Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in reintroducing the ``Indian Tribal Surface Transportation Improvement Act of 2003'', a bill to reform and improve Indian Reservation Road, IRR, program. In the past two Congresses the Committee on Indian Affairs has held hearings on the problems with the IRR program and this bill provides much-needed clarifications to better meet the transportation needs in Native communities. Involving as it does transportation and related issues, this bill includes an initiative I proposed last session to support commercial vehicle driving training programs at tribal colleges and universities. Although reservation roads comprise just 2.63 percent of the Federal highway system, less than 1 percent of Federal aid has been allocated to Indian roads. This bill would allow the already-authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries. As with any community, Indian reservations need efficient and effective road financing and construction to develop healthy economies and raise the standard of living. It is no secret that when entrepreneurs, Indian or non-Indian, calculate whether to invest in a community they first look to see if the basic building blocks exist within the community: roads, highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities. Unfortunately, despite recent successes some Indian tribes have had with gaming, energy and natural resource development, most Indian tribes still suffer from poor infrastructure that thwarts investment and economic growth. Building on the successes of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, this bill authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Administration to create a 12-tribe pilot program to contract directly for roads funding. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in re-introducing legislation to assist Indian tribes to fight the scourge of alcohol, drug and associated mental health problems in their communities. Native Americans continue to be plagued by chronic alcohol and drug addictions which destroy their bodies and souls and inevitably require mental health treatment as well. There are a good number of Federal agencies involved in treating these problems and, through no fault of their own, agency efforts are often un-coordinated and ineffective as a result. Relying on models that are proven winners, the ``Native American Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program Consolidation Act of 2003'' authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to string together these disparate programs and services and bring them together in one comprehensive and coordinated package. In addition to achieving economies of scale in these Federal services, the bill would also encourage the use of automated clinical information systems and bring to bear state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools The two main themes of this bill, better use of resources combined with technological innovations have proven successful in other areas like Indian job training. Just this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson launched a new effort aimed at combating chronic health problems in minority communities. Substance abuse and diabetes are included in Secretary Thompson's effort and this bill would go a long way in assisting Federal and tribal governments in that battle. The mechanics of this bill are also consistent with the broad contours of the President's Management Agenda, increasing the effectiveness of Federal services without increasing the budget. For these reasons, I am hopeful the bill will be well received by the Administration and the tribes so that it can be considered speedily in the weeks ahead. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative and ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as I did last session, I am again pleased to introduce the ``Indian Tribal Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge, values and sensitivity to the management of our Federal lands. I want to emphasize that this initiative is a starting point for a broader discussion about whether Federal law sufficiently protects sacred Indian places that are located on Federal lands. Americans react viscerally when lands and sites held sacred are threatened. Whether the site in question is the Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana; the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France; or religious and ceremonial sites held dear by Native people. Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.'' A series of hearings held by the Committee on Indian Affairs over the past two years revealed that the AIRFA policy remains aspirational and the goals of that Act have not been realized. The clashes between economic and cultural interests will also sharpen as our nation's needs for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases. In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978. The legislation I am re-introducing today will build on these precedents by setting up a Demonstration Project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 2003. 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 legislation I am introducing today is based on language which I previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress. 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, USS 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 USS 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 that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate. 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 veteran 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 look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as the USS 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 pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the ``Federal Acknowledgment Process Reform Act of 2003''. Since 1997 I have offered changes to the Federal Acknowledgment Process, FAP, which is the process by which Indian groups are ``recognized'' by the United States as tribes. Recognition of a tribal group as a tribe brings with it the privileges, immunities and rights accorded to Indian tribes. In recent years, the FAP has been described as ``broken'', ``too lengthy'', ``too costly'', ``without integrity'', ``not transparent'' and ``inconsistently applied'' to name but a few. For petitioners that have waited literally generations for a final answer on their application, the process is too lengthy. For petitioners of modest means driven to seek the financial support of ``a backer'', the process is too costly. For interested parties who feel compelled to file Freedom of Information Act requests to secure information, the process is not transparent. And for the uninitiated and those not familiar with the governing legal regime, the regulations do appear to be inconsistently applied. The FAP has not been with us forever. In 1978, the Department of Interior established regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR Part 83, to ``establish a departmental procedure and policy for acknowledging that certain American Indian groups exist as tribes.'' Since this administrative procedure was set up in 1978, over 270 groups have petitioned under the regulations, with 18 groups being awarded acknowledgment as a tribe, and 19 groups having been denied. This means that nearly 230 groups are still waiting to hear on their petitions. For those who think the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, BAR, is a serial grantor of recognition: just last week the Golden Hill Paugussett group in Connecticut was preliminarily denied acknowledgment. The delays petitioners face have led to understandable frustration: the Indian Affairs Committee has received testimony from groups where the individuals that originally filed the petition have passed away, and the struggle is carried on by their children, and even grandchildren. Some petitioners have become so tired of waiting that they have sued the Secretary of Interior and some courts have forced the BAR to produce decisions by dates-certain. Unfortunately this ``queue jumping'' has created adverse incentives, as more groups file lawsuits. The kinks in the process have also caused understandable frustration on the part of other, non-Indian groups. These frustrations have led to voluminous Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests, and even lawsuits, as these groups have tried to secure information or seek a better understanding of the regulations. As you might expect, once the lawsuits get started, paper starts churning. The BAR staff testified to the Indian Affairs Committee that their anthropologists, genealogists and historians spend 40 percent of their time just making photo-copies in response to FOIA requests. The bill I am introducing today will resolve many of the problems I have described. It will do this first by introducing discipline into the process. Under this bill would-be-petitioners must include enough information in their ``letter of intent'' so that the BAR and other interested parties have a better idea of the context of the group. Obtaining more information will better assist the Secretary of Interior in providing notices to the group and interested parties; and the bill requires that such notices go out within 90 days, insuring timeliness. Secondly, this bill will provide more resources to petitioners and interested parties, based on the needs of the group or party, something on which all observers of the process seem to be in agreement. Third, this bill will provide more resources to the Department of Interior, another point on which there seems to be wide agreement. I do not propose to merely throw more money at this problem. Instead, the bill establishes a research pilot project that will draw upon independent research institutions and consultation with the Smithsonian to expand the research capacity of the BAR. The bill will also provide a resource to the Assistant Secretary that is sorely needed: an independent research and advisory board that can be called on by the Assistant Secretary to act as a peer reviewer and a second source upon which the Assistant Secretary can base his determination on a petition. This board will consist of certified professionals and will be available to the Assistant Secretary: 1. at his discretion, if the Assistant Secretary and BAR disagree regarding whether particular criterion have been met in a petition; and 2. to provide outside peer review and a second opinion on a proposed final determination. The board will give the Assistant Secretary greater assurance in the soundness of his determination, and will provide a more solid foundation for any later appellate review. Finally, this bill will provide the certainty of a statutory basis for the acknowledgment criteria that have been used by the BAR since 1978. There appears to be widespread acceptance of the substantive validity of the criteria, but questions have been raised regarding whether those criteria should be codified. This bill answers that question definitively. This bill addresses the criticisms of the FAP by increasing the transparency, consistency and integrity of the process, and at the same time removes some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have caused the process to be too costly and time-consuming. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Susie Rozetta Eades Douglas. Mrs. Douglas, 81, was a Cheyenne and Pawnee and enrolled member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma. Her great-grandfather was Bull Bear, who was a Cheyenne peace chief, leader of the Dog Men Society, and the first signatory to the Medicine Lodge Creek Treaty of 1867. Her grandfather, Thunderbird--Richard Davis--and artist and writer, is credited with preserving valuable ceremonial information at a time when the Sun Dance and other Cheyenne ceremonies were outlawed. Born in Pawnee, Oklahoma, on July 2, 1921, to Richenda Aspenall Davis Eades and Joseph Cleveland Eades, Sr., she was raised in El Reno, Oklahoma, graduated from Chilocco Indian School in 1940, and earned an associate degree in business from Haskell Institute in Lawrence, KS, Class of 1943. Homemaker and Eastern Star, she was a Quilting Society member and an active volunteer worker for the Democratic Party. As an Army wife, she traveled extensively and lived in Oahu, Hawaii, and Naples, Italy, before settling into her longtime home in San Antonio, Texas. She passed away in San Antonio on January 21, from pneumonia and complications of diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, and was buried on January 25 at the Cheyenne Arapaho Cemetery in Concho, Oklahoma. She is survived by her husband of nearly 59 years, Freeland Edward Douglas, Hodulgee Muscogee; their daughter Suzan Shown Harjo and son Dennis Gene Douglas; and a host of grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. Her daughter says Mrs. Douglas was her inspiration for work on the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and sacred lands protection and repatriation laws.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. I am also especially pleased to have Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch joining me today as lead original cosponsors. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act would permit qualified current and former law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across jurisdictions. This legislation has several important benefits. First, the American pubic will be safer as off-duty and retired law enforcement officers are allowed to carry concealed weapons as they travel across jurisdictions. If enacted into law, the basic net effect of this legislation will be thousands of additional police officers on the streets, at zero taxpayer expense. There are many examples of off- duty officers coming to the rescue of American citizens facing dire situations. Hopefully, with this bill's passage, we will hear about even more of these stories in the future. Terrorists and violent criminals certainly will not be happy when this bill is passed. They will have additional worries, and hopefully may be deterred, because they will not be sure whether or not seemingly average citizens are actually off-duty or retired law enforcement officers who are armed, trained and ready to deal with whatever situation may arise. This legislation will also help off-duty and retired law enforcement officers protect themselves and their families. All too often, after they are released from prison, violent criminals seek revenge against the law enforcement officers who helped lock them away. While at a minimum this legislation will even the playing field for off-duty and retired law enforcement officers, I hope that it will go further and actually give them an advantage. This important law enforcement legislation is especially meaningful to me for a number of reasons. First of all, through six years of service as a Deputy Sheriff with Sacramento County, California, I was able to get first-hand experience with the challenges facing our nation's law enforcement officers. As a Deputy Sheriff, I have personally patrolled the streets and encountered plenty of dangerous characters, far too many of which were armed and dangerous. I also clearly learned that a law enforcement officer's job does not necessarily end when he or she is off-duty since you never know when you may come face-to-face with violent criminals. Finally, now that I serve as a U.S. Senator, I have made passing pro- law enforcement legislation one of my top priorities. Previous versions of this legislation have enjoyed the support of over one hundred national, state and local law enforcement organizations. The Fraternal Order of Police is a key leader among those organizations. For many years now, the FOP has supported passage of this legislation. I am encouraged that the FOP has made it clear that we will be working together once again in our efforts to get this bill passed and signed into law by President Bush. I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for Chuck Canterbury, National President of the FOP, the rest of the FOP's professional staff and the over 300,000 members of the FOP they represent, for the letter of support for the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. I am pleased that Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy are playing vital roles in advancing this legislation as lead original cosponsors. Over the years, I have championed a number of legislative initiatives aimed at helping our nation's law enforcement officers be better supported and protected as they go about their mission of protecting the American people. These accomplishments include a public law that continues to help state and local law enforcement officers acquire life saving bullet-proof vests and a federal grant-making program that helps our nation's schools acquire the School Resource Officers they need to reduce the threat of violence in our public schools. Senators Leahy and Hatch have played important roles in getting each of these legislative initiatives accomplished. The key goal of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act I am introducing today has been one of my law enforcement legislative priorities since I first introduced similar legislation back in 1997 during the 105th Congress. Since that time, I have introduced the legislation twice more, in 1999 and 2001. Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee made good progress on conceal carry legislation late last year before the 107th Congress completed its work for the year. As we begin anew in the 108th Congress, I hope we will be able to recapture the momentum and finally get this legislation passed and enacted. Just as we worked together in past years to get things done, I look forward to working with Senators Leahy and Hatch to do what it takes to successfully turn this worthy legislation into the law of the land. Many years of work and persistence may finally be paying off for all of us, especially our nation's law enforcement officers. It is worth noting that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 legislation being introduced here today enjoys the strong bipartisan support of thirty-one of my fellow Senators as original cosponsors. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in supporting the successful passage of this important Campbell-Leahy-Hatch legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am introducing today, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, and the Fraternal Order of Police's letter of support, be included in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. I am also especially pleased to have Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch joining me today as lead original cosponsors. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act would permit qualified current and former law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across jurisdictions. This legislation has several important benefits. First, the American pubic will be safer as off-duty and retired law enforcement officers are allowed to carry concealed weapons as they travel across jurisdictions. If enacted into law, the basic net effect of this legislation will be thousands of additional police officers on the streets, at zero taxpayer expense. There are many examples of off- duty officers coming to the rescue of American citizens facing dire situations. Hopefully, with this bill's passage, we will hear about even more of these stories in the future. Terrorists and violent criminals certainly will not be happy when this bill is passed. They will have additional worries, and hopefully may be deterred, because they will not be sure whether or not seemingly average citizens are actually off-duty or retired law enforcement officers who are armed, trained and ready to deal with whatever situation may arise. This legislation will also help off-duty and retired law enforcement officers protect themselves and their families. All too often, after they are released from prison, violent criminals seek revenge against the law enforcement officers who helped lock them away. While at a minimum this legislation will even the playing field for off-duty and retired law enforcement officers, I hope that it will go further and actually give them an advantage. This important law enforcement legislation is especially meaningful to me for a number of reasons. First of all, through six years of service as a Deputy Sheriff with Sacramento County, California, I was able to get first-hand experience with the challenges facing our nation's law enforcement officers. As a Deputy Sheriff, I have personally patrolled the streets and encountered plenty of dangerous characters, far too many of which were armed and dangerous. I also clearly learned that a law enforcement officer's job does not necessarily end when he or she is off-duty since you never know when you may come face-to-face with violent criminals. Finally, now that I serve as a U.S. Senator, I have made passing pro- law enforcement legislation one of my top priorities. Previous versions of this legislation have enjoyed the support of over one hundred national, state and local law enforcement organizations. The Fraternal Order of Police is a key leader among those organizations. For many years now, the FOP has supported passage of this legislation. I am encouraged that the FOP has made it clear that we will be working together once again in our efforts to get this bill passed and signed into law by President Bush. I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for Chuck Canterbury, National President of the FOP, the rest of the FOP's professional staff and the over 300,000 members of the FOP they represent, for the letter of support for the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. I am pleased that Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy are playing vital roles in advancing this legislation as lead original cosponsors. Over the years, I have championed a number of legislative initiatives aimed at helping our nation's law enforcement officers be better supported and protected as they go about their mission of protecting the American people. These accomplishments include a public law that continues to help state and local law enforcement officers acquire life saving bullet-proof vests and a federal grant-making program that helps our nation's schools acquire the School Resource Officers they need to reduce the threat of violence in our public schools. Senators Leahy and Hatch have played important roles in getting each of these legislative initiatives accomplished. The key goal of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act I am introducing today has been one of my law enforcement legislative priorities since I first introduced similar legislation back in 1997 during the 105th Congress. Since that time, I have introduced the legislation twice more, in 1999 and 2001. Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee made good progress on conceal carry legislation late last year before the 107th Congress completed its work for the year. As we begin anew in the 108th Congress, I hope we will be able to recapture the momentum and finally get this legislation passed and enacted. Just as we worked together in past years to get things done, I look forward to working with Senators Leahy and Hatch to do what it takes to successfully turn this worthy legislation into the law of the land. Many years of work and persistence may finally be paying off for all of us, especially our nation's law enforcement officers. It is worth noting that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 legislation being introduced here today enjoys the strong bipartisan support of thirty-one of my fellow Senators as original cosponsors. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in supporting the successful passage of this important Campbell-Leahy-Hatch legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am introducing today, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, and the Fraternal Order of Police's letter of support, be included in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a Senate Resolution calling on North Korea to return the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy. The legislation I am reintroducing today is based on a resolution I introduced last year during the 107th Congress, Senate Resolution 246. On January 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo was unjustly attacked and captured by the North Korean Navy, becoming the first United States Navy ship to be hijacked on the high seas by a foreign military force in over 150 years. At the time of its capture, the USS Pueblo was operating as an intelligence collection auxiliary vessel, and did not pose a threat. This act of aggression resulted in the USS Pueblo's 82 crew members being held in captivity for eleven months, often in inhumane conditions. Another brave crew member, Duane Hodges, was killed during the initial attack and several more crew members were wounded. On December 23, 1968, after nearly a year of being unjustly detained the surviving USS Pueblo crew members were finally released and allowed to return home. It is interesting to note that the USS Pueblo I am calling on the North Koreans to return today is in fact the third ship of the fleet to be named in honor of the city and county of Pueblo, located in my home State of Colorado. The first ship of the fleet to be named in honor of Pueblo was an armored cruiser which had previously been named the Colorado. In 1916, the USS Colorado was renamed as the USS Pueblo when a new battleship named USS Colorado was authorized. The first USS Pueblo served until 1927. The second USS Pueblo was a city class frigate which served from 1944 to 1946. She was later sold to the Dominican Republic where she serves today. The third USS Pueblo is the ship now wrongly held by the North Koreans. Built by the Kewaunee Shipbuilding and Engineering Corporation, Kewaunee, WI, the ship originally served as a general purpose supply vessel FP-344 for service in the U.S. Army Transportation Corps when she was launched on April 16, 1944. During 1966 and 1967 the ship was converted, redesignated as the USS Pueblo and commissioned as an environmental research vessel, AGER-2. It is important to note that even to this day the capture of the USS Pueblo has resulted in no reprisal against North Korea, demonstrating remarkable restraint by the United States. Even though the USS Pueblo still clearly remains the legal property of the United States Navy, the North Korean Government has kept it on display as a sort of traveling propaganda museum. Recent events have made it clear that many unresolved issues remain regarding our Nation's relationship with North Korea. For example, North Korea's recent high-profile resumption of nuclear saber-rattling presents a serious resurgent challenge that we, our allies in Northeast Asia and the rest of the world community must take seriously. While I certainly agree that successfully resolving this situation is first and foremost, I also believe that there are other positive restorative steps that the North Koreans should take in order to help improve our bilateral relationship. One such action would be to return the USS Pueblo to its rightful owners, the United States Navy and the American people they serve and protect. While returning the USS Pueblo may not necessarily remove the 35 year-old scars inflicted by the attack of January 23, 1968, and especially those suffered by the crew of the USS Pueblo and by their families and loved ones, it would serve as a good will gesture, a salve if you will, signaling hope for a brighter future between our two nation's peoples. I stand with my colleagues back home in the Colorado State General Assembly in demanding the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy. I urge my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate to join me in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to organize for the 108th Congress by electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee and to adopt the rules of the Committee and any other organizational business the committee needs to attend to. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, it is.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I fully understand and appreciate the Senator's feelings on this matter and I will work with her on this problem in the next appropriations cycle for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I also agree that securing our Nation's ports and points of entry is critical to protecting our citizens.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will work with the Senator from Washington, my ranking member, and the Customs Service to achieve this important goal. We must work hard to plug the security holes that exist, and this is one we should fix.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator for his time and efforts to work on this issue with us. This issue is a horribly excessive tax that needs to be discussed immediately, which was my motivation towards working with Senator Stevens in addressing this issue in the appropriations bill. I agree with Senators Grassley and Baucus that resolving this issue prior to the end of this year is very important. As such. I accept the amendment offered by Senators Grassley and Baucus which strikes this provision from the Omnibus Appropriations bill, Title I, Section 128. We want to encourage all parties involved to immediately come to the table to begin working together to solve this issue. As I have previously stated, this excise tax on beer hurts producers, farmers, and working people, and has to be resolved.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct. To my knowledge, Congress has not reviewed or considered these claims. Furthermore, it is not necessary for Congress to do because the bill does not address the individual claims of the UKB, it merely ensures that the Tribe's claims to the riverbed are only pursued in the manner provided in H.R. 3534. Section 9 is included to make it clear that the bill is not to be construed to address the merits of any particular claim by the UKB; instead the bill is only concerned with how those riverbed claims may be pursued.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no objection.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

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