Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I commend my friend and colleague from Hew Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his effective leadership on this important Commerce, Justice, State appropriations conference report. The Senate version of the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill included a recommendation of up to $2.2 million for the FBI's Jewelry and Gem Program within funds available for Organized Criminal Enterprises, OCE, to address crimes against jewelry vendors who have proven easy targets for thieves, including organized South American gangs. The House report on the bill encourages the FBI to continue to allocate sufficient resources to disrupting these criminal enterprises. This program is designed to protect small businesses and the lives of employees in this field from violent crime. The conference agreement adopts the House position, but it is my understanding that the FBI decided to commit significant funds to combating these crimes in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, the conference agreement should be understood to recommend the FBI make available sufficient funds for the Jewelry and Gem Program. May I ask my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, the chairman of our subcommittee and our Senate conferees, if my understanding is correct?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, and Senator Allard in asking the Senate to support our version of the Animas-La Plata water project by voting to table the Feingold amendment. In 2 minutes they will not have time to speak, but I believe I am speaking for them. Our version of S. 2508 is truly bipartisan. By the way, it is not an expanded project. This is a much more reduced project. The Republican Governor and the Democratic attorney general of Colorado strongly oppose the Feingold amendment. By voting to table the Feingold amendment, we will leave intact a bipartisan version of S. 2508, supported by the administration, the States of Colorado and New Mexico, the Ute tribes of Colorado, the Navajo nation, and rural and municipal water users of southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico. In doing so, we will be saving the taxpayers over $400 million by downsizing the currently planned Animas-La Plata water project. If the Feingold amendment is not tabled, most of those entities will withdraw their crucial support for the historic compromise and it will be dead. If the Feingold amendment is adopted and the compromise collapses, then our only option for satisfying the tribal water right claims will be to build the entire huge Animas-La Plata water project as authorized in 1968. In addition to killing our bipartisan solution to a regional water conflict, the Feingold amendment unfairly singles out rural water users and small municipalities in both of our States to pay higher costs for their domestic water supplies than the residents of big cities such as Phoenix and Tucson that are served by the central Arizona and central Utah projects, which were also authorized in 1968 at the same time the Animas-La Plata Project was authorized. As chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, the Feingold amendment sends the wrong message by penalizing a region for participating in historic water rights settlement. If the Feingold amendment is not tabled, there will only be losers because the Indians and non-Indians will be locked into needless and expensive litigation and taxpayers will have to pay the costs of litigation on both sides. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join with me, along with Senators Bingaman, Domenici, and Allard, to support our bipartisan effort in voting to table the Feingold amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold and I have 2 minutes to address the Senate before the vote on the motion to table Feingold amendment No. 4326.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is my understanding.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I guess we could talk about everything, put it on spreadsheets, and talk about the dollars spent. But the Senator from Wisconsin mentioned something that I think is very important. He talked about the relevancy. It seems to me that relevancy is part of the big picture and whether we ought to keep our promises. After 474 broken treaties by this Nation towards Indians, isn't it time we kept one? We made a promise in 1935 to senior citizens called Social Security. If we can break our promise to one class of people in America, why can't we break it to another? Why can't we break our promise made to senior citizens? I will tell you why. We can't and won't because it is called stepping on a third rail called the AARP. Some thirty-million seniors belong to it--or more, for all I know--and they would absolutely come down the throat of everybody that is a Member of this body. So we don't fool around with them. We don't break our promises to people with high-powered lobbyists and full-time lawyers and lots of members that can write letters and oust us out of office. Indians can't do that. There are not many of them. They don't have much money. They lost almost everything. So they have very little voice here. It is easy to take away the promise that we made to them. I think it is wrong. We talk about relevancy. This Nation ought to be greater than that, and keep our promises. The statement of administration policy in the last paragraph basically says they would support this bill with or without the Feingold amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from New Mexico. We are neighbors. Certainly his northern New Mexico area and the southwest Colorado area have histories which are very similar, our present is similar, and our futures are literally tied together. I thank him for the years of service and hard work he has done on this issue. Mr. President, I have no further comments. I ask unanimous consent, as under the agreement, Senator Feingold be recognized to offer his amendment.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that 30 minutes of debate on the bill be under my control, and that 30 minutes of debate on Senator Feingold's amendment be divided, 20 minutes under Senator Feingold's control and 10 minutes under my control.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I will, at the end of my statement, move to table Senator Feingold's amendment. Also pursuant to that agreement, I request 10 minutes of the 30 that has been agreed to under the unanimous consent. Each of the changes proposed by Senator Feingold is either unnecessary or would have the opposite effect to what he intends. I will tell the Senator, who I consider a good friend, that I was in his State just last week with his very fine Governor, Tommy Thompson, traveling across the State doing several things. It was raining the whole time I was there. I rather marveled about how green and nice it was and how much water it had. I was somewhat envious coming from a State that has to store roughly 85 percent of its water needs a year. And as I looked around, I saw many roads and bridges and more than one or two lakes that I think had been paid for with the taxpayers' money in one form or another. I would tell him that if he lived in a State such as mine or any of the Western States, as the Presiding Officer lives, he would understand how desperately we need water and how in a fast growing State it puts more and more strains and stresses on existing water. I will talk about the Senator's amendment a little bit. Senator Feingold's amendment proposes that we make existing Federal reclamation law inapplicable to non-Indian project beneficiaries. The Senator asks the Senate to amend S. 2508 to eliminate all references to the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956. I don't know the age of the Senator, but I have a hunch it was about the time he was born. I assume Senator Feingold believes that his amendment will make the repayment obligations more fair. In fact, it would be completely unfair to require these individuals to bear a greater repayment burden than all the other projects constructed under the authority of the 1956 and 1968 act. It would, in fact, in my view, be somewhat discriminatory against non-Indians. If the Senate makes any of the changes proposed by Senator Feingold, we will be saying that existing Federal law should not control the repayment obligation of the non-Indian water users of the project. Other water users up and down the Colorado River--and there are many in our States, as the Presiding Officer knows--will have their repayment obligation set by existing Federal law, but those getting water from this part of the Colorado River system and at this late hour will be told that a new law controls their repayment obligation. I have to ask my colleagues, why should these project users be singled out in this manner? The most unfair part of this amendment is that it would be part of an Indian water rights settlement act. These non-Indian people are only being treated differently because they agreed to accept the smaller project as part of their agreement with the Ute Indian tribes. As the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I can't think of a worse precedent or message to send. In my view, we ought to be rewarding the non-Indian neighbors who have worked cooperatively with their Indian neighbors, not making them pay more money for their cooperation. If any of the repayment provisions proposed by Senator Feingold were to pass, I would have to advise my non-Indian constituents that it is actually in their best interest to break their agreement with the tribes, because the price they must pay for fulfilling their commitment to the tribes is to give up all the rights they already have under existing law. I am sure that isn't what the Senator intends, but that will be the result of the proposed amendment. Senator Feingold's proposed change concerning project deauthorization has the same effect. Under my bill, the only parts of the project that are to be constructed are the components that are explicitly included in S. 2508. Every other part of the project cannot be built unless and until they are authorized by Congress. That is the compromise on deauthorizing the project. The administration agrees with this compromise. It was even accepted in the House Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote. This compromise is fair because it only becomes effective if the small part of the project is actually constructed. The Senator from Wisconsin asks the non-Indian project beneficiaries, including the State of Colorado, to accept project deauthorization now and accept the Government's promise that a smaller project will be built someday. I can tell you, with the history of promises made by the Federal Government to Indians, in fact to many people in the West, I am somewhat skeptical. I know the Republican Governor of the State of Colorado and the Democratic Attorney General also reject this idea. I ask the Senate to reject it as well. It is simply not fair. Senator Feingold also proposes a provision concerning judicial review. I assume this is intended to preserve judicial review. At best, however, this will have no effect because there is nothing in the bill that constricts judicial review. There is nothing to preserve. Since the provision has no obvious application, we should be concerned that a court will be encouraged to make some kind of a provision that doesn't exist now. Maybe a court will decide to interpret the provision as an invitation to ignore all the work Congress and the administration have done to analyze the project and its alternative. There is simply no reason to take that risk. The administration has had its say in its record of decision. Congress will have its say by enacting S. 2508. There is nothing in the bill that prevents the court from doing what courts do or what they are supposed to do. They can have their say on whether the other two branches have followed the law. There is no reason to supplement or enhance the authority of the Federal courts with respect to this bill or the project. The most unfair change suggested by the Senator is his desire to require nontribal recreation costs be made nonreimbursable. First, this is directly contrary to existing law. Ever since Congress enacted the Colorado River Storage Project Act in 1956, all recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement costs are nonreimbursable. Senator Feingold proposes we do away with that part of the law. This would require water users in New Mexico to pay for recreation facilities or benefits in Colorado. Again, this provision would be included in an Indian water rights settlement. I think it is completely unfair to have New Mexico bear additional unwarranted expenses solely because they agreed to be part of this historic agreement. I am sure the Senator from Wisconsin means well, but meaning well is not a test of whether we should amend S. 2508. Upon inspection, none of the proposed changes is necessary and most will be harmful. Each of them would wreck years of good faith negotiations among the parties. Also, they would mean breaking explicit promises made decades ago by the Federal Government. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to table the proposed amendment, and I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays as outlined under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined in offering the proposed amendment by three of my distinguished colleagues: Senator Allard, who is with me on the floor tonight; Senator Bingaman; and Senator Domenici from New Mexico. This is a bipartisan effort. I thank each of them for their support. All four of us representing the States of Colorado and New Mexico have actively supported this project since its inception. And, hopefully, S. 2508 will be the last time we need to deal with this long overdue project. In 1956 and 1968, decades ago--in fact, before I was ever elected to any public office--the United States promised the residents of southwestern Colorado they could count on the Government to assist them in developing the region by ensuring an adequate and reliable water supply for the benefit of the tribes and the non-Indian community. In fact, in 1968, this project was authorized at the same time as the central Arizona project and the central Utah project, both of which have been completed. Even before that, nearly 100 years before in 1868, the United States made a treaty that guaranteed the southern Ute and Ute Mountain Indian tribes of California a permanent homeland. No one could suggest this did not include the right to an adequate water supply. In 1987, as a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced legislation to settle the Ute water rights claims. This settlement act was signed by President Ronald Reagan in November of 1988. For the next two Congresses, I worked to obtain the funding needed to implement this agreement, as did my colleagues from New Mexico and Colorado. The 1988 settlement act is currently the law of the land. Unfortunately, that law has never been complied with. When I came to the Senate, I worked to secure the funding for the massive environmental studies needed on the proposed projects. I have also worked to prevent misguided attempts to deauthorize or defund this necessary project. The Federal Government's responsibility to build this project is even more urgent because the Colorado Ute tribes have claims to much of the water that is already being used and has been used for generations by their non-Indian neighbors. The urgency of this bill has increased too because under the 1988 Agreement the Tribes can go back to court to sue the Federal Government if the project was not completed by the year 2000. That is obviously not going to happen. The four of us I have fought for the fulfillment of these promises because I know what will happen if the Government is allowed to forget its promise to this region and walk away from its commitment to provide a firm water supply. Most important, the united States, the State of Colorado, the two Ute Tribes, and the non-Indian residents will spend the next few decades and millions of dollars in the Federal courts fighting for the limited water supply that exists in this region. There will only be losers in this fight because the non-Indians will lose the legal right to use the water, and the indians may never have the ability to put the water to use. The ironic part is that if this issue ends up in the courts--it will pit one Federal agency against another with your tax money paying for attorneys on both sides. As the author of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 and now as the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I have an additional responsibility to make the United States fulfill its promise to this region. The Ute Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 is a commitment to the Ute Tribes. This commitment is very similar to the 472 treaties previously approved by the United States Senate. In those treaties, each tribe agreed to give up a great deal in return for a guarantee that the United States would recognize and protect the tribes' rights to the reservation land guaranteed to them by the treaty. Also, as with other treaties, the opponents did not even wait until the ink was dry before they began trying to convince the United States to break its terms. Even though the States of Colorado and New Mexico have spent over $40 million to implement their part of the agreement. and Congress has already appropriated over $50 million which went to pay the Tribes to drop their lawsuits. All of the 472 other treaties have been violated by the United States. But in this case, if the government does not fulfill the treaty terms, it is not only the Indians who will suffer, but all of the non- Indians in the region. As many of my colleagues are aware, the United States has two choices when it comes to the Ute water rights: we can build the facilities needed to store water for the tribes or we can reallocate the water from those who are presently using it. Estimates are that between \1/4\ and \1/2\ of all non-Indian irrigators would lose their water rights if we forcibly reallocate it. Throughout a negotiation process sponsored by the state of Colorado, the tribes and local water users tried to convince the project opponents that reallocating the limited water supply is an unrealistic, risky, and disruptive way to resolve the tribal water rights claims; because it deprives hundreds of non-Indian water users of their rights to life giving water. Clearly, the ALP opponents will continue to oppose any project that provides any water storage. Compromise--and this bill is the 4th one-- is not in their vocabulary. When the opponents tried to use environmental laws to delay and frustrate the project, the coalition of Indian tribes and local water users responded in two ways. First, they agreed to reduce the size of the project, so it could be built in a manner consistent with numerous existing environmental studies and reports, and would cost \1/3\ of the cost of the original project. They also insisted that any reduction in the project size should require the government to make use of its existing studies when analyzing the project's environmental impact; rather than restart the whole process all over again. It was difficult to convince me that we should follow this strategy and agree to build only a small part of the ALP that was passed in 1988. When I introduced this proposal in the last Congress, I knew that even a substantially reduced project would not satisfy the project's opponents. They don't want a smaller project: they want a dead project. I also knew that these opponents would work to mischaracterize any attempt to make use of the existing environmental documents. We did not have to wait very long for everyone to see that each of these concerns was correct. During the 105th Congress, the last time we reached a compromise and a bill was introduced, an administration official appeared before my committee and opposed a bill that offered to downsize the project in order to settle the tribal water rights claims. But this left the administration with no feasible way to resolve the tribal claims. In fact, as the Department of Interior began to produce a new supplemental environmental impact statement, it compared the smaller project with the idea of just buying water rights. Even the present management of the Department of Interior could not deny that the only realistic, feasible alternative available to the government is to store some of the waters of the Animas River. The Record of Decision signed by the Interior Secretary on September 25, 2000 explicitly and implicitly recognize all of these facts. It can be found at http://indian.senate.gov. In fact Mr. President, the lateness of having this Record of Decision on file is the reason we could not move this bill sooner. For the first time, this administration is strongly on record in favor of settling tribal water claims by building an off-stream storage facility at Ridges Basin. The Record of Decision also rejects the any alternative to settling the tribal water claims, especially the unrealistic, risky, and disruptive schemes that have been proposed by the opponents of the ALP. Although I have agreed to sponsor this amendment, which implements the Record of Decision, I am still very concerned that the non-Indian beneficiaries of the project have been asked to give up too much. I am sure that there are those who will ask these people to give up even more. But I think that they have given up more than enough. Under my amendment, the Animas-La Plata Project will consist of the facilities needed to divert and impound water in an off-stream reservoir. This provision will only take effect if these features are actually constructed. By taking this step, a number of potential project beneficiaries agree to forgo a substantial number of benefits that were promised to them by their own government in 1968. In my view, the Federal Government is not fulfilling all of its obligation to these people, but they seem to have no alternative. They will receive substantially fewer benefits than they were promised. In addition, they will bear an even greater share of the cost for the benefits than those using Federal reclamation projects in other states, especially in the States of Arizona, California, and Utah which were originally authorized at the same time in 1968. Many people now regret the subsidy of western water development, so they are taking it out on the ALP. However, in this case, they cannot do this without injuring the Ute Tribes. Some people will argue that they are only opposed to the part of the project that provides water to non-Indians. But the Ute Tribes refuse to allow the Federal Government to break all of its promises to the non-Indian project beneficiaries. Why? Because the Ute tribes know that they will be next. The tribes and their non-Indian neighbors have held together in a unique and strong coalition of Indians and their non-Indian neighbors that from my perspective is quite rare. This project has been an 18 year effort for myself, for Senator Bingaman, Senator Allard and Senator Domenici. We worked together on it. The tribes have worked in good faith with the non-Indian project users to produce an agreement that allows the project to be built in a manner consistent with every existing environmental study and standard. We are consistent in the writing of this bill. As I understand the Record of Decision, the Department of Interior has also concluded that the time for studying the project has come to an end. And the time for actually fulfilling the government's promises to Indians and non- Indians is finally at hand. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support S. 2508 as presented in amendment No. 4303. This is the last best chance for the United States to live up to the obligations freely embraced in 1956, 1968, and 1988, not to mention the 1868 treaty with the Ute Tribe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following letters of support of the bipartisan version of S. 2508 be printed in the Record, opposed to the Feingold amendment: From the State of Colorado, the Governor of Colorado, the Attorney General of Colorado, elected tribal governments of Ute Mountain and Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and the Native American Rights Fund.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will withhold.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield any remaining time. I move to table the Feingold amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would like to yield a few minutes to Senator Allard, my colleague, who has also worked on this bill for so long. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, who has worked long and hard on this issue.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4303.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 723, S. 2508, as under a previous order. I further ask consent that any votes ordered with respect to that legislation be stacked to occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader with the concurrence of the minority leader.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of this resolution introduced by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to address the continuing constitutional crisis in Belarus. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, during the 106th Congress I have worked on a bipartisan basis to promote the core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Belarus in keeping with that country's commitments as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Back in April the OSCE set four criteria for international observation of parliamentary elections held this past weekend: respect for human rights and an end to the climate of fear; opposition access to the state media; a democratic electoral code; and the granting of real power to the new parliament. Regrettably, the Lukashenka regime responded with at best half- hearted measures aimed at giving the appearance of progress while keeping democracy in check. Instead of using the elections process to return Belarus to the path of democracy and end that country's self- isolation, Mr. Lukashenka tightened his grip on power launching an intensified campaign of harassment against the democratic opposition and fledgling independent media. Accordingly, a technical assessment team dispatched by the OSCE concluded that the elections ``fell short of meeting minimum commitments for free, fair, equal accountable, and transparent elections.'' The President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE confirmed the flawed nature of the campaign period. We recently saw how Slobodan Milosevic was swept from power by a wave of popular discontent following years of repression. After his ouster, Belarus now has the dubious distinction of being the sole remaining dictatorship in Europe. Misguided steps toward recognition of the results of Belarus' flawed parliamentary elections would only serve to bolster Mr. Lukashenka in the lead up to presidential elections slated for next year. This situation was addressed today in an editorial in the Washington Times. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record following my remarks. I commend Senator Durbin for his leadership on this issue and will continue to work with my colleagues to support the people of Belarus in their quest to move beyond dictatorship to genuine democracy.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, Sid Yates, former Congressman from Ohio and a long-time friend of Indian country passed away last week. I am particularly saddened because in the last 2 years, we have lost Morris Thompson, the Alaska Native tribal leader and one of the instrumental leaders in Alaska politics, Dr. Helen Peterson one of the founders of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and now our long-time friend Sid Yates. Indian country is losing far too many friends and most unfortunate is that we seem to be losing more friends than we are gaining. As a Congressman from the State of Ohio with no federally-recognized Indian Tribes Sid Yates had no political reason to become the champion for Indian causes that he was known for. His dedication was not part of constituent service and he stood to lose more than he gained from his advocacy. Nonetheless, Sid Yates' commitment and determination to do the right thing never wavered. I am saddened to be making this statement because all who knew or came in contact with Sid Yates were awed by his generous heart and humbled by the patience he showed with his colleagues and with the public--even when they disagreed with him. His patience and focus in the legislative realm were legendary. Sid Yates started what I believe an appropriate protocol in the House Subcommittee by affording every Tribal Leader wishing to come before the subcommittee the brief opportunity to describe the most pressing needs of his or her Tribe. When I came to the House of Representatives in 1986, I became deeply involved in issues that affect my State of Colorado, natural resource issues and of course issues that affect American Indians. In pursuing and working on these matters, I worked with Sid Yates time and again and benefitted from that association both as a legislator and as a man. Sid Yates also knew when generosity of spirit and patience were not the appropriate response. In the mid 1980's a series of newspaper articles appeared in the Arizona Republic that revealed a breathtaking level of corruption and waste in the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. Millions of dollars were being siphoned off or wasted and were not getting to the Indian beneficiaries as Congress intended. As Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, Sid Yates took bold steps to ensure that this would not happen again and launched the Tribal Self Governance Demonstration Project. I am proud to say that in August the President signed legislation that I sponsored in the Senate to make permanent Self Governance in Health Care. The auditorium in the U.S. Department of Interior was appropriately named the ``Sid Yates Auditorium'' and his name will carry with it the kind of dedication and honesty that was his hallmark. It is customary and protocol to add the prefix ``The Honorable'' when talking of elected leaders and if there was ever a man who fulfilled that moniker it was the Honorable Sid Yates.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am submitting an amendment which supercedes S. 2508, legislation I introduced earlier this year to provide for the final settlement of the Colorado Ute Indians Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. I am proud to have my colleague Senator Wayne Allard as an original cosponsor of this legislation. These amendments come after prolonged negotiations with officials of the Department of Interior, the Tribes and other parties to this agreement. It is our last opportunity to fulfill our treaty obligations and prevent the Tribes from suing the federal government for the water they were promised more than 12 years ago. I am aware of the precious little time we have left in this session and the huge legislative task we have with the remaining important legislation which remains on our calendar. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Interior waited until September 25, 2000 to sign a Record of Decision supporting these amendments, amendments his staff helped negotiate. It was my intent to move forward long before this. However, I am compelled to introduce this amended legislation now, because by law, the Tribes already have the ability to sue the federal government to have their treaty obligations for water fulfilled. And, I believe the Tribes will undoubtedly prevail and the damages awarded them could far exceed what it will cost us to do what is already prescribed by law and federal treaty. The record, the law and our moral obligation in this matter are clear. I believe the Administration and my colleagues agree with me, the time to put this matter behind us has come. We teach our children that our country was built on honesty, respect for the law and integrity. But, we cannot hold up our respect for treaties we have entered into with American Indians, because we have never honored any of those treaties we have signed. It is time to do what is right and to make water available to the Ute Tribes. This legislation does so in a manner that minimizes the environmental impacts and the burden on the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation before Congress adjourns for the year.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 4, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on alcohol and law enforcement in Alaska. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to consider and pass S. 1438, the National Law Enforcement Museum Act of 1999. This legislation will authorize the construction of a National Law Enforcement Museum to be built here in our Nation's Capital. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks peace officers face in enforcing our laws. Throughout our nation's history, nearly 15,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. Based on FBI statistics, nearly 63,000 officers are assaulted each year in this country, resulting in more than 21,000 injuries. On average, one police officer is killed somewhere in America every 54 hours. Approximately 740,000 law enforcement professionals are continuing to put their lives on the line for the safety and protection of others. We owe all of those officers a huge debt of gratitude, and it is only fitting that we properly commemorate this outstanding record of service and sacrifice. My legislation seeks to achieve this important goal by authorizing the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a nonprofit organization, to establish a comprehensive law enforcement museum and research repository on federal land in the District of Columbia. The Fund is the same group that so ably carried out the congressional mandate of 1984 to establish the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which was dedicated in 1991 just a few blocks from the Capitol. Clearly, their record of achievement speaks volumes about their ability to meet this important challenge. Since 1993, the Fund has efficiently operated a small-scale version of the National Law Enforcement Museum at a site located about two blocks from the Memorial. The time has come to broaden the scope of this museum and move it in closer proximity to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. This museum would serve as a repository of information for researchers, practitioners, and the general public. The museum will become the premiere source of information on issues related to law enforcement history and safety, and obviously a popular tourist attraction in Washington, DC, as well. The ideal location for this museum is directly across from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on a parcel of federal-owned property that now functions as a parking lot. I introduced this legislation on July 27, 1999, and after committee hearings and extensive testimony, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill in July of this year. Although the bill was pending on the Senate calendar awaiting final action by the Senate, I was pleased to work with my colleagues, Senator Thompson, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, and Senator Durbin, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, on a compromise amendment. After over two months of negotiations, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and the District of Columbia Courts reached an agreement to clarify that the building of this museum will in no way conflict with court expansion and renovation plans. As a result of this agreement, Senators Thompson and Durbin have offered an amendment with my support to reflect this agreement with the courts. Under my legislation, no federal dollars are being proposed to build this museum. Rather, the Fund would raise all of the money necessary to construct the museum through private donations. The legislation places the responsibility of operating the museum in the hands of the Fund. Finally, let me add that this legislation is supported by 15 national law enforcement organizations: the Concerns of Police Survivors; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the International Union of Police Associations/AFL- CIO; the National Association of Police Organizations; the National Black Police Association; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; the National Sheriffs Association; the National Troopers Coalition; the Police Executive Research Forum; the Police Foundation; the United Federation of Police; and the National Law Enforcement Council. Together, these organizations represent virtually every law enforcement officer, family member and police survivor in the United States. As we remember the sacrifices made by our brave officers, I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I also call on our colleagues in the House to pass this important bill before the Congress adjourns for the year. Amendment No. 4279 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I take this opportunity to update my colleagues on the situation in Belarus, as I have done on previous occasions. The Belarusian parliamentary elections are scheduled for October 15, and unfortunately, they do not meet the basic commitments outlined by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) concerning free and democratic elections. Moreover, many observers have concluded that the Belarusian government has not made real progress in fulfilling four criteria for international observation of the elections: respect for human rights and an end to the climate of fear; opposition access to the state media; a democratic electoral code; and the granting of real power to the parliament that will be chosen in these elections. Instead, the Helsinki Commission has observed that the Lukashenka regime launched a campaign of intensified harassment in recent days directed against members of the opposition. We have received reports that just last week, Anatoly Lebedka, leader of the United Civic Party, whom many of my colleagues met when he visited the Senate last year, was roughed up by police after attending an observance marking the first anniversary of the disappearance of a leading member of the democratic opposition Viktor Gonchar and his associate, Anatoly Krasovsky. And just a few days ago, we were informed that Belarusian Popular Front leader Vintsuk Viachorka's request for air time on Belarusian television to explain why the opposition is boycotting the parliamentary elections was met with a hateful, disparaging diatribe on the main newscast ``Panorama.'' This is only the tip of the iceberg--in addition, the Helsinki Commission is receiving reports of detentions, fines and instances of beatings of opposition activists who are promoting a boycott of the elections by distributing leaflets or other literature or holding meetings with voters. In recent weeks, we have also been informed of the refusal to register many opposition candidates on dubious grounds; the seizure of over 100,000 copies of the independent trade union newspaper ``Rabochy''; forceful disruptions of public meetings with representatives of the opposition; an apparent burglary of the headquarters of the Social Democratic Party; a ban of the First Festival of Independent Press in Vitebsk, and recent ``reminder letters'' by the State Committee on Press for independent newspapers to re-register. Mr. President, Belarusian opposition parties supporting the boycott have received permission to stage ``Freedom March III'' this Sunday, October 1. At a number of past demonstrations, police have detained, harassed and beaten participants. Those in Congress who are following developments in Belarus are hopeful that this demonstration will take place peacefully, that authorities do not limit the rights of Belarusian citizens to freedom of association and assembly, and that the Government of Belarus will refrain from acts of repression against the opposition and others who openly advocate for a boycott of these elections. Mr. President, the Helsinki Commission continue to monitor closely the events surrounding these elections and we will keep the full Senate apprized of developments in the ongoing struggle for democracy in Belarus.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing on S. 2052, the Indian tribal development consolidated funding act of 2000, to be followed immediately by a business meeting to mark up S. 1840, the California Indian Land Transfer Act; S. 2665, to establish a streamlined process to enable the Navajo Nation to lease trust lands without having to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior of individual leases, except leases for exploration, development, or extraction of any mineral resources; S. 2917, the Santo Domingo Pueblo Claims Settlement Act of 2000; H.R. 4643, the Torrez- Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Claims Settlement Act; S. 2688, the Native American Languages Act Amendments Act of 2000; S. 2580, the Indian School Construction Act; S. 3031, to make certain technical corrections in laws relating to Native Americans; S. 2920, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Improvement Act of 2000; S. 2526, to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend such Act; and H.R. 1460, to amend the Ysleta Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.