Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that we did try to stay within our allocation, as you know. We had many more requests than we were capable of dealing with and our allocation was raised by $100 million. So we did stay within that. We simply could not fit all of the requests in the original amount we were allocated.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that an additional 5 minutes be added to the 10 minutes for any other debate.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, if there is no further discussion, I believe the yeas and nays have already been asked for, and I ask that we proceed to the vote on the conference report.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report on H.R. 2490, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve this conference report. Because of the budget constraints, we were not able to give everything that everyone wanted, obviously; but that is certainly what compromise is all about. It took us 6 weeks to get this report to conference, by the way. At the outset, I thank the ranking member of the Treasury Subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and his staff for all of their valuable assistance and support during that process. The conference report provides a total of $28,239,811,000, of which $13,706,000,000 is discretionary spending. We have provided funding necessary for the Department of the Treasury, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and various independent agencies to move into the new millennium. Here are some of the highlights of this conference report. The conference provided $12.32 million to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Expand the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. This is $1.12 million more than the requested level, and brings the total funding for this very effective program to $51.32 million. The conference also provided $13 million to ATF for grants to State and local law enforcement to allow participation in the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program. The GREAT Program provides our youth with the tools they need to resist the powerful pull of gangs and has been highly successful as a deterrent to the growth of youth gangs. The conference report provides funding for the continued operation and growth of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. We are still very much committed to the consolidation of training for Federal law enforcement officers at FLETC. After completion of the five-year construction master plan, FLETC will be better able to serve the training demands of most Federal law enforcement agencies. For the Customs Service, the conference has provided $4.3 million for pre-hiring polygraph examinations and $2.5 million for the creation of the Office of Assistant Commissioner for Training to continue integrity efforts begun last year. The conference has funded the Customs Cyber-Smuggling Center at $4 million, which is a $1.6 million increase over last year. The conference has provided full funding for the Internal Revenue Service to allow them to fulfill the requirements of the Restructuring and Reform Act, to proceed with their much-needed organizational modernization plan, and to continue necessary improvements in customer service. This funding also provides $6 million for grants to low income taxpayer clinics. The conference has increased funding for the very critical technology transfer program under the Drug Czar's Office. This $13.25 million program provides drug interdiction technology to State and local law enforcement. For fiscal year 2000, the funding was increased by more than $10 million over the administration's request. The conference has provided $185 million for the continued operation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign, and $192 million for the popular and effective high intensity drug trafficking areas (HIDTA) Program. In addition, the conference has included funding for a management review of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) by an independent entity in an effort to strengthen the office's operations and programs. The conference included a combined total of $2 million for the model state drug law conferences and the National Drug Court Institute, programs which assist State and local enforcement in combating the end results of drug addiction and resulting crimes. Mr. President, again I say that everyone did not get everything, and certainly everybody doesn't agree with every provision of this bill. But I think it is a very worthy conference report, on balance, and I think we brought to the Senate an excellent product. It certainly deserves the support of the entire Senate and signature of the President. I again thank my friend and coworker, Senator Dorgan, for his hard work, and also the staff we depended very heavily on this time around, including Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, of the majority staff, Barbara Retzlaf, who left a couple weeks to go to the Commerce Department, Chip Walgren, and Dylan Presman. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of this conference report: Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, Chip Walgren, and Dylan Presman.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) of 1983 to address the issue of Indian land fractionation: the underlying factor in the Indian trust reform effort. Under the 1871 Allotment Act, or ``Dawes'' act as it became known, the President was authorized to break up Indian reservations, allotting to each member of the tribe a tract of land. The Act also directed the Secretary of Interior to acquire some of the remaining tribal lands; often for subsequent resale to non-Indians. The day the Allotment Act became law, this country probably violated more treaties than in the hundred years before this Act or in the hundred years since. The negative effects of the Act continue to be felt even to this day. For example, the existence of hundreds of thousands of small, undivided fractional interests in Indian lands has swamped the Bureau of Indian Affairs' ability to keep track of who owns these interests, who is leasing them, how much is owed, and who has a right to the revenues from these lands. In 1934, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), ending the allotment policy and everything that it stood for by providing that no new allotments would be mandated by the federal government. The IRA authorized the Secretary of Interior to acquire lands for tribes, enabling Indian tribes to re-establish their land bases which had been decimated by the allotment policy. Notwithstanding the IRA, the ownership of individual allotments continued to fragment. For example the four heirs of an Indian who died owning a 160 acre allotment would each receive a 25 percent interest in the entire allotment; not a 40 acre parcel. If all four of those heirs had four children, these 16 heirs would each receive only a 1.56 percent interest, divided among 64 owners. In such situations, even locating the individuals to obtain their approval for a lease is nearly impossible. Clearly, getting a handle on the geometric rise in fractionated interests is necessary or the problem will be beyond our efforts to improve the management of tribal trust lands and funds. Previous Congressional efforts to reverse fractionation were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. This proposal makes use of the lessons we have learned from those efforts. In 1983, Congress enacted the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA), authorizing Indian tribes to enact land consolidation plans to sell or lease their lands to acquire fractional interests. The Act also allowed tribes to acquire, at fair market value, all of the interests in an allotment, and to enact probate codes to limit inheritance of allotted lands to Indians or tribal members. The most controversial provision of the ILCA involved an escheat provision preventing the inheritance of any interest in land that was 2 percent or less of an undivided ownership in an allotment if it generated less than $100 before returning to the tribe. The Supreme Court found this section unconstitutional because it restricted Indians' ability to pass their land interests to their heirs. In 1984 Congress amended the ILCA to provide that undivided interests of 2 percent or less only returned to the tribe if they were incapable of earning $100 in any one of the five years from the date of its owner's death. In 1997, the Court once again ruled that the escheat provision of the act was unconstitutional. The bill I am introducing today makes use of nearly two decades of Congressional efforts to deal with the problem of land fractionation. We have the benefit of two Supreme Court cases to guide our deliberations. I am pleased to report that associations of individual allotment owners, in particular the Indian Land Working Group, have made very constructive proposals and contributions to our understanding of how land consolidation legislation may affect their members. The bill also uses the Administration's proposed legislation as a framework for reforming the ILCA. This bill establishes a three-pronged approach to dealing with the problems of fractionated ownership of allotted lands. First, the bill provides desperately needed reform for the probate of interests in allotted lands, including limitations on who may inherit these interests. Second, this bill would prohibit the inheritance of any interests that represent 2 percent or less of the ownership of an allotment unless it is specifically provided for in a valid will. This provision will be controversial, but the Administration insists that it is necessary to address: ``one of the root causes of our trust asset management difficulties.'' This provision will only apply in those situations where Indian owners are notified in advance that their interests could be lost unless they execute a will to address the 2 percent interest issues. Finally, the bill establishes time-frames for BIA review of tribal probate codes, and authorizes the Secretary to acquire fractional interests on behalf of a tribe. The Secretary will apply the lease proceeds from these interests until the purchase price is recouped. Indian tribes with approved land consolidation plans may enter into agreements with the Secretary to use these funds for their acquisition program. In either case, the focus of this program will be consolidating small fractional interests that are choking the system. The bill takes some steps to encourage and assist part-owners of allotments who are trying to consolidate the ownership of their allotments, and makes it federal policy to assist with transactions, such as land exchanges between those owning comparable fractional interests. There is a demonstrable need for more resources to address the problems associated with land fractionation, including the need to educate allotment owners about probate planning options and opportunities. Creative solutions to this issue should be pursued. For example, some have proposed the use of federal income tax credits for those individuals who convey their fractional interest to a tribe. This bill does not please all parties to the debate, but it is a good faith effort to achieve most of our shared goals. If these parties will work in good faith, I will do my part as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee to convene hearings and work with them through the legislative process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act of 1994 established the Office of Special Trustee within the Department of Interior. Many believe that the reform efforts initiated by the Act were dealt a serious set-back when the person confirmed by the Senate for this position resigned in response to the Secretary's effort to re-organize the Office of the Special Trustee without notifying the Special Trustee, the Congress, the Advisory Commission established by the 1994 Act, affected Indian tribes, or Indian account holders. A number of concerns have been raised by the absence of a Special Trustee appointed and confirmed in a manner consistent with the Act. Perhaps the most important concern raised in hearings on the trust fund crisis is the absence of a responsible official with either the independence or the appearance of independence of an appointed Special Trustee. The Act was designed to allow the Special Trustee to act and advise Congress in an independent manner. For example, the Act required the Special Trustee to certify in writing of the adequacy of the budget requests for those entities responsible for discharging the Secretary's trust responsibility. In light of the federal government's dismal history of its management of trust funds, it is not surprising that Indian tribes and Indian account holders are concerned that the same institutions that produced this crisis are in complete control of the efforts to reform it. In addition, trust management experts have testified before joint hearings of the Indian Affairs and the Energy and Natural Resources Committees that it is simply naive to assume that comprehensive rethinking and reform will be carried out by the very institutions that are in desperate need of reform. In an effort to regain the independence needed to assure individual and tribal account holders, the legislation I introduce today will establish the position of Special Trustee for Data Cleanup and Internal Control. Under this legislation, the person holding this position will be appointed by the Inspector General of the Department of Interior to ensure that the incumbent is not beholden to the entities responsible for developing or implementing the Administration's High Level Implementation Plan. This bill would allow the Secretary to remove the incumbent only for good cause. Under this bill, the Special Trustee for Data Cleanup and Internal Control is directed to contract out for the matters under his or her control and to retain temporary employees to the greatest extent feasible. This will ensure those cleaning up the system and designing internal controls will not be subject to the criticism that they might be tempted to gloss over past mistakes or develop internal controls that can easily be fulfilled. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Native American Census Participation Enhancement Act of 1999. Like all past censuses, the 2000 Decennial Census will play a vital role in American society. By counting the population of the United States, the decennial census serves as the statistical basis for distributing federal funds, redistricting for political representation, and planning for future infrastructure development. Participating in this ritual every ten years is important for all Americans. But for Native Americans, this Federal tally is perhaps even more important. As we all know, Native Americans have been under-represented in past census counts. The most recent census, conducted in 1990, was extremely inaccurate in its count of American Indians and Alaskan Natives who were living in rural reservation areas. The effects of undercounting American Indians and Alaskan Natives have real consequences for Native communities. An undercount of Native Americans skews population statistics which are used to allocate and distribute federal funds and services to tribes. For example, funds made available under the Federal Welfare-to- Work Grant program and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are both determined by reference to census statistics. These key programs offer millions of dollars in Federal assistance to help low-income Americans make the transition from welfare to work and to build healthier and more productive communities. This direct correlation between an accurate census and whether or not Native communities will be treated fairly and more than that, whether they will be given the tools they need to strengthen their economies, is the reason for the bill I am introducing today. There has been a lot of debate about the 2000 Census and whether the count can be more accurately done through statistical sampling or other methods. In my opinion, article I of our Constitution is clear in requiring that ``an actual enumeration'' be taken of the population every ten years. As chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs I have an obligation to see to it that Native Americans are treated fairly. At the same time I believe that Natives themselves bear a measure of responsibility for their destinies. Just as the Census Bureau and the United States have a legal obligation to conduct an actual count, American Indians and Alaska Natives have a responsibility to answer the census and ensure that they are represented in the final tally. This Congress and our nation can rightly demand that the United States fulfill its obligations to the Constitution and to Native Americans and achieve both a fair and complete count of American Indians and Alaskan Natives in Census 2000. The bill I am introducing today will help ensure that Native Americans achieve a higher level of participation in the Census and ensure a more accurate count by authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to provide grants to Indian tribes and organizations to stimulate Native awareness of and participation in the 2000 Census. It also provides incentives to help the Secretary and Indian tribes to recruit temporary employees and volunteer ``Census Assistants'' to work in and with Native communities and encourage Natives to answer the census. I am hopeful that as the Census Bureau continues to lay the groundwork for the 2000 Census, it take into account the unique needs of the Native communities and the importance of getting an accurate count of all Native Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President today I am pleased to introduce the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments of 1999. As many of my colleagues are aware, by the early 1990's, it was obvious that the Federal Government could not account for many of the funds it manages as the trustee to Indian tribes and their members. Most of these responsibilities were lodged in the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs. Studies by the General Accounting Office revealed that the Department and BIA lacked individuals with the knowledge, experience, or expertise needed to oversee and coordinate reform efforts. Congress reacted by enacting the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act (AITFRA) of 1994. Responding to criticisms that the Department's reform efforts were uncoordinated and piecemeal, Congress called for the appointment of a ``Special Trustee'' to provide overall management of the reform activities. The 1994 Act called for the President to nominate and for the Senate to confirm a Special Trustee with demonstrated experience in the management of trust funds, including the investment and management of large sums of money. The 1994 Act did not give the Special Trustee all of the tools he or she needed to ensure that the Federal Government would live up to the same trust standards imposed on any other trustee. For example, although Congress sought to make the Special Trustee ``independent,'' he had little recourse when Secretary Bruce Babbitt unilaterally reorganized the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians through a Secretarial Order. In fact the Special Trustee resigned following the issuance of the Order in January 1999. In 1997, the Special Trustee unveiled the Strategic Plan required by the 1994 Act. The Secretary declined an invitation by the Indian Affairs Committee to appear and explain his opposition to the Plan, especially those elements of the Plan that would allow some trust management functions to be performed by entities outside the Department of Interior. Indian Country neither firmly embraced, nor rejected the proposed Strategic Plan. Indian Country has expressed strong concerns, and often opposition to the Department's own proposal, the High Level Implementation Plan. In our joint Indian Affairs--Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearings, one theme has been repeated over and over: we cannot expect the institution that created the problem to design and implement comprehensive reforms for that system. It is also necessary to ensure that any reform proposal is the result of a broad-based consultation with all of the affected entities, especially Indian tribes, intertribal entities, and Indian account holders. It is likely that any reforms proposed by such a process will require legislative implementation. The legislation I introduce today satisfies each of these factors. First, it does not rely on those responsible for the current situation to determine the scope of reform. Second, it establishes a process that will give those with the greatest stake in this process a commensurate opportunity to develop and propose reforms. It also provides an opportunity for all those concerned to participate in this process. Finally, this legislation makes it clear that at the conclusion of this process, Congress should consider whether legislation is necessary. This bill directs the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, the Speaker of the House and Minority Leader, and the Secretary of Interior to consult and make appointments that equitably represent those who will be the most affected by the management of trust funds. The legislation also requires the Commission to consider whether private enterprise, a tribal or inter-tribal enterprise, or perhaps a government sponsored corporate entity should be part of the government's fulfillment of its trust obligation. This same commission will determine which federal regulatory agency is best suited to regulate the Federal Government's activities as trustee. Every financial institution managing and investing the money of the citizens of the United States is regulated by some entity, for example by the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Reserve Board, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The only exception that I am aware of is the federal government when it acts as a trustee to Indians and Indian tribes. And by now we can all see the mess that has resulted from this lack of regulatory oversight. This bill does not mandate the form of organization or entity best suited to oversee the Federal Government's activities as trustee. Instead, it creates an open and fair process for these issues to be decided by those who know the most about how financial institutions and their trust Departments are regulated. This bill builds upon a proposal made by the Intertribal Monitoring Association and represents a starting point for determining how to strengthen the 1994 Act. This bill is a necessary counterpart to another bill I am introducing to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 to address the fractionated ownership of Indian lands, one of the primary causes of the trust funds crisis. With both measures, it is essential that all parties involved--the tribes, individual Indians, the Interior Department, and Congress--set out to finally lay the groundwork for real trust fund reform. Native Americans deserve no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. In that letter, the Secretary indicates the final rule will not be implemented and no tribal agreements will be authorized until the courts decide the real issue of whether he has authority to issue these procedures. That may take several years. I ask the legislative process proceed and we not short circuit it with this amendment. I ask the Senator from Florida to withdraw that amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent to return to the Graham amendment so that I may speak in opposition to it for a minute.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think anyone has more disagreement with Secretary Babbitt than I do as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. Certainly Indian trust funds have been an issue on which we have been at odds for literally months with the Secretary. In addition to that, as a member of the Energy Committee, I have had my disagreements with him on grazing, water, and many other things, too. But there are at least four reasons to oppose this amendment. I hope my friend, the Senator from Florida, will consider withdrawing it. First, after the Supreme Court decided in Seminole v. Florida that Indian tribes cannot sue States for unwillingness to negotiate Indian gaming agreements, it created a terrific problem, as many Members know. We have spent a considerable amount of time in our committee, with me as the chairman of that Committee on Indian Affairs, looking for ways that States and tribes can come to some consensus. We have a pending bill, S. 985. We have worked on it very hard. We want the legislative process to proceed. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires tribes to have compacts before they can operate class III gaming. Right now, unfortunately, the States hold all the cards since the court decided the States do not have to negotiate in good faith. The Secretary of the Interior is now in Federal court over his ability to issue the kind of procedures that this amendment seeks to stop. As the Senator from Florida probably knows, these procedures can only be put into effect if they are published in the Federal Register. The States of Alabama and Florida have sued the Secretary of the Interior if this case moves ahead in the courts. It is in the interest of all parties, States and tribes, for the United States to allow the courts to decide once and for all if the Secretary has this authority. I point out, the House has already rejected a similar amendment. I have a letter dated August 2 from the Secretary of the Interior. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I was off the floor. What is the pending business? Are we going back to the Graham amendment now?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Indian Tribal Justice System Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 1999'' to bolster earlier efforts to strengthen Indian tribal justice systems such as the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1933. I want to be clear: the legislation I am introducing today is intended to complement, not substitute for, the 1993 Act. Unfortunately, most Native Americans continue to live in abject poverty and as with other indigent groups, access to legal assistance is poor. In 1997 the Department of Justice published a report showing that crime, particularly violent crime, is rampant on Indian lands. The Congress and the Administration both properly responded with an infusion of millions of dollars for crime prevention, prosecution and detention. There is also a huge need civil legal assistance in Native communities that is not now being met and that is one of the aims of the bill I am introducing today. Since the late 1960's Indian Legal Services (``ILS'') organizations have stepped into the fray to provide basic legal service to individual Native Americans and tribes whose members fall within the federal poverty guidelines. There are now 30 Indian legal service organizations--very small programs which receive the bulk of their funds from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). ILS programs provide basic, bread-and-butter legal representation to individual Indian people, and small tribes, throughout the United States. In addition to providing legal help to individual Natives, ILS assists tribes in developing tribal justice systems, including training court personnel, and strengthening the capacity of tribal courts to handle both civil and criminal matters. The ILS organizations have been involved in developing written codes on tribal law and practice and procedure in tribal courts, training tribal judges, developing tribal court ``lay advocate'' programs and training lay advocates, and the developing tribal ``peacemaking'' systems which are traditional alternative dispute resolution methods. The ILS programs carrying out these key functions include the DNA Legal Services of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; the Michigan Indian Legal Services; the Dakota Plains Legal Services; Wisconsin Judicare; Idaho Legal Aid Services; Oklahoma Indian legal Services; Pine Tree Legal Assistance of Maine, and many others. Together, tribal governments and the ILS organizations work to ensure that Native justice systems work and that Natives and non-Natives alike have confidence in tribal justice systems and institutions. Generating that confidence is important for a variety of reasons. For instance, there are many factors determining whether or not a Native community can be competitive and attract investment and business activities to boost employment: a solid physical infrastructure, a skilled and healthy workforce, access to capital, and a governing structure that encourages risk taking and entrepreneurship. Part of such an environment is a judicial system that instills confidence in businesses as well as individuals that disputes can be settled fairly, that contracts will be honored, and that the governed recognize the government's authority as legitimate. A disordered system does not foster that confidence. Whether or not individuals will have access to legal services and well-ordered tribunals is key to development. A strong ``legal infrastructure'' is widely recognized in American business circles as a necessary condition for business development whether it be in Russian, Indonesia, inner city America, or on Indian lands. Within existing appropriations, the bill I am introducing authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Tribal Justice, to provide assistance to legal service organizations and non- profit entities to help build capacity of tribal courts and tribal justice systems so that confidence in these systems can be augmented, and much-needed legal assistance will be provided. The three areas targeted for assistance are training for tribal judicial personnel, tribal civil legal assistance, and tribal criminal assistance. I believe that in addition to regulatory reform, physical infrastructure, and development assistance, strengthening tribal justice systems is another component in bringing real development to tribal economies and government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Today I join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in introducing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999. These amendments, which are desperately needed, will help to provide much needed relief and assistance to many victims of uranium exposure and make this Act more consistent with current medical knowledge. From 1946 to 1971, the United States purchased domestically-mined uranium for our nuclear weapons arsenal. Many of these mines were located in western Colorado, affecting citizens in my state. With the uranium mined there, in my colleague's state of Utah and throughout the western United States, we were able to develop vast stores of nuclear weapons, which were the key to our national security. The cold war demanded that we keep producing these weapons in order to keep up with, and defend ourselves against, the former Soviet Union. It was not until many years later that scientists began to realize that, ironically, the uranium we were mining to help create weapons to protect us in a nuclear war, was actually killing those men who mined it. Also harmed were those brave men and women who participated in atmospheric tests of the weapons armed with the uranium. By 1971, the Atomic Energy Commission had put in place, and fully implemented, ventilation and safety procedures which greatly reduced the threat of radiation exposure. But for those miners and test-site participants who were involved in the atomic weapons program in the years before the changes, there was little more available for them than a kind word and pat on the back as they developed cancer and other diseases. In 1990, we took steps to change the way we treated these victims. I cosponsored a measure in the House which allowed victims of certain types of radiation exposure to file claims with the Department of Justice and collect up to $100,000 in damages. It was the first step toward acknowledging the unknown sacrifice many of those miners and test participants made to win the cold war. With the passage of the law, the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) began further researching the health effects of radiation exposure. Their studies have revealed that several other types of cancer and nonmalignant respiratory diseases are caused by exposure to radiation, in addition to those listed in the original act. Furthermore, the BEIR Committee has discovered that many of the factors we thought contributed to cancer, such as coffee consumption, actually have no effect. Additionally, the unnecessarily long length of exposure, sometimes as high as 500 working level months, was determined by experts to be excessive and difficult to accurately measure and prove. The findings of the BEIR Committee have led us to seek to update the original law, with the advice and input of many experts in the health and mining fields, by amending the act with the latest scientific research. It's time to finish what we started in the 1990 act. These victims need to be treated fairly and receive adequate care. We also owe it to the other people who worked with uranium to continue studying the effects of their contribution on their health. That's why this bill expands coverage to other uranium victims and establishes grant programs for education and the prevention and early detection of radiogenic diseases. I ask my colleagues to join us today in making good on our promise to these people who so dutifully served their nation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act Amendments of 1999. This bill will amend Public Law 102-477, better known as ``the 477 law'' that authorizes Indian tribes and tribal organizations to bring together many federal employment and training programs, consolidate them into one plan, and in the process achieve an efficiency that otherwise would not be possible. The 1992 Act allows tribes to submit one comprehensive plan, to one agency, and in the process to bring together resources from the Departments of Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, and others for purposes of employment training. The keys to the success of ``477'' is that it is entirely voluntary-- with tribes deciding for themselves whether to take advantage of its benefits; and second, it involves no federal appropriations of funds to administer it. Participating tribes report that the elimination of paperwork and bureaucracy are as important as is the administrative flexibility that ``477'' provides to tribes. The focus of the 1996 federal welfare reform laws now being implemented by states and Indian tribes is on getting and retaining employment. For Native American communities, many of whom suffer unemployment rates in the 80 to 90 percent range, job opportunities are difficult to come by and as a result the success of the 1996 law in Native communities is threatened. In the 106th Congress the Committee on Indian Affairs has put economic and business development on Native lands at the center of its agenda. In addition to regulatory reform, physical infrastructure, and access to capital, part of the agenda must be to find creative efforts to maximize scarce federal resources for Indian development. By all accounts, the 1992 Act has been a success for Native people struggling to get employment and training and other services related to the world of work. The bill I am introducing today will build on that success and liberalize tribal authority under the statute, authorize actual job- creation activities, permit regional consortia of Alaska Native entities to participate in the program, and require that the agencies and the ``477 tribes'' begin to take the next steps in enlarging the scope of ``477'' by bringing in the resources of additional agencies whose mission is related to human resource, physical infrastructure, and economic development assistance generally. A feasibility study and report are due to the authorizing committees not later than one year after enactment of the legislation. As the Self Governance model has already shown, putting tribes in the driver's seat results in better services to consumers, more efficient administrative frameworks, and often times a savings in federal resources. This bill will improve on an already-successful program and help Native communities provide employment training and jobs to their citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the International Anti-Corruption Act of 1999 to address the growing problem of official and unofficial corruption abroad and the direct impact on U.S. business. This bill is based on S.1200, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. As the Co-chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I intend to address this growing problem of corruption. Last month, I chaired a Commission hearing that focused on the issues of bribery and corruption in the OSCE region, an area stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The Commission heard that, in economic terms, rampant corruption and organized crime in this vast region has cost U.S. businesses billions of dollars in lost contracts with direct implications for our economy. Ironically, Mr. President, in some of the biggest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance--countries like Russia and Ukraine--the climate is either not conducive or outright hostile to American business. Last month, I also attended the annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in St. Petersburg, Russia, where I had an opportunity to sit down with U.S. business representatives to learn, first-hand, the obstacles they face. Mr. President, the time has come to stop providing aid as usual to those countries which line up to receive our assistance, only to turn around and fleece U.S. businesses conducting legitimate operations in these countries. For this reason, I am introducing the International Anti-Corruption Act of 1999 to require the State Department to submit a report and the President to certify by March 1 of each year that countries which are receiving U.S. foreign aid are, in fact, conducive to American businesses and investors. If a country is found to be hostile to American businesses, aid from the United States would be cut off. The certification would be specifically based on whether a country is making progress in, and is committed to, economic reform aimed at eliminating corruption. Under my bill, if the President certifies that a country's business climate is not conducive for U.S. businesses, that country will, in effect, be put on probation. The country would continue to receive U.S. foreign aid through the end of the fiscal year, but aid would be cut off on the first day of the next fiscal year unless the President certifies the country is making significant progress in implementing the specified economic indicators and is committed to recognizing the involvement of U.S. business. My bill also includes the customary waiver authority where the national interests of the United States are at stake. For countries certified as hostile to or not conducive for U.S. business, aid can continue if the President determines it is in the national security interest of the United States. However, the determination expires after 6 months unless the President determines its continuation is important to our national security interest. I also included a provision which would allow aid to continue to meet urgent humanitarian needs, including food, medicine, disaster and refugee relief, to support democratic political reform and rule of law activities, and to create private sector and nongovernmental organizations that are independent of government control, or to develop a free market economic system. Mr. President, instead of jumping on the bandwagon to pump millions of additional tax dollars into countries which are hostile to U.S. businesses and investors, we should be working to root out the kinds of bribery and corruption that have an overall chilling effect on much needed foreign investment. Left unchecked, such corruption will continue to undermine fledgling democracies worldwide and further impede moves toward a genuine free market economy. I believe the legislation I am introducing today is a critical step this direction, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the 31 Tribal Colleges and Universities that provide hope to America's Native communities. The Tribal College movement began some 30 years ago and has a proven track record of success as an integral, viable part of Native American communities. I believe the Tribal Colleges are the nation's best kept secrets in higher education, and it saddens me to report that the Tribal Colleges are the nation's most underfunded institutions in higher education In comparison to the mainstream community colleges and universities system, the Tribal College movement is still in its infancy. Over a 30 year period, Tribal Colleges have managed to change the social landscape of Indian country, operating on a shoe-string budget while maintaining full national collegiate accreditation standards. Tribal Colleges currently operate on a budget of forty percent less than what mainstream community colleges receive from government sources. This is a remarkable feat. Tribal Colleges continue to survive despite these and other difficulties such as problems in the recruitment and retention of faculty due to remote locations and inability to offer competitive salaries. Unlike other schools, Tribal Colleges do not receive automatic state funding for non-Indian students since they are located on Indian trust lands even though they provide GED, remedial and adult literacy programs for all students, and also doubling as community, cultural and child centers. Enrollment numbers exceed approximately 26,000 students being served, with growth rate averages of approximately eight percent per year. With this growth rate, these institutions must have adequate funding to meet the growing demands being placed on these tribal educational hubs. Tribal Colleges are experiencing an enrollment boom and with steady level-funding, will actually see the quality of services deteriorate. I am supportive of efforts to find and provide additional funds for Tribal Colleges as are many of my colleagues. Studies have shown that Tribal Colleges significantly decrease employment rates, substance abuse and teen pregnancy in some of the nation's poorest communities. More than forty percent of students who attend Tribal Colleges transfer to four-year institutions, and a majority of them return to assist their reservations after receiving their degrees. I would like to cite two examples of many success stories of the positive impact of the Tribal Colleges: Justin Finkbonner of the Lummi Nation graduated from Northwest Indian College in Bellingham, Washington with an Associate Arts Degree. Justin continued his education by transferring to complete a four-year Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Policy from the Huxley College of Environmental Studies at Western Washington University. Currently, he is serving as Morris K. Udall Foundation Native American Congressional Fellow this summer on Capitol Hill experiencing the legislative process with the intention to return to the Lummi Nation, help his people and one day achieve his goal of becoming a tribal leader. In his own words, The Northwest Indian College offered an academic setting and curriculum that no other mainstream institution could offer. For example, one would not receive Lummi tribal history and Lummi language classes at their college, plus the individual attention from faculty and staff to ensure my success. These key differences from mainstream colleges and universities still influence me to this day to aspire to achieve my goals. I had never had that much encouragement and support from this many people to show me that they car about me and my future. I owe a great deal to the Tribal Colleges. Another success story: Julie Jefferson of the Nooksack tribe, forty- five years old, a wife, a mother of three, a grandmother of five--she has worked at the Northwest Indian College for twelve years as an Administrative Assistant for Instructional Services. She is currently a full-time college employee working her way through her academic pursuits. While working in full capacity, she has managed to complete a two year Associate Arts Degree and still currently working while pursuing a four-year Bachelor's Degree in Human Services at the Woodring College of Education at Western Washington University in Washington State. Ms. Jefferson expects to graduate in the Spring of 2000 with goals to continue her education pursuing a Master's Degree. She is a classic example of the tribal student profile of being a non- traditional female student with dependents from a nearby surrounding community. Of the 31 Tribal Colleges, two offer Master's Degree programs, four offer Bachelor Degree Programs and many are in the process of developing four-year degree programs cooperatively with nearby mainstream institutions. Tribal Colleges are awarding more than 1,000 Associate Degrees each year, and these Degrees represent nineteen percent of all Associate Degrees awarded to American Indians. This is an impressive figure considering the Tribal Colleges enroll only about seven percent of all American Indian students. In Academic Year 1996-1997 the Tribal Colleges awarded: 1,016 Associate Degrees, 88 Bachelor Degrees and 7 Masters Degrees. In Academic Year 1995-1996: 1,024 Associate Degrees, 57 Bachelor Degrees and 7 Masters Degrees were awarded. Obviously, these statistics from the National Center for Education solidifies the success of the Tribal College movement by producing graduates--future, productive members of their communities and of society. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my statement with a quote from one of two special reports produced by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching titled, ``Tribal Colleges: Shaping the Future of Native America''. I, again want to reinforce my support of this nation's 31 Tribal Colleges and to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer their support along with me: Tribal Colleges offer hope. They can, with adequate support, continue to open doors of opportunity to the coming generations and help Native American communities bring together a cohesive society, one that draws inspiration from the past in order to shape a creative, inspired vision of the future.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I urge my colleagues to support passage of the pending legislation, H.R. 1175, a bill to help locate and secure the return of Zachary Baumel, a citizen of the United States, and two other Israeli soldiers who have been missing in action for more than sixteen years. I introduced the Senate version of this legislation, S. 676, which has gathered the support of 34 Senate cosponsors, and in June, the House passed H.R. 1175 by a recorded vote of 415-5. Although information concerning the whereabouts of Sgt. Baumel and his comrades has been reported since their disappearance after a battle in Northern Lebanon in 1982, Palestinian cooperation on this situation has come to a halt as no new information has been forthcoming. This legislation requires the State Department to raise this issue with the Palestinian Authority and the Syrian government and requires cooperation on this issue to be considered in future aid to the Palestinian Authority. Mr. President, I thank Senator Helms, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for his leadership in moving this legislation to the full Senate. The passage of this legislation is a critical step in helping the families of these soldiers who have been forced to live with the pain and uncertainty of this loss for more than 16 years. Resolving the issue of these Israeli MIAs can only strengthen American efforts to make Middle East peace into a reality. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Indian Tribal Justice System Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 1999'' to bolster earlier efforts to strengthen Indian tribal justice systems such as the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1933. I want to be clear: the legislation I am introducing today is intended to complement, not substitute for, the 1993 Act. Unfortunately, most Native Americans continue to live in abject poverty and as with other indigent groups, access to legal assistance is poor. In 1997 the Department of Justice published a report showing that crime, particularly violent crime, is rampant on Indian lands. The Congress and the Administration both properly responded with an infusion of millions of dollars for crime prevention, prosecution and detention. There is also a huge need civil legal assistance in Native communities that is not now being met and that is one of the aims of the bill I am introducing today. Since the late 1960's Indian Legal Services (``ILS'') organizations have stepped into the fray to provide basic legal service to individual Native Americans and tribes whose members fall within the federal poverty guidelines. There are now 30 Indian legal service organizations--very small programs which receive the bulk of their funds from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). ILS programs provide basic, bread-and-butter legal representation to individual Indian people, and small tribes, throughout the United States. In addition to providing legal help to individual Natives, ILS assists tribes in developing tribal justice systems, including training court personnel, and strengthening the capacity of tribal courts to handle both civil and criminal matters. The ILS organizations have been involved in developing written codes on tribal law and practice and procedure in tribal courts, training tribal judges, developing tribal court ``lay advocate'' programs and training lay advocates, and the developing tribal ``peacemaking'' systems which are traditional alternative dispute resolution methods. The ILS programs carrying out these key functions include the DNA Legal Services of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; the Michigan Indian Legal Services; the Dakota Plains Legal Services; Wisconsin Judicare; Idaho Legal Aid Services; Oklahoma Indian legal Services; Pine Tree Legal Assistance of Maine, and many others. Together, tribal governments and the ILS organizations work to ensure that Native justice systems work and that Natives and non-Natives alike have confidence in tribal justice systems and institutions. Generating that confidence is important for a variety of reasons. For instance, there are many factors determining whether or not a Native community can be competitive and attract investment and business activities to boost employment: a solid physical infrastructure, a skilled and healthy workforce, access to capital, and a governing structure that encourages risk taking and entrepreneurship. Part of such an environment is a judicial system that instills confidence in businesses as well as individuals that disputes can be settled fairly, that contracts will be honored, and that the governed recognize the government's authority as legitimate. A disordered system does not foster that confidence. Whether or not individuals will have access to legal services and well-ordered tribunals is key to development. A strong ``legal infrastructure'' is widely recognized in American business circles as a necessary condition for business development whether it be in Russian, Indonesia, inner city America, or on Indian lands. Within existing appropriations, the bill I am introducing authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Tribal Justice, to provide assistance to legal service organizations and non- profit entities to help build capacity of tribal courts and tribal justice systems so that confidence in these systems can be augmented, and much-needed legal assistance will be provided. The three areas targeted for assistance are training for tribal judicial personnel, tribal civil legal assistance, and tribal criminal assistance. I believe that in addition to regulatory reform, physical infrastructure, and development assistance, strengthening tribal justice systems is another component in bringing real development to tribal economies and government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act Amendments of 1999. This bill will amend Public Law 102-477, better known as ``the 477 law'' that authorizes Indian tribes and tribal organizations to bring together many federal employment and training programs, consolidate them into one plan, and in the process achieve an efficiency that otherwise would not be possible. The 1992 Act allows tribes to submit one comprehensive plan, to one agency, and in the process to bring together resources from the Departments of Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, and others for purposes of employment training. The keys to the success of ``477'' is that it is entirely voluntary-- with tribes deciding for themselves whether to take advantage of its benefits; and second, it involves no federal appropriations of funds to administer it. Participating tribes report that the elimination of paperwork and bureaucracy are as important as is the administrative flexibility that ``477'' provides to tribes. The focus of the 1996 federal welfare reform laws now being implemented by states and Indian tribes is on getting and retaining employment. For Native American communities, many of whom suffer unemployment rates in the 80 to 90 percent range, job opportunities are difficult to come by and as a result the success of the 1996 law in Native communities is threatened. In the 106th Congress the Committee on Indian Affairs has put economic and business development on Native lands at the center of its agenda. In addition to regulatory reform, physical infrastructure, and access to capital, part of the agenda must be to find creative efforts to maximize scarce federal resources for Indian development. By all accounts, the 1992 Act has been a success for Native people struggling to get employment and training and other services related to the world of work. The bill I am introducing today will build on that success and liberalize tribal authority under the statute, authorize actual job- creation activities, permit regional consortia of Alaska Native entities to participate in the program, and require that the agencies and the ``477 tribes'' begin to take the next steps in enlarging the scope of ``477'' by bringing in the resources of additional agencies whose mission is related to human resource, physical infrastructure, and economic development assistance generally. A feasibility study and report are due to the authorizing committees not later than one year after enactment of the legislation. As the Self Governance model has already shown, putting tribes in the driver's seat results in better services to consumers, more efficient administrative frameworks, and often times a savings in federal resources. This bill will improve on an already-successful program and help Native communities provide employment training and jobs to their citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Today I join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in introducing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999. These amendments, which are desperately needed, will help to provide much needed relief and assistance to many victims of uranium exposure and make this Act more consistent with current medical knowledge. From 1946 to 1971, the United States purchased domestically-mined uranium for our nuclear weapons arsenal. Many of these mines were located in western Colorado, affecting citizens in my state. With the uranium mined there, in my colleague's state of Utah and throughout the western United States, we were able to develop vast stores of nuclear weapons, which were the key to our national security. The cold war demanded that we keep producing these weapons in order to keep up with, and defend ourselves against, the former Soviet Union. It was not until many years later that scientists began to realize that, ironically, the uranium we were mining to help create weapons to protect us in a nuclear war, was actually killing those men who mined it. Also harmed were those brave men and women who participated in atmospheric tests of the weapons armed with the uranium. By 1971, the Atomic Energy Commission had put in place, and fully implemented, ventilation and safety procedures which greatly reduced the threat of radiation exposure. But for those miners and test-site participants who were involved in the atomic weapons program in the years before the changes, there was little more available for them than a kind word and pat on the back as they developed cancer and other diseases. In 1990, we took steps to change the way we treated these victims. I cosponsored a measure in the House which allowed victims of certain types of radiation exposure to file claims with the Department of Justice and collect up to $100,000 in damages. It was the first step toward acknowledging the unknown sacrifice many of those miners and test participants made to win the cold war. With the passage of the law, the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) began further researching the health effects of radiation exposure. Their studies have revealed that several other types of cancer and nonmalignant respiratory diseases are caused by exposure to radiation, in addition to those listed in the original act. Furthermore, the BEIR Committee has discovered that many of the factors we thought contributed to cancer, such as coffee consumption, actually have no effect. Additionally, the unnecessarily long length of exposure, sometimes as high as 500 working level months, was determined by experts to be excessive and difficult to accurately measure and prove. The findings of the BEIR Committee have led us to seek to update the original law, with the advice and input of many experts in the health and mining fields, by amending the act with the latest scientific research. It's time to finish what we started in the 1990 act. These victims need to be treated fairly and receive adequate care. We also owe it to the other people who worked with uranium to continue studying the effects of their contribution on their health. That's why this bill expands coverage to other uranium victims and establishes grant programs for education and the prevention and early detection of radiogenic diseases. I ask my colleagues to join us today in making good on our promise to these people who so dutifully served their nation.