Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Bob Hope Arlington Honors Act of 2003,'' legislation authorizing the burial of Bob Hope at Arlington National Cemetery, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Bob Hope Arlington Honors Act of 2003,'' legislation authorizing the burial of Bob Hope at Arlington National Cemetery, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to designate a stretch of the Rio Grande River as an Outstanding Natural Area. This Outstanding Natural Area designation is the hallmark of successful partnerships between local landowners, farmers, governments and interested advocacy groups to develop a plan to preserve an important stretch of river and the southwest Willow Flycatcher, a federally recognized endangered species. The Rio Grande River and its tributaries rise in the San Juan Mountains and flow into the San Luis Valley. The Valley, like so much of Colorado is dependent on snowmelt for water. In fact, the 600,000 acres of irrigated farm land within the Valley only get an average of seven inches of precipitation each year. It goes without saying that the Rio Grande River is the lifeblood of the Valley for flora and fauna as well as thousands of farmers and landowners. The legislation that I am introducing today is the product of careful collaboration between interested stakeholder, including environmental groups, landowners, farmers, and local governments. All of these parties recognized that in order to protect this important thirty-three miles of watershed something had to be done. After much deliberation, all agreed that designating the stretch of River from the southern edge of the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge to the New Mexico State line as an Outstanding Natural Area would be the best way to maintain this critical reach. This bill establishes a Commission made up of Federal, State, and local stakeholders who are charged with developing a management plan to restore and protect the area. The Secretary of Interior must review and approve the plan. Upon approval, the Secretary of Interior would implement the management plan, coordinating with State and local governments, and cooperating with land owners. Private landowners are encouraged to participate in the Commission. As in much of the West, Rio Grande River's water is apportioned to downstream states through interstate compact. Therefore, make no mistake; this bill does not include an implied or reserved water right. The Outstanding Natural Area legislation that I am introducing today is supported by the local Boards of county Commissioners, the local water user organizations, the local Cattlemen's Association, the environmental community, and affected private landowners along the River. We often talk about bringing interested folks to the table to work out a cooperative solution to an issue. All too often, either people don't come to the table or the discussions fail to bear fruit. This bill is a positive example of what can be accomplished when interested stakeholders come together in good faith and work toward a common goal. I am proud to introduce this legislation and continue that effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to submit a Senate Resolution regarding the genocidal Ukraine Famine of 1932-33. The resolution commemorates the millions of innocent victims of this Soviet-engineered famine and support the efforts of the Ukrainian Government and Parliament to publicly acknowledge and call greater international attention to one of the 20th century's most appalling atrocities. This year marks the 70th anniversary of Stalin's man-made famine, one of the most heinous crimes in a century notable for events that demonstrated the cruelty of totalitarian regimes. Seventy years ago, a famine in Soviet-dominated Ukraine, and bordering ethnically-Ukrainian territory in Russia, resulted in the deaths of millions of Ukrainians--estimates range from between four and ten million. In his seminal book on the Ukraine Famine, Harvest of Sorrow, British historian Robert Conquest writes, ``A quarter of the rural population, men, women, and children, lay dead or dying, the rest in various stages of debilitation with no strength to bury their families or neighbors.'' Conquest and many others, including eyewitnesses and recently opened archives, chronicle the devastating human suffering of this man-made famine. The Ukraine Famine was not the result of drought or some other natural calamity, but of Soviet dictator Stalin's utterly inhumane, coldly calculated policy to suppress the Ukrainian people and destroy their human, cultural, and political rights. It was the result of purposeful starvation. Communist requisition brigades, acting on Stalin's orders to fulfill impossibly high grain quotas, took away the last scraps of food from starving families, including children, often killing those who resisted. Millions of rural Ukrainians slowing starved amid some of the world's most fertile farmland, while stockpiles of expropriated grain rotted by the tons. Meanwhile, the Soviet Government was exporting grain to the West, rejecting international offers to assist the starving population, and preventing starving Ukrainians from leaving the affected areas in search of food elsewhere. The Stalinist regime--and, for that matter subsequent Soviet leaders--engaged in a massive coverup of denying the Ukraine Famine. Regrettably, they were aided and abetted in this campaign of denial and deception by some Western journalists, including Americans. The final report of the Congressionally-created Commission on the Ukraine Famine concluded in 1988 that ``Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33.'' James Mace, who was staff director of the Commission, recently wrote: ``For Stalin to have completely centralized power in his hands, he found it necessary to physically destroy the second largest Soviet republic, meaning the annihilation of the Ukrainian peasantry, Ukrainian intelligentsia, Ukrainian language, and history as understood by the people; to do away with Ukraine and things Ukrainian as such. The calculation was very simple, very primitive: no people, therefore, no separate country, and thus no problem. Such a policy is genocide in the classic sense of the work.'' It is vital that the world not forget the Ukraine Famine, honor its victims, and reiterate our support for Ukraine's independence and democratic development as the best assurance that atrocities such as the famine become truly unimaginable. I urge colleagues to join me in commemorating this genocide perpetrated against the Ukrainian people.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on Potential Settlement Mechanisms of the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit. Mr. President, I also would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet again in the afternoon on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 578, The Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 556, a bill to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending Committee matters, to be followed immediately by a joint hearing with the House Committee on Resources, Office of Native American and Insular Affairs, on S. 556, a bill to Reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and H.R. 2440, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2003. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we turn to consideration of H.R. 2657, the legislative branch appropriations bill; that the text of the bill relating solely to the House remain; that all other parts of the text be stricken; and the text of the Senate bill, S. 1383, be inserted; and that no points of order be waived by this order.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the full Senate the legislative branch spending bill for fiscal year 2004. I appreciate the support of the Full Committee Chairman Senator Stevens and Ranking Member Senator Byrd, and assistance of my ranking member, Senator Durbin, in this process. This is my first year as chairman of this subcommittee, and I believe Senator Durbin and I have done our best to craft this bill to meet the highest priorities of the legislative branch with an allocation that is $190 million below the request level. Chairman Stevens knows I am not complaining about the allocation--he has been very generous in this allocation given the very tight constraints the committee faces. The bill totals the allocation level of $3.6 billion in budget authority. Most agencies and programs have been kept to current staffing levels, with full funding recommended for normal pay and price level increases. Increases above the current level have been provided in a few key areas, particularly security. I would like to review the highlights of the bill for my colleagues. For the Capitol Police, funding totals $240 million. The amount recommended would enable them to have on board by the end of the year 1,771 police officers, in keeping with security recommendations made by law enforcement experts. I believe this is prudent and necessary to ensure adequate security for the Capitol complex. Having been in law enforcement myself, I am keenly interested in making the U.S. Capitol Police the premiere law enforcement agency in this country, and the funds we have recommended help move them in this direction with resources directed at not only increasing the force size, but improving the administrative infrastructure of the agency to ensure it is managed properly, and adding important new programs such as a mounted horse unit. For the Architect of the Capitol, funds total $358 million, which is $89 million below the request, owing to the deletion of several major projects which should be deferred until completion of the Capitol Visitor Center--the highest Architect of the Capitol priority at this time. Our recommendation includes $47.8 million for the Capitol Visitor Center, which represents the General Accounting Office's estimate--in conjunction with an independent consultant with expertise in construction cost estimating--of the cost to complete the project. Some have called for cutting corners on the project rather than appropriating the funds needed to get the job done right. I don't agree. I am new to this project but I am a big supporter. It promises to enhance security for the Capitol complex, while also ensuring a much better educational experience for visitors who come to the Capitol. This Visitor Center was planned and preliminary work was done before 9/11. No one could have predicted that changes would have to be made after 9/11 because of an increase in the security requirements. While there have been some problems with this project to date, and some cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions and unexpected costs related to utility work, we plan to monitor the project closely to ensure that costs are kept under control, the schedule is adhered to, and quality is not jeopardized. Moving on to the Library to Congress, there is a total of $523 million included in the bill, $19.6 million above the FY03 level but $17 million below the request. Funds are reduced from several program areas slated for increases, owing to budget constraints, but the Veterans History Project is fully funded at the increased level of $1.3 million and no program is cut below current levels. For the Senate, a total of $718 million is recommended, $27.9 million below the request. Reductions are primarily from the Sergeant at Arm's projects which can be deferred until FY05. To my knowledge, there have been no amendments filed on either side of the aisle for titles I and II.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me say, in closing, I certainly appreciate my friend's support. We have a great deal in common. We both have sports backgrounds. We are both westerners. We both have law enforcement backgrounds. So we have worked on a good number of things together. And his voice in support of this bill is really appreciated. I guess he recognizes, as I do, that although many people in America do not know very much about this bill, everyone who comes to the United States Capitol, sooner or later, is affected by the money that is in this bill. I know, as my friend knows, there were many times we came to the Capitol--before that hole was in the ground out there--in the wintertime, with drizzling rain, drizzling freezing rain, and there would be people lined up out on the tarmac, the blacktop, shivering, freezing, just waiting for a chance to get in to watch these proceedings. That is not right. When we get done with this Capitol Visitor Center, as my friend and colleague from Nevada said, they are going to have a place to learn a lot more about their Capitol and the institution in which we now serve. I think we will all be better served by finishing this Visitor Center. I just want to tell the Senator from Nevada how much we appreciate his support. I have no further comments, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a joint hearing with the House Committee on Resources, Office of Native American and Insular Affairs, on S. 556, A Bill to Reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on rules and administration

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to address the barbaric practices that constitute torture as we mark the United Nations Day in Support of the Victims of Torture. Astonishingly, an estimated 500,000 victims of torture live in the United States today, including many in my home State of Colorado. The United States has provided vital leadership in the campaign to prevent torture around the world. The United States must not equivocate on this most basic of human rights. While the United States has consistently spoken out forcefully against the use of torture around the world, serious questions have been raised suggesting U.S. complicity in torture as part of the war against terrorism. This prompted me to join other members of the Helsinki Commission in writing to the White House recently urging an investigation of ``serious allegations that the United States is using torture, both directly and indirectly, during interrogations of those suspected of terrorism.'' Against this backdrop, I urge the administration to issue a forthright statement on torture. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush described the horrific forms of torture employed by the Hussein regime and concluded, ``If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.'' Even as experts document the scope of torture in Iraq, there must be no doubt concerning U.S. policy and practice. As Cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly concerned that torture remains a tolerated if not promoted practice by come countries, even within the membership of the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. In some places, like Uzbekistan, members of the political opposition or religious minorities are especially likely to be the victims of torture. Tragically, two more people there have joined the long list of those who have died in custody amid credible allegations of abuse and torture, just weeks after the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development hosted a prestigious meeting in Tashkent, and days after the Secretary of State determined Uzbekistan is eligible for continued U.S. assistance. Moreover, the shortsighted practice of making martyrs out of Islamic extremists may have exactly the opposite effect the government claims to be seeking in its efforts to combat terrorism. In Georgia, torture and abuse comes hand in hand with police corruption. In the most recent State Department Country Report on human rights in Georgia, the Department stated: ``[s]ecurity forces continued to torture, beat, and otherwise abuse detainees. . . . NGOs also blamed several deaths in custody on physical abuse, torture, or inhumane and life-threatening prison conditions.'' Even President Shevardnadze has, in the past, acknowledged the prevalence of abuse against detainees and prisoners. I welcome a new initiative of the OSCE Mission in Georgia to combat torture, but I would also note that antitorture initiatives have come and gone in Georgia with little to show for it. Without real political will, I am afraid this latest initiative may end up like the others. In Turkey--a country which has been given particular attention by the Helsinki Commission--even the doctors who treat the victims of torture have become targets themselves. Their offices have been raided, records seized, and even some doctors have been arrested and tortured. Moreover, the patients of these doctors, all of whom have already suffered at the hands of the authorities, have often been rearrested, retortured and recharged based on their testimonies given to the medical authorities. As a result of these practices, Turkey has been repeatedly sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights. The Turkish nongovernmental organization, the Human Rights Foundation, appears to be making some headway in defending these doctors. Last year, Turkey's Grand National Assembly has passed significant legislation with severe penalties for those convicted of torture. A major effort still needs to be made to conform the application of the law in the regional courts of Turkey with the intent of the parliamentarians. The Helsinki Commission will continue to monitor developments in Turkey and the implementation of this law. In the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Charter, the participating States committed themselves to ``eradicating torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the OSCE area. To this end, we will promote legislation to provide procedural and substantive safeguards and remedies to combat these practices. We will assist victims and cooperate with relevant international organizations and nongovernmental organizations, as appropriate.'' Clearly a strategy to confront and combat torture must emphasize prevention of torture, prosecution of those who commit torture, and assistance for the victims of torture. As we mark the United Nations Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, I note the good work being done by the Rocky Mountain Survivors Center, located in Denver. The center is part of a nationwide network committed to assisting the victims of torture living in the United States.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to submit a Resolution commemorating 50 years of adjudicating water rights under the McCarran Amendment and commending Western States' management of water. Rather than simply go into the Resolution itself, I would like to put the Amendment in its proper historical context. Unlike the Eastern United States, the history of the West, its settlement, and even its founding, is closely linked to the Federal Government. We should remember that Lewis and Clark and so many other courageous explorers who mapped the Western territories were funded by the United States government. We should also be mindful that much of what we know as the West was purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States Government including the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, just because the Federal Government might have acquired the Western territories didn't mean that people wanted to move there. The West was a rough place, harsh land and harsher winters were enough to keep most folks back East. Again, the United States took action to promote Westward expansion by implementing laws like the Homestead Act to encourage people to relocate. Eventually, the dream of discovering gold and mining precious metals was the catalyst that got people moving West, and eventual completion of the trans-continental railroad provided the means. Each Western territory developed into a distinct State, based on the makeup of its constituents, diverse as the Mormons of Utah to the Spanish and Mexican-Americans of New Mexico and to the Great Plains Indians and other Tribes. No matter the reason why people moved West, they all needed water as precious and scarce a resource then as it is today. New industries and cities to sprout up that needed water to survive and a way to manage it. Water law out West is as distinct from the East as are the histories of the two great regions of our Nation. In the West, water is a rare commodity, and is therefore regarded as a property right under the law sold apart from the land. Since water was such a scarce resource, each State managed water based on its particular resources, geography, population, and municipal and industrial needs. Yet, Western States all recognized and favored water adjudication systems according to the doctrines of prior appropriation and beneficial use. State management of water worked rather smoothly for decades. Then after World War II, during the new Deal's expansive programs, the Federal government sought to realign and trump the established States' interest in water to some degree. On one hand, the Federal Government believed it to be acting in its own interest since Uncle Sam owned much of the West. The United States still owns thirty-seven percent of my State of Colorado. The United States rode roughshod over State interests, often completely ignoring private property rights and resisting cooperative agreements to manage water. The States fought Federal arm twisting as best as they could, but couldn't do much against the U.S. as sovereign. The Federal bullying got so bad that in 1951, a Readers Digest article criticized the U.S.'s strong arm tactics in the famous Santa Margarita water conflict stating that, ``the lack of moral sensitivity in our Government has put into jeopardy thousands of our small landowners; their property, homes, savings and their future.'' Thankfully, Senator Patrick McCarran of Nevada along with other likeminded Senators, successfully defended States' interests and got a very simply provision passed into law. In short, the law that we are celebrating today waives the United States' sovereign immunity so that it could be joined in general state adjudications of rights to use water. Although a simple concept, the McCarran Amendment effectively leveled the playing field, requiring Uncle Sam to work within the State system he implicitly helped to establish. The breadth of the McCarran Amendment has been defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases. The Court concluded that although the amendment itself might be short in length, its effect war far reaching. The High Court stated that McCarran was ``an all inclusive statute concerning the adjudication of `the rights to the use of water of a river system' '' which ``has no exceptions'' and ``includes appropriat[ive] rights, riparian rights, and reserved rights.'' It is undeniable that the history of the West is linked to the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government maintains vast landholdings, the future of the West will also be linked to Uncle Sam. Similarly, the management of property and natural resources, of which water is both, has been and shall remain a State function. The purpose of the McCarran Amendment was to prevent federal bullying of private and state interests in managing water, and to recognize water as a State resource. McCarran encourages the Federal Government to work together with the States. I am submitting this resolution today at a time when much of the West is still under or will likely experience severe drought conditions. The Federal Government must remember the history of the McCarran amendment and look to the States in adjudicating water.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a BUSINESS MEETING on pending Committee matters. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 10 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on Native American Sacred Places. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will try to explain the amendment. Indian lands comprise approximately 5 percent of the land area in the United States but contain an estimated 10 percent of all energy reserves in the United States, including 30 percent of the known coal deposits located in the western portion of the U.S.; 5 percent of the known onshore oil deposits of the U.S.; and 10 percent of the known onshore natural gas deposits in the United States. Coal, oil, natural gas, and other energy minerals produced from Indian land represent more than 10 percent of the total nationwide onshore production of energy minerals. Even though in 1 year alone over 9.3 million barrels of oil, 299 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 21 million tons of coal were produced from Indian land, representing $700 million in Indian energy revenue, the Department of the Interior estimates that only 25 percent of the oil and less than 20 percent of all natural gas reserves on Indian land have been fully developed. I have put up a pie chart to show the relationship of realized revenue and potential or unrealized revenue. Despite what we may read once in a while in the Washington Post or New York Times about the so-called ``rich Indians'' and Indian gambling, it is also indisputable that Indians are the most economically deprived group in the United States, with unemployment levels far above the national average--in some cases well over 70 percent--and per capita incomes well below the national average. The Labor Department just released the latest unemployment figures for the United States, which were about 6.1 percent, and they say that is the highest in 10 years. If you think 6.1 percent is bad, try 70 percent. For every tribe that is doing pretty well, there are 10 that are just barely making it through their daily lives. Indian country suffers from the highest substandard housing, poor health, alcohol and drug abuse, diabetes and amputations, and a general malaise and hopelessness, even a high suicide rate among teenagers. Given the vast potential wealth residing in energy resources which could change this deprivation, it has long been a puzzle why these resources have not been more fully developed. The answer lies partly in the fact that the energy research development is, by its very nature, capital intensive. Most tribes simply do not have the financial wherewithal to fund extensive energy projects on their own and so they must lease out their energy resources in return for royalty payments. History also plays a big part in the evolution of this problem. Toward the end of the 19th century, Indian tribes were forcibly relocated to isolated areas and reservations where it was believed they would not hinder the westward expansion of the U.S. Government. The natural resources on those lands were taken into trust by the Federal Government, to be administered for the benefit of Indian tribes. The ostensible reason for the trust was the belief that Indians were incapable of administering their own resources and would be susceptible to land and resource predators. A legal and bureaucratic apparatus was formed to administer this trust, and over a century later this apparatus remains in place. In her capacity as trustee of Indian resources, the Secretary of the Interior must review each and every lease of Indian trust resources to ensure the terms of the lease benefit the tribe and that the trust asset is not wasted. However, this review and approval process is often so lengthy that potential lessees or investors that otherwise would like to partner with Indian tribes to develop their energy resources are reluctant to become entangled in the bureaucratic redtape that inevitably accompanies the leasing of tribal resources. Hence, the framework that was originally designed to protect tribes has also become a disincentive to the development of tribal resources. This is a case now, of course, of what fit the 19th century does not fit the modern day, and the Indians have the ability and right to make their own decision. To help remedy these problems, earlier this year I, along with Senator Domenici, introduced the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003 to provide assistance and encouragement to Indian tribes to develop their energy resources. This not only would help the tribal economy but it would help make us less dependent on foreign energy. The assistance included the establishment of an Indian Energy Office; grants, loans, and technical assistance; capacity building; and regulatory changes to the rules governing the leasing of Indian lands for energy purposes. At the same time, the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, introduced his own Indian Energy bill, S. 424, that mirrored my bill. After several hearings and much debate, I merged the best of these two bills into a composite bill that came to be title III of the bill before us. There are two major differences between the Bingaman bill, which was offered as a second-degree amendment yesterday, and our bill. That second-degree amendment was defeated, by the way, as my colleagues know. If I had not withdrawn my amendment we would not need to proceed any further than we did yesterday. One of the most important features of title III of S. 14 is section 2604 which deals with leases, business arrangements, and rights-of-way involving energy development and transmission. Section 2604 establishes a voluntary process for those tribes that choose it to help develop their energy resources. No tribe is required to participate. They do not have to if they do not wish to, but if they do participate, under the process, an Indian tribe must first demonstrate to the Secretary of the Interior that it has the technical and financial capacity to develop and manage its own resources. Once it meets this burden, the tribe can negotiate energy resource development leases, agreements, and rights-of-way with third parties without first obtaining the Secretary's approval. That will not, however, circumvent the NEPA process. It will simply transfer the responsibility of NEPA compliance to the Secretary of the Interior. By the way, this second chart points out very clearly under existing law that Indian tribes do not have to come under the jurisdiction of NEPA. If they use their own money on their own land, they are treated as State land, private land, or non-Federal land. They do not have to comply with NEPA. Only if they go to outside investors to get investment money do they have to comply with NEPA. This bill will provide streamlining to the leasing process that is now burdened with this disparity in Federal regulation. Under current law, in order to be valid, all leases, business agreements, and the rights-of-way involving tribal trust or restricted lands must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Section 2604 provides tribes with the option of submitting to the Secretary a proposed government-to-government agreement, a ``tribal energy resource agreement,'' called TERA, that will set forth mandatory provisions for future leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way involving energy development on tribal lands. If approved by the Secretary, the TERA will govern the future development of that tribe's energy resources. The TERA, by virtue of this section, will require tribal leases and agreements to have certain business terms, require compliance with all applicable environmental laws, notice to the public, and consultation with the States as to the potential off-reservation impact. That was one of Senator Bingaman's concerns yesterday, consultation with off-reservation groups. That is covered in this amendment. Remember, current law does not require tribes to comply with NEPA if they use their own land. However, neither the TERA nor any provision of title III would operate to subject the tribe's decision to enter into a particular energy lease or agreement to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Secretary, in deciding whether to approve the TERA, would be required to examine the potential direct impacts of her decision under NEPA. The tribe would have to develop an environmental review process. It would have to follow it thereafter. The tribe itself would not be subject to NEPA but, as I said, that responsibility would be transferred to the Secretary. There have been disincentives for poor tribes because they simply cannot afford to develop energy on their own land and thereby not comply with NEPA. It does not diminish the NEPA process at all. Under current law, if an Indian tribe chooses to develop its own energy resources using its own funds and, as I mentioned, there is no lease or Secretary approval, NEPA is not necessary. It is not mineral development per se that triggers NEPA; it is the Federal action, the approval of the Secretary is what triggers NEPA. I wish to mention there was also a concern that section 2604 would somehow diminish tribal sovereignty. I know that was Senator Inouye's concern. It dealt really with trust responsibility. But the amendment I am offering today does not weaken the Government's obligations to Indian tribes to absolve it of its duties. I point out on page 14, line 18 to page 15, line 3. If my colleagues cannot clearly read this, I will read it for them: (6)(A) Nothing in this section shall absolve the United States of any responsibility to Indians or Indian tribes, including those which derive from the trust relationship or from any treaties, Executive Orders, or agreements between the United States and any Indian tribe. (B) The Secretary shall continue to have a trust obligation to ensure that the rights of an Indian tribe are protected in the event of a violation of federal law or the terms of any lease, business agreement, or right-of-way under this section by any other party to any such lease, business agreement, or right-of-way. (C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the United States shall not be liable to any party (including any Indian tribe) for any of the terms of, or any losses resulting from the terms of, a lease, business agreement, or a right-of-way executed pursuant to and in accordance with a tribal energy resources agreement approved by the subsection (e)(2). Subparagraph (C) is basically new. If the Secretary has no input at all in developing the agreement, then we are concerned that the Federal Government should have a liability component if they did not have anything to do with helping decide the issue. In any event, I remind my colleagues that Native Americans are the only group in the United States who believe that the Earth is their mother, and they certainly do not need to be told how to take care of the Earth because it is in their religion. It is in their nature and has been for thousands of years. It is in their culture. It is a cultural thing with which youngsters grow up. For that matter, they do not need the Senate to tell them how to take care of the Earth either. An Indian mandate to take care of the Earth comes from a higher order than the Senate, and it is sometimes found insulting to be told that they need the Government to oversee what their own religion and culture teach them from childhood. That is why so many tribes do support the Campbell-Domenici amendment, and I will list them, as I did the other day. A few more have come in: The National Congress of American Indians, which represents over 300 tribes; the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, which represents 50 energy-producing tribes. We have a number of individual letters from the Cherokee Nation, which is the largest Indian tribe in the United States; from the Chickasaw Nation, another very progressive and highly respected tribe in Oklahoma; from the Mohegan Tribe; from the Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, which is in New Mexico; the Jicarilla Apache Tribe; the Oneida Indian Nation; the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, which receives a very large share of its governmental revenues from oil and gas production on its tribal lands; also from the National Tribal Environmental Council, an organization in Albuquerque, whose membership includes over 180 tribal governments; the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council; the Native American Energy Group; the United South and Eastern Tribes, an organization consisting of 22 tribes located on the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida. Also, support continues to come in. One non-Indian group that has submitted support is the U.S. National Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent that those letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, who is a stalwart supporter of this movement. There is no question, if we do not take this back up between now and July, if there is a second degree offered at that time, we will be giving the opponents of this bill--instead of giving Indians an opportunity to get up off their knees and get some jobs--an opportunity to gin up some opposition. I think that is what the delay is for. I appreciate the support of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution to pay tribute to the Harley-Davidson Motor Company in honor of this great American company's 100th anniversary. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Allard and Santorum. As a long-time Harley-Davidson rider, I have enjoyed many years of satisfaction with the company and its legendary machines. I can tell you that there is no better way to enjoy Colorado's great scenic beauty than from the saddle of a Harley-Davidson, the freedom of the open road and the often imitated, but never duplicated, throaty roar of an American-made machine is something that I have thoroughly enjoyed for countless thousands of miles. Harley-Davidson not only makes great motorcycles, it also exemplifies the kind of company that I am proud to support. From its humble beginnings in a small 10 foot by 15 foot shed in a Milwaukee backyard in 1903, this company had its share of good times and bad. The Great Depression was a major blow to the American motorcycle industry, and when the dust finally cleared Harley-Davidson was one of only two U.S. motorcycle manufacturers left standing. And it is a good thing that Harley-Davidson survived because when World War II erupted, our country needed to call on Harley-Davidson to build bikes for U.S. and Allied troops. Many of the military orders and other intelligence messages that were vital to achieving victory would not have been delivered to the front lines if it had not been for brave G.I. messengers riding Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Following the Allied Victory in War World II, the Harley-Davidson Company refocused on developing new styles of motorcycles for the individual American consumer to enjoy. The company's second generation of management brought fresh ideas that helped usher-in the celebrated ``motorcycle culture'' of the 1950's and 60's. When Harley-Davidson hit a rough patch of road in the 1980's it was a daring combination of re-found independence, innovation and serious re- engineering that brought this legendary company back from the brink. Harley-Davidson successfully carried out a classic textbook comeback that exemplifies many of our nation's best traits: independence, daring, grit, tenacity, smarts, and a penchant for continuous innovation and progress while remaining firmly rooted in our heritage. On that note, I conclude my tribute to the people of Harley-Davidson with my congratulations on 100 amazing years. I, and many others, look forward to many more. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution to designate May 2004 as National Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month. As many of you know, the month of May marks the traditional start of the motorcycle riding season. Motorcycles have become a big part of the American landscape and occupy a very important position in the history of this Nation. The use of motorcycles has served this country well through numerous military campaigns as well as playing a pivotal role in law enforcement. For many Americans, motorcycles have become their sole source of transportation and for others, a form of weekend recreation. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are well over four million motorcycles registered in this country. It is no secret that the United States is viewed as the world's leader in motorcycle safety and motorcycle awareness. As a motorcycle enthusiast for more than 50 years, I am concerned that more needs to be done to educate the general motoring public about motorcycle safety and awareness. According to the American Motorcycle Association, over two-thirds of car-motorcycle crashes, and nearly half of all motorcycle crashes are caused by auto drivers, not by motorcyclists. Think of it: Most drivers, when leaving an intersection, look right and left for cars and trucks, not always for motorcycles. Of the 1,400 fatal car-motorcycle crashes in 2001, 36 percent involved another vehicle violating the motorcyclist's right-of-way by turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking the vehicle. These statistics can and must be addressed. The motorcycling community has made efforts to mitigate these right- of-way crashes through enhancing motorcycle awareness via bill boards, posters, media and other campaigns, the message to ``watch for motorcycles'' continues to go unheeded by the general motoring public-- not intentionally I am sure. In addition, the motorcycling community has invested considerable time and effort to improve its safety record through safety initiatives such as increased rider training and licensing campaigns, but the programs are over-utilized and underfunded and often lack support from the larger traffic safety community. Clearly enough is not being done by motorists to take extra care in looking for motorcyclists and conversely, motorcyclists need to take an active roll in protecting themselves as well. As we continue to move through the riding season, I will continue to work with my colleagues here in the Senate and motorcycle rights groups such as the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, the American Motorcycle Riders Foundation to find solutions to educate the general motoring public about motorcycle safety and awareness. This resolution is a strong, positive step in the right direction to help achieve this goal. For all the motorcyclists who have been injured through no fault of their own, and for the many thousands of others who will be injured this year and for every year to come for quite some time, I encourage my colleagues to join this effort to help raise the awareness Nationwide of all motorized vehicle operators of motorcycles and those who operate them. To do nothing invites more needless and preventable injury and death to far too many innocent Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is fine.