the facts for years but have been hamstrung, in large part due to shifting political winds. And here is the dilemma: interest groups and agencies argue about what needs to be done while forests go up in flames, endangered species are destroyed, and human life and property are jeopardized. The amendment that we are proposing does not point the finger at any one group or agency. Rather, this amendment moves beyond the politics and focuses on results consistent with plans developed by the Western Governors' own ``10-Year Comprehensive Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment.'' Where the agencies are unable to proceed with hazardous fuels reduction, this amendment directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to expedite responsible forest management projects in a balanced way and is very similar to language previously passed by this body to allow for fuel reduction in certain other western States. This amendment looks at the facts. In this year alone, 62,924 fires have scorched more than 6.3 million acres of land across this Nation. But what about people, how has wildfire affected our communities? Since April of this year in my State of Colorado, 12 communities, 141 subdivisions totaling 81,068 people have been evacuated because of wildfire. When those Coloradans returned after being evacuated, they found 384 homes burned to the ground and 624 other structures destroyed. Although property damage and widespread dislocation are devastating on communities, the wildfire season of 2002 has proved even more tragic. Wildfires have claimed the lives of 10 firefighters in Colorado, and 21 in the nation. Returning to a pile of ash instead of your home is one thing, coming home without a father or sister is another altogether. Without responsible hazardous fuel reduction, this year's fire situation is bound to repeat itself and I cannot allow this to happen. This year's fires came close enough to my own front porch at one point, that it was difficult for my wife and me to breathe. Given the drought conditions that the West is enduring, the situation on the 181 million acres that are currently classified as a Class 3 fire risk is not going to get any better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to reduce the threat unhealthy forests pose nationwide.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask a couple of minutes of time from Senator Burns, if I can get some. Let me tell my friend, Senator Dodd, I think he has brought something forward that we have long neglected. We have dealt with it in the Indian Affairs Committee several times and have not been able to find a solution. I know, as you said, the casino issue may not be the central focus point, but clearly it has driven the debate over the last few years. There are probably 60 or 70 or more on the drawing boards right now throughout America. In fact, there is a good number in California. We have seen the advent of huge amounts of money. Actually it ended up dividing families, about who was going to control the tribe. We are dealing with that now in California, where part of the family has literally disenfranchised some other parts through some local decisions made by the agencies in California rather than even going as far as the Secretary's office or the Under Secretary's office. So we know there are some real problems with it. I wanted to mention that I may very well join you. But right now I understand this is going to be laid aside for a while anyway. I tried to call Senator Inouye, the chairman. I am the ranking member, as the Senator from Connecticut knows. He is not in yet, but we are going to sit down and talk about this. I might say, in the past, my own feeling about codifying anything--in other words, taking regulations and turning them into law--without people whose lives are going to be affected, I have always been very careful about that, particularly in the Indian community. We hear very often in committee when Indians come in to testify, tribes come to testify, people say: We didn't even know you were going to do this. We had no opportunity to study it, to deal with it. I know, at least in my view, I do not think any of the national groups, for instance, the National Congress of American Indians, any professional group or any particular tribes, have had a chance to review this and try to be in on the discussion about how we fix something that is rapidly causing a lot of problems.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I tell my friend, their national convention is going to be in San Diego after we get out, in November, with only 17 or 18 days of actual working time here. It might well be too late to do anything this year. But if we don't, and even if it does have the support of Indian tribes, it is certainly something we ought to review next year. I tell my friend I will be looking forward to trying to find a solution to this very difficult problem.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye to introduce the ``Native American Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge and sensitivity to the management of Federal lands. Next week is the 140th anniversary of the bloodiest day in U.S. military history--the Battle at Antietam Creek in Sharpsburg, Maryland. Many Civil War historians see Antietam as the turning point in the Union's victory over the Confederacy and as the victory President Lincoln needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Americans have a visceral impulse to restrict development of the lands like those at Antietam, not because we are sons of the Union or daughters of the Confederacy, but because we are Americans. We know that Antietam, like Omaha Beach and Little Bighorn and other places, is a sacred place. In 1978, Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, AIRFA, which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.'' It is clear that twenty-five years after the enactment of the AIRFA, the tools available to protect Native sacred places and religious beliefs are insufficient. At the same time, as our need for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases, the clashes between economic and cultural interests also increase. In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978. The legislation I am introducing builds on these precedents by setting up a demonstration project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies. Under the bill, the Secretary of Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye to introduce the ``Native American Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge and sensitivity to the management of Federal lands. Next week is the 140th anniversary of the bloodiest day in U.S. military history--the Battle at Antietam Creek in Sharpsburg, Maryland. Many Civil War historians see Antietam as the turning point in the Union's victory over the Confederacy and as the victory President Lincoln needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Americans have a visceral impulse to restrict development of the lands like those at Antietam, not because we are sons of the Union or daughters of the Confederacy, but because we are Americans. We know that Antietam, like Omaha Beach and Little Bighorn and other places, is a sacred place. In 1978, Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, AIRFA, which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.'' It is clear that twenty-five years after the enactment of the AIRFA, the tools available to protect Native sacred places and religious beliefs are insufficient. At the same time, as our need for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases, the clashes between economic and cultural interests also increase. In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978. The legislation I am introducing builds on these precedents by setting up a demonstration project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies. Under the bill, the Secretary of Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Dorgan, Murkowski, Domenici, Bingaman, Conrad and Stabenow in submitting a resolution to commemorate the establishment of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium that took place in the fall of 1972. In the late 1960s Indian people began to realize that their futures depended more on their own keen insights, beliefs and actions than on those of the Federal Government or other communities. This phenomenon was assisted in 1970 when President Nixon issued his ``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs'' which rejected the tried and failed policies of assimilation and termination. Nixon's message launched the era of Indian Self Determination with a renewed focus on local, tribal decision making and economic self sufficiency. In 1972 six Indian tribal colleges joined forces to form the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, AIHEC, with the goal of creating a network of tribally-controlled institutions of higher education. The founders of the AIHEC envisioned that through collective action, they could better assist Indian communities and Native people in the field of education and vocational education. Thirty years later, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium has grown to include 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities located in 12 States with an enrollment of 30,000 students from over 250 federally recognized Indian Tribes. Tribal Colleges and Universities provide quality higher education to Indian students and have become the ``hubs'' of a sort for accessing state-of-the-art information technology. It is important to realize that in addition to providing educational opportunities for their communities, these institutions function as community centers, libraries, childcare centers, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development centers and public meeting places. The communities served by Tribal Colleges and Universities are among the poorest in the Nation. The training and education provided by Tribal Colleges and Universities allows Native students to prepare for and obtain jobs that offer a decent salary with benefits, and help reduce the trap of dependency that has befallen so many Native people. On July 3, 2002 President Bush issued Executive Order 13270 recognizing the enduring contributions of Indian Tribal Colleges and Universities and hailing their success on a wide range of issues. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution which recognizes the critical role Tribal Colleges and Universities play in American Indian communities, honors the vision and commitment of the founds of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and celebrates 30 successful years of implementing that vision for the benefit of American Indian peoples across the United States.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on designating Yucca Mountain as the Nation's waste repository in the State of Nevada. But before I start, I would like to get a few things clear. First, I don't oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is an efficient and clean way to generate electricity. The obvious downside to nuclear power is that its waste is harmful to people. Yet, several States benefit from the relative clean power that nuclear plants generate. Clean air, clean water, and efficient power are significant benefits that some enjoy. My opposition to designating Yucca Mountain is deeply rooted in my strongly held belief in States' rights. I believe that States should determine their own destiny--when States elect or choose to benefit from a program or policy, then those States should correspondingly assume the costs, costs that might not only be monetary. My State of Colorado did not choose to build nuclear power plants. My State of Colorado did not choose to enjoy the benefits that nuclear power offers. Correspondingly, my State of Colorado never chose to assume the responsibility of storing nuclear waste and, therefore, we do not. Some States favor storing nuclear waste and enjoy the economic benefits of doing so. My neighbor to the south, New Mexico, for example, chose to store nuclear waste in Carlsbad. The WIPP facility there is a major source of revenue for the community and the State. Although it has some detractors, I think that it is widely regarded as a big plus. The State of Nevada, however, unequivocally opposes storing waste at Yucca Mountain. It objects for a variety of reasons. Whereas the State of New Mexico considers storing nuclear waste good for business, the State of Nevada believes that storing nuclear waste at Yucca will kill business. Nevada's economy relies, perhaps more than any other State in the Nation, on tourism. I cannot, in good conscience, vote to override a Governor's veto, when the long-term effect has the potential to destroy that State's economy. During hearings before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on designating Yucca, I noted my moral opposition. Today, I reiterate that argument. I likened the issue to a homeowner who builds his big house on a small lot, and then realizes that he failed to build a septic tank for the house. Rather than change his design, the homeowner just puts the septic tank on his neighbor's property. I don't want someone else's septic tank on my property. The State of Colorado doesn't want a septic tank. We shouldn't force Nevada to be a septic tank for other States. Furthermore, I am concerned about the routing of nuclear waste shipments going through Colorado toward Yucca. I realize that the routes that have been referred to are not certainties, but they are certain possibilities. After this vote, the Congress will have a very limited voice in choosing routes. I share many of the same transportation concerns some of my colleagues have expressed. I don't want to restate all of their points. Rather, I just want to note that if Yucca mountain moves forward, Colorado will likely be a major transit route for nuclear waste with nearly 13,000 rail shipments over 38 years, one of the highest in the Nation. And what is not transported by rail will be transported by truck in I-70 and through Vail Pass, a difficult mountain road winding through Colorado's Rocky Mountains. Trucks wreck all the time on I-70. I am happy to know that we have not had any major nuclear waste accidents by truck, but am troubled by the possibility, just the same. A colleague made a logical argument about the benefits and risk. For him, the benefits of designating Yucca mountain make the risks tolerable. I am unable to make the determination. Because I don't know what the transportation routes will be and my Governor does not have authority to designate or oppose routes, I can't engage in a cost- benefit analysis. In the absence of state oversight authority to regulate, and without sufficient information on route designations, the risks are too great for this Senator to approve Yucca Mountain.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today a resolution to commemorate the anniversary of a little-noticed but critical event that took place 32 years ago this summer. In July 1970, President Richard M. Nixon delivered his now-famous ``Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs'' that revolutionized how our Nation deals with Native governments and Native people from Florida to Alaska, from Maine to Hawaii. With centuries of ill-conceived and misdirected Federal policies and practices behind us, I am happy to say that the Nixon Indian policy continues as the bedrock of America's promise to Native Americans. In his Message to Congress, the President made the case for a more enlightened Federal Indian policy. Citing historical injustices as well as the practical failure of all previous Federal policies regarding Indian Nations, President Nixon called for the rejection of both the ``termination'' policy of the 1950s and the ``excessive dependence'' on the Federal Government by Indian tribes and people fostered by Federal paternalism. Nixon observed that ``[t]he first Americans--the Indians--are the most deprived and most isolated group in our Nation. On virtually every scale of measurement--employment, income, education, health--the condition of the Indian people rank at the bottom.'' Thirty-two years later, Indians continue to suffer high rates of unemployment, are mired in poverty, and still rank at or near the bottom of nearly every social and economic indicator in the Nation. Nonetheless, there is cause for hope that the conditions of Native Americans are improving, however slowly. The twin pillars of the policy change initiated in 1970 are political self determination and economic self reliance. Without doubt, the most enduring legacy of the 1970 Message is the Indian self determination policy best embodied in the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, amended several times since then. This Act, which has consistently been supported, promoted, and expanded with bipartisan support, authorizes Indian tribes to assume responsibility for and administer programs and services formerly provided by the Federal Government. As of 2001, nearly one-half of all Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and Indian Health Service, IHS, programs and services have been assumed by tribes under the Indian Self Determination Act. With this transfer of resources and decision making authority, tribal governments have succeeded in improving the quality of services to their citizens, developed more sophisticated tribal governing structures and practices, improved their ability to govern, and strengthened their economies. Self determination contracting and compacting has improved the efficiency of Federal programs and services and at the same time have devolved control over these resources from Washington, DC to the local, tribal governments which are much more in tune with the needs of their own people. As steps are taken to provide tribes the tools they need to develop vigorous economies and generate tribal revenues, our policy in Congress and across the Federal Government should be to encourage and assist tribes to expand self determination and self governance into other agencies and programs, and in the process help Native people to achieve real and measurable success in improving their standard of living. The challenge of the Nixon Message was not only to the Federal Government but to the tribes themselves: that by building strong tribal governments and more robust economies, real independence and true self determination can be achieved. Our experience has shown that any cooperative efforts between the United States and the tribes must include a solemn assurance that the special relationship will endure and will not be terminated because of the fits and starts of periodic economic success enjoyed by some Indian tribes. President Nixon wisely realized that the mere threat of termination results in a tendency toward an unhealthy dependence on the Federal Government which has plagued Native people for decades. As President Nixon himself knew, Native people are not hapless bystanders in this process. His Message recognized that the story of the Indian in America is one of ``endurance, survival, of adaptation and creativity in the face of overwhelming obstacles.'' The persistence and tenacity of Native people has been the foundation in forging a more enlightened Indian policy and with the assistance of the United States will, I am confident, result in true self determination for Native people in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Nixon Message and our collective efforts over time in making Indian self determination a reality.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I rise today to talk about forest management, although I am certainly sad it has taken the current catastrophic wildfires out West to get some attention on this issue. On May 18, before most of the fires had started and were underway, I held a field hearing for the Energy Committee in Golden, CO, to review coordination of firefighting efforts. The four intergovernmental witnesses all expressed serious concern that Colorado's unnaturally dense forests pose serious risk of unnaturally hot burning and unmanageable fires, increasing the danger to both people and property. Unfortunately, that worry became a very real, unimaginable reality for much of the West. In our State alone just this year, we have had over 350,000 acres burn. As of yesterday, the Hayman fire east of I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs had burned in excess of 137,000 acres, much of it in the all-important South Platte watershed of the City of Denver. While the fire is now 70 percent contained, over 1,200 residents are at risk and many lost their homes. In fact, 618 homes and structures burned, and it has cost over $26 million so far in fighting this fire. The Forest Service tells us much of this fire is in an area of diseased and stressed timber, some of which they have been attempting to clean up, but opponents are delaying this needed management through courtroom appeals and litigation. It is important to note that large parts of the area that has burned are in the areas that were designated as roadless during the Clinton administration, under the Clinton management plan. We have the Million Fire near the little town of South Fork, CO, near Wolf Creek Pass. That fire is not big by the standards of this summer, but it has already consumed over 8,500 acres, and it is right on the outskirts of the town of South Fork. We have lost 13 homes and buildings in that fire. The resource managers tell us it is burning in an area of spruce and ponderosa pine already killed by insects. History shows many of proposed salvage sales on the Rio Grande National Forest have also been opposed by opponents of cleaning the forests, and they have had difficulty getting proactive thinning and sanitation harvesting through the NEPA process. The agency tells us that nearly 100 additional homes and commercial buildings are currently threatened and that the town's watershed is also in the line of fire. Finally, just near where I live in Durango, CO, what is called the Missionary Ridge fire, which I am sure you have seen on CNN and a number of other networks, is 15 miles from the town of Durango, CO--in fact, I can see it from my front porch--and it is burning that way. Ten subdivisions are endangered, over 1,150 residences are being evacuated, and we have lost 71 homes and outbuildings. The municipal watersheds of the towns of Durango and Bayfield are threatened, as well as numerous businesses, radio towers, and homes. The interesting part of that fire is it is burning mostly in RARE II roadless areas. Last week, when I was home, the fire was only about 2 miles from the city limits of the town of Durango with zero containment and certainly has had a devastating impact on the morale of the community, on the structures, and on tourism, which is the backbone and mainstay of our economy. All of those fires I have mentioned have really been eclipsed and overshadowed by the huge fire in Arizona in the Coconino National Forest, not far from the White River National Forest. I am reminded of 1996, when there was an effort by the Forest Service to do some fuels reduction in the Coconino Forest. They were prevented from doing so by an environmental lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act which contended that the fuels reduction would disturb the goshawk, a small hawk. Later that same year, there was a fire that did start in that forest, and it destroyed everything in its path, including the goshawk nests. Now we have almost the same catastrophic fire in the White River National Forest. Time and again, we hear from Colorado firefighters who are frustrated they can't seem to get ahead of the fires. I submit we cannot seem to get ahead of some of the lawsuits that block our responsible management of the forests, and we won't be able to get any place under control until we do. This year so far, we have had over 300 fires nationwide, and the fire season is just starting. The science is certain: Thinning forests at natural levels significantly reduces the threat of wildfires. Yet the constant threat of environmental lawsuits has resulted in what has been described by the Forest Service as ``analysis paralysis.'' The Forest Service is now forced to study and assess proposed actions, not for the right reasons, but because of any potential action in the courts, in anticipation of a flurry of lawsuits and appeals by some extreme groups. Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, testified before our committee that they are now using over 40 percent of their agency work and a good deal of their resources, about $250 million a year, that could have gone to save lives and property. Instead, they are using it to prepare for court actions against opponents of cleaning the forest. Environmental groups are proud of that obstruction-through-litigation strategy because every dollar we spend in litigating is one less dollar we spend on managing the forest. They do acknowledge, however, that forests are unnaturally dense. In Colorado, normally we have 50 trees per acre. But now we see stands of 200, 500, and 800 trees per acre, representing unmanageable fuel loads. Many of these trees are dying from insect infestation, which increases the fire risk. Yet environmentalists still oppose any thinning or removal of dead timber except if it is near homes or around homes. They argue that thinning other parts of the forest grants unnecessary footholds for the ``big, bad'' timber industry that will ravage the landscape. It is interesting that what they completely ignore is that industry thinning on national forests is done under very close scrutiny of the National Environmental Policy Act. What about lawsuits in the name of animals? On the one hand, environmentalists sue land managers to keep them from thinning because the action might disturb all manner of species. On the other hand, they ignore the complete devastation that catastrophic fires such as the ones we are experiencing do to the same species. I spoke to one firefighter last week. He told me that the 150-foot flames in the Mission Ridge fire were traveling so fast and were so intense that birds in flight were actually being burned out of the air. Certainly, most small animals that are land animals have no chance at all. That includes the spotted owl, the red squirrel, Preble's meadow jumping mouse, and hundreds of animals on the endangered species list. In arguing against thinning, environmentalists also ignore the very real long-term damage that large and intense fires have on soil and watersheds. Over 70 percent of our Nation's water comes from waterbodies in our forests. Yet, these environmental groups would prohibit thinning around watersheds, such as the South Platte project. I would have thought that they would support such efforts, especially after the Buffalo Creek fire of 1996, which cost the city of Denver millions of dollars to restore water quality. Environmentalists oppose improving the safety of our watersheds because they fear losing the Clinton-era ``roadless rule,'' which provides that no new roads can be built where none exist. Their prized ``roadless rule'' effectively acts as a wilderness designation requiring an act of Congress. It is ironic that the ``roadless rule'' that environmentalists hold so dear was recently ruled illegal by a Federal judge in Idaho because the public comment period was grossly inadequate, stating, ``Justice hurried on a proposal of this magnitude is Justice denied.'' I am a big supporter of grass roots initiatives--local communities should be involved in land management decisions. Opportunities for public comment and participation are important aspects of environmental law. However, these opportunities are being poisoned by radical groups too interested in legitimizing their own worth to contributors than in collaboratively working for the betterment of our Nation's resources. Some of these organizations have effectively paralyzed responsible forest management practices, thus contributing to poor forest health. In fact, 73 million acres of national forest are at risk from severe wildland fires. In the West, more than half of the rangeland riparian area on the National Forest System do not meet standards for healthy watersheds, and one in six acres in the Rocky Mountain and Plains states is making no progress toward improvement. All this in the name of environmentalism. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth recently acknowledged that the Hayman Fire near Denver would not have been nearly as severe had forest thinning projects gone forward. I am unwilling to allow our forest's health and environmental quality to continue deteriorating simply because a minority of environmental organizations have thrown science and good sense out of the window in the name of their own political agenda while completely avoiding the tradgey of the 14 deaths of firefighters from the Storm King Fire of 1994 or the recent loss of five firefighters in a bus wreck while on their way to fight fire in Colorado. I have seen the negative effect that some environmental organizations have had in the West for a long time. But enough is enough--something has to change. It is unfortunate that it has taken tragic fires like the ones raging out West to get the Nation and the media to acknowledge the same. I hope, as we move from this Congress to the next, we will look for more positive ways to achieve responsible forest management. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes as in morning business.