Ben Campbell

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. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Fairness to All Fallen Vietnam War Service Members Act of 2002. Almost forty years ago, our country started sending a generation of young men off to fight in Vietnam. Over 58,000 American soldiers gave their lives to their country in and around the lands, skies, and seas of Vietnam. The ultimate sacrifices many of these men have made are honored on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall here in Washington, D.C. There are, however, names that are missing from the wall, names that rightfully should be there with their fallen fellow Americans. It is now time to correct that omission. On the morning of June 3, 1969, the United States destroyer, U.S.S. Frank E. Evans, was cut in half during a training exercise by the Australian aircraft carrier, Melbourne. The front half of the destroyer sank in three minutes claiming the lives of seventy-four men. While these men were not lost due to enemy fire, they were involved in serious combat only days before this tragedy. At the time of the accident, the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans was taking part in Operation Sea Spirit in the South China Sea which involved over 40 ships from Southeast Asia Treaty Organization Nations. These brave men were instrumental in forwarding American objectives in Vietnam. The fact is these men died while serving their country and are due the rights and honors they deserve, including being listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Two of my fellow Coloradans, Brian Crowson and Del A. Francis were on board on that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate. There are many cases of men and women who were killed serving their country in Southeast Asia, yet they are not eligible to have their names placed on the Wall. At a time when we rightly honor heroes across our country, should we not also take the necessary step to ensure that our past heroes are also honored? This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to determine an appropriate manner to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our Nation but whose names were excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It further asks for input from government agencies and organizations that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall regarding the feasibility of adding additional names. Finally, the bill asks for appropriate alternative options for recognizing these veterans should it be deemed that there is no logistical way to add these names. As a veterann of the Korean War, I personally understand the ultimate sacrifice many of our brave men and women have made for the price of freedom. This recognition should not be taken lightly. I am honored to introduce this companion bill to H.R. 3443, which was introduced by my good friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Steve Horn. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as Representative Horn and the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Association so that we can pass this long overdue legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Fairness to All Fallen Vietnam War Service Members Act of 2002. Almost forty years ago, our country started sending a generation of young men off to fight in Vietnam. Over 58,000 American soldiers gave their lives to their country in and around the lands, skies, and seas of Vietnam. The ultimate sacrifices many of these men have made are honored on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall here in Washington, D.C. There are, however, names that are missing from the wall, names that rightfully should be there with their fallen fellow Americans. It is now time to correct that omission. On the morning of June 3, 1969, the United States destroyer, U.S.S. Frank E. Evans, was cut in half during a training exercise by the Australian aircraft carrier, Melbourne. The front half of the destroyer sank in three minutes claiming the lives of seventy-four men. While these men were not lost due to enemy fire, they were involved in serious combat only days before this tragedy. At the time of the accident, the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans was taking part in Operation Sea Spirit in the South China Sea which involved over 40 ships from Southeast Asia Treaty Organization Nations. These brave men were instrumental in forwarding American objectives in Vietnam. The fact is these men died while serving their country and are due the rights and honors they deserve, including being listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Two of my fellow Coloradans, Brian Crowson and Del A. Francis were on board on that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate. There are many cases of men and women who were killed serving their country in Southeast Asia, yet they are not eligible to have their names placed on the Wall. At a time when we rightly honor heroes across our country, should we not also take the necessary step to ensure that our past heroes are also honored? This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to determine an appropriate manner to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our Nation but whose names were excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It further asks for input from government agencies and organizations that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall regarding the feasibility of adding additional names. Finally, the bill asks for appropriate alternative options for recognizing these veterans should it be deemed that there is no logistical way to add these names. As a veterann of the Korean War, I personally understand the ultimate sacrifice many of our brave men and women have made for the price of freedom. This recognition should not be taken lightly. I am honored to introduce this companion bill to H.R. 3443, which was introduced by my good friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Steve Horn. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as Representative Horn and the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Association so that we can pass this long overdue legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am joined by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Leahy and Hatch, along with several other Senators in submitting this resolution 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. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law enforcement officers face everyday 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 a 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 like in a single incident occurred in 1917, when nine Milwaukee police officers were killed in a bomb blast at their police station. In 2001, more than 200 Federal, State and local law enforcement officers give 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 15,0000 men and women have made the supreme sacrifice. The chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Craig W. Floyd, reminds us: The level of public support and appreciation for our law enforcement officers has increased dramatically since September 11. But the incredible bravery and selfless sacrifice our officers displayed that day was no different than every other day of the year in communities across America. We owe all of our police officers a huge debt of gratitude for the invaluable work they do. On May 15, 2002, more than 15,000 peace officers are expected to gather in our Nation's Capitol to join with the families of their fallen comrades who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities. In doing so, 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. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I want to recognize and congratulate a special Coloradan, Jarad Robert Lyons, for winning the AAA State Wrestling Championship Title in his division. Jarad, an 18-year-old senior at Ignacio High School, started wrestling at the very early age of 4 in the Pee Wee divisions. He continued his career throughout junior high and high school, and first qualified for the State championships in his junior year in the 136- pound division. He has received numerous awards leading up to this year's State championship, where he qualified in the 145-pound division. He placed first at the Regionals--Southern Region, Tournament in Salida, CO. He then took first place at the Ignacio Invitational, first again at the Moab Tournament and first at the Rocky Mountain Invitational, where he was also awarded the Most Valuable Wrestler Award. Jarad was one of his team's captains this year, and his senior season is a true list of accomplishment. In the last two months alone, he has been named Outstanding Middle Weight Wrestler at the Aztec Duels, Champion at the Rocky Mountain Invitational, Champion at the Moab Tournament, Champion and Outstanding Wrestler at the Ignacio Invitational, League Champion at the Intermountain League, Champion at the Regional Tournament, and then finally, State Champion at the CO State Championship tournament for the AAA division which was held the weekend of February 21-23. Jarad Lyons, is without a doubt, a class act. He is respected by not only his teammates and his coach, but by other coaches in the State as well. He is a compassionate team member, and is willing to help every wrestler on his team, regardless of his experience. He is well known throughout his community, and enjoys the support and well wishes of everyone. People feel they can call him at home, and tell him how proud they are of him. I think this is the mark of a truly special young man. In his free time, while I know wrestling takes precedence, Jarad also enjoys working on his car, a 1965 Barracuda, which he purchased himself and has rebuilt entirely. He now drives the silver and black pinstriped classic beauty very proudly. I congratulate Jarad Lyons on his tremendous achievement, and wish him every success in the future. He is an example of the success that hard work and determination bring when we set ourselves to achieving our goals. He is an outstanding young Coloradan and he has earned and deserves our applause and congratulations.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate the Old Spanish Trail for addition to the National Trails System. In 1995, I worked to commission a study of the Old Spanish Trail to assess its historic significance and determine whether it should be included in the National Trails System. That recently published study discussed the Trail in great detail, recognizing it as a benchmark of the Old West. I would like to commend the Department of the Interior and National Park Service's scholarship in producing the ``National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment'' of the Old Spanish Trail. The Old Spanish Trail has been called the ``longest, crookedest, most arduous pack mule route in the history of America.'' Linking two quaint pueblo outposts, Villa Real de Sante Fe de San Francisco, now known as Santa Fe, and El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles, present day Los Angeles. This 1,200 mile route was a critical crossroads in trade and culture 150 years ago. American Indians lived for thousands of years throughout the American Southwest, carving out a network of trade and travel routes. The Utes, Paiutes, Comanches, and Navajo peoples used what was known as the Old Spanish Trail. The Old Spanish Trail played a crucial role as a crossroads for the diverse cultures in the West. Indian Tribes, Spaniards, Mexicans, Anglo settlers, including the Mormons, and other immigrants used the route extensively. The traded commodities along the Trail were as diverse as those who used it. The Old Spanish Trail supported the fur, mule, horse, sheep, and textile trades. Demand for sheep grew dramatically in California after the Great Gold Rush. In 1849, a gold-seeker named Roberts bought 500 sheep in New Mexico for $250, and sold them in California for $8,000. Beyond traditional commerce, Old Spanish Trail traders also traded in American Indian slaves. Tribes would raid weaker tribes and sell captives to the Spanish, and later to the Mexicans. The Indian slave trade continued as late as the 1860s. The trail's rich history marks important events in our nation's westward expansion. For example, in 1848, Lt. George B. Brewerton recorded his journey over the Spanish Trail and the northern branch. The young lieutenant accompanied a party of thirty men including the noted scout, Kit Carson. Carson was carrying mail from Los Angeles to the East Coast. The party left Los Angeles on May 4 and reached Santa Fe via Taos on June 14, forty-one days later. Carson proceeded east, reaching Washington, DC in mid-August, bringing news of the discovery of gold in California. Carson's news effectively fired the starting gun for the great gold rush. The study includes numerous accounts of other expeditions, experiences, and events marking our Nation's history. Thanks to a variety of public and private partnerships, we are learning more about the history of the Trail and the region everyday. In Colorado, the Bureau of Land Management has worked on documenting and interpreting the route with local communities, such as Mesa County and the City of Grand Junction. Interested private groups have sprung up to recognize the significance of the Trail and work to preserve it for generations to come. One such group, the Old Spanish Trail Association, founded in Colorado, studies the trail to raise the public's awareness of our country's diverse cultural heritage in the region. The association has already located wagon ruts and other vestiges of the trail's heyday. The time has come to acknowledge the national historical importance of the Old Spanish Trail. This bill designates the Old Spanish Trail for addition to the National Trails System to promote the recognition, protection and interpretation of our history in the West. By introducing this legislation today, we pay tribute to the cultures of the West that have enriched our nation and to an important period in American history. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this legislation. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill is as follows:

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate the Old Spanish Trail for addition to the National Trails System. In 1995, I worked to commission a study of the Old Spanish Trail to assess its historic significance and determine whether it should be included in the National Trails System. That recently published study discussed the Trail in great detail, recognizing it as a benchmark of the Old West. I would like to commend the Department of the Interior and National Park Service's scholarship in producing the ``National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment'' of the Old Spanish Trail. The Old Spanish Trail has been called the ``longest, crookedest, most arduous pack mule route in the history of America.'' Linking two quaint pueblo outposts, Villa Real de Sante Fe de San Francisco, now known as Santa Fe, and El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles, present day Los Angeles. This 1,200 mile route was a critical crossroads in trade and culture 150 years ago. American Indians lived for thousands of years throughout the American Southwest, carving out a network of trade and travel routes. The Utes, Paiutes, Comanches, and Navajo peoples used what was known as the Old Spanish Trail. The Old Spanish Trail played a crucial role as a crossroads for the diverse cultures in the West. Indian Tribes, Spaniards, Mexicans, Anglo settlers, including the Mormons, and other immigrants used the route extensively. The traded commodities along the Trail were as diverse as those who used it. The Old Spanish Trail supported the fur, mule, horse, sheep, and textile trades. Demand for sheep grew dramatically in California after the Great Gold Rush. In 1849, a gold-seeker named Roberts bought 500 sheep in New Mexico for $250, and sold them in California for $8,000. Beyond traditional commerce, Old Spanish Trail traders also traded in American Indian slaves. Tribes would raid weaker tribes and sell captives to the Spanish, and later to the Mexicans. The Indian slave trade continued as late as the 1860s. The trail's rich history marks important events in our nation's westward expansion. For example, in 1848, Lt. George B. Brewerton recorded his journey over the Spanish Trail and the northern branch. The young lieutenant accompanied a party of thirty men including the noted scout, Kit Carson. Carson was carrying mail from Los Angeles to the East Coast. The party left Los Angeles on May 4 and reached Santa Fe via Taos on June 14, forty-one days later. Carson proceeded east, reaching Washington, DC in mid-August, bringing news of the discovery of gold in California. Carson's news effectively fired the starting gun for the great gold rush. The study includes numerous accounts of other expeditions, experiences, and events marking our Nation's history. Thanks to a variety of public and private partnerships, we are learning more about the history of the Trail and the region everyday. In Colorado, the Bureau of Land Management has worked on documenting and interpreting the route with local communities, such as Mesa County and the City of Grand Junction. Interested private groups have sprung up to recognize the significance of the Trail and work to preserve it for generations to come. One such group, the Old Spanish Trail Association, founded in Colorado, studies the trail to raise the public's awareness of our country's diverse cultural heritage in the region. The association has already located wagon ruts and other vestiges of the trail's heyday. The time has come to acknowledge the national historical importance of the Old Spanish Trail. This bill designates the Old Spanish Trail for addition to the National Trails System to promote the recognition, protection and interpretation of our history in the West. By introducing this legislation today, we pay tribute to the cultures of the West that have enriched our nation and to an important period in American history. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this legislation. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill is as follows:

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2002. This bill improves upon my earlier efforts designating the initial park and conservation area. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure to be enjoyed by all. The park's combination of geological wonders and diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique natural areas in North America. The first person to survey the canyon, Abraham Lincoln Fellows, noted in 1901, ``our surroundings were of the wildest possible description. The roar of the water . . . was constantly in our ears, and the walls of the canyon, towering half mile in height about us, were seemingly vertical.'' Similarly, today, visitors can enjoy hiking the deep gorge to the Gunnison River raging below, or look overhead to marvel at eagles and peregrine falcons soaring in the sky. This bill modifies the legislative boundary of the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area allowing even greater access to the park's many recreational opportunities including boating, fishing, and hiking. This important legislation would expand the National Park by 2,725 acres, for a total of 33,025 acres. The Conservation area will be increased by 5,700 acres, for a total of 63,425 acres. In total this bill adds 7,296 acres to provide habitat for several listed, threatened, endangered and BLM sensitive species including, the Bald Eagle, the River Otter, Delta Lomation, Clay-Loving Buckwheat. This legislation helps preserve a unique national resource and a source of national pride. I urge quick passage of this important bill. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2002. This bill improves upon my earlier efforts designating the initial park and conservation area. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure to be enjoyed by all. The park's combination of geological wonders and diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique natural areas in North America. The first person to survey the canyon, Abraham Lincoln Fellows, noted in 1901, ``our surroundings were of the wildest possible description. The roar of the water . . . was constantly in our ears, and the walls of the canyon, towering half mile in height about us, were seemingly vertical.'' Similarly, today, visitors can enjoy hiking the deep gorge to the Gunnison River raging below, or look overhead to marvel at eagles and peregrine falcons soaring in the sky. This bill modifies the legislative boundary of the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area allowing even greater access to the park's many recreational opportunities including boating, fishing, and hiking. This important legislation would expand the National Park by 2,725 acres, for a total of 33,025 acres. The Conservation area will be increased by 5,700 acres, for a total of 63,425 acres. In total this bill adds 7,296 acres to provide habitat for several listed, threatened, endangered and BLM sensitive species including, the Bald Eagle, the River Otter, Delta Lomation, Clay-Loving Buckwheat. This legislation helps preserve a unique national resource and a source of national pride. I urge quick passage of this important bill. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I today am introducing a resolution urging the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process leading up to the March 31, 2002 parliamentary elections. I am pleased to be joined by fellow Commissioners Dodd and Brownback. Several of our colleagues from the House have introduced a companion resolution. Ukraine's success as an independent, democratic state is vital to the stability and security in Europe, and that country has, over the last decade, enjoyed a strong relationship with the United States. The Helsinki Commission 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. Ukraine enjoys goodwill in the Congress and remains one of our largest recipients of assistance in the world. Clearly, there is a genuine desire that Ukraine succeed as an independent, democratic, stable and economically successful state. It is against this backdrop that I introduce this resolution, as a manifestation of our concern about Ukraine's direction at this critical juncture. These parliamentary elections will be an important indication of whether Ukraine moves forward rather than backslides on the path to democratic development. Indeed, there has been growing cause for concern about Ukraine's direction over the last few years. Last May, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing: ``Ukraine at the Crossroads: Ten Years After Independence.'' Witnesses at that hearing testified about problems confronting Ukraine's democratic development, including high-level corruption, the controversial conduct of authorities in the investigation of murdered investigative journalist Heorhiy Gongadze and other human rights problems. I had an opportunity to meet Mrs. Gongadze and her daughters who attended that hearing. While there has been progress over the last few months with respect to legislation designed to strengthen the rule of law, it is too early to assert that Ukraine is once again moving in a positive direction. With respect to the upcoming elections, on the positive side we have seen the passage of a new elections law which, while not perfect, has made definite improvements in providing safeguards to meet Ukraine's international commitments. However, there are already concerns about the elections, with increasing reports of violations of political rights and freedoms during the pre-campaign period, many of them documented in reports recently released by the non-partisan, non- government Committee on Voters of Ukraine, CVU. It is important for Ukraine that there not be a repeat of the 1999 presidential elections which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, stated were marred by violations of the Ukrainian election law and failed to meet a significant number of commitments on the conduct of elections set out in the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Therefore, this resolution urges the Ukrainian Government to enforce impartially the new election law and to meet its OSCE commitments on democratic elections and to address issues identified by the OSCE report on the 1999 presidential election such as state interference in the campaign and pressure on the media. The upcoming parliamentary elections clearly present Ukraine with an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to OSCE principles. The resolution we introduce today is an expression of the importance of these parliamentary elections, which could serve as an important stepping-stone in Ukraine's efforts to become a fully integrated member of the Europe-Atlantic community of nations.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Crapo's amendment to strike the language in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Before the holiday recess, we debated a slightly different version of Senator Reid's proposal. The holidays gave us sufficient time to look over the language and to get feedback. I can tell my colleagues that in my State our Governor, our attorney general, the Colorado Farm Bureau, and literally every rancher and farmer I talked to during the break strongly oppose this language. Senator Reid has included some very controversial language. I have great respect for Senator Reid and consider him a close friend, but I think this is just dead wrong. The recent change cannot cure the flawed provision. First of all, some might refer to Senator Reid's proposal as a mere extension of CREP, a program that can only be extended if it already exists, but water rights should not be part of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Therefore, the addition of water rights is a fundamental change to the existing program. Such a change should require hearings, study, or some level of congressional inquiry, and yet there has been none to date. Our constituents expect us to be fully informed. Since this is the first that most of us have heard of creating what is effectively a new program, how can we possibly be fully informed? We cannot, and I simply cannot vote for something that can hurt farmers in my State when we do not know the effects. I carefully reviewed the language letting the States hold water rights rather than the Secretary of Agriculture, as Senator Reid recently proposed. At first glance, this might sound reasonable, properly deferring to the primacy of State water courts in the West. However, the new language requires the Secretary of Agriculture to review and approve the interested State's program. Again, the United States waived its sovereign immunity and consented to deferring to State adjudication of water rights. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that law ensuring that Federal claims are subject to State water courts. Senator Reid's language would make a change to CREP and would bring the Federal Government back into the equation. Whether intentional or not, the USDA review and approval requirement amounts to a sleight-of- hand Federal regulation of a precious State resource resulting in de facto Federal involvement. Again, this dramatic change to the CREP creates way too many questions. First and foremost, of course, is why should water be included in this farm bill? Second, this new program would give priority to a State program that addresses endangered, threatened, or ``species that have been called threatened or endangered.'' Senator Crapo alluded to this. It may also include those that ``may become threatened.'' I do not have to remind my friends from the West of the controversy currently surrounding the Canadian lynx and the fish in the Klamath Basin and my State of Colorado, too, species that were actually endangered and, in some cases, we are finding out now, in the case of the lynx, they were not really endangered. There were dummied statistics to make them look endangered. Before granting discretion to affect ``species that may become threatened,'' we should determine how many problems actually are there and what kind of corrective action should be taken. Senator Crapo mentioned the question, if we lease water to the Federal Government and they use it for a different purpose than the farmer used it, if it creates an area that may become an actual endangered species habitat, would that, under the Endangered Species Act, supersede the rancher's and farmer's ability to get the water rights back when the lease is over? That is a question we should ask ourselves. My colleagues have stressed this language would not disrupt water rights because it only affects ``willing sellers.'' What about the downstream farmer? In the West, all of us know that water is used more than once. I have a small ranch. I think I am about fourth in the use of the water. The wastewater is then filed on by people who are downstream or have areas of ranching territory lower than others. So you may have four or five people who use the same water. Of course, priority right is given by senior water rights or junior water rights, depending on how early they were on the claims in the filing. If a senior rights holder upstream leases from the Federal Government, where does that leave the junior rights holders who also rely on that water to feed their crops or their livestock? Could they be also in danger? I think they could. In Colorado, much as in all the rest of the West, water is treated apart from the land. It is considered a property right. It can be taken from the land and sold separately, which it often is. So long as the change does not injure other water rights, I think this language, because of the way we reuse the water over and over, could certainly jeopardize junior rights holders. Colorado is an arid State. Its strained water supply has been over appropriated. In other words, the demand for water exceeds our supply. That is what we are always in court about and always fighting about. Even more challenging, Colorado's population is projected to grow 63 percent in the next 25 years. The growth, in fact, is only superseded by the growth in Nevada and Arizona. We are the third fastest growing State. I certainly would oppose any action to jeopardize any State's rights to use the water it legally owns. In order to meet water needs, communities have entered into water compacts. I believe this language leaves too many questions about what happens to inter-basin compacts, inter-State compacts, and international compacts. Both the Colorado and the Rio Grande headwaters are in Colorado. We have nine rivers that flow out of Colorado. All of them are subject to those compacts. The two major rivers I mentioned are subject to compacts with another nation, Mexico, as they receive water from both of those resources. In closing, many of my colleagues like to say they are moving a farm bill because that is what farmers want. The group, Environmental Defense, was quoted today in Congress Daily concerning Senator Reid's language, and I would like to remind my colleagues they are purportedly acting pursuant to the farmers' interests and what the farmers want. Well, I know the Farm Bureau has gone on record as opposing this language. The Farm Union was in my office also opposing this language, and I oppose this language. So I hope my friends recognize the real long-term dangers that could exist for water users in all the Western States if the Reid language is included. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, periodically, I have addressed my colleagues in the United States Senate on developments in the last dictatorship in Europe Belarus. More the 5 months have passed since the September 9, 2001 Belarusian Presidential elections, which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well at the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, concluded did not meet international democratic standards. Since that time, the Belarusian leadership has had ample opportunity to begin to live up to its freely- undertaken OSCE human rights and democracy commitments. Thus far, these opportunities have been squandered. As Secretary of State Powell remarked in his speech at the December 2001 meeting of OSCE Ministers in Bucharest: The Government of Belarus ignored the recommendations of the OSCE on what conditions would need to be established in order for free and fair elections to take place. It is unfortunate, indeed, that the government of Belarus continues to act in a manner that excludes Belarus from the mainstream of European political life. Since September, human rights violations have continued. There has been no progress with respect to resolving the cases of opposition leaders and journalists who ``disappeared'' in 1999--2000. Belarusian leader Aleksandr Lukashenka has retaliated against opposition members, independent journalists, human rights activists and others, especially young people. Beatings, detentions, fines and other forms of pressure have continued unabated. To cite just one example, two defendants in a criminal case against Alexander Chygir, son of leading Lukashenka opponent and former Prime Minister, Mikhail Chygir, were reportedly beaten and otherwise maltreated during pre-trial detention. Criminal cases have been launched against journalists and NGOs as well. A number of leading industrialists have been arrested on what some observers believe are politically motivated charges. Freedom of religion is also an area of concern. The registration scheme, required for a group to obtain full legal rights, is the ultimate ``Catch-22.'' Registration cannot be granted without a legal address; a legal address cannot be obtained without registration. Even the state controlled media is a concern for religious freedom, due to the highly critical reports in newspapers and television about the Catholic Church and Protestant churches. Very recently, the regular broadcast on national radio of a Miensk Catholic mass was unexpectedly halted. Efforts to promote human rights and expand support and develop civil society in Belarus are being thwarted. The Belarusian Government has threatened the OSCE Mission in Miensk with what amounts to expulsion unless the mandate of the Mission is changed more to its liking and has shown reluctance to accept a new Head of Mission. It is vital that the OSCE be allowed to continue its important work in developing genuine democratic institutions and a strong civil society in Belarus. I am also deeply troubled by allegations that Belarus has been acting as a supplier of lethal military equipment to Islamic terrorists, a charge that the Belrausian Government has denied. The troubling allegations contained in this article are a reminder of the importance of remaining steadfast in supporting democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Belarus. The lack of functioning democratic institutions, including an independent parliament, together with suppression of free media contribute to an environment void of accountability. Writing off Belarus as a backwater in the heart of Europe would play into the hands of the Lukashenka regime with disastrous consequences not only for the Belarusian people. It is more important than ever for the OSCE to maintain a strong presence on the ground in Belarus and for the United States to continue to support democratic development in that country. I ask unaminous consent that the Washington Post article ``Europe's Armory for Terrorism be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today the Senate will vote to pass comprehensive education reform legislation in the form of the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2001. This important legislation contains the Native American Education Improvement Act of 2001 which I was proud to have introduced in January 2000, along with Senator Inouye, to improve the education of Native American youth across the country. I would first like to thank the Bush administration and the conferees for working with the Indian Affairs Committee to work on the Indian portion of this legislation to benefit the schools in Indian country and the education of Native children. In 1965, Congress passed The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, which is broad-sweeping legislation that provides funding for various educational programs in an effort to assist underprivileged students and school districts. While the original focus of ESEA was to be a supplemental source for needy public schools, the ESEA now provides funds to and affects virtually every public school in the nation. As a former teacher and one who knows all-too-well the problems faced by Indian youngsters, I strongly believe that education holds the key to individual accomplishment, the promotion of developed Native communities, and real self determination. I believe that the Native American Education Improvement Act of 2001 is legislation that improves the conditions and operations of Bureau and tribally-operated schools. This act represents more than 2 years' worth of committee hearings to develop a comprehensive set of reforms that address all areas of BIA and tribally-operated schools in issues that include accreditation, accountability, the recruitment of Indian teachers, and the construction of Indian schools. I note that this legislation contains an innovative specification requiring accreditation. Twenty-four months after enactment of this act, Bureau funded schools must be accredited or in the process of obtaining accreditation by one of the following: an approved tribal accrediting body; or a regional accreditation agency; or in accordance with State accreditation standards. The act also requires a report to be completed by the Secretary of Education and Secretary of Interior in consultation with tribes and Indian education organizations leading to the establishment of a ``National Tribal Accrediting Agency.'' Quality assurance mechanisms are included in this act regarding the failure of a school to achieve or maintain accreditation and any underlying staffing, curriculum, or other programmatic problems in the school that contributed to the lack of or loss of accreditation. Indian kids around the country need a solid education that will give them the tools they need to excel in today's competitive world. With the passage of this act the Senate declares that it will no longer tolerate schools that fail, year after year, with no consequences to the schools but plenty of consequences for the children.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I take this opportunity to welcome the recent swearing-in of Stephan M. Minikes to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. Prior to that ceremony, I met with Steve to discuss priority issues on the Commission's agenda, including the promotion of democracy, human rights and economic liberty as well as such pressing concerns as international crime and corruption and their links to terrorism. The Commission remains keenly interested in the OSCE as a tool for promoting human rights and democratic development and advancing United States interests in the expansive 55-nation OSCE region. The terrorist attacks of September 11 represented an assault on the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law--core principles at the heart of the OSCE. It is crucial that we redouble our efforts to advance these fundamental principles throughout the OSCE region even as we pursue practical cooperation aimed at rooting out terrorism. The OSCE provides an important framework for advancing these vital and complementary objectives. I am confident that Steve will draw on his extensive and varied experiences as he assumes his duties as U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE and I look forward to working with him and his team in Vienna. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary of State Powell's eloquent prepared remarks delivered at Ambassador Minikes' swearing-in ceremony be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security on Cooperation in Europe, I have a keen interest in the fight against organized crime and corruption in the 55-nation OSCE region. I have raised this issue at the meetings of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, at Commission hearings, and in meetings with United States Government and foreign officials. The impact of organized crime in the OSCE region is not limited to some far-off land. Organized crime and corruption directly bear on United States security, economic, and political interests at home and abroad. And at the OSCE Summit held in Istanbul in 1999, the Heads of State and Government of the participating States recognized that corruption poses a serious and great threat to OSCE shared values, cutting across security, economic, and human dimensions of the OSCE. One of the best tools at our disposal in advancing the fight against corruption is a free and independent press that can both investigate and report on possible corruption. Unfortunately, it is no surprise that journalists who report on issues related to corruption sometimes find themselves the victims of harassment and, in extreme cases, violence. Accordingly, I am disturbed by reports that the Czech Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Zeman, is seeking to have criminal charges brought against a political weekly, Respekt. Threats by the Prime Minister to shut down this publication followed the newspaper's coverage of the release of Transparency International's most recent report, Global Corruption Report 2001, in which the Czech Republic compared unfavorably to other former Communist countries in the region. In fact, Peter Holub, the editor of Respekt, is not the only Czech journalist to get into hot water for trying to report on corruption. In January 1998, journalist Zdenek Zukal was arrested in connection with his reporting on alleged corruption in the locality of Olomouc and charged with ``spreading alarming information.'' His case has dragged on for some four years without resolution. I understand the government's desire to get it's message out. But trying to achieve that goal by muzzling journalists and threatening them with jail time is not the way to do it. More to the point, it violates the OSCE commitments the Czech Republic has freely undertaken.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Exactly the point. We don't know the problems that will be created, and that is why I think it is wrong to move forward with this bill with this section in it until we have had some really in- depth hearings as to how it would affect water in all the States of the West. I appreciate the time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I worked with the Senator from Idaho on a good number of water bills for a number of years. Maybe I should correct him because we have one more water project to build, and that is what he and I have been working on in Colorado for the last two decades. But something came to my mind as I have been listening to the debate, and I would like to ask the Senator a question, since he is the only one on the floor. Most of the western States have several problems including over appropriation, which means more people own the water than there is water. That is why we have been fighting back and forth. One of the things common to the West but not common to the East is called water compacts. We have them between counties sharing scarce water, we have them between States. Colorado happens to be an upper basin State, as it is called; California, a lower basin State; and we share the water that goes down the Colorado River. We also share the water, under a contractual agreement, that goes down the Rio Grande that starts in Colorado, that goes to Texas. In addition to interstate compacts, we have international compacts because we have a compact with Mexico to provide a certain amount of water from both of those rivers to that nation. Most of the water that is in ranching now recharges back to the ground. It goes back either through runoff irrigation, which goes back to the river, or if it is sprinkled, it usually recharges the aquifer to some degree. One of the big unknown questions for me is if there is a possibility, if we change the use or allow the Federal Government to change the use, it would in any way upset existing compacts. I would like to ask the Senator if he has thought about that, if he has any views on that.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will limit my comments. I want to say this while Senator Reid is on the floor. I used to live in his part of the country and I understand his concern. If you haven't spent much time in Nevada--I listened to his comments. I listened about Pyramid Lake and Walker Lake, two lakes that rivers come into. And there is a place called Tumble Sink in his State--the only place in the United States where the further you go downstream, the smaller the river gets, until it just disappears. I think this is a question that probably should have been fully debated, with some kind of a hearing, and not attached to this bill. The Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, mentioned what we often call the law of unintended consequences. That is what I am concerned about, too, without adequate input. I know this may help a rancher or a farmer survive, but I can tell you they won't survive very long once the water is gone. I don't know how many Members of this body farm or ranch. I know there are several, including me. You might make a short-term agreement to sell or lease some water, but if there is a change in the water usage and you don't get it back, that is the end of your farming and ranching in the arid West, where we have to store something like 80 percent of our yearly water needs. As I understand this part of the bill, the Secretary of Agriculture can acquire the water for purposes other than agriculture during this period of time, even though I understand it is on a willing-seller/ willing-buyer arrangement and that he cannot participate in a CRP unless he also agrees to the water provision. You take them both or you get neither. Now, I am reminded of something that happened. I did a hearing on water in Fort Collins, CO, about a year and a half ago. One of the men who testified--I was thinking about him when I was listening--was a man, like a lot of ranchers, who moves his water around, depending on what he is planning and where he wants the irrigated water to go. He had a field that was dry as a bone, and he had ample water rights. So he put a ditch in to carry some of the excess water he already owned to this very dry field. Lo and behold, the field obviously came up very rich and beautiful and produced a wonderful stand of hay. Since there was water and seed in the ground, a little mouse moved in called a Preble's meadow jumping mouse, which is on the Endangered Species List, or the Threatened Species List. As you know, the Endangered Species Act takes into consideration habitat. Once the mouse moved in, he found he could not move his ditches anymore from there because it was declared habitat for that mouse. That is one of the concerns with this. Maybe it will work fine; maybe it won't. What if the rancher agrees to take his water out of production and put it in this Federal designation for a period of time, and wherever that water is--as an example, out West--it is used for something else and, therefore, where it was in those fields is now dried up. As you probably know, there is a program in the West reintroducing the blackfooted ferret on the Endangered Species List. They are beginning to grow little by little. There are a few more colonies established. What if something like that moved into that area where he had his water because they live on prairie dogs and live in dry ground, not near water? My question would be: Is there a possibility that he could not get his water use back because that land he had irrigated might then come under some kind of a criterion that would prevent him under the Endangered Species Act? It is that kind of unanswered ambiguity about this section that makes me oppose it. I am not opposed to the concept. I am always looking for ways that farmers and ranchers can survive because it is not easy. We have more ranchers and farmers in the West whose wives are now driving school buses to make ends meet. It is a tough lifestyle. There is no question that as the urbanization takes place in the West, there is going to be a bigger need for water. Maybe someday we will have to change the way we use water, as they do in Israel and other dry countries where they have gone to drip irrigation and other things, rather than flood irrigating, which is so wasteful of water. But under the water law that exists now in the Western States, I think this could really upset things, even though the language says it cannot be done without the approval of the water authority. Something, it seems to me, should be fleshed out completely through hearings and much better debate, rather than simply in the last few minutes before the agriculture bill moves. With that, I thank the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as the former chairman and now ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government, I would like to make a few observations on this amendment and tell my colleagues at the outset that my comments are not designed to bring into question the motives of any Senator who votes for the amendment. But there is an old adage: If the shoe fits, wear it. We have had to wrestle with some pretty important issues since September 11. During that time, I think Members of this body have displayed a great deal of courage. And their constituents certainly have the right to expect that kind of courage. But that is the way it should be. Neither bombs nor fires, terrorists nor wars have been able to shake our resolve, but the mention of a pay raise somehow makes a lot of Senators' courage melt like snowballs in summer, and that iron will begins to make them shake in their boots. Some Senators may honestly believe we should not receive a pay raise at any cost. Some, in fact, think we should be working here for nothing. Some maybe just don't think they are worth the salary. But I tell you, there is an old saying that has developed over the years, and I would like to invite our constituents and the press to explore the actions of a Member who falls into the definition of what has been called: ``Vote no, but take the dough.'' That phrase is a pretty good description of politicians who want the money but do not want the heat of voter displeasure, even though setting our own salaries is a constitutional requirement. I have voted a number of times on pay raises--sometimes for, sometimes against. Every time I voted against them, and they passed, I donated those pay raises to charity. I could not, in good conscience, keep the money if I would not support it with my vote. I gave a total of five $1,000 scholarships and gave other money to a homeless shelter. At no time when I voted against it did I keep it. I know there are a number of other Members who have done the same thing. But those times I thought the increase was warranted, I voted for it, and I kept it and I justified it, as many other Members have also done. I think I can justify it this time, too. With the tragedies at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center still fresh in our minds, I would recommend to those who oppose a cost-of- living increase and, therefore do not want the COLA, to donate it to a charity involved in the aftermath of September 11, if they really truly believe they don't deserve it. If they are that guilt ridden, they can, in fact, simply return it back to the Federal Treasury. There is no law that prevents them from doing that. Every Member has to live with his own conscience and decisions, but there certainly are Members who fall into that category ``vote no and take the dough.'' In the past, in fact, some have come to the floor to emphatically denounce the increase while letting other Members shoulder the burden to pass the bill and they quietly pocket the money and sneak off in the night hoping nobody will notice that their outrage does not jibe with their actions. We have been here 16 hours--at least I have, since 6 o'clock this morning--with no end in sight, with important amendments with which we have yet to deal. This bill simply is the wrong vehicle for this amendment. It should have been offered on the Treasury-Postal-general government bill. It was not. To make matters worse, many of the very people who speak out against this COLA have asked money to be earmarked in that bill where this should have been addressed. It is automatic, as all of our Members know. I would also remind the Members that the Treasury-Postal-general government bill has all the courthouse construction money, the Federal courts money, the money to fight the war on drugs, security money for the Olympics, other things in it that make it a very important bill. To try to amend this bill, the Department of Defense supplemental, with a decision for Members after it has already been approved in the Treasury-general government bill, is not a good policy and opens a Pandora's box of other amendments that have already been settled in the other eight bills that have passed both the House and Senate, and conference committees, too. If the opponents of the COLA don't like it, they should have offered an amendment to delete it when our bill, the Treasury-general government bill, was on the floor. They had ample opportunity when Chairman Dorgan and I were pleading with Members to come to the floor and offer amendments. This amendment may be great theater, but one thing is clear, it is not an automatic ticket to reelection. Self-flagellation never is. As I have already stated, I don't question the motives of any Member on how they vote. But I would invite our constituents to look into the Member's past votes on this issue and see what they did with the money the last time, if they voted against it. I believe their constituents would like to know if they were driven by a deeply held belief about self-worth or if they were in the category of ``vote no and take the dough.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act.'' This language is the product of years of detailed negotiations regarding an area of great majesty in my home State of Colorado. When discussing public lands issues, the potential uses for land are as varied and numerous as the diverse groups of users. Oftentimes, one camp is pitted against another, each convinced that its view is right to the point that it necessarily excludes the other interested party. And the result is that nothing viable happens. No land is protected and no uses of land are preserved. Instead, we read of angry exchanges, that if it were not for one side being so stubborn in its view, then we would have had a bill, while ignoring their own immobile position. This bill, I am very proud to say, is different from the all-too- common discourse that I described. This bill stands as a testament to what can be achieved when interested parties stop for a moment and listen to each other. I would like to take this moment to commend the work of my friends in the House, Representatives Udall and McInnis for their efforts on this issue. The ``James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act'' respects the diverse uses of Colorado's lands and recognizes those differences accordingly. This bill designates about 14,000 acres in Boulder, Clear Creek, and Gilpin Counties as Wilderness, and enlarges the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness by an additional 3,195 acres. Further, this carefully balanced approach designates 16,000 acres of national forest land as the ``James Peak Protection Area.'' The Protection Area in Grand County would disallow development of the land, but would permit recreational use for the public's continued enjoyment. I am pleased with the careful compromises that were necessary in crafting this bill and proudly introduce it today. I only wish this kind of cooperation was more evident in the other discussions about public lands in America. I hope for quick passage of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.