Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have closely followed developments in Ukraine including aspects of the human, security and economic dimensions. My desire is that Ukraine consolidate its independence by strengthening democratic institutions, including the judiciary, and undertaking reforms to improve the business climate essential to attracting much-needed foreign investment. Twelve years after independence, the people of Ukraine deserve to enjoy the fruits of freedom and prosperity, but obstacles remain. Bringing Ukraine more fully into Europe is both essential to the country's long-term economic success and important for European security. Accelerating Ukraine's movement toward Europe is timely and needed. While high-ranking Ukrainian officials pay lipservice to such integration, the jury is still out as to whether they are prepared to take the bold steps that will be required to advance such integration. An important barometer for the future will be the extent to which the country's moves to confront the corruption and crime that retard the process of democratization and economic liberalization and erode Ukraine's security and independence. While those at the top say the right things, there is justified skepticism as to their sincerity. This is certainly the case concerning Ukraine's current President, Leonid Kuchma. The controversies surrounding Kuchma undercut his credibility with respect to the issue of combating corruption. Nevertheless, this should not detract from the urgency of tackling corruption in the lead up to critical parliamentary elections slated for next year, and presidential elections to select Kuchma's successor in 2004. Meanwhile, those serious about rooting out corruption and corrupt officials should take a hard look at the handling--or more accurately, mishandling--of Ukrainian and foreign owned businesses. For example, United States-owned businesses have been victimized through expropriations, asset thefts, extortion and the like perpetrated or abetted by corrupt officials and courts in Ukraine. While new cases continue to occur, longstanding cases remain unresolved with investors unable to obtain the relief to which they are entitled under Ukrainian and international law. Although the State Department has made repeated representations about these cases at senior levels of the Kuchma administration, Kyiv rebuffed repeated requests to resolve them in accordance with the law. At the same time it refuses to punish the perpetrators of the criminal acts or take corrective measures to prevent similar cases from arising. If the victims are to ever achieve a measure of justice, it is essential that U.S. officials raise these cases at every appropriate opportunity. In one especially egregious and illustrative case, well-connected individuals in Ukraine were able to orchestrate the seizure of all the assets of a successful pharmaceutical joint venture which was half owned by United States investors. When, 6 years after the theft the Ukrainian appeals courts finally dismissed the spurious claims to the assets on grounds that they were based entirely on forged and falsely fabricated documents, senior Ukrainian officials launched into action. Within weeks of these judicial decisions, the Ukrainian President reportedly convened a meeting of senior officials, including the cognizant senior judges and his own senior law enforcement and national security cabinet level officers, at which he made clear that he did not want the stolen assets restored to their rightful American owners. The courts quickly complied, without explanation, and in disregard of the copious evidence before them, the judges reversed the decisions taken just two months earlier and held in favor of the claimants. Several months later longstanding criminal charges against the same individuals were dropped. The circumstances surrounding this case and others involving United States investors are indicative of the far reaching scope of corruption and the rule of law deficit in Ukraine today. While the matter was repeatedly raised by the State Department several years ago, I am concerned that the Ukrainian side might assume that the matter is a closed case. I urge officials at the Departments of State and Commerce to disabuse Ukrainian Government officials of such an impression. If the Kuchma administration is serious about rooting out corruption and advancing democracy and the rule of law, these cases provide a good starting point. Only time will tell if they are up to the challenge.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this evening I am pleased to join my fellow Senators--including my good friend from Utah--Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch--for this ``Justice for Judges'' Marathon. I doubt if anyone will change their minds, but the debate is one we need to air. First of all, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for the excellent work he has been doing--just as he consistently does day after day and hearing after hearing--as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I also thank Chairman Hatch for his support for another bill I am sponsoring this year, the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2003. Every one of our Nation's leading law enforcement organizations-- including the Fraternal Order of Police--consider this bill to be one of their top legislative priorities. I am especially pleased that this bill now enjoys the strong bipartisan support of 66 cosponsors-- including 41 Republicans and 25 Democrats. I also want to point out that Senators Leahy and Hatch are lead original cosponsors of this important legislation, and thank them for their support. Unfortunately, this bill is a perfect example of how the intent of the U.S. Senate can be subverted by the few opposed to a bill. I also want to point out that even though this bill enjoys bipartisan support, and easily enough to get it passed by the Senate in an up-or- down vote--or even to invoke cloture--it is still being held hostage by a few Senators who have dug in their heels and refuse to let it pass. It is not fair nor just in a body where fairness and justice is paramount that a minority of a few can hold up the will of 67 Senators. I want to let my fellow Senators know that I will be pushing for the passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act early next year. The challenges we are now facing in the form of the unprecedented filibustering of Circuit Court judicial nominees is in no way the result of Senator Hatch's ability as a Chairman or as one of the Senate's great gentlemen. Unfortunately, we are now facing a situation in which judicial nominees that clearly have the bipartisan support they need to be confirmed by the Senate in an up-or-down vote simply cannot get the vote they deserve. Repeated refusals to allow Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada the straight up-or-down vote he deserved unfortunately led to him withdrawing his nomination. As a Coloradan, I am not alone in my assessment that an injustice was done, and not just to Miguel Estrada, but to our finely balanced system of Constitutional government as handed down by our Founding Fathers. We all know the history of Miguel Estrada. He is a great American success story. He is a man of impeccable credentials dedicated to upholding the law. Unfortunately, he has committed the high crime of being a conservative. He does not deserve the insult of being called a ``lemon'' as one Senator has done today. Whether to vote against nominees is each Senator's decision, but they do not deserve insults. On September 10, 2002, the Pueblo Chieftain editorial stated: One would think that Democrats in the Senate, who claim to hold diversity in such high esteem, would be amendable to Mr. Estrada's nomination. But he committed the political sin of being conservative. The Pueblo Chieftain went on to say: For the first time in the Nation's history, Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination. By doing so they turned the Senate's historic practice of advice and consent into a litmus test for liberal interest groups. The Democrats also have launched filibusters to stall the nominations of a half-dozen other candidates. The editorial continues: Mr. Estrada asked President Bush to withdraw his nomination, which had languished in the Senate for nearly two years. Mr. Bush did so, with regret. Mr. Estrada should have been confirmed. He was just as qualified as a dozen other judicial nominees who were eventually confirmed. But Democrats have resorted to the filibuster to stop those judicial candidates feared to be opposed to abortion. But when asked about the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling during confirmation hearings, Mr. Estrada said, ``It's the law. I will follow it.'' In the long run, Democrats may have hurt themselves and their outreach to Hispanic moderates and independents by denying all Hispanics a historic moment--the first and highest-ranking Hispanic on the Federal bench who also had strong backing from a wide range of Hispanic groups. Mr. President, let me speak about a towering figure in Colorado history. Byron White, a football star and then a conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice who retired in 1993 after 31 years on the Federal bench. After having lived a long and fruitful life, Justice White passed away on April 15, 2002. I met Justice White. His many achievements made most but not all Coloradans proud. Justice White was appointed to the Nation's highest court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. I knew Justice White--he had a handshake that would make you wince, even in his 80's. Byron White combined physical prowess--as a nationally acclaimed football star in the 1930's who went on to become a Rhodes scholar and, eventually, a leading jurist. In 1937, Byron ``Whizzer'' White was an All-American football player with the University of Colorado Buffaloes. He led the nation in both scoring and rushing yards while leading an unbeaten team. He never liked his nickname ``Whizzer''. But sports writers did so he was stuck with it. He also was an outstanding football player in the earliest days of professional football, playing running back for both the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Detroit Lions. He used his professional football signing bonus to pay his way through Yale Law School. He graduated first in his class. During World War II he served as an intelligence officer with the U.S. Navy. It was Byron White who wrote the official report on the sinking of John F. Kennedy's patrol boat, the PT-109. White ``had excelled in everything he had attempted'' President Kennedy said admiringly when he appointed his long-time friend and the Deputy Attorney General as our Nation's 98th Supreme Court Justice in history. However, despite the outstanding strengths and qualifications, as articulated by President Kennedy, Justice White had some views that most likely would have led to filibuster by today's Senate. In fact, if it had been a Republican President who nominated Byron White in 1965 instead of a Democrat, he probably would not have been confirmed even then. For instance, he dissented from the historic 1973 ruling that declared that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. In 1986, he stirred a storm of controversy by writing the Supreme Court's opinion that constitutional protections of privacy do not extend to homosexual conduct. Justice White consistently opposed restrictions on law enforcement officers, which led him to dissent from the famous 1966 Miranda ruling that police officers inform a criminal suspect being arrested of their rights. Justice White also dissented from rulings that outlawed voluntary prayer for children in public schools. By the late 1980's, Justice White had joined conservatives in opposing ``affirmative action'' programs on the grounds that they amounted to reverse discrimination. The point is that he was appointed by President John F. Kennedy--but even so--under today's atmosphere, including political correctness and in-your-face special interests--with litmus test approaches to public policy--Justice White would have almost certainly been relentlessly filibustered and would probably not be confirmed. I am not sure that I would have voted for his confirmation had I been here, because I disagree with some of his decisions, but I would have been given the chance. The way that today's Senate is treating judicial nominees stands in even starker contrast when it is pointed out that Justice White was confirmed by the Senate by a voice-vote, and without objection. Not one Senator objected--``D'' or ``R.'' That was on April 11, 1962. A lot has changed since then. Some for the better and some not. One thing that has certainly not gotten better is the way judicial nominees are being treated. Questioning has given way to badgering. Civility has given way to discovery. Playing ``Got Ya'' is a poor substitute for an impartial hearing. The question is not whether the President's nominees should or shouldn't be confirmed. That is a smokescreen. The question is should we, as duly elected Senators be accorded our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent by voting on each nominee. The minority is denying me the right to an up-or-down vote through their filibusters--and thereby are denying the people of Colorado the right to be represented through my vote. I have heard time and again from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 168 nominees have been confirmed and only four have not. What are they talking about? I haven't been given the chance to even vote on those four. Not a question of numbers. It is a question of fairness. We need to do what we can do to reverse and correct the emerging practice of filibustering judicial nominees. There is no question in my mind that many deserving and well- qualified people will refuse the call of public service after watching the kangaroo court they might now face in getting confirmed. It doesn't make any difference who is in the majority. No nominee should have to be verbally flailed in the confirmation process. Mr. President, it is not too late to turn back, reverse course, and give all judicial nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider S. 1529, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act amendments of 2003; S. 1721, the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003; and S. Res. 248, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the Individual Indian Money Account Trust Funds lawsuit. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, in 1996, the lawsuit now known as Cobell v. Norton case was filed. To date we have spent many millions of dollars on accountants and lawyers, no accounting has been done, and not one penny has been paid to an Indian account holder. On September 25, the judge in the case, Judge Lamberth, issued a decision that guarantees more years of litigation and, by all estimates, billions more dollars spent, and no end in sight to the lawsuit. With appeals, congressional squabbling over money and further lawsuits aimed at securing money damages, the case is just beginning. The Department claims that pennies on the dollar are owed the plaintiffs, but without billions more spent on accounting activity, it cannot say for sure how much is in the accounts. Cost estimates from the Interior Department suggest that it will cost $10 to $12 billion to comply with Judge Lamberth's order, money that will be spent year after year through fiscal year 2008 at least. I believe this money is better spent on reconstituting the Indian land base, building a forward-looking, state-of-the-art trust management system, and providing more dollars to Indian health care and education, which we know are underfunded. The plaintiffs claim more than $175 billion dollars should be in these accounts, a number the Department vigorously contests. Last Monday night, the Interior Appropriations Committees intervened in the case by adding a rider that will delay the accounting order by the judge conceivably until the end of 2004. Because of the enormous cost of an accounting, I believe the appropriators' intervention will only get worse in the future. Two weeks ago, along with Senators Inouye and Domenici, I introduced S. 1770, the Indian Money Account Claim Satisfaction Act of 2003, to reach a legislated settlement of the case. A hearing was held on October 29, 2003. I do not support the Cobell rider, and I want to make that clear. I do support a legislated settlement to the case, and I say to those who have come to the floor: If you are serious about settling this matter, join me and Senators Inouye and Domenici in our efforts. At the hearing on the 29th, it appears both the Department and the plaintiffs are willing to move ahead with mediation of this case, and I fully support that and will be doing everything in my power to make sure that happens. If you are not serious, continue on the current course. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that recognizes the importance of motorsports in America and their century of evolution. 100 years ago last March, Ormond-Daytona Beach in Volusia County, Florida was the venue for the very first annual ``Winter Automobile Racing Meet.'' This race is now recognized as the genesis of organized auto racing, giving Ormond-Daytona Beach the title of ``Birthplace of Speed.'' In the decades that have followed, motorsports have evolved from scattered impromptu events to the second most popular sport in the United States. Motorsports is now the fastest growing sport in the country, drawing millions of spectators and tens of millions of television viewers each year. For example, 13 million fans will attend NASCAR races alone in 2003. Millions of additional fans will attend races sanctioned by the Automobile Racing Club of America, (ACRA); Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART); Indy Racing League (IRL); and the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA). Tracks are found throughout the country, with over 900 facilities in all 50 States hosting races sponsored by sanctioning bodies. These tracks make significant contributions to the economies of our communities, ranging from smaller facilities that host weekly racing series to the largest superspeedways such as Talladega and Daytona. Fans travel hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles to attend these races, frequently arriving several days ahead of the headline event. Once at the destination track, they enjoy a variety of interactive entertainment attractions, including racing simulators, concerts, memorabilia vendors, hospitality facilities, opportunities to meet drivers, tours of the track and garage areas, etc. Motorsports entertainment facilities are amusement parks, dedicated to the themes of speed and competition. My resolution today recognizes the importance and growth of motorsports. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which honors the motorsports entertainment industry for its impressive contributions to the national economy and its ongoing evolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help revitalize the Denver Federal Center (DFC) and the surrounding community of Lakewood, CO. This bill will allow the General Services Administration to enter into public/private partnerships, thereby efficiently and effectively addressing infrastructure and environmental issues at the DFC. The DFC is a 670-acre campus with 77 active buildings. It began as a munitions manufacturing plan during World War II. Since then, many other agencies have called the DFC home, leaving behind a history of landfills, leaking underground storage tanks, chemical laboratories, and firing ranges that have contaminated the area. Additonally, many of the existing buildings are more than 60 years old and are in need of extensive repair or replacement. The Colorado Department of Public Health is requiring an environmental investigation and clean-up of contaminated areas at a cost of over $70 million. As the Denver metropolitan region grows, the GSA has an opportunity to create public / private partnerships that will help foster the growth of the DFC campus into a regional hub of commerce and transportation as formulated in the visions of the local communities. At the same time, through these public / private partnerships, the DFC will be able to help clean up a 60-year-old environmental mess. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) would like to create an intermodal facility and public transit hub as the West Corridor Light Rail is developed. New offices can be developed, not only for Federal tenants, but potentially for private businesses as well. I believe this bill will provide many benefits all around--through the partnerships created, this bill will create new jobs and preserve jobs and institutions already in place, while at the same time taking care of a much needed and necessary environmental preservation. 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 that will help revitalize the Denver Federal Center (DFC) and the surrounding community of Lakewood, CO. This bill will allow the General Services Administration to enter into public/private partnerships, thereby efficiently and effectively addressing infrastructure and environmental issues at the DFC. The DFC is a 670-acre campus with 77 active buildings. It began as a munitions manufacturing plan during World War II. Since then, many other agencies have called the DFC home, leaving behind a history of landfills, leaking underground storage tanks, chemical laboratories, and firing ranges that have contaminated the area. Additonally, many of the existing buildings are more than 60 years old and are in need of extensive repair or replacement. The Colorado Department of Public Health is requiring an environmental investigation and clean-up of contaminated areas at a cost of over $70 million. As the Denver metropolitan region grows, the GSA has an opportunity to create public / private partnerships that will help foster the growth of the DFC campus into a regional hub of commerce and transportation as formulated in the visions of the local communities. At the same time, through these public / private partnerships, the DFC will be able to help clean up a 60-year-old environmental mess. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) would like to create an intermodal facility and public transit hub as the West Corridor Light Rail is developed. New offices can be developed, not only for Federal tenants, but potentially for private businesses as well. I believe this bill will provide many benefits all around--through the partnerships created, this bill will create new jobs and preserve jobs and institutions already in place, while at the same time taking care of a much needed and necessary environmental preservation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 10 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending committee business; to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 1770, the Indian Money Account Claims Satisfaction Act of 2003. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Intermodal Equipment Safety and Responsibility Act of 2003. This bill is a companion bill to language originally brought to the floor of the House of Representatives by my good friend from South Carolina, Representative Henry Brown. Every day, literally hundreds of unsafe intermodal chassis carrying containers leave U.S. ports and travel on our public roads and highways, endangering not only the drivers of these vehicles but also the general public which shares the road with them. This bill will go a long way to ensure that only safe, roadworthy chassis are released for use and remove this often deadly threat to highway safety. This legislation places responsibility for equipment safety and compliance with Federal and State regulations squarely where it belongs--with those who own or control the equipment. Under current law, the brunt of responsibility for equipment safety and compliance is placed on port drivers. The trucking companies and commerical drivers that service the ports do not own chassis, but are obligated by terminal operators to use the chassis provided to transport intermodal containers to and from the ports. This bill would require equipment controllers to inspect and repair intermodal equipment to meet all safety regulations prior to offering it for interchange, and to certify and document that such inspections have been performed. In addition, it gives the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration the authority to enter a port facility to review the inspection process and assure compliance. This Act also requires that citations issued for violations related to the defective condition of an intermodal chassis that is not owned by that motor carrier or driver, will not affect the motor carrier's overall safety rating or the motor carrier's driving record. The objective of this legislation is simple: to ensure that equipment controllers perform regular maintenance on intermodal equipment and give truckers safe and roadworthy equipment in compliance with current USDOT safety regulations. Professional truck drivers are not professional mechanics, nor should they be. Unfortunately, too many equipment controllers do not perform the required systematic inspection and maintenance, and truck drivers are expected to find not only visible defects, but also safety defects that are not visible. I am joined by the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Longshoreman's Association, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the American Trucking Association and the Truckload Carriers Association who all worked together diligently to reach a consensus of support for this legislation. The traveling American public deserves to be confident that the roads they share with truckers are safe. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Intermodal Equipment Safety and Responsibility Act of 2003. This bill is a companion bill to language originally brought to the floor of the House of Representatives by my good friend from South Carolina, Representative Henry Brown. Every day, literally hundreds of unsafe intermodal chassis carrying containers leave U.S. ports and travel on our public roads and highways, endangering not only the drivers of these vehicles but also the general public which shares the road with them. This bill will go a long way to ensure that only safe, roadworthy chassis are released for use and remove this often deadly threat to highway safety. This legislation places responsibility for equipment safety and compliance with Federal and State regulations squarely where it belongs--with those who own or control the equipment. Under current law, the brunt of responsibility for equipment safety and compliance is placed on port drivers. The trucking companies and commerical drivers that service the ports do not own chassis, but are obligated by terminal operators to use the chassis provided to transport intermodal containers to and from the ports. This bill would require equipment controllers to inspect and repair intermodal equipment to meet all safety regulations prior to offering it for interchange, and to certify and document that such inspections have been performed. In addition, it gives the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration the authority to enter a port facility to review the inspection process and assure compliance. This Act also requires that citations issued for violations related to the defective condition of an intermodal chassis that is not owned by that motor carrier or driver, will not affect the motor carrier's overall safety rating or the motor carrier's driving record. The objective of this legislation is simple: to ensure that equipment controllers perform regular maintenance on intermodal equipment and give truckers safe and roadworthy equipment in compliance with current USDOT safety regulations. Professional truck drivers are not professional mechanics, nor should they be. Unfortunately, too many equipment controllers do not perform the required systematic inspection and maintenance, and truck drivers are expected to find not only visible defects, but also safety defects that are not visible. I am joined by the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Longshoreman's Association, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the American Trucking Association and the Truckload Carriers Association who all worked together diligently to reach a consensus of support for this legislation. The traveling American public deserves to be confident that the roads they share with truckers are safe. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 10 a.m. in Room ``TBA'' of the Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending committee business; to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 1770, the Indian Money Account Claims Satisfaction Act of 2003. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Inouye, Domenici and Stabenow in submitting a Senate Resolution urging settlement of the 8-year old Indian trust funds lawsuit, and by Senators Inouye and Domenici in introducing a bill that I hope and believe will accomplish that goal, the ``Indian Money Claims Satisfaction Act of 2003''. The saga of Cobell v. Norton did not start in 1996 with the filing of the lawsuit, it began long before any of us were born. In 1887 Congress enacted the General Allotment Act to break up the tribal landmass and teach Indians to be ``civilized''. The legacy of that failed policy is still with us in the form of horribly fractionated Indian lands and the class action case filed in 1996 that is still ongoing. The remedy the plaintiffs in the Cobell case are seeking is an accounting by the United States of funds that are or should be in the hundreds of thousands of individual Indian money accounts (IIMs) managed and maintained by the Federal Government. Eight long years have passed without an accounting, and without a single penny being paid to an account holder. Last month, Judge Lamberth issued a 400-page decision and order that guarantees at least 5 more years of litigation, hundreds of millions and maybe billions more spent, with no end in sight to the lawsuit. Those who insist that a decision by the Judge would mean the beginning of the end of this case are wrong: with likely appeals, Congressional squabbling over money spent on this effort, and additional lawsuits aimed at securing money damages, this case is just beginning. The U.S. claims that pennies on the dollar are owed the plaintiffs but, without billions more spent on accounting activity, it cannot say for sure how much is in the accounts or should be in the accounts. Preliminary cost estimates from the Interior Department suggest that it will take $10 billion or more to comply with Judge Lamberth's order on historic accounting. This money will be spent year after year through Fiscal Year 2008 at least. I believe this money is better spent on re-constituting the Indian land base and building a forward-looking, state-of-the-art trust management system, and providing more dollars to Indian health care and education, which we know are underfunded. The plaintiffs claim more than $175 billion dollars should be in these accounts, a number the Department has vigorously contested. Today I am introducing a bill that I believe will end this lawsuit in a way to provide justice to individual Indian account holders and restore some sense of normalcy to the Interior Department. Just as the Indian Claims Commission, the Trust Resolution Corporation, and the Volcker Committee on Swiss Bank Accounts helped resolve cases of highly complex, historical-based litigation, the bill I am introducing will establish a 9-member, expert-filled ``Indian Money Claims Satisfaction Task Force'' to develop alternative methodologies to arrive at account balances. The bill also establishes the ``Indian Money Claims Tribunal'' to provide binding arbitration for any IIM holder that contests the account balance provided by the Task Force. I look forward to the swift enactment of this bill and with it, an honorable conclusion to this sad and destructive chapter of Federal- Indian relations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. David W. Anderson to be the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; to be followed immediately by a business meeting to consider pending committee business. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would change the student borrower interest rate structure by continuing or establishing variable rates for all student loans on a going-forward basis. More specifically, it would tie all future loan interest rates for student loan borrowers to the bond equivalent rate for 91-day Treasury bills and would cap the loans at 7.75 percent. PLUS loans would be capped at 8.5 percent. Briefly, variable rates for all student loan borrowers would provide the following: They will automatically ``refinance'' outstanding loans to current rates on a routine basis, thereby, avoiding the problems associated with the refinancing of old loans under new rate structures. They will mitigate the extraordinary costs to the Federal Government currently associated with the consolidation of student loans under a fixed rate structure. They will ensure that consolidation loans are offered to those borrowers who need them rather than as a loan of convenience for those who no longer need Federal subsidies. They will allow savings which will ensure that Federal resources can be directed to those who have not yet had an opportunity to pursue or to complete an educational program thereby ensuring future access to higher education. They will provide borrowers with the best rates available in the market while also capping those rates to ensure that borrowers are not adversely affected if rates rise beyond an acceptable level. And, they will protect the Federal Treasury against extraordinary subsidies as interest rates rise above a preset fixed rate structure. The Federal student loan programs have made it possible for millions of American students to attend college. The current program structure has resulted in a highly reliable, low-cost source of funds for students and their families. But, the recent consolidation- reconsolidation loan situation shows that changes are needed. The intent of the consolidation loan program was to provide an opportunity for borrowers with multiple loan holders and a high debt level to consolidate that debt with one holder and allow for a single monthly payment. However, with recent interest rate drops, the number and volume of consolidation loans has increased dramatically. Some borrowers have consolidated their loans and locked in at a fixed rate only to see the rates drop further and leave them with no way to access the lower rates. And, recently, the well-publicized growth in the Federal consolidation loan program prompted the Congressional Budget Office to project the estimated program costs for the current fiscal year to triple from $3 billion to $9 billion. There has been much talk about allowing borrowers to reconsolidate their loans at a lower rate. However, it appears that retroactive changes to the law could undermine the predictability that makes it possible for lenders and investors to offer efficient pricing to students who need loans. Reconsolidation could diminish the quality and the stability of the overall loan program which would hurt future student borrowers. Currently, student loans, known as Stafford Loans, are payable on a variable rate basis, a program feature that protects the Federal Treasury from sharp increases in costs. However, consolidation loans are made on a fixed rate basis, creating an incentive for borrowers to ``consolidate'' their student loans even when they are not experiencing repayment problems. My legislation would prevent future borrowers from facing the situation which confronts many of our borrowers today. It would establish a variable interest rate and establish a reasonable cap on all student loans. It would level the playing field for future students and borrowers. It appears clear that changes are needed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and move forward with a plan that would preserve the integrity of the overall loan program while protecting all future student borrowers from the vagaries of fluctuating interest rates. 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 legislation which would change the student borrower interest rate structure by continuing or establishing variable rates for all student loans on a going-forward basis. More specifically, it would tie all future loan interest rates for student loan borrowers to the bond equivalent rate for 91-day Treasury bills and would cap the loans at 7.75 percent. PLUS loans would be capped at 8.5 percent. Briefly, variable rates for all student loan borrowers would provide the following: They will automatically ``refinance'' outstanding loans to current rates on a routine basis, thereby, avoiding the problems associated with the refinancing of old loans under new rate structures. They will mitigate the extraordinary costs to the Federal Government currently associated with the consolidation of student loans under a fixed rate structure. They will ensure that consolidation loans are offered to those borrowers who need them rather than as a loan of convenience for those who no longer need Federal subsidies. They will allow savings which will ensure that Federal resources can be directed to those who have not yet had an opportunity to pursue or to complete an educational program thereby ensuring future access to higher education. They will provide borrowers with the best rates available in the market while also capping those rates to ensure that borrowers are not adversely affected if rates rise beyond an acceptable level. And, they will protect the Federal Treasury against extraordinary subsidies as interest rates rise above a preset fixed rate structure. The Federal student loan programs have made it possible for millions of American students to attend college. The current program structure has resulted in a highly reliable, low-cost source of funds for students and their families. But, the recent consolidation- reconsolidation loan situation shows that changes are needed. The intent of the consolidation loan program was to provide an opportunity for borrowers with multiple loan holders and a high debt level to consolidate that debt with one holder and allow for a single monthly payment. However, with recent interest rate drops, the number and volume of consolidation loans has increased dramatically. Some borrowers have consolidated their loans and locked in at a fixed rate only to see the rates drop further and leave them with no way to access the lower rates. And, recently, the well-publicized growth in the Federal consolidation loan program prompted the Congressional Budget Office to project the estimated program costs for the current fiscal year to triple from $3 billion to $9 billion. There has been much talk about allowing borrowers to reconsolidate their loans at a lower rate. However, it appears that retroactive changes to the law could undermine the predictability that makes it possible for lenders and investors to offer efficient pricing to students who need loans. Reconsolidation could diminish the quality and the stability of the overall loan program which would hurt future student borrowers. Currently, student loans, known as Stafford Loans, are payable on a variable rate basis, a program feature that protects the Federal Treasury from sharp increases in costs. However, consolidation loans are made on a fixed rate basis, creating an incentive for borrowers to ``consolidate'' their student loans even when they are not experiencing repayment problems. My legislation would prevent future borrowers from facing the situation which confronts many of our borrowers today. It would establish a variable interest rate and establish a reasonable cap on all student loans. It would level the playing field for future students and borrowers. It appears clear that changes are needed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and move forward with a plan that would preserve the integrity of the overall loan program while protecting all future student borrowers from the vagaries of fluctuating interest rates. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003, which builds on the solid foundation laid in Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-462, and S. 550, the Indian Probate Act of 2003, which I also sponsored. The bill I am introducing today would bring a number of greatly needed amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, including a revised uniform Federal probate code applicable to trust and restricted Indian lands, and provisions that will facilitate the consolidation of interests in highly fractionated Indian lands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003, which builds on the solid foundation laid in Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-462, and S. 550, the Indian Probate Act of 2003, which I also sponsored. The bill I am introducing today would bring a number of greatly needed amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, including a revised uniform Federal probate code applicable to trust and restricted Indian lands, and provisions that will facilitate the consolidation of interests in highly fractionated Indian lands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing on S. 550, the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs committee at 224-2251. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 16, 2003 at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the Missouri River Master Manual. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the Department of Interior Tribal Self Governance Amendments of 2003, a bill that is a companion to the bill we introduced yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Self Governance Amendments of 2003. Taken together, these bills will strengthen the government-to- government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes by shepherding in the next phase of Indian Self Governance. Due to the Federal reservation status of Indian lands, the Department of the Interior, among all Federal agencies, has historically had the most significant impact on the lives of Indians. This longstanding relationship with Indian tribes has often been stormy, with Federal bureaucrats providing all or nearly all services to Indian tribes and their members, including police, fire, education and health care services. The Federal-tribal relationship took a decided turn for the better in 1975 with the enactment of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 93-638. Since passage of Pub. L. 93- 638, Congress has systematically devolved to Indian tribes the authority and responsibility to manage Federal programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The bill I am introducing today will expand the provisions of Self Governance within the Department of the Interior by creating a Demonstration Project within the Department of the Interior for non-BIA programs. This Demonstration Project is integral to the continued success of Self Governance for Indians, as there remain many non-BIA programs with the Department that affect the ability of Indian tribes to better serve their members. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the Department of Interior Tribal Self Governance Amendments of 2003, a bill that is a companion to the bill we introduced yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Self Governance Amendments of 2003. Taken together, these bills will strengthen the government-to- government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes by shepherding in the next phase of Indian Self Governance. Due to the Federal reservation status of Indian lands, the Department of the Interior, among all Federal agencies, has historically had the most significant impact on the lives of Indians. This longstanding relationship with Indian tribes has often been stormy, with Federal bureaucrats providing all or nearly all services to Indian tribes and their members, including police, fire, education and health care services. The Federal-tribal relationship took a decided turn for the better in 1975 with the enactment of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 93-638. Since passage of Pub. L. 93- 638, Congress has systematically devolved to Indian tribes the authority and responsibility to manage Federal programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The bill I am introducing today will expand the provisions of Self Governance within the Department of the Interior by creating a Demonstration Project within the Department of the Interior for non-BIA programs. This Demonstration Project is integral to the continued success of Self Governance for Indians, as there remain many non-BIA programs with the Department that affect the ability of Indian tribes to better serve their members. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. 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, Bingaman, Johnson, and Thomas in submitting a resolution to honor Native American Indian veterans for their service in the Armed Forces of the United States and to designate November 7, 2003 as ``National Native American Veterans Day''. As the events of conflict in Iraq continue we all hope and pray for the safe return of the men and women who are overseas, far from home protecting our nation and others. Native Americans have fought in wars and conflicts that date back to the days before the Revolution and fought alongside the colonists during the Revolutionary war. Native people continued the call by enlisting in the armed services of the United States to fight in the many conflicts of our past including the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American war in 1898. In 1868, the U.S. Army established the Indian scouts to utilize their special skill of scouting the enemy. Theodore Roosevelt recruited Native Americans to be part of his famous Rough Riders. This is probably a little known fact. Within the last century, approximately 12,000 Native Americans served in World War I, 44,000 in World War II and the Korean War, 42,000 in the Vietnam war, and at the end of the 20th century there were nearly 190,000 Native American Indian men and women serving in the military. At the same time, few people know that American Indians were not made citizens until Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. In 2001, I was honored to take part in ceremonies awarding the Congressional gold medal to the Navajo Code Talkers who made such a great contribution to the war efforts in the Pacific during World War II. At a time when the Japanese were breaking the codes developed by American intelligence, the Code Talkers made use of the Navajo language to confound the enemy and communicate military strategy and positions without compromise. Of all the codes developed in World War II, the Navajo language code was the only one not broken during World War II. The Code Talkers story is not the only one worthy of recognition. Only recently was it rediscovered that an Oneida woman, Tyonajanegen, fought alongside her husband, an American army officer, during the American Revolution. Sacajawea, a Shoshone woman, guided and served as an interpreter for Lewis and Clark during their expedition. Native women also served in the Spanish American War and World War I as military nurses. Approximately 800 Native women served in World War II. They continued to answer the call throughout the military campaigns of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operations Desert Shield and, recently, Desert Storm. We also honor the memory of Lori Piestewa, a Hopi woman, who fought valiantly and bravely to protect her fellows during the invasion of Iraq. Just as we cheered when Jessica Lynch was rescued and returned home, all Americans were saddened to learn of Lori Piestewa's fate. Some warriors served this country valiantly, yet fell, not by a bullet, but by a broken heart. Ira Hayes is one such man. He was a Pima Indian from the Gila River Indian Reservation in Arizona. He eventually died a broken man, a victim of alcoholism and despair but to me will forever be known as an American hero who will forever be known as one of the Marines who raised the American flag with five others atop Mount Suribachi after taking the island of Iwo Jima from the Japanese. Indian people have special admiration and respect for our veterans. They pray for ones still in battle, alongside their fellow Americans, so that they can have a safe journey back to their loving homes and families. They pray for the ones who have fought, and now, continue their journey through life's struggles. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Bingaman, Johnson, Domenici, McCain, Thomas and Hatch in submitting a resolution to recognize the many contributions American Indians and Alaska Natives have made to our great Nation and to designate November, 2003, as ``National American Indian Heritage Month'' as Congress has done for nearly a decade. Native people have left an indelible imprint on many aspects of our everyday life that most Americans take for granted. The arts, education, science, the armed forces, medicine, industry, and government are a few of the areas that have been influenced by American Indian and Alaska Native people over the last 500 years. In the medical field, many of the healing remedies that we use today derive from practices used first by Native people hundreds of years before we incorporated them into western medicine. Native people revere the natural environment, have great respect for elders and veterans, and cherish the family which is the center of Indian life and culture. These values are deeply rooted, strongly embraced and thrive with generation after generation of Native people. From the difficult days of Valley Forge through our peace keeping efforts around the world today, American Indian and Alaska Native people have proudly served and dedicated their lives in the military readiness and defense of our country in wartime and in peace. It is a fact that on a per capita basis, Native participation rate in the armed Forces outstrips the rates of all other groups in the Nation. Many Native men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending the Nation, some before they were granted citizenship in 1924. Many of the words in our language have been borrowed from Native languages, including many of the names of the rivers, cities, and States across America. Indian arts and crafts have also made a distinct impression on our heritage. By designating November 2003, as ``National American Indian Heritage Month'' we will continue to encourage self-esteem, pride, and self- awareness among American Indians and Alaska Natives of all ages and remind all Americans of the contributions of the Native people of this great land.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 2 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1438, a bill to provide for equitable compensation of the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation in settlement of claims of the Tribe concerning the contribution of the Tribe to the production of hydro power by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Self Governance Amendments of 2003, a bill that will usher in the next phase in Indian Self Governance in health and health- related programs. Up to 1970 the U.S. Government was the sole provider of all or nearly all services to Indian tribes and their members. For many it is hard to recall that little more than 30 years ago the Federal bureaucracy and its employees provided all police, fire, resource husbandry, education, and health care services in Indian communities. The effects on tribal governments were negative and, by crowding out the tribes, undermined tribal efforts at self-government. The Federal monopoly in services was ended in 1970 when President Nixon issued his now-famous Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs that called for a greater tribal role in designing and implementing Federal services and programs and in re-building tribal governments. Nixon's Message led to the enactment of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 93-638. Since then Congress has systematically devolved to Indian tribes the authority and responsibility to manage Federal programs and assume control over their own affairs. Tribal Self Governance aims to foster strong tribal governments and healthy reservation economies as mechanisms to further tribal self- government. Self Governance has resulted in a reduction in the Federal bureaucracy and an improvement in the quality of services delivered to tribal members. Instead of Federal micro-management, the Indian tribes can tailor the programs to unique local conditions and better serve their members. For good reason, Tribal Self Governance has been embraced and expanded by Congress and the executive repeatedly with amendments enacted in 1984, 1988, 1994, and 2000. Building on the solid successes of the early years, the amendments made permanent Self Governance in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and launched additional demonstrations in the Indian Health Service. In 2000, I introduced a bill that was enacted to make Self Governance in Health Care permanent at the IHS. The bill I am introducing today will create a demonstration project for non-Indian Health Service programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.