Ben Campbell

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. Mr. President, I am joined by Senators Dodd, Feingold, Clinton, and Wellstone in introducing today a resolution condemning the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment in the United States and other countries, and expressing support for the victims of torture. An identical version is being introduced by Congressman Christopher H. Smith, who co-chairs the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I am privileged to chair. Torture is prohibited by a raft of international agreements, including documents of the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It remains, however, a serious problem in many countries. In the worst cases, torture occurs not merely from rogue elements in the police or a lack of appropriate training among law enforcement personnel, but is systematically used by the controlling regime to target political opposition members; racial, ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities; and others. In some countries, medical professionals who treat the victims of torture have become, themselves, victims of torture in government's efforts to document this abuse and to hold perpetrators accountable. The U.S. Congress can continue to play a leadership role by signaling our unwavering condemnation of such egregious practices. Torture is, in effect, prohibited by several articles of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, some commentators have suggested that torture might be an acceptable tool in the war on terrorism. I believe we should answer that proposition with a resounding ``no''. To repeat: torture is unconstitutional. Moreover, as many trained law enforcement officials note, it is also a lousy way to get reliable information. People subjected to torture will often say anything to end the torture. Finally, it makes no sense to wage war to defend our great democracy and use methods that denigrate the very values we seek to protect. Torture is unacceptable, period. The resolution I am introducing today underscores that message. It recognizes the United Nations International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, marked each June 26th, and encourages the training of law enforcement personnel. Experts estimate that more than 500,000 individuals who are survivors of torture live in the United States. Victims of torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment and their families often suffer devastating effects and therefore require extensive medical and psychological treatment. I am pleased to note the contribution of the Rocky Mountain Survivors Center, located in Denver, CO, in meeting the needs of torture survivors living in Colorado. The Rocky Mountain Center and similar torture treatment centers located elsewhere in the United States play a critical role in the identification, treatment, and rehabilitation of victims of torture and deserve our continued support. As we mark the United Nations International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, I urge my colleagues to declare their opposition to torture and solidarity with torture survivors by lending their support to this resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, 90 years ago on March 12, 1912, the first troop of 18 Girl Scouts met in the United States. To date, there are nearly 4 million girls and adults who are part of this extraordinary program. Today, at the Denver Zoo in my home State of Colorado, Girl Scouts, their families, and others interested in scouting will be celebrating this 90th anniversary with hands-on activities and a variety of entertainment. I would like to congratulate the Mile Hi Council of the Girl Scouts on this historic achievement and wish them all the best during today's celebration. What a fantastic way to share the efforts of the Girl Scouts nationwide. Throughout the 20th century, the Girl Scouts have been a visible force behind efforts to serve people in times of national unrest. During World War I, they sold war bonds and collected peach pits for the manufacturing of gas mask filters. Girls collaborated to learn about food preservation and conservation by canning fruits and vegetables. When the Great Depression hit, troops of Girl Scouts led community relief efforts to provide the things necessary for basic survival. They collected food and prepared meals for the poor, carved wooden toys for children, and assisted in hospitals to treat those in need of medical care. By the 1940s, women's involvement in our national security was on the rise after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and many women were taking over positions once dominated by men. The Girl Scouts led the vanguard of young women who were interested in helping those enlisted overseas as well as those trying to maintain a sense of normalcy here in the United States. They collected over 1 million articles of clothing for victims of war overseas, and put in numerous hours dedicated to farm aid projects. Additionally, they were part of efforts to teach women survival skills during raids and blackouts. The Girl Scouts have left their mark on endeavors to improve social climate. In 1952, Ebony Magazine reported on their ``progress toward breaking down racial taboos.'' They launched a campaign in the sixties to encourage girls to respect every aspect of themselves and to get to know others who are fundamentally different whether it be by race, national origin, or religion. In the last 20 years, the Girl Scouts have worked together to tackle issues plaguing society's well-being, such as drug addiction, violent crime, environmental destruction, and the AIDS epidemic. Through collaborative work with the government and local communities, girls have promoted the positive influences of literacy, personal health, and individual responsibility. Now more than ever, we are looking to our young people for a collective face of hope and prosperity for this Nation's future. We have witnessed the vulnerability of human life, but know the strength of collective effort and the potential for individual integrity. Our national security and viability as a community depends on this strength. However, recent reports indicate that girls are less likely to pursue careers in math, science, or technology--fields vital to our progress in this global economy. Sometime during their teen or preteen years, many girls lose their zest in the classroom and, unfortunately, conform to attitudes that boys are inherently better in math and science. The Girl Scouts are, again, at the forefront of this issue by confronting the disparity head on. They have collaborated with the National Science Foundation to provide opportunities for girls interested in studying wildlife and environment in Antarctica. In addition, they have created programs to provide girls with hands-on technology training, computer science skills, and access to information on physics and engineering. Most importantly, the Girl Scouts give girls tools to close the gender gap and the confidence to succeed in these traditionally male-dominated fields. The Girl Scouts have fostered an environment Where Girls Grow Strong--their modern mantra. But, while the activities of the Girl Scouts may change over the years, its commitment to young women nationwide is resolute. By encouraging personal responsibility, social awareness, community service, and individual freedom, the Girl Scouts have shaped the physical and mental well-being of young women everywhere. Thank you for allowing me to congratulate the Girl Scouts on 90 years of exceptional achievement. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing them all the best in the years to come, and in giving a ``Mile Hi'' salute to the Girl Scouts celebrating today in Denver and throughout the Nation. I ask that the Girl Scout Law be printed in the Record. The material follows: The Girl Scout Law I will do my best to be honest and fair friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a very simple and important bill that will aid in our Nation's understanding of an ancient time. The 52,000 acre Mesa Verde National Park in southwestern Colorado holds one of the most unique archaeological sites in the world. The culture represented at Mesa Verde reflects more than 700 years of history. People lived and flourished in communities in the area from around 400 A.D. through 1300 A.D. Eventually, the people there built elaborate stone villages in the sheltered alcoves of the canyon walls that are today regarded as ``cliff dwellings.'' The villagers lived in the cliff dwellings during the last 100 to 125 years of occupation at Mesa Verde. Within the span of two generations, in the late 1200s, the people left their homes and moved away. However, they left behind a literal treasure trove of artifacts in the ruins, artifacts that are still being collected and studied to this day. Our Nation's first conservationist and fellow Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Mesa Verde National Park in 1906. Since that time, countless artifacts have been carefully excavated and catalogued. Unfortunately, those priceless treasures have not had a suitable home, and instead have been housed in what effectively is a tin shed built in the 1950s, which has since become infested with mice. The tin shed lacks proper temperature and humidity controls in an area where the humidity can swing from seventeen to eighty percent in a short time. A tin shed is no place to store 800 year old corn and yucca leaves or clay pot artifacts, especially considering such drastic and damaging climate changes. My bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to collect and expend donated funds for the design and construction and associated costs to build a visitors center. The legislation provides no Federal money for this much needed project, but allows for Interior to partner with devoted non-profit historical and cultural organizations, especially the Mesa Verde Foundation. The visitors center will be located on land owned by the Foundation adjacent to the entrance of the park. The proximity of the cultural and visitors center to the cliff dwellings will allow archeologists, students, and visitors an open and accessible window to the lives of indigenous and prehistoric people. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of fellow conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt, and ask the Senate for quick passage of this important bill. Thank you, and 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 a very simple and important bill that will aid in our Nation's understanding of an ancient time. The 52,000 acre Mesa Verde National Park in southwestern Colorado holds one of the most unique archaeological sites in the world. The culture represented at Mesa Verde reflects more than 700 years of history. People lived and flourished in communities in the area from around 400 A.D. through 1300 A.D. Eventually, the people there built elaborate stone villages in the sheltered alcoves of the canyon walls that are today regarded as ``cliff dwellings.'' The villagers lived in the cliff dwellings during the last 100 to 125 years of occupation at Mesa Verde. Within the span of two generations, in the late 1200s, the people left their homes and moved away. However, they left behind a literal treasure trove of artifacts in the ruins, artifacts that are still being collected and studied to this day. Our Nation's first conservationist and fellow Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Mesa Verde National Park in 1906. Since that time, countless artifacts have been carefully excavated and catalogued. Unfortunately, those priceless treasures have not had a suitable home, and instead have been housed in what effectively is a tin shed built in the 1950s, which has since become infested with mice. The tin shed lacks proper temperature and humidity controls in an area where the humidity can swing from seventeen to eighty percent in a short time. A tin shed is no place to store 800 year old corn and yucca leaves or clay pot artifacts, especially considering such drastic and damaging climate changes. My bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to collect and expend donated funds for the design and construction and associated costs to build a visitors center. The legislation provides no Federal money for this much needed project, but allows for Interior to partner with devoted non-profit historical and cultural organizations, especially the Mesa Verde Foundation. The visitors center will be located on land owned by the Foundation adjacent to the entrance of the park. The proximity of the cultural and visitors center to the cliff dwellings will allow archeologists, students, and visitors an open and accessible window to the lives of indigenous and prehistoric people. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of fellow conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt, and ask the Senate for quick passage of this important bill. Thank you, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as we approach Memorial Day I would like to begin my statement today describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves up to the core of our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the Armed Forces of our Nation. Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that train America's future military leaders. These academies have varied missions and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders for their particular branch of service. On the grounds of each academy is a chapel, spectacular places that are easily identifiable as places of worship. In each chapel, a place has been reserved for those Prisoners of War and the Missing in Action from each particular service. A pew has been set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have returned from battle. These hallowed places have been set aside so that all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a moving and emotional experience to pause at these reserved pews, to be encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of those soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots and to be inspired today by what they have done. Yet, I believe we can and should do more to honor the memory of all the POW's and MIA's who have so gallanty served our nation. On August 10, 1990, the 101st Congress passed P.L. 101-355 which officially recognized the POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag is a powerful symbol to all Americans that we have not forgotten, and will not forget. Last September, I introduced S. 1226, the ``POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2001.'' This act would require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, on any day on which the United States flag is displayed. As my colleagues well know, the United States has fought in mnay wars, and thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or listed as missing in action. In the 20th century alone, more than 147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country. The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we care not only for them, but also for their families who personally carry with them the burden of sacrifice. We want them to know that they do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served. As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom. Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too will the display of their flag over the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial be a special reminder that we have not forgotten, and will not forget. I invite my Senate colleagues to please join me in passing this important bill S. 1226, to ensure our POW/MIAs are not forgotten.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today more than 15,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington, D.C. to join with and honor the families of federal, state, and local officers who were killed in the line of duty. On March 17, I was joined by Senators Leahy, Hatch, Allard, Cantwell, Gregg, Rockefeller, Bingaman, Biden, Bunning, Cochran, Allen, Thomas, and Hutchinson in introducing S. Res. 221, to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities. Specifically, this resolution would designate May 15, 2002, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. These heroes have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. This resolution is a fitting tribute for this special and solemn occasion. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the front lines protecting our communities. Currently, more than 700,000 men and women who serve this nation as our guardians of law and order do so at a great risk. Every year, about 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 officers is injured, and 1 in 4,400 officers is killed in the line of duty. There are few communities in this country that have not been impacted by the words ``officer down.'' On September 11, 2001, 70 peace officers died at the World Trade Center in New York City as a result of a cowardly act of terrorism. This single act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of this country. Thirty-seven of those fallen heroes served with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department; twenty-three were New York City police officers; three worked for the New York Office of Court Administration; five were with the New York Office of Tax Enforcement; one was an FBI special agent; and one was a master special officer with the U.S. Secret Service. Before this event, the greatest loss of law enforcement life in a single incident occurred in 1917, when nine Milwaukee police officers were killed in a bomb blast at their police station. Yet the incredible bravery and selfless sacrifice our officers displayed that day was no different that any other day of the year in communities across America. In 2001, more than 230 federal, state and local law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty. This represents more than a 57 percent increase in police fatalities over the previous year. And, in total, nearly 15,000 men and women have made the supreme sacrifice. We owe all of our police officers a huge debt of gratitude for the invaluable work they do. As we gather on this special day here in Washington, D.C. and nationwide to honor our fallen heroes, we must be ever vigilant and remember those outstanding men and women who continue to put their lives on the line so that we may continue to enjoy the freedom we have.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution recognizing October 13, 2002, through October 19, 2002, as National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Week. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators DeWine and Kerry in submitting this resolution. We are hopeful that greater awareness of cystic fibrosis, CF, will lead to a cure. Cystic fibrosis is one of the most common fatal genetic diseases in the United States and there is no known cure. It affects approximately 30,000 children and adults in the United States. There are about 1,000 new cases of CF diagnosed each year. While most of these individuals are diagnosed by the age of three, others are not recognized as having CF until they are age 18 years, or older. Today, the life expectancy for someone with CF is 32 years. I believe we must do what we can to change these statistics. While there is no cure, early detection and prompt treatment can significantly improve and extend the lives of those with CF. My home State of Colorado was one of the first States to require CF screening for newborns. Happily, more States are now performing this simple test. And, since the discovery of the defective CF gene in 1989, CF research has greatly accelerated. I am proud that Colorado is home to the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and Children's Hospital, both of which are actively involved in CF research and care. Children's Hospital is one of eight innovative Therapeutics Development Centers performing cutting edge clinical research to develop new treatments for CF. Currently, the CF Foundation oversees more than 25 CF clinical trials. In addition, small pilot trials are carried out in the 115 Cystic Fibrosis Foundation-accredited care centers across the United States. And, organizations such as the Cystic Fibrosis Research, Inc. also sponsor studies for treatment of the disease. Efforts such as these throughout the nation are providing a greater quality of life for those who have CF. I applaud these efforts. While I am encouraged by the CF research in Colorado and elsewhere, more needs to be done. I believe we can increase the quality of life for individuals with Cystic Fibrosis by promoting public knowledge and understanding of the disease in a manner that will result in earlier diagnoses, more fund raising efforts for research, and increased levels of support for those who have CF and their families. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to act on this resolution so we can move another step closer to eradicating this disease.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing companion legislation to H.R. 2466, the Commercial Driver's License Devolution Act of 2001, which was originally brought to the floor of the House of Representatives last July by my friend from North Carolina, Representative Howard Coble. I believe it is no secret to my colleagues here in the Senate, that I support small business and returning power to the States. The traditional, one-size-fits-all approach to governing has done more harm than good, and this bill is an attempt to remedy some of that. This legislation will give States the option to establish their own commercial driver's license, CDL, requirements for intrastate drivers. It will return power to the States by giving them the option to license intrastate drivers of commercial motor vehicles based upon testing standards determined by the individual States. And I stress, it will be an ``option.'' I want to emphasize that this legislation is not a Federal mandate imposed on States. States that choose not to participate would remain under Federal guidelines. A State that chooses to exercise this option would in no way diminish the role of the CDL in the long-haul trucking industry. Additionally, this legislation effectively precludes two or more States from using this option as the basis for an interstate compact. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, CMVSA, required States to establish a new and uniform program of testing and licensure for all operators of commercial vehicles both intra and interstate. The principal objectives of the Act have been met, and would not be harmed by this legislation I'm introducing here today. I have no issue with the CMVSA. It is a good law, and at the time the provisions it contained were necessary and timely for improving the standards of performance for long-haul truck drivers in this country. However, I, like my counterpart in the House, believe the CMVSA was imposed upon intrastate commerce where the operation of trucks may be a small but necessary part of an individual's job. Therefore, the reality was that Washington imposed its will on thousands of small businesses across this country who aren't involved in long-haul trucking and we expected them to adjust to any circumstance that might arise. That's unfair and not what government is supposed to be about. When you have conditions such as these, I believe it should be within a State's discretion to determine what kind of commercial vehicle licensure and testing is required for commerce taking place solely within its borders. This legislation is important to our Nation's small businesses, especially those dependent upon commercial truck travel, which means it's important to the consumers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support it.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing companion legislation to H.R. 2466, the Commercial Driver's License Devolution Act of 2001, which was originally brought to the floor of the House of Representatives last July by my friend from North Carolina, Representative Howard Coble. I believe it is no secret to my colleagues here in the Senate, that I support small business and returning power to the States. The traditional, one-size-fits-all approach to governing has done more harm than good, and this bill is an attempt to remedy some of that. This legislation will give States the option to establish their own commercial driver's license, CDL, requirements for intrastate drivers. It will return power to the States by giving them the option to license intrastate drivers of commercial motor vehicles based upon testing standards determined by the individual States. And I stress, it will be an ``option.'' I want to emphasize that this legislation is not a Federal mandate imposed on States. States that choose not to participate would remain under Federal guidelines. A State that chooses to exercise this option would in no way diminish the role of the CDL in the long-haul trucking industry. Additionally, this legislation effectively precludes two or more States from using this option as the basis for an interstate compact. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, CMVSA, required States to establish a new and uniform program of testing and licensure for all operators of commercial vehicles both intra and interstate. The principal objectives of the Act have been met, and would not be harmed by this legislation I'm introducing here today. I have no issue with the CMVSA. It is a good law, and at the time the provisions it contained were necessary and timely for improving the standards of performance for long-haul truck drivers in this country. However, I, like my counterpart in the House, believe the CMVSA was imposed upon intrastate commerce where the operation of trucks may be a small but necessary part of an individual's job. Therefore, the reality was that Washington imposed its will on thousands of small businesses across this country who aren't involved in long-haul trucking and we expected them to adjust to any circumstance that might arise. That's unfair and not what government is supposed to be about. When you have conditions such as these, I believe it should be within a State's discretion to determine what kind of commercial vehicle licensure and testing is required for commerce taking place solely within its borders. This legislation is important to our Nation's small businesses, especially those dependent upon commercial truck travel, which means it's important to the consumers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support it.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the goal of the Senator from California. One of the California lessees has their headquarters in Colorado. I know that this company has wasted a great deal of time, money and effort in the unproductive leases off the coast of California. It is time for this company to be allowed to recoup its costs so that they can be redirected to more promising development opportunities elsewhere. We need to enhance our domestic energy production in the interest of national security, and so we have to find a way to reconcile the competing interests of the California environmentalists, the Department of the Interior and the oil companies. We can all agree that our nation needs to produce more energy and that we must do so in environmental sensitive ways. However, the owners of the leases have had their hands tied in California for 20 or more years to no one's satisfaction. It is time to move on, so that both important national goals can be met. I applaud the efforts of Senator Boxer to continue to seek a compromise that balances the environmental concerns with the need to fairly compensate the companies for their leases so they can redirect their efforts toward the production of more energy for our nation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce this resolution which recognizes and demands that the government of North Korea return the ship the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy. On January 23, 1968, while in international waters, the USS Pueblo was attacked and illegally captured by the North Korean Navy. This engagement marked the first time in over 150 years a United States Navy ship was hijacked on the high seas by a foreign military force. This naked act of aggression resulted in 82 crew members being held in captivity as Prisoners of War for eleven months in inhumane conditions with one casualty, Duane Hodges who was killed during the initial assault. On December 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo crew was finally released. At the time of its capture, the USS Pueblo was operating as an intelligence collection auxiliary vessel, and did not pose a threat. According to the Navy Department Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Ships' Histories Section, the name USS Pueblo has enjoyed a long and proud history prior to January 23, 1968. Currently, the environmental research vessel USS Pueblo, AGER-2, is the third ship of the fleet to bear the name of the City and County of Pueblo, CO. Originally the armored cruiser Colorado was renamed the Pueblo in 1916 when a new battleship named Colorado was authorized. That ship served from 1905 to 1927. The second vessel named the Pueblo, PF-13, was a city class frigate which proudly served from 1944 to 1946. She was later sold to the Dominican Republic where she serves today. The third and current PUEBLO, AGER-2, was built by the Kewaunee Shipbuilding and Engineering Corporation, Kewaunee, WI. A general purpose supply vessel designed especially for service in the U.S. Army Transportation Corps, she was launched 16 April 1944 and later redesignated as an environmental research vessel. To date, the capture of the USS Pueblo has resulted in no reprisal against the government or people of North Korea and although the USS Pueblo still remains property of the United States Navy, the North Korean Government displays it as a traveling museum in the North Korean cities of Wonsan and Hungham, and is now on display in Pyongyang, the Capital city of North Korea. This is unacceptable to me and a number of my colleagues. At issue here, isn't the value of the ship. At issue is the honor of America and the record of those who proudly served and were illegal captives by North Korea, a nation which seeks the destruction of America. I stand with my fellow legislators back home in the Sixty-third Colorado State General Assembly in demanding the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy. I urge my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate to join me in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Southern Ute and Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation Act of 2002. As my colleagues know, successful environmental laws recognize that local implementation is almost always better than a ``one size fits all'' program run from Washington, DC. For example, the Federal Clean Air Act authorizes States and Indian tribes to become responsible for establishing implementation plans, designating air quality standards, and implementing many of the regulatory programs needed to maintain or improve air quality. With respect to the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in my State of Colorado, however, there is some question about whether the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, can delegate Clean Air Act jurisdiction to the Southern Ute Tribe in the same manner that it would delegate authority to any other Indian tribe. In 1984 Congress ratified a jurisdiction and boundary agreement between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado. Approving this agreement spared both sides the exorbitant costs of going to court to fight over the jurisdictional status of each square inch on the Reservation. In addition, the 1994 arrangement allows the tribe and the State to work out any questions about jurisdiction within their agreed-upon framework. With respect to Federal officials dealing with the tribe and the State, however, this arrangement could create some uncertainty. Because it could be argued that it prevents the tribe from exercising authority that may be delegated to any Indian tribe under the Clean Air Act. Instead of placing the Environmental Protection Agency in the middle of a controversy about whether it is authorized to delegate Clean Air Act programs within the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, the tribe and the State signed a historic ``Intergovernmental Agreement'' to resolve any controversy between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado. In this way, the State and the tribe have once again agreed that it is better for them to control their own destiny by reaching an accord they can both live with rather than putting their fate in the hands of bureaucrats and judges. I applaud the proactive spirit which led the tribe and the State to resolve a potential controversy before a problem or conflict even arose. The program established by the agreement reflects the unique issues and context that brought the tribe and the State to the negotiating table. First, consistent with Congress' mandate in the Clean Air Act, the Tribe will be the entity responsible for administering Clean Air Act programs within the reservation boundaries. The tribal program administrators have complete access to the State's technical resources and personnel. Second, an equal number of tribal and State representatives will sit on the Commission established by the agreement. The Commission is authorized to hear and decide any appealable decisions. The Commission will also set the pace for tribal applications for delegations of authority. Finally, the agreement seeks to make the Federal courts available to hear any challenges to decisions by the Commission. I am aware of the number of complex issues raised by this historic agreement, and efforts are already underway to address and resolve some of these issues. I believe it is the right time to introduce a bill to allow the appropriate committee to begin to formally consider this proposal. I know the parties will continue to direct their efforts at bringing this important matter to a successful conclusion. In closing, let me again commend the efforts of both the tribe and the State in negotiating and signing this historic agreement. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter from Colorado Governor Bill Owens be printed in the Record. Finally, I am pleased that Senator Wayne Allard joins with me in the views expressed in this statement and in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate, with bipartisan support, agreed to S. Res. 205, a resolution urging the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process leading up to the March 31 parliamentary elections. I appreciate Chairman Biden and Senator Helms' support in committee and the leadership for ensuring timely consideration of this important resolution. In adopting S. Res. 205, the United States Senate expresses interest in, and concerns for, a genuinely free and fair parliamentary election process which enables all of the various election blocs and political parties to compete on a level playing field. While expressing support for the efforts of the Ukrainian people to promote democracy, rule of law, and human rights, the resolution urges the Ukrainian government to enforce impartially the new election law and to meet its OSCE commitments on democratic elections. I want to underscore commitments undertaken by the 55 OSCE participating States, including Ukraine, to build, consolidate, and strengthen democracy as the only form of government for each of our nations. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair has monitored closely the situation in Ukraine and has a long record of support for the aspirations of the Ukrainian people for human rights and democratic freedoms. A recent Commission briefing on the parliamentary elections brought together experts to assess the conduct of the campaign. High level visits to Ukraine have underscored the importance the United States attaches to these elections in the run up to presidential elections scheduled for 2004. As of today, with less than two weeks left before the elections, it remains an open question as to whether the elections will be a step forward for Ukraine. Despite considerable international attention, there are credible reports of various abuses and violations of the election law, including candidates refused access to media, the unlawful use of public funds and facilities, and government pressure on certain political parties, candidates and media outlets, and a pro- government bias in the public media. Ukraine's success as an independent, democratic, economically successful state is vital to stability and security and Europe, and Ukraine has, over the last decade, enjoyed a strong relationship with the United States. This positive relationship, however, has been increasingly tested in the last few years because of pervasive levels of corruption in Ukraine and the still-unresolved case of murdered investigative journalist Georgiy Gongadze and other issues which call into question the Ukrainian authorities' commitment to the rule of law and respect of human rights. Ukraine enjoys goodwill in the United States Senate and remains one of our largest recipients of U.S. assistance in the world. These elections are an important indication of the Ukrainian authorities' commitment to consolidate democracy and to demonstrate a serious intent regarding integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Southern Ute and Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation Act of 2002. As my colleagues know, successful environmental laws recognize that local implementation is almost always better than a ``one size fits all'' program run from Washington, DC. For example, the Federal Clean Air Act authorizes States and Indian tribes to become responsible for establishing implementation plans, designating air quality standards, and implementing many of the regulatory programs needed to maintain or improve air quality. With respect to the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in my State of Colorado, however, there is some question about whether the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, can delegate Clean Air Act jurisdiction to the Southern Ute Tribe in the same manner that it would delegate authority to any other Indian tribe. In 1984 Congress ratified a jurisdiction and boundary agreement between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado. Approving this agreement spared both sides the exorbitant costs of going to court to fight over the jurisdictional status of each square inch on the Reservation. In addition, the 1994 arrangement allows the tribe and the State to work out any questions about jurisdiction within their agreed-upon framework. With respect to Federal officials dealing with the tribe and the State, however, this arrangement could create some uncertainty. Because it could be argued that it prevents the tribe from exercising authority that may be delegated to any Indian tribe under the Clean Air Act. Instead of placing the Environmental Protection Agency in the middle of a controversy about whether it is authorized to delegate Clean Air Act programs within the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, the tribe and the State signed a historic ``Intergovernmental Agreement'' to resolve any controversy between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado. In this way, the State and the tribe have once again agreed that it is better for them to control their own destiny by reaching an accord they can both live with rather than putting their fate in the hands of bureaucrats and judges. I applaud the proactive spirit which led the tribe and the State to resolve a potential controversy before a problem or conflict even arose. The program established by the agreement reflects the unique issues and context that brought the tribe and the State to the negotiating table. First, consistent with Congress' mandate in the Clean Air Act, the Tribe will be the entity responsible for administering Clean Air Act programs within the reservation boundaries. The tribal program administrators have complete access to the State's technical resources and personnel. Second, an equal number of tribal and State representatives will sit on the Commission established by the agreement. The Commission is authorized to hear and decide any appealable decisions. The Commission will also set the pace for tribal applications for delegations of authority. Finally, the agreement seeks to make the Federal courts available to hear any challenges to decisions by the Commission. I am aware of the number of complex issues raised by this historic agreement, and efforts are already underway to address and resolve some of these issues. I believe it is the right time to introduce a bill to allow the appropriate committee to begin to formally consider this proposal. I know the parties will continue to direct their efforts at bringing this important matter to a successful conclusion. In closing, let me again commend the efforts of both the tribe and the State in negotiating and signing this historic agreement. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter from Colorado Governor Bill Owens be printed in the Record. Finally, I am pleased that Senator Wayne Allard joins with me in the views expressed in this statement and in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce the Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002 to improve the effectiveness of an economic development program essential to our Native American community. As one of the legislative flowerings of President Nixon's ``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs,'' the Indian Financing Act joins the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act as pillars of Federal Indian policy. Since Congress enacted the Indian Financing Act of 1974 and established the Indian Revolving Loan Fund program, the Secretary of the Interior has had the ability to insure and guaranty the repayment by qualified Native American borrowers of small business loans issued by private banks and lenders. The focus of the loan program is commercial lending to Native American-owned businesses who cannot otherwise obtain financing in conventional credit markets. The Indian Revolving Fund Program has grown over the past 28 years to reach $60 million in annual lending to Native Americans, though the need for capital in Indian economies far outstrips this amount. The ``Mortgage Finance News'' reports that for housing finance alone, there is $2.7 billion in pent-up demand in the Indian community. In addition, the ``Native American Lending Study'' released by the Community Development Financial Institutions shows, there are great needs in Native communities for more capital and liquidity. These unmet needs are holding back the growth of Indian economies. The purpose of a Federal loan guaranty is to stimulate the private lending community into being more active with clients and customers they should be serving. Under the current Indian guaranteed loan program, the lender shares in the cost of any loan default, and is not 100 percent guaranteed by the government. Lenders across the country have told the Committee on Indian Affairs that a major problem restraining their participation in this program is the lack of liquidity once the loan is made. These small business loans tend to stay on the books for a long time. They are paid down but not as rapidly refinanced as conventional loans. Therefore, a bank has its capital tied up in these loans, and cannot easily turn around and use that capital again. The financial community long ago came up with a system to respond to this general need, and that is to allow investors to buy loans on the secondary market. This is the cornerstone for our private mortgage market and the essential job of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it is also an important part of commercial lending. The Small Business Administration, which makes loan guaranties available through over 1,000 lenders nationwide, 17 years ago recognized the importance of secondary market for its SBA loan guaranties. At its request, Congress enacted legislation which allows for the orderly transfer and sales of the guaranteed portion of the SBA loans through a secondary market fiscal transfer agent. This system operates largely at no cost to the government, as the fees for the transfer are paid by the buyers and sellers of the loans, and not passed back to the borrowers. The SBA loan program is highly successful. It assists smaller lenders who may not regularly participate in these government programs by giving them a standardized and simple process for transfer of the loan. The use of the fiscal transfer agent ensures that loan repayments made to the original lender are properly flowed through any investors. Most importantly, the ability of the SBA to regulate or otherwise discipline originating lenders is unimpeded by the secondary market. The ``Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002'' directs the Secretary of the Interior to take similar steps to the SBA program by allowing the efficient functioning of a secondary market for Native American loans or loan guaranties made by the Interior Department. It is my hope that the Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002 will profoundly effect Native American small business owners throughout the United States, and that the support of the Department, and the Native American and financial communities, we can effect positive change not just for Native American small business owners, and for Indian communities generally. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce the Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002 to improve the effectiveness of an economic development program essential to our Native American community. As one of the legislative flowerings of President Nixon's ``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs,'' the Indian Financing Act joins the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act as pillars of Federal Indian policy. Since Congress enacted the Indian Financing Act of 1974 and established the Indian Revolving Loan Fund program, the Secretary of the Interior has had the ability to insure and guaranty the repayment by qualified Native American borrowers of small business loans issued by private banks and lenders. The focus of the loan program is commercial lending to Native American-owned businesses who cannot otherwise obtain financing in conventional credit markets. The Indian Revolving Fund Program has grown over the past 28 years to reach $60 million in annual lending to Native Americans, though the need for capital in Indian economies far outstrips this amount. The ``Mortgage Finance News'' reports that for housing finance alone, there is $2.7 billion in pent-up demand in the Indian community. In addition, the ``Native American Lending Study'' released by the Community Development Financial Institutions shows, there are great needs in Native communities for more capital and liquidity. These unmet needs are holding back the growth of Indian economies. The purpose of a Federal loan guaranty is to stimulate the private lending community into being more active with clients and customers they should be serving. Under the current Indian guaranteed loan program, the lender shares in the cost of any loan default, and is not 100 percent guaranteed by the government. Lenders across the country have told the Committee on Indian Affairs that a major problem restraining their participation in this program is the lack of liquidity once the loan is made. These small business loans tend to stay on the books for a long time. They are paid down but not as rapidly refinanced as conventional loans. Therefore, a bank has its capital tied up in these loans, and cannot easily turn around and use that capital again. The financial community long ago came up with a system to respond to this general need, and that is to allow investors to buy loans on the secondary market. This is the cornerstone for our private mortgage market and the essential job of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it is also an important part of commercial lending. The Small Business Administration, which makes loan guaranties available through over 1,000 lenders nationwide, 17 years ago recognized the importance of secondary market for its SBA loan guaranties. At its request, Congress enacted legislation which allows for the orderly transfer and sales of the guaranteed portion of the SBA loans through a secondary market fiscal transfer agent. This system operates largely at no cost to the government, as the fees for the transfer are paid by the buyers and sellers of the loans, and not passed back to the borrowers. The SBA loan program is highly successful. It assists smaller lenders who may not regularly participate in these government programs by giving them a standardized and simple process for transfer of the loan. The use of the fiscal transfer agent ensures that loan repayments made to the original lender are properly flowed through any investors. Most importantly, the ability of the SBA to regulate or otherwise discipline originating lenders is unimpeded by the secondary market. The ``Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002'' directs the Secretary of the Interior to take similar steps to the SBA program by allowing the efficient functioning of a secondary market for Native American loans or loan guaranties made by the Interior Department. It is my hope that the Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002 will profoundly effect Native American small business owners throughout the United States, and that the support of the Department, and the Native American and financial communities, we can effect positive change not just for Native American small business owners, and for Indian communities generally. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Enzi of Wyoming, and Senator Brownback of Kansas, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, the bill we are considering is an extremely large and expansive bill dealing with many important and controversial topics. Although the bill was stripped from its committee of jurisdiction pretty much completely behind closed doors, we have an idea of the issues with which we have been dealing. CAFE, ANWR, and renewables are all topics we are familiar with and which have been debated for some days now. I am here to discuss a very small provision that many of my friends may not have noticed because it is buried pretty deeply. That provision, unlike several others that have been discussed and studied, will be discussed for the first time, I believe, now. Before getting into my comments, I wish to state that a comprehensive energy bill is no place to put this new and untested idea; such an action is, at best, poor policy. In particular, I wish to discuss section 822 of the current bill. Section 822 sounds as if it is not very offensive in a big bill such as this, but it lies within the CAFE title. In short, section 822 provides grants for States to establish scrappage programs for cars that are 15 years old or older. Car owners who choose to turn in their car for scrap receive a ``minimum payment.'' Section 822 does not tell us what the ``minimum payment'' might be, but they pay now about $1,000 to $1,200 for scrapping cars. Further, section 822 would have the Department of Energy pay the former car owner a ``credit'' toward the purchase of a new vehicle. Like the ``minimum payment'' language failing to state how much that would be, this provision fails to tell us the value of the taxpayer- subsidized ``credit.'' However, unlike the minimum payment, we have no guidance what that ``credit'' might be because, as with so much of this little section, this is the first time we have heard of it. Since no hearings were held on section 822, we don't know how much it would cost U.S. taxpayers. We do know, however, that the cost would be enormous since there are approximately 38 million cars at least 15 years old or older currently on the roads. If we estimate that just one-quarter of those car owners choose to scrap their automobile and receive the $1,000 and get another $1,000 to purchase a DOE-approved vehicle, the cost to the U.S. taxpayer would be about $19 billion-- deficit dollars that could go to much better uses as we approach deficits next year. When I first heard of section 822, I wondered: Why should we do this? Why should States be burdened with establishing a voluntary program to scrap old cars? Why should U.S. taxpayers be subsidizing some people to buy new cars? I am a big supporter of the auto industry, but I don't support Government subsidizing their sales. Section 822 simply states its purpose: To retire fuel-inefficient vehicles, the assumption being that any car 15 years old or older would be inefficient. This is a brandnew approach to address fuel efficiency and gasoline consumption, an approach that has not been discussed at any level and that has not been studied. In principle, I oppose the making of rash decisions without adequate knowledge or public hearings, or input from the public at large, particularly when the results could hurt the American people, since section 822 was included in this bill without any study whatsoever. Beyond principle, I also oppose section 822 on its merits as it is fundamentally flawed, expensive, and potentially a harmful policy. Some States have elected to establish scrappage programs to get vehicles with poor emissions off the road. Again, section 822's purpose is to get fuel-inefficient cars off the road--the first of its kind. States that choose to enact scrappage programs are not in compliance with clean air regulations. Those States choose scrappage programs as a tool, among others, because they believe they are effective in meeting health concerns. Section 822 creates incentives not to further public health but to further unfounded prejudices against older vehicles. Under State scrappage programs, the State is able to means-test a polluting vehicle so that only those affecting public health would be scrapped. Yet this federally promoted, State-run scrappage program does not provide any means testing to ensure that only fuel-inefficient vehicles are scrapped. Therefore, a 1986 Ford Escort getting 41 miles to the gallon would be treated the same as a Cadillac Seville of the same year that only gets 17 miles per gallon. The only criteria would be that they are both 1986 automobiles. I give that example to show simply that section 822 is fundamentally flawed: that older cars are all inefficient and, therefore, should be treated the same. Since this is the first time the Senate has heard about this provision, we should review who is benefited and who is injured and what are the costs and benefits of section 822. First of all, section 822 would have a disproportionate impact on low- and fixed-income individuals. It is more cost effective for people of low means to maintain older vehicles than to buy new ones. However, the scrappage program in section 822 would reduce the supply of car parts, thereby increasing the cost to citizens with lower incomes. The reduction of car parts would detrimentally affect the aftermarket parts industry, 98 percent of which are made up of registered small businesses. I think it is safe to assume the authors did not intend to hurt low- income individuals and small businesses during a recession. Yet that is the unintended consequence that most surely would happen. Who would benefit? Just as this provision hurts the most vulnerable, section 822 unjustly enriches people of better wealth. In short, section 822 is tantamount to corporate welfare for automotive companies and upper classes. I submit the Federal Government should not be in the advertising business to sell cars. The Department of Energy credit to purchase new cars is akin to a mail-in rebate as advertised on television, a wasteful expense that cheapens important energy issues and the work of this body. Further, I do not believe the Federal Government should have any role in pushing certain vehicles on consumers. The private market is described as an ``invisible hand.'' However, section 822 would certainly strengthen that hand. By paying people to choose certain cars over others, the Federal Government would inappropriately insert itself into private decisions. I mentioned this provision would reward those people who do not want to put money out for repairs. In addition to establishing a scrappage program, section 822 also requires States to establish repair programs. As provided in that section, a car owner paying 20 percent of the cost would have the State fix his vehicle, normally through a tuneup, to increase fuel efficiency. The Federal Government and States should not be turned into tuneup stations to have people properly maintain their vehicles, something which they should do out of their own pockets. The majority correctly states that section 822 is a voluntary program, but it is not voluntary for the Federal Government which is compelled to establish a carrot-and-stick approach to entice States to engage in potentially disastrous and certainly burdensome actions. The participating State must create two new programs just in case someone might decide to volunteer to scrap their car or have the Federal Government pay 80 percent of their repair costs. The burden on States could be enormous. My friends, the authors, might say the State would not be hurt because the Federal Government provides funds through grants for those programs, but we have no idea how much that will cost. We do not know because we have had no hearings and no studies on this section. We all know the Federal Government never provides enough money to States to enact programs and, in uncertain times such as these, I do not think we should approve ill-conceived and uncertain measures when we do not know the bottom line pricetag. How is the State going to administer the public notification and salvage of parts? Who may participate in the parts salvage? Will that be open to individuals or restricted to businesses? And how will a State value and sell the parts of the cars? We simply do not know. In closing, those of us who are cosponsoring this amendment have had only a brief time to look at this section. We believe it is the wrong approach. Our amendment will strike section 822 from the bill. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3009

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not need a recorded vote, we do not, either. If he is willing to accept this amendment, I am sure the minority would, too, and I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the recorded vote.