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.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that Patricia Raymond and Lula Edwards have unlimited floor privileges during the consideration of the Treasury and general government bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first and foremost, my thoughts and prayers are with the hundreds of injured and the families of the lost. Words cannot fully describe what happened to these victims yesterday. But our actions in the days and months ahead must do them justice as we honor their ultimate sacrifices. I also extend my gratitude to the scores of emergency service providers police, firefighters, medical personnel who rushed to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to save lives, only to lose their own. And we remember the many military and federal law enforcement personnel who were working in those buildings at the time of the attacks who also lost their lives. As we sort through the details of the savage terrorist attacks yesterday, and the wreckage left in their wake, we begin to comprehend more fully the scope of this tragedy in our history. On December 7, 1941, more than 2400 lives were lost at Pearl Harbor. And, during the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862 the day with the highest death toll on American soil--approximately 22,000 lives were lost. No matter what the final count will be of lives lost yesterday, what distinguishes us from the terrorists is the value we place on those lives as we learn more about the enormously sad events of this newly written chapter in our nation's history. This morning all Americans woke up to a different world. The horrific terrorist attacks yesterday on our economic and military institutions were a frontal assault not only on America, but on freedom and democracy enjoyed by millions of people around the world. We Americans learned again that our freedom comes with a cost, and the new battlegrounds are not on foreign soils or far away beaches. While we must always seek peace we, as a nation, will always defend ourselves from any enemy. America has been challenged before, and now America once again will rise to meet this challenge head-on. The terrorists who perpetrated yesterday's carnage will be held accountable for their senseless acts of violence. Towards that end, I strongly support the statement President Bush made last night to the nation and his commitment that ``we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.'' The time has come to quit treating terrorists as mere civil disobedients, and begin treating their acts as acts of war. The time has past when renegade nations can give safe harbor to terrorists with impunity. The President and the U.S. military have my full support to strike and strike hard when the perpetrators and their accomplices are identified and found. For this Senator, that time can't come soon enough.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the move of the Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, DVAMC, from its present site in Denver to the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Aurora, CO. I am happy to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague Senator Allard as an original co-sponsor. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to accomplish the transfer in a timely manner. It would also require the Secretary to submit a report to the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee of both the Senate and House of Representatives. This report would detail the costs of the transfer and would be submitted 60 days prior to awarding a contract for the move. The relocation of the DVAMC to the former Fitzsimons site offers a unique opportunity to provide the highest quality medical care for our veterans. The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, UCHSC, is moving its facilities from its overcrowded location near downtown Denver to the Fitzsimons site, a decomissioned Army base. The UCHSC and the DVAMC have long operated on adjacent campuses and have shared faculty, medical residents, and access to equipment. A DVAMC move to the new location would allow such cost-effective cooperation to continue, for the benefits of our veterans and all taxpayers. The need to move is pressing. A recent VA study concludes that the Colorado State veterans' population will experience one of the highest percent increases nationally in veterans 65 and over between 1990 and 2020. The present VA hospital was built in the 1950's. While still able to provide service, the core facilities are approaching the end of their useful lives and many of the patient care units have fallen horribly out of date. Studies indicate that co-location with the University on a state-of-the-art medical campus would be a cost effective way to give veterans in the region the highest quality of care. The move would also provide a tremendous opportunity to showcase a nationwide model of cooperation between the University and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These cooperative initiatives have proven time and again their effectiveness. Timing is also very important. The VA needs to move quickly to realize the financial advantages of this unique opportunity. In order to make the move fiscally effective, the VA needs to make a decision not later than 2004. Additionally, our veterans are aging and their needs are increasing. Assisting our veterans with their medical needs is a promise we, as a country, made long ago. The savings we can realize by approving the timely transfer of our veterans' medical treatment facilities in the Denver region compels me to urge my colleagues to act quickly on this bill. We must not miss out on this opportunity to serve America's veterans and their families by ensuring that they receive the excellent medical care they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the move of the Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, DVAMC, from its present site in Denver to the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Aurora, CO. I am happy to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague Senator Allard as an original co-sponsor. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to accomplish the transfer in a timely manner. It would also require the Secretary to submit a report to the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee of both the Senate and House of Representatives. This report would detail the costs of the transfer and would be submitted 60 days prior to awarding a contract for the move. The relocation of the DVAMC to the former Fitzsimons site offers a unique opportunity to provide the highest quality medical care for our veterans. The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, UCHSC, is moving its facilities from its overcrowded location near downtown Denver to the Fitzsimons site, a decomissioned Army base. The UCHSC and the DVAMC have long operated on adjacent campuses and have shared faculty, medical residents, and access to equipment. A DVAMC move to the new location would allow such cost-effective cooperation to continue, for the benefits of our veterans and all taxpayers. The need to move is pressing. A recent VA study concludes that the Colorado State veterans' population will experience one of the highest percent increases nationally in veterans 65 and over between 1990 and 2020. The present VA hospital was built in the 1950's. While still able to provide service, the core facilities are approaching the end of their useful lives and many of the patient care units have fallen horribly out of date. Studies indicate that co-location with the University on a state-of-the-art medical campus would be a cost effective way to give veterans in the region the highest quality of care. The move would also provide a tremendous opportunity to showcase a nationwide model of cooperation between the University and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These cooperative initiatives have proven time and again their effectiveness. Timing is also very important. The VA needs to move quickly to realize the financial advantages of this unique opportunity. In order to make the move fiscally effective, the VA needs to make a decision not later than 2004. Additionally, our veterans are aging and their needs are increasing. Assisting our veterans with their medical needs is a promise we, as a country, made long ago. The savings we can realize by approving the timely transfer of our veterans' medical treatment facilities in the Denver region compels me to urge my colleagues to act quickly on this bill. We must not miss out on this opportunity to serve America's veterans and their families by ensuring that they receive the excellent medical care they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Indian Probate Reform Act of 2001 which builds on the solid foundations of the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-462, which I also sponsored. The Land Consolidation Act Amendments were necessary for two reasons. First, it rewrote the parts of the existing law that were held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Second, many of the laws dealing with Indian probate and the use of Indian land had been in place for more than a century. Through P.L. 106-462, Congress was able to revisit those laws to remove provisions that were based on out-dated, misguided, and discredited federal policies. As my colleagues know Federal Indian policy is sometimes out-dated, and counter-productive Federal laws impede tribal efforts to achieve economic self determination and sufficiency. As Congress worked on the Land Consolidation Act Amendments, it became clear that other laws also needed to be updated but could not be addressed until we enacted P.L. 106-462. With that work completed, we now have an opportunity to remove a number of complications concerning the probate of Indian estates and lands. Presently about 20 different State laws of interstate succession apply to the inheritance of Indian allotments. This makes it almost impossible for the Federal Government to provide general probate planning advice to allotment owners. Also, administrative law judges must monitor developments and changes in the probate laws of every State where allotments are located. This is simply an unnecessary waste of their time and tax dollars. The average Indian estate takes more than a year to probate, and in some cases a decedent's heirs will have died before the decedent's probate is completed. We can do better. I am pleased that Interior Secretary Norton is making trust fund reform such a high priority. But we in Congress have to do our part to support these efforts. I trust that my colleagues share my commitment to ensure that adequate resources are available to support real trust reform efforts. We must also be willing to roll up our sleeves and take a good hard look at the laws that provide the framework for the use and probate of Indian trust lands, especially trust lands that are in individual Indian ownership. This bill is the next step in completing the work we began last Congress by establishing uniform federal Indian probate rules. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, the ultimate test of patriotism has always been the willingness to die for one's country. To step in harm's way, to face shots fired in anger for the sake of defending those things one holds sacred, these are acts of courage that people admire almost instinctively. So much so that we even admire the courage displayed by our enemies. Those of us who witness such bravery, either up close or from accounts written years ago, often feel compelled to make some gesture that acknowledges the heroism and sacrifice of those who were willing to endure the horror of war. For this reason, our Nation has a long tradition of setting aside and preserving the sites where important battles have occurred, believing that such ground is hallowed by those who gave their lives in conflict, and in the hope that understanding the events of our past helps us to understand the kind of people we are. A necessary part of this honoring is attempting to preserve the appearance of the places where these battles occurred as the combatants would have experienced them and to freeze these locations in time as much as possible. Today, I am proud to offer a bill that will continue to protect the sanctity of one such place: the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in southern Montana, the site where Gen. George Armstrong Custer and the U.S. Seventh Cavalry were defeated by a united force of Northern Cheyenne, Arapaho and Lakota Indians, in 1876. Anyone who has stood, looking down past the grave markers to the trees along the Little Bighorn River, can tell you that it is a haunting place to visit. As you walk along Battle Ridge where soldiers of the U.S. Seventh Cavalry and Indian warriors struggled furiously, it is easy to imagine exactly how it looked on that hot June day when so many men died. But anyone who has stood on that same hill recently can also tell you that beyond the trees are the telltale signs of commercial development creeping up on the borders of the Monument. For years the site was protected by its sheer isolation. That is no longer the case. The actual battle occurred across a wide area, and only a very small part of that area is protected by inclusion in the Monument. Other historically important sites nearby have already been overrun by development. Hills have been graded and geographical features have been altered. Action must be taken quickly if we are to preserve the Monument looking as it did over a century ago. The bill I am introducing proposes a way for additional lands to be protected by the Monument. This bill does this by establishing a Committee composed of all interested parties, both those with current interests and those with historical interests in this piece of land, which will keep a registry of important sites that might be taken into the Monument. It is my belief that through a consultative process and cooperation, all interests can be accommodated. I have used this inclusionary process before with the research and protection of the Sand Creek National Historic Site in Colorado. In the 102nd Congress, while serving as a member of the House, I introduced the bill that changed the name of this monument from the Custer Battlefield National Monument to the Little Bighorn National Monument, to recognize that there were heroes on both sides of this conflict: not only Custer, but also Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse and thousands of other warriors. I wanted to reclaim the memory of that day for Indian people, and to make clear that the tragedy of June 26, 1876, was just one small part of a much larger tragedy: the near destruction of a people and the ending of a way of life. The Indian victory at the Little Bighorn that day was only a brief pause in the march of history, it was the beginning of the end. One week later the Untied States marked its first centennial, only one hundred years of existence. This country needs places like the Little Bighorn Battlefield, just as we need places like Bunker Hill and Gettsburg and Omaha Beach, locations made special by the extraordinary events that occurred there. We need to keep them separate and sacred and dedicated to the belief that some things are worthy of laying down your life. They are, in the fullest sense of the word, monuments: reminders of what is important. The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is such a place. I ask this Congress to join me in ensuring that this Monument remain a special place for generations to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that promotes job creation and economic opportunity for Native Americans. The Native American Commercial Driving Training and Technical Assistance Act will encourage and promote tribally-controlled community colleges to offer commercial vehicle training programs. Economic development is the key to many of the social and economic ills that plague Indian and Alaska Native communities. In 1999, the Bureau of Indian Affairs labor statistics for Indian and Alaska Native communities determined that the unemployment rate for Indians living near or in Indian communities was 43 percent. This figure is astonishing when compared to the overall unemployment rate in the United States which is only 4.5 percent. As former Chairman and now Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I have focused on building tribal capacity and good governance so that Indian and Alaska Native communities can create business- friendly environments. Human capital and skill development is also important, and with training and certificate programs tribally- controlled community colleges are fostering skilled workers who are ready to enter into the marketplace. The bill that I am introducing today will enable tribally-controlled community colleges to have more resources to develop commercial vehicle training programs. There are already two tribally-controlled community colleges, D-Q University in the state of California and Fort Peck Community College in the state of Montana, that offer commercial vehicle driving programs. The grant program authorized in this bill will encourage other tribal colleges to develop commercial truck driving training programs. The trucking industry is a thriving industry. According to the Department of Transportation, there are currently about 3 million truck drivers in the United States. However, the American Trucking Association estimates that between 10 percent and 20 percent of the Nation's trucks sit idle due to a lack of qualified drivers. In fact, estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 as to the shortage of new qualified drivers that are needed this year and in the coming years. I am the only Member of the Senate who is a licensed and certified commercial truck driver and who once earned his living as an over-the- road driver. Based on my personal experience the truck driving industry has something unique to offer Indian communities; a well-paying profession. This is a win-win situation because the trucking industry needs more qualified drivers, and Indian communities need more job opportunities. With this bill,more American Indians will have the opportunity to undertake the training necessary to obtain a Commercial Truck Driver's License, and join a rewarding and well-paying profession. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Persian Gulf War POW/MIA Accountability Act of 2001.'' This bill will help persuade foreign Nations and their inhabitants to take necessary and sometimes risky steps needed to return any surviving American POW/ MIAs from the Persian Gulf War by providing asylum to those foreign nationals who cooperate. This bill builds on S. 484, the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000, which I introduced in the 106th Congress. This legislation was signed into law last November. As many of you know, this law provides for the granting of refugee status in the United States to nations of certain foreign countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American Korean War POW/MIAs may be present. On January 17, 1991, Lieutenant Commander Michael Speicher's F-18 was shot down over Western Iraq during the first hours of the Persian Gulf War. Based on the accounts of other pilots flying in the mission and 12 hours of radio silence, Lieutenant Commander Speicher was declared Missing in Action, MIA, the next day. On May 22, 1991, his status was changed to Killed in Action/Body Not Recovered, KIA/BNR. In December 1995, investigators from the Army and Navy found the crash site of Lieutenant Commander Speicher's F-18. Located at the crash site were used flares and parts of a survival kit. Near the site, the canopy of the plane was found which would indicate that Lieutenant Commander Speicher ejected from his plane before it crashed. Based on this and other information, the Navy came to the conclusion that they could no longer assume that Lieutenant Commander Speicher was indeed KIA. On January 11, of this year, the Navy changed his official status from KIA/BNR back to MIA. News reports indicated one of the major breaks in this case was provided by an Iraqi defector. According to his information, during the first days of the war, he drove a downed American pilot to Baghdad. The pilot was alive and alert. This defector was able to pass two lie detector tests and pointed to Lieutenant Commander Speicher in a photo lineup. Under this legislation, if Lieutenant Commander Speicher were found alive and returned home, this defector and his family would be granted refugee status in the United States. As a veteran and a proud American, I will not rest until we have exhausted every avenue available to repatriate the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much for the freedom we enjoy. This legislation provides the kinds of incentives we need to help bring American POW/MIAs home alive. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, as Congress begins the August recess and Americans get in their cars, vans and trucks to take their deserved vacations, we should keep in mind that the U.S. dependency on foreign sources of energy is at an all-time high of more than 60 percent. Both the House and Senate are considering various parts of what will become our national energy plan, but to date little attention has been paid to energy development and conservation on American Indian reservations. Indian lands comprise about 5 percent of the total landmass of our Nation and if consolidated, would be about the size of the State of Minnesota. In the last century, Indians were relegated to small remnants of their aboriginal lands, in areas most considered ill suited to agriculture or any other form of activity. On and under these Indian-owned lands are huge reserves of oil, natural gas, coal bed methane, uranium, and alternative sources of energy such as wind and hydropower. There are many tribes that want to develop these energy resources and are looking to Congress for assistance to do just that. We are not just talking about drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. Indian resources span from the coal fields of Montana to the natural gas patch in Colorado and beyond. The tribes are not only interested in research and development, and financial and tax incentives, though they are needed, but are looking for changes and reforms to existing regulations that have kept energy and other projects from Indian lands. Developing Indian energy is not only in the interest of the tribes and their members, but is largely consistent with the Bush administration's emphasis on production, conservation, and ensuring long-term supply is guaranteed. It is Congress' obligation to ensure the Nation's supply of energy is secure and also to assist Indian tribal development and job creation in the process. To this end I am working to help ensure that tribes are brought into the fold when Congress gets serious about energy policy this fall. I ask unanimous consent that copies of various recent news articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, 125 years ago today, on August 1, 1876, President Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation declaring Colorado a state. Today, I want to honor that anniversary by highlighting some thoughts about Colorado--the beauty of its landscape, the pioneering spirit of its people, and the engines that fuel its prosperity. My home State of Colorado is a very special place. We have a rich and colorful history. We are blessed by geography and climate. We are culturally diverse, highly educated and highly motivated. The movement to settle Colorado began in the late 1850's when prospectors found gold along Cherry Creek near Denver. Gold hunters rushed into the area and ``Pikes Peak or Bust'' became the slogan of the day. The gold didn't last, but the potential for prosperity and an unmatched quality of life did. It was not until about 20 years later, however, that Colorado, after several failed attempts, became a state. A new mining boom brought wealth and growth to Colorado again. This time it was silver, not gold, that caused the growth. In the 125 years since, Colorado has been marked by a series of economic booms and busts. Right now, we have one of the most diversified economies in the Nation. Colorado has grown from a primarily agricultural and mining State to a hub of technological and industrial development for the Nation. An increasing number of high- tech companies are choosing to locate in Colorado; the communications industry is revolutionizing how we stay in touch with one another; and Colorado's mild dry climate and colorful Old West history have made tourism the second largest industry in the State. Colorado is one of the Nation's major outdoor recreation areas. Few States offer as many sporting opportunities. We fish and camp along pristine rivers and lakes. River-running and white-water rafting are important summer activities. And we in Colorado enjoy some of the best skiing in the world. We bike, we hike, and we run--and we use one of the most extensive urban bikeways and trail systems in the Nation. One of the top 10k races in the United States--the Bolder Boulder--draws record crowds of world-class runners and area residents. And, the 14,000 foot peaks in Colorado, all 54 of them, bring mountain climbers of all ages and skills to our State. And, we in Colorado don't just participate in sports--we also play the part of spectator. Our capital city of Denver is the home of five major professional sports teams--baseball, football, basketball, soccer and hockey--making it a major-league sports town. Colorado's vibrant cultural scene rivals that of any in the world. We have a variety of theatrical, musical and other cultural attractions. Colorado is the home of the Aspen Institute, the Aspen Music Festival and the Central City Opera. Denver has three nationally known theaters and the State boasts a comprehensive network of public libraries, museums, community theaters and orchestras. Most towns and cities have local festivals to celebrate unique cultural traditions. The cultural diversity of our population gives Colorado many of its greatest traditions and treasures. Colorado is home to two Native American tribes, the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute tribes. The land they inhabit covers the southwestern corner of Colorado, abutting the borders with Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. Some of our earliest settlers came to Colorado from Mexico and settled in the San Luis Valley. In fact, the town of San Luis in that valley is Colorado's oldest town, which just recently celebrated its 150th anniversary. The name of our State, Colorado, came from a Spanish word for red, and our conversation is laced with Spanish words. The traditions, artwork and music of these and many other cultures are a treasured part of Colorado's identity, and we respect and honor the gifts they give us. Colorado is known for its strong military presence. It is home to the United States Air Force Academy where the soaring structure of the Academy's cathedral with Pikes Peak in the background dominates the landscape. Peterson Air Force Base--home to the U.S. Space Command, Air Force Space Command and the Army Space Command--strengthens the military presence in our state. And, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) with its command center located deep inside Cheyenne Mountain adds to Colorado's reputation as recently described by a high-ranking Air Force General as America's ``space mecca.'' While our ski industry, our world class airport, our sports teams, and our technology industry bring travelers from all over the world to our State, Colorado broke into the international scene in a new way when Denver was chosen as the site of the G-8 summit of world leaders in 1997. Throughout the 125 years since Colorado became a State, its citizens have had a common goal: to make the state a stronger, more vibrant place. From the snow capped peaks of the Continental Divide to the farms and ranches on the Front Range and the Western Slope, the citizens of my home state have worked together to make Colorado a great place to call home. I want to thank you for allowing me to celebrate Colorado's 125th anniversary of statehood by recognizing just a few of the things that make it such a great place to live. To close, I ask my colleagues to join me in a Mile High salute to the citizens of Colorado on the 125th anniversary of their great State. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of President Grant's proclamation declaring Colorado a State be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, there are no Hispanic members of the Senate or I am sure they would say what I am about to with an equal amount of outrage. But since most Hispanics who trace their ancestry to Mexico are also part Native of the Americas, I think I can speak for them. I am very disturbed that any Member of this body, regardless of party affiliation, would transform an issue of truck safety into a racial issue. I take a back seat to no one in this body supporting Hispanics, like economic opportunity, race relations, English only, and a host of other issues. In fact, I believe I have the largest number of Hispanic staff members of any Senator in this body. I am as concerned about jobs for Mexican workers as I am for American workers. I also know the only way to reduce illegal immigration is by stabilizing the Mexican economy. I want to do that. Does that mean I have to put my children's lives at risk on American highways? I won't do it, nor will I risk any American life in the name of free trade. I would remind my colleagues that of the twenty Hispanic Members of the House, half of them voted for more restrictive measures than the proposed Murray-Shelby language. I would strongly suggest that those who are using the race card in this debate for personal or political gain, put a lid on it and recognize that we have a duty to protect the lives and property of the people who sent us here. Now that I have that off my chest, let me use a graphic illustration of just one--just one--of the reasons why we should be careful in allowing free access to our highways. The problems of hours of service, age of the trucks, drug testing, and monitoring compliance have been discussed by other Senators. Since I am a certified CDL driver, let me focus on that facet of this problem. This is an enlarged page from a daily driver's log. These logs are required by the Federal Government and are reviewed and monitored. Mexican drivers have log books, too, but almost no oversight of their order. Note this area here on the log book. It is broken down into minute by minute sections of a 24-hour day. Each working day, American drivers are required to fill out this form which enables Federal officials to track exactly what the driver was doing. I know of no other job in America, with exception of airline pilots, that has such a high degree of scrutiny. That scrutiny is meant to ensure safety on our highways. Why is it unfair to ask foreign trucks to comply with the same standards? Let me now say a few words about the trucks themselves. We know that the American fleet averages 3 to 5 years old, while the Mexican fleet averages 15 years old. If the average is 15 years old, that means some trucks are 30 years old with all the inherent problems of old machinery. What has not been mentioned is the use of the high-tech equipment that is on most new American fleets but rarely on older trucks. Modern U.S. trucks have CB radios, weather band radios, cell phones, and GPS tracking systems. This not only makes them more efficient but helps keep the driver out of trouble. His boss, the carrier, can tell at any given moment exactly where he or she is, what speed they are traveling, if there are bad road conditions ahead, if there are accidents or congestion that would require re-routing, and a host of other pertinent facts about both the driver and his vehicle. The point is this. Do you think any company which pays as little as $7.00 per day to their drivers is going to invest the thousands of dollars to equip their trucks with this state-of-the-art efficiency and safety equipment? Not likely, particularly when you factor in the initial cost of $100,000 for each of those new tractors and for the $30,000 for those new trailers in the American fleet. It is not always the big things that add up to safer highways. Sometimes subtle things are equally important. As an example, no driver or company that I know will run retreads on their front tires. There may be laws addressing this, but any driver with a lick of sense knows that the risk factor for himself and everyone near him goes up if, while thundering down the road at speed, pulling 80,000 pounds, a front tire blows out. They may run recaps on back tires because other tires will distribute the load in case of a blow out. But not the front. Do Mexican trucks run recaps on front tires? Many do and again I would ask, do you think anyone paying his drivers $7.00 per day, will buy $400.00 tires for the front wheels when he can buy caps for a quarter of the price? I stand before this body not just as a concerned Senator but as a licensed commercial truck driver. This amendment attempts to provide equal and fair standards. For my colleagues who believe this amendment violates components of our trade agreements, I challenge them to tell the American people they are willing to sacrifice the safety of our roads for the economic vitality of our neighbors.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to give a statement, but if the Senator has a response for a minute or two, I do not mind yielding to him.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do still have the floor, Mr. President?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I have a statement in support of Senator Dorgan's comments, but Senator Gramm had something he wished to do for a minute or two. If I could yield to him and reclaim my time, I would appreciate it.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President earlier today I was honored to join President Bush, four of the five surviving Navajo Code Talkers, their families, and the families of all the Code Talkers in a ceremony in which the President awarded the Code Talkers the Congressional Gold Medal. The ceremony also included other members of Congress, Indian tribal leaders, and dignitaries from around the Nation. For far too many Americans, bred on cynicism and hopelessness, these men remind us what real American heroes are all about. It is unfortunate that we could not have recognized these men and their contributions sooner than this. Think of this--just 77 years before World War II, the grandfathers of these heroes were forced at gunpoint with 9,000 other Navajos from their homeland and marched 300 miles through the burning desert. For four long years the Navajo people were interned at the Bosque Redondo. For these men and their comrades to rise above that injustice in American history and put their lives on the line speaks of their character and their patriotism. Just as the Japanese were never able to break the Navajo Code, it is also a mystery why it took so long for our Nation to recognize the critical role the Code Talkers played in achieving victory in the Pacific. The answer may lie in the secrecy of their mission. The Navajo Code Talkers took part in every major assault the U.S. Marines conducted in the Pacific from 1942 to 1945. It was their duty to transmit messages in their native language, Dine Bizaad, a code the Japanese were never able to decipher. Mr. Philip Johnston, the son of a missionary to the Navajos and one of the few non-Navajos who spoke the Navajo language fluently, was the individual responsible for recognizing the potential of the Navajo people and language and the contributions they could make to World War II. A World War I veteran who knew the value of secure communications, Johnston was reared on the Navajo reservation, and recommended the Navajo language be used for this purpose. The Navajo language is complex because it has no alphabet or symbols and fit the military's need for an ``undecipherable code''. Johnston staged tests under simulated combat conditions with the commanding general of the Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet. The tests demonstrated that Navajos could encode, transmit, and decode a three-line message in 20 seconds. After the simulation the Navajo were recommended to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to serve as Code Talkers. It was recommended that the Marines recruit 200 Navajos. In May 1942, the first 29 of the 200 requested Navajo recruits attended boot camp. During this time they developed and memorized a dictionary and numerous words for military terms. After the successful completion of boot camp, the Code Talkers were sent to a Marine unit deployed in the pacific theater. At this duty station it became the primary job of the Code Talkers to transmit information on tactics, troop movements, orders, and other vital battlefield communications over telephones and radios. The Navajos were praised for their skill, speed, and accuracy in communications throughout the war. At Iwo Jima, Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine Division Signal officer, declared, ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Connor had six Navajo Code Talkers who worked around the clock during the first two days of the battle sending and receiving over 800 messages--all without error. The Japanese, who were skilled code breakers, were confused by the Navajo language. The Japanese chief of intelligence, Lieutenant General Seizo Arisue said that while they were at times able to decipher the codes used by the other armed forces, they never were able to crack the code used by the Marines and Navajos. American Indians and their commitment to this Nation can be described in one quote from David E. Patterson, of the 4th Marine Division, ``When I was inducted into the service, one of the commitments I made was that I was willing to die for my country--the U.S., the Navajo Nation, and my family. My [native] language was my weapon.'' I would like to thank the Navajo Code Talkers who served in World War II for their dedication and bravery to our Nation. They believed in what they fought for and were willing to sacrifice their lives to create a communication system that was unbreakable. Without these brave men and their knowledge of their language, the success of our Nation's military efforts in the Pacific would not have been possible. I urge all Americans to thank these brave men for their uncommon valor and dedication to a cause higher than themselves.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. This article in Land Line Magazine reports four members of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, headed by subcommittee chairman Thomas Petri, and the ranking member, Representative Robert Borski, recently conducted a factfinding mission on border inspection stations. The purpose of the mission was to view the station and consider the possibility of opening new ones. The members were impressed the way the inspection stations of California, which have about a 25 percent out-of-service rate for the trucks from Mexico, similar to the ones in the United States. In other words, about one-fourth of the trucks, whether American or Mexican trucks, did not comply with the American safety standards. When it came to Texas, the results were vastly different because Texas doesn't have State facilities for inspecting. Clearly, if a trucker knows he will be stopped at one inspection system, he will go to the area of least resistance. I refer to a paragraph in that article, quoting Representative Borski: ``Texas' inspection system is virtually nonexistent . . . Trucks pour over the border there. They may be safe and may be not.'' ``Texas has no infrastructure to look at trucks,'' he added. ``During our visit, we were shown two parking spaces for inspecting trucks two at a time with 4,000 trucks per day at that crossing. The out-of-service rate was staggering. Texas Department of Public Safety Major Coy Clanton told us if they looked at seven or eight trucks, they would take five out of service for significant safety violations. I think the key is that a truck that isn't inspected will be neglected. I think that's the biggest danger.'' I hope, when asked to vote for fast track, that we recognize the danger of simply reducing ourselves to rubber stamps for any administration. I voted against NAFTA, as did my colleague from North Dakota. I recognize that is the law now. We have to abide by the agreement. However, let me also refer to some of the comments made by Jim Hoffa, the general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, that he provided in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on July 18: . . . the United States is under no legal obligation to implement the findings of the NAFTA panel. Under U.S. law, the health, safety and welfare of the U.S. citizens is paramount and to the extent NAFTA conflicts with any U.S. law dealing with health, environment and motor carrier/worker safety, U.S. law prevails. Even under the terms of NAFTA, the U.S. is entitled to disregard the panel's recommendation, and simply allow Mexico to take equivalent reciprocal measures or negotiate compensation or a new grant of some trade benefits to Mexico. Indeed, the United States has not traditionally allowed foreign countries or international bureaucracies to dictate its domestic policy, particularly where the health and safety of U.S. citizens is concerned . . . Some would say that Mr. Hoffa, as the president of the Teamsters, may be somewhat of a protectionist. He has every right to be. By some estimates, the United States has lost 800,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was implemented. Certainly the loss of jobs, although secondary to the safety of our people, is important. I think the language of this bill is vital to the health and safety of all of us. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray provisions of this bill. I challenge the opponents of this position to explain why we should allow 80,000 pound accidents waiting to happen to drive the same roads our families drive. I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 [From Land Line, July 2001] Congress Fact-Finding Committee Visits U.S.-Mexico Border Inspection Stations (By Rene Tankersley] Four members of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit recently visited border inspection stations in San Diego, CA, and Laredo, TX, as part of a fact-finding venture to determine the safety of Mexican trucks crossing into the United States. Subcommitee Chairman Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), ranking minority member Rep. Robert A. Borski (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) and Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) toured the border inspection stations May 19-20. Land Line talked with Reps. Petri and Borski about what they saw and how it affected their outlook on the possible opening of the U.S.-Mexico border. Both Petri and Borski seemed thoroughly impressed with California's state-owned inspection station at the border between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. The state-operated station inspects trucks and truckdrivers for safety and compliance with state motor vehicle laws. ``California's very comprehensive truck inspection program applies to all trucks, Mexican and American,'' Petri said. ``Trucks must have an inspection sticker, which is renewed every three months at the border station. If inspectors find problems with the equipment, the drivers either fix the problem there or receive an order, and sometimes a fine, to fix the problem and be re-inspected on their next trip to the border station.'' Borski agreed, and added that the out-of-service rate at the California station is average. ``California's inspection station has about a 25 percent out-of-service rate for trucks from Mexico, which is similar to the rate for U.S. trucks,'' Borski said. The party of four also visited the federal border inspection station in San Diego. Here federal inspectors examine trucks for contraband, both illegal aliens and drugs, using their new laser x-ray machines x-ray the entire truck. The federal government has about 15 contraband stations in Laredo due to the larger volume of goods coming through this border by truck and rail. The congressional party visited Laredo's newest facility, which inspects and x-rays boxcars and trailer piggyback units. With the overwhelming workload at the U.S. Customs contraband stations, Borski is concerned with how opening the border will affect the officials there. ``Government officials working down there are overwhelmed already,'' Borski said. Texas does not have a state facility at the border crossing to inspect trucks for compliance with Texas motor carrier laws. ``Texas' inspection system is virtually nonexistent,'' Borski said. ``Trucks pour over the border there. They may be safe and may be not.'' ``Texas has no infrastructure to look at trucks,'' he added. ``During our visit, we were shown two parking spaces for inspecting trucks two at a time with 4,000 trucks per day at that crossing. The out-of-service rate was staggering. Texas Department of Public Safety Major Coy Clanton told us if they looked at seven or eight trucks, they would take five out of service for significant safety violations. I think the key is that a truck that isn't inspected will be neglected. I think that's the biggest danger.'' Petri believes the Bush administration has planned for the needed improvements to the truck inspection system. ``President Bush in his budget provided for $100 million to improve inspections at the U.S.-Mexico border,'' Petri said. ``We think they're in the process of replicating California's inspection station in Texas. It will be like anything else. If people know, the word goes out loud and clear that they are going to be inspected, or going to be fined or sent back, they'll get their equipment up to standard very quickly.'' Borski agreed the California system should be replicated, but is concerned with the length of time it would take to build such a facility. ``They should set up a system like California's facility, or we shouldn't open the border,'' Borski said. ``It will take at least 18 months to build an inspection station.'' ``In California the border is narrow, but in Texas there's maybe 15 crossings with virtually no inspection,'' Borski explained. ``I don't think the border should be open in Texas any farther than that 20-mile radius until we get a better inspection system.'' Borski and 30 other representatives are co-sponsoring a resolution to urge the president not to open the border until safety inspection concerns are adequately addressed. ``You can be for NAFTA and still insist on trucks being inspected,'' Borski said. ``It's a safety question, not a trade question.'' Two bills would bar Mexican trucks until they are safe The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is supporting legislation currently moving through both the U.S. Senate and House targeting truck safety under NAFTA. House Resolution 152, introduced May 24 by U.S. Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. Jack Quinn (R-NY), would delay granting Mexican trucks authority to operate in the U.S. under NAFTA until a prescribed comprehensive plan to ensure their safety is in place. Thirty-one additional lawmakers are listed as original cosponsors of the Oberstar resolution. Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) bill, introduced May 25, would halt cross-border operations until the Mexican trucks can meet safety standards. SB965 is cosponsored by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). ``Only about 1 percent of Mexican trucks entering the United States are inspected by the United States at the border, but 36 percent of those that are inspected are turned back for serious safety violations,'' Sen. Dorgan says. ``Mexico does not have the same safety standards we have in the United States, ``he said as he introduced the bill. ``There are no minimum safety standards for trucks or equipment, no limit on the hours a driver can stay on the road, no drug testing. These trucks will put people on America's highways at serious risk. The American people don't want to drive down the highway and find they are alongside a severely overloaded truck with someone in the driver seat who may have been on the road for 20 hours or more.'' Dorgan said ample evidence from California, Nevada and other states documents a significant number of Mexican trucks are regularly turned back at the U.S. Mexico border for serious safety violations, even under the current rules. ``Every day, every hour, these unsafe trucks are coming across our border, and that will only increase if the Administration plans are allowed to go forward,'' he said. Even the Department of Transportation acknowledges its enforcement program, which is seriously under-staffed, cannot assure the safety of Mexican trucks entering the United States. ``The serious shortcomings of trucks from Mexico is a problem that too many lawmakers are ingnoring.'' said OOIDA President Jim Johnston. ``There is a great deal of opposition and concern among many people across the country for the current plan to open the border at the end of this year without appropriate safety measures in place.'' OOIDA maintains that, while the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has proposed several rules it claims will allow verification of Mexican carrier compliance with U.S. safety rules, the proposals only touch upon a fraction of the issues raised by the opening of the border. OOIDA points out other issues that will demand increased government supervision will be in the areas of Customs and Immigration, and compliance with all federal and state licensing, registration, permitting, environmental and user fee and tax requirements as every U.S. truck is required to do. Also left unanswered is how to process a Mexican truck or driver in violation of NAFTA trade rules or our safety standards. ``American truckdrivers must comply with enormous numbers of safety rules and regulations to operate legally on our highways,'' OOIDA's Johnston says. ``These include a stringent physical examination and drug and alcohol testing of drivers, truck weight limits, and hours-of-service rules. Mexico does not impose the same rules on their trucks and drivers. It makes no sense, is reckless, and is completely unfair to create exceptions to these rules for Mexican carriers. That's what we will be effectively doing if we open the border before Mexico imposes equivalent rules and we are prepared to ensure their carrier's compliance with them.'' Official NAFTA plan nearing completion: Democratic Senators ask Bush to hold off on Mexican trucks The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration says the official North American Free Trade Agreement implementation plan is now nearing completion. FMCSA spokesman David Longo expects it to be available in mid-June. Meanwhile, more Washington lawmakers are voicing concerns about cross-border trucking. Fearing a compromise of safe roads, 10 Democratic senators have made the latest news, asking that the plan to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways be reconsidered. In a letter sent June 11, the senators assured the president they are supporters of NAFTA, but said that granting access to U.S. roads could ``seriously jeopardize highway safety, road conditions and environmental quality. A NAFTA arbitration panel ruled in February that the United States was violating the treaty by not opening the border per provisions of the treaty, and the Bush administration launched a plan to comply. The Bush administration and transportation officials currently are establishing rules for cross-border trucking and want them finished in time to let the trucks operate in the United States before the end of the year. The public has until July 2 to comment on the proposal that would require all Mexican trucks to apply for permission to operate in the United States. A safety audit would be conducted within 18 months, but the senators are concerned about the interim. The letter was signed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Max Baucus (D-MT), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Richard Durbin (D-

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, after listening to my colleague from North Dakota, I could say ditto and let it go at that because I certainly agree with his comments. I am inclined to tell the Senator from North Dakota, if he offers the amendment mirroring the House language, I would probably support that. I want to speak today in support of Chairman Murray's language in the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill, and I want to speak in favor of this language for a couple of minutes. First and foremost, the safety of every American who travels on our streets and highways must not be compromised by vehicles that are unsafe by American standards, despite trade relations. All of us in the Senate make our decisions based on a personal frame of reference, and certainly my frame of reference includes the 6 years I drove as a professional driver while I was putting myself through college years ago. In fact, I am still probably the only Member of the Senate who has a commercial driver's license and, in fact, still drives, more as an escape from the tediums of the Senate work than anything else, but I still get out on the road pretty regularly. I speak to drivers and spend a great deal of time at truckstops and places where they frequent, listening to their concerns. I know the safety requirements that each American driver must adhere to are very complete. I am concerned that without the language provided in this bill and report, Mexican drivers will not be subject to the same standards. I am sure there are some very skilled and talented Mexican drivers, and we have to be very careful to make sure we do not do a blanket indictment on the Mexican trucking industry. My comments are certainly not meant to do that. The standards between the equipment and the monitoring between drivers in the United States and Mexico, unlike the drivers of the United States and Canada, are worlds apart. This is an enormous safety issue, as my colleagues have already mentioned, and I do not think we should ignore this for a minute. Mile for mile, American truckdrivers are much safer than drivers of automobiles. The single drivers are averaging about 5,000 miles a week in the trucks and, if they are team drivers, probably 10,000 miles a week. They have to be safe drivers. Certainly those who have driven or have been around accidents involving trucks know that many of the trucks from Mexico are not in good repair. The average fleet of the American trucking industry, I am told, is 3 to 6 years old. These are figures I quote from the American Trucker's Association. The average Mexican fleet is 15 years old. When averaging 100,000 miles a year, it does not take much math to figure there is a huge difference in upkeep and maintenance on a truck traveling that much more over a period of 15 years. Wear and tear on the truck is huge. In a truck-auto accident, obviously, the trucker will not get hurt-- 80,000 pounds versus 3,000 pounds. The law of physics says whoever is in the smaller vehicle will receive the most damage. Passenger vehicles driving alongside a truck face serious safety hazards if the truck is not in good repair. My concerns regard the unsafe trucks that are not being regulated. American truckers, to be qualified for CDL, have to pass eight written tests, several driving tests, a physical every 2 years, and ongoing training in the company, which is in turn federally regulated. It is very easy to lose their license for any small infraction dealing with alcohol, drugs, or unsafe driving. There is almost zero tolerance allowed to remain a professional driver. To my knowledge, Mexican drivers are not restricted to hours of service. This has been mentioned before. The U.S. truckdrivers are restricted. Each American truckdriver has specific regulations as to how long he is allowed to drive, how many hours he can be at the wheel, and he has to keep meticulous records in a logbook dealing with every single minute he is behind that wheel. The record is checked on a regular basis, and significant fines are levied to both the drivers and the owners of the vehicles who violate the service regulations. By the way, I am holding one of the books of regulations, 1,112 pages long. There are seven of these books. This is title 49, section 171- 180, and it is one of the sections dealing with transportation. This simply deals with transportation of hazardous materials. All American shippers, all carriers, and all drivers have to comply with the rules. Who in the heck will monitor compliance for the Mexican trucks? I can read English and speak it pretty well, but one must read some of the sections three or four times to understand the nuances of the regulations. I defy anybody to tell me the trucks coming from Mexico will comply with the letter of the law and the regulations as American drivers do. The Mexican truck drivers are under no safety regulations, no incentive to adhere to our regulations, as I understand it. I raised these concerns as the Senator from North Dakota did when we were discussing the NAFTA treaty several years ago. We simply convinced very few people there were real dangers and of the unintended consequences of both fast track and the NAFTA agreement. Of course, it was shooed in. We are going to visit another agreement very shortly. I hope most of my colleagues in the Senate recognize sometimes in this pellmell rush to increase trade we have to revisit issues because we are not at all supportive at a later date. The Mexico-based registered trucks are authorized to operate in a 20- mile border, as Senator Dorgan mentioned. This was provided under the original NAFTA agreement. They have been spotted, however, in 30 States, which I think is a clear violation of that trade agreement. Certainly it has not been addressed. Common sense demands the matter be addressed before we allow more uninspected trucks to enter our country. Opponents of the Murray language point out the outstanding fine the U.S. must pay for violating truck agreements under NAFTA. I would like to know what the penalties have been for the Mexican trucks we have found all over the United States. This isn't an issue of discrimination or adherence to trade agreements, although they would like to reduce it to such, but an issue of safety for every American who travels the roads of America and an issue of fairness. A loaded tractor-trailer operating at highway speed is especially dangerous if the vehicle has worn brakes, bad steering, or any weaknesses in the integrity of the truck. We demand very strict safety guidelines, but clearly rollover risks are more acute when a truck is involved in an accident. A loaded semitruck of 80,000 pounds does not stop like a family sedan, but takes up to 10 times longer to stop. I refer to an article in Land Line Magazine, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague Senator Allard as an original co-sponsor. I want to begin my statement today describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves us to the core of our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the Armed Forces of our Nation. Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that train America's future military leaders. These academies have varied missions and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders for their particular branch of service. On the grounds of each academy is a chapel, spectacular places that are easily identifiable as places of worship. In each chapel, a place has been reserved for those prisoners of war and the missing in action from each particular service. A pew has been set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have returned from battle. These hallowed places have been set aside so that all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a moving and emotional experience to pause at these reserved pews, to be encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of those soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots and to be inspired today by what they have done. Yes, I believe we can and should do more to honor the memory of all the POW's and MIA's who have so gallantly served our nation. Therefore, today I am introducing the POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2001. This act would require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the World War II Memorial, the Korea War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, all here in the Nation's Capital, on any day on which the United States flag is displayed. Congress has officially recognized the POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag would be a powerful symbol to all Americans that we have not forgotten, and will not forget. As my colleagues well know, the United States has fought in many wars, and thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or listed as missing in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than 147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country. The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we care not only for them, but also for their families who personally carry with them the burden of sacrifice. We want them to know that they do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served. As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom. Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too will the display of their flag over the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial be a special reminder that we have not forgotten, and will not forget. This coming September 21, 2001, is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. I invite my Senate colleagues to please join me in passing this bill by then to display the POW/MIA flag on this special day. 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 POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague Senator Allard as an original co-sponsor. I want to begin my statement today describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves us to the core of our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the Armed Forces of our Nation. Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that train America's future military leaders. These academies have varied missions and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders for their particular branch of service. On the grounds of each academy is a chapel, spectacular places that are easily identifiable as places of worship. In each chapel, a place has been reserved for those prisoners of war and the missing in action from each particular service. A pew has been set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have returned from battle. These hallowed places have been set aside so that all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a moving and emotional experience to pause at these reserved pews, to be encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of those soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots and to be inspired today by what they have done. Yes, I believe we can and should do more to honor the memory of all the POW's and MIA's who have so gallantly served our nation. Therefore, today I am introducing the POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2001. This act would require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the World War II Memorial, the Korea War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, all here in the Nation's Capital, on any day on which the United States flag is displayed. Congress has officially recognized the POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag would be a powerful symbol to all Americans that we have not forgotten, and will not forget. As my colleagues well know, the United States has fought in many wars, and thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or listed as missing in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than 147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country. The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we care not only for them, but also for their families who personally carry with them the burden of sacrifice. We want them to know that they do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served. As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom. Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too will the display of their flag over the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial be a special reminder that we have not forgotten, and will not forget. This coming September 21, 2001, is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. I invite my Senate colleagues to please join me in passing this bill by then to display the POW/MIA flag on this special day. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Inouye, Daschle, Johnson, and Burns in introducing a bill that reauthorizes the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act, NAHASDA, of 1996, P.L. 104-330. As many of my colleagues know, NAHASDA promotes tribal self-determination and self- sufficiency as it builds upon the government-to-government relationship that exists between Indian tribes and the Federal Government. NAHASDA became effective on October 1, 1997 and provides a single, flexible block grant for tribes or tribally-designated housing entities, TDHE, to administer Federal housing assistance. Under this block grant system, NAHASDA empowers tribes to determine local needs and authorizes tribal decision making when it comes to Indian housing policy. Before NAHASDA, the Federal Government dictated the planning, financing and building of Indian housing. Since NAHASDA's enactment, tribes are in the ``driver's seat,'' and have the right to make certain decisions with regard to resource allocation; and also have the responsibility to determine the needs of their members and to make every effort to satisfy those needs. In the past five years, NAHASDA has assisted tribes in making great strides in the quality and quantity of housing provided to Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, HUD estimates that over 25,000 new units of housing have been placed in Indian and Alaska Native communities under NAHASDA. This number is 10 times the maximum annual number of units provided for Indian communities under the previous Indian housing program. Even with all the success of NAHASDA, Indian communities continue to live in the worst housing conditions in the United States. In fact, Indian housing is often and justifiably compared to the conditions present in Third World countries. Some of the startling statistics that characterize housing in Indian communities show that: 1 out of every 5 Indian homes lacks complete plumbing; 40 percent of homes on Indian lands are overcrowded and have serious physical deficiencies; and 69 percent of homes on Indian lands are severely overcrowded with up to 4 or 5 families living in the same two bedroom house. These statistics illustrate that there is still much work to be done. NAHASDA has been a good first step in improving living conditions in Indian and Alaska Native communities, however there is still a tremendous need for adequate housing in these communities. In the first few years of NAHASDA implementation, some bumps in the road were experienced. To provide a better transition from the old HUD dominated regime to the new policies of NAHASDA, I introduced a bill to provide technical amendments to strengthen and clarify NAHASDA. These technical amendments were necessary to ensure the proper implementation and enforcement of NAHASDA. With the recent enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1999, P.L. 106-568, NAHASDA is better suited to meet its goals and responsibilities. The bill I am introducing today will extend NAHASDA for an additional five years. With the groundwork now laid, both Indian tribes and HUD should be able to provide improved housing assistance to Indian and Alaska Native communities. Moreover, the extension of NAHASDA will encourage greater utilization of NAHASDA programs including its Title VI Loan Guarantee program, designed to aid tribes in leveraging federal funds in partnership with the private sector. As Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I am committed to ensuring that NAHASDA is implemented in a fair, efficient and productive manner. It is my hope that the enactment of certain technical amendments in P.L. 106-568, and the reauthorization of NAHASDA will ensure improved housing assistance to all Indian and Alaska Native communities for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Inouye, Daschle, Johnson, and Burns in introducing a bill that reauthorizes the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act, NAHASDA, of 1996, P.L. 104-330. As many of my colleagues know, NAHASDA promotes tribal self-determination and self- sufficiency as it builds upon the government-to-government relationship that exists between Indian tribes and the Federal Government. NAHASDA became effective on October 1, 1997 and provides a single, flexible block grant for tribes or tribally-designated housing entities, TDHE, to administer Federal housing assistance. Under this block grant system, NAHASDA empowers tribes to determine local needs and authorizes tribal decision making when it comes to Indian housing policy. Before NAHASDA, the Federal Government dictated the planning, financing and building of Indian housing. Since NAHASDA's enactment, tribes are in the ``driver's seat,'' and have the right to make certain decisions with regard to resource allocation; and also have the responsibility to determine the needs of their members and to make every effort to satisfy those needs. In the past five years, NAHASDA has assisted tribes in making great strides in the quality and quantity of housing provided to Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, HUD estimates that over 25,000 new units of housing have been placed in Indian and Alaska Native communities under NAHASDA. This number is 10 times the maximum annual number of units provided for Indian communities under the previous Indian housing program. Even with all the success of NAHASDA, Indian communities continue to live in the worst housing conditions in the United States. In fact, Indian housing is often and justifiably compared to the conditions present in Third World countries. Some of the startling statistics that characterize housing in Indian communities show that: 1 out of every 5 Indian homes lacks complete plumbing; 40 percent of homes on Indian lands are overcrowded and have serious physical deficiencies; and 69 percent of homes on Indian lands are severely overcrowded with up to 4 or 5 families living in the same two bedroom house. These statistics illustrate that there is still much work to be done. NAHASDA has been a good first step in improving living conditions in Indian and Alaska Native communities, however there is still a tremendous need for adequate housing in these communities. In the first few years of NAHASDA implementation, some bumps in the road were experienced. To provide a better transition from the old HUD dominated regime to the new policies of NAHASDA, I introduced a bill to provide technical amendments to strengthen and clarify NAHASDA. These technical amendments were necessary to ensure the proper implementation and enforcement of NAHASDA. With the recent enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1999, P.L. 106-568, NAHASDA is better suited to meet its goals and responsibilities. The bill I am introducing today will extend NAHASDA for an additional five years. With the groundwork now laid, both Indian tribes and HUD should be able to provide improved housing assistance to Indian and Alaska Native communities. Moreover, the extension of NAHASDA will encourage greater utilization of NAHASDA programs including its Title VI Loan Guarantee program, designed to aid tribes in leveraging federal funds in partnership with the private sector. As Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I am committed to ensuring that NAHASDA is implemented in a fair, efficient and productive manner. It is my hope that the enactment of certain technical amendments in P.L. 106-568, and the reauthorization of NAHASDA will ensure improved housing assistance to all Indian and Alaska Native communities for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to my colleagues in the United States Senate on the work of the bicameral congressional delegation which I chaired that participated in the Tenth Annual Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE PA, hosted by the French Parliament, the National Assembly and the Senate, in Paris, July 6-10, 2001. Other participants from the United States Senate were Senator Hutchison of Texas and Senator Voinovich of Ohio. We were joined by 12 Members of the House of Representatives: cochairman Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. King, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Hoeffel and Mr. Tancredo. En route to Paris, the delegation stopped in Caen, France and traveled to Normandy for a briefing by General Joseph W. Ralston, Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, on security developments in Europe, including developments in Macedonia, Kosovo, and Bosnia- Herzegovina as well as cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. At the Normandy American Cemetery, members of the delegation participated in ceremonies honoring those Americans killed in D-Day operations. Maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission, the cemetery is the final resting place for 9,386 American servicemen and women and honors the memory of the 1,557 missing. The delegation also visited the Pointe du Hoc Monument honoring elements of the 2d Ranger Battalion. In Paris, the combined U.S. delegation of 15, the largest representation by any country in the Assembly was welcomed by others as a demonstration of the continued commitment of the United States, and the U.S. Congress, to Europe. The central theme of OSCE PA's Tenth Annual Session was ``European Security and Conflict Prevention: Challenges to the OSCE in the 21st Century.'' This year's Assembly brought together nearly 300 parliamentarians from 52 OSCE participating States, including the first delegation from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia following Belgrade's suspension from the OSCE process in 1992. Seven countries, including the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were represented at the level of Speaker of Parliament or President of the Senate. Following a decision taken earlier in the year, the Assembly withheld recognition of the pro-Lukashenka National Assembly given serious irregularities in Belarus' 2000 parliamentary elections. In light of the expiration of the mandate of the democratically elected 13th Supreme Soviet, no delegation from the Republic of Belarus was seated. The inaugural ceremony included a welcoming addresses by the OSCE PA President Adrian Severin, Speaker of the National Assembly, Raymond Forni and the Speaker of the Senate, Christian Poncelet. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hubert Vedrine also addressed delegates during the opening plenary. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana, presented remarks and responded to questions from the floor. Presentations were also made by several other senior OSCE officials, including the OSCE Secretary General, the High Commissioner on National Minorities, the Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The 2001 OSCE PA Prize for Journalism and Democracy was presented to the widows of the murdered journalists Jose Luis Lopez de Lacalle of Spain and Georgiy Gongadze of Ukraine. The Spanish and Ukrainian journalists were posthumously awarded the prize for their outstanding work in furthering OSCE values. Members of the U.S. delegation played a leading role in debate in each of the Assembly's three General Committees--Political Affairs and Security; Economic Affairs, Science, Technology and Environment; and Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions. U.S. sponsored resolutions served as the focal point for discussion on such timely topics as ``Combating Corruption and International Crime in the OSCE Region,'' a resolution I sponsored; ``Southeastern Europe,'' by Senator Voinovich; ``Prevention of Torture, Abuse, Extortion or Other Unlawful Acts'' and ``Combating Trafficking in Human Beings,'' by Mr. Smith; ``Freedom of the Media,'' by Mr. Hoyer; and, ``Developments in the North Caucasus,'' by Mr. Cardin. Senator Hutchison played a particularly active role in debate over the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the General Committee on Political Affairs and Security, chaired by Mr. Hastings, which focused on the European Security and Defense Initiative. An amendment I introduced in the General Committee on Economic Affairs, Science, Technology and Environment on promoting social, educational and economic opportunity for indigenous peoples won overwhelming approval, making it the first ever such reference to be included in an OSCE PA declaration. Other U.S. amendments focused on property restitution laws, sponsored by Mr. Cardin, and adoption of comprehensive non-discrimination laws, sponsored by Mr. Hoyer. Amendments by members of the U.S. delegation on the General Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions focused on the plight of Roma, by Mr. Smith; citizenship, by Mr. Hoyer; and Nazi-era compensation and restitution, and religious liberty, by Ms. Slaughter. Delegation members also took part in debate on the abolition of the death penalty, an issue raised repeatedly during the Assembly and in discussions on the margins of the meeting. While in Paris, members of the delegation held an ambitious series of meetings, including bilateral sessions with representatives from the Russian Federation, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom, and Kazakhstan. Members met with the President of the French National Assembly to discuss diverse issues in U.S.-French relations including military security, agricultural trade, human rights and the death penalty. A meeting with the Romanian Foreign Minister included a discussion of the missile defense initiative, policing in the former Yugoslavia, and international adoption policy. Staff of the U.S. Embassy provided members with an overview of U.S.- French relations. Members also attended a briefing by legal experts on developments affecting the right of individuals to profess and practice their religion or belief. A session with representatives of U.S. businesses operating in France and elsewhere in Europe provided members with insight into the challenges of today's global economy. Elections for officers of the Assembly were held during the final plenary. Mr. Adrian Severin of Romania was re-elected President. Senator Jerahmiel Graftstein of Canada was elected Treasurer. Three of the Assembly's nine Vice-Presidents were elected to three-year terms: Alcee Hastings, U.S.A., Kimmo Kiljunen, Finland, and Ahmet Tan, Turkey. The Assembly's Standing Committee agreed that the Eleventh Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly will be held next July in Berlin, Germany.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment in remembrance of my good friend and our colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell, who passed away a year ago today. It hardly seems an entire year has passed since Paul was with us on the Senate floor. Paul served the State of Georgia and our Nation nobly for almost 40 years, in the Army, in the Georgia State Legislature, as a respected businessman, as the head of the Peace Corps, and as a member of the U.S. Senate. Paul believed, as do I, that people flourish when they have the freedom to work and make their own decisions, and he worked day after day to ensure these freedoms for all Americans. Last year as we were preparing the Treasury and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, we were shocked to learn of the passing of our colleague, Senator Coverdell. As we moved forward with that bill, S.2900, I inserted a provision requiring the naming of a building at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA, in honor of Paul Coverdell. Our House colleagues agreed and we included this language in the conference report which was signed into law. I am pleased to let my colleagues know today that the ceremony to name the building will be conducted next month. There is an American Indian saying, ``When legends die, there are no more dreams. When there are no more dreams, there is no more greatness.'' Well, I can assure you that Paul's dreams are alive in us and his greatness will transcend the years. Mr. President, I respectfully request this body take a moment to remember our colleague and his family.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, earlier today, I had the opportunity to meet with the wives of four Belarusian opposition leaders who have either disappeared, been imprisoned, or have died under mysterious circumstances. Theirs is a compelling story which starkly illustrates the human toll of Alexander Lukashenka's regime in which human rights, democracy and the rule of law are violated with impunity. These courageous women--Ludmilla Karpenko, Irina Krasovska, Tatiana Klimova and Svetlana Zavadska--conveyed their concerns about their husbands as well as about the continuing climate of fear in Belarus. Earlier this month, I led a delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Annual Session, where I met with Anatoly Lebedko, one of the leaders of the Belarusian democratic opposition. Belarusian presidential elections are quickly coming up--on September 9. Unfortunately, the Belarusian authorities have not yet made a serious commitment to abide by criteria set forth well over a year ago by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, of which Belarus is a member. These criteria include an end of the climate of fear, equal access to the state media for all candidates, respect for freedom of assembly, as well as transparency and fairness in the registration of candidates and functioning of electoral commissions. The Helsinki Commission, which I chair, continues to receive troubling reports concerning developments in Belarus. Indeed, the prospects for free and fair presidential elections this fall remain dim. The unbalanced composition of the regional electoral commissions is particularly disturbing given the apparent rejection by the authorities of all candidates--over 800--proposed by Belarusian democratic parties and non-governmental organizations. The Belarusian authorities need to guarantee the impartiality of the electoral commissions by ensuring that democratic parties and non-governmental organizations, NGOs, are represented meaningfully and to correct other reported violations of the electoral code. The State Department has urged the Belarusian authorities to mount a credible investigation to account for missing former Minister of Internal Affairs Yury Zakharenka, 13th Supreme Soviet Deputy Chairman Viktor Gonchar and his associate Anatoly Krasovsky, as well as Russian Television cameraman Dmitry Zavadsky. They have urged the immediate release of political prisoners and 13th Supreme Soviet members Andrei Klimov and Valery Shchukin. Such an investigation, as well as the release of political prisoners, will be an essential factor in reducing the current climate of fear. Finally, the Belarusian authorities need to work with the OSCE to facilitate the work of international and domestic observers and to help ensure that all candidates are able to organize freely, without harassment, and carry their campaigns to the people. While it is not yet too late for the Belarusian authorities to take the steps necessary to ensure an atmosphere conducive to elections that will meet international democratic standards, time is of the essence. Free and fair presidential elections are an essential step if Belarus is to move ahead and end its self-imposed isolation. As President Bush has remarked in connection with this week's observance of Captive Nations Week, America must remain vigilant in our support of those living under authoritarianism. The people of Belarus have that support as they seek to overcome the legacy of the past and build an independent nation based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.