Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bingaman and others in this Sense of the Senate Resolution related to a class action lawsuit that was filed some years ago by several Indian tribes against Secretary Babbitt for failure to fully pay for contract support costs necessary for tribal contractors to carry out Federal programs and services under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq. To fully understand this issue a little background is in order. I was the proud sponsors of S. Res. 277, commemorating the 30th anniversary of President Nixon's ``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs'' in which he laid the foundation for modern Federal Indian policy-- Indian Self Determination. Built on the twin pillars of political self determination and economic self sufficiency, this policy continues to be a driving force in the economic progress some tribes are making. The 1975 ISDEA was enacted to further this policy by authorizing Indian tribes to contract for the performance of Federal programs and services by ``stepping into the shoes'' of the United States. Now, 25 years later, nearly one-half of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs and services are subject to tribal contracts and compacts. To facilitate these contracts, the United States is obligated to provide the administration costs--or ``contract support costs''--to those tribes that carry out ISDEA contracts, just as it does to military contractors, research universities and other entities. The Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Babbitt case resulted in a judgment of $82 million against the U.S. to be paid from the Judgment Fund for failure to pay these contract support costs. Under the law applicable to this case, the Treasury Department may seek to have the BIA reimburse the Judgment Fund for this amount. The funds for reimbursement would come from the BIA's operating budget, resulting in manifest inequity for not only the plaintiff tribes but for all tribes who depend on BIA funds for core programs such as law enforcement, education, child care, and others. This sense of the Senate amendment would not prevent the kind of reimbursement that the tribes and I fear, but expresses the consensus of the Senate that the agencies involved--the BIA and the IHS--should declare Indian program funds unavailable for purposes of reimbursement. I remain hopeful that stronger language can be crafted to protect these funds, and in the interim lend my support to this amendment. I want to commend Senator Bingaman for his hard work in finding a solution that does not run afoul of the budget rules and commit to working with him and others as we proceed to conference in this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 19, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Activities of the National Indian Gaming Commission. A business meeting will precede the hearing. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 20, 2000, at 10 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing on the S. 2688, the native American Languages Act Amendments Act of 2000. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman and Kyl in introducing legislation that makes much- needed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (the Act). In 1989 and 1990 I had the pleasure of working on legislation that became the 1990 Act which was enacted with two goals in mind: (1) to promote the market for Indian arts and crafts; and (2) to enforce the provisions of the Act to protect the integrity of authentic Indian goods and Indian artisans. Today's market for Indian-made goods is roughly $1 billion, but by some estimates half of that demand, or nearly $500 million, is satisfied by counterfeit goods, much of which is produced off-shore and imported illegally into the United States. The growing influx of inauthentic Indian arts and crafts has not only weakened the market and consumer confidence in Indian goods, but has also endangered traditional Indian customs and practices. Native communities are plagued by rampant unemployment and a stagnant economy, and the growing influx of inauthentic Indian arts and crafts continues to decimate one of the few forms of entrepreneurship and economic development on Indian reservations. In addition, this influx also erodes the propagation and practice of traditional beliefs and customs by Native people and must be stopped for that reason alone. Under the existing Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (``IACB'') is charged with not only promoting Indian arts and crafts, but also has a key role in the enforcement of the Act's civil and criminal provisions. In this role the IACB is required by law to work with the Department of justice to bring complaints against potential violators of the Act. As of July, 2000, neither the IACB nor the Department of Justice have produced the kind of enforcement results Congress intended when it enacted the 1990 Act. In fact, there has yet to be a single criminal or civil prosecution of the Act, with Indian tribes themselves being forced to take up the slack. The bill that I am introducing today, would improve enforcement of the Act by (1) enhancing the ability of the plaintiff to assess and calculate damages; (2) authorizing Indian arts and crafts organizations and individual Indians to bring suit for alleged violations of the Act; (3) authorizing a portion of the damages collected to reimburse the IACB for the costs of its role in investigating and bringing about the successful prosecution of the suit; and (4) requiring more precise definitions through the regulations process. This bill will provide the tools needed to stem the flow of these goods, protect legitimate Indian artisans, and eliminate the economic incentive to steal from Native people that which is theirs. I am hopeful that this legislation will signal a new day in the enforcement of the Act and encourage both the economic and cultural benefits of authentic Indian arts and crafts. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I intend to vote for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act, as amended. On January 19, 1999, I introduced the companion bill, S. 38, to the original House bill, along with my colleagues, Senators Mack and Hutchison. I felt then, as I do now, this legislation is of vital importance to farmers and family business owners. Since the time that I introduced the original companion to H.R. 8, I have heard from hundreds of Coloradans and numerous national organizations about the need to eliminate this burdensome and overreaching tax. I believe that eliminating this tax is a fundamental issue of fairness. Death should not be an event government prospers from. Estate and gift taxes continue to be an enormous burden on American families, particularly those who pursue the American dream of owning their own business. It is often the family-owned businesses and farms that are hit with the highest tax rate when they are handed down to descendants--often immediately following the death of a loved one. Families ought to be encouraged, not discouraged, from building successful farms, ranches and businesses and keeping the ownership of those enterprises within the families that worked to make them successful. These taxes, and the financial burdens and difficulties they create come at the worst possible time. Making a terrible situation worse is the fact that the rate of this estate tax is crushing, reaching as high as 55 percent for the highest bracket. That's higher than even the highest income tax rate bracket of 39 percent. Furthermore, the tax is due as soon as the business is turned over to the heir, allowing no time for financial planning or the setting aside of money to pay the tax bills. Estate and gift taxes right now are one of the leading reasons why the number of family-owned farms and businesses are declining; the burden of this tax is simply too much for many American families to bear. This tax sends the troubling message that families should either sell the business while they are still alive in order to spare their descendants this huge tax after their passing, or rundown the value of the business, so that it won't make it into their higher tax brackets. This is not how America was built. Private investment and initiative has historically been a strong part of our American heritage and we should encourage those values, not tax successful family businesses into submission. That is why I will vote for this important legislation. We need to change the message we are sending to farmers and family business owners. The Death-tax repeal has been endorsed by numerous organizations that represent family farms and businesses such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the Farm Bureau, the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, National Association of Women Business Owners, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Indian Business Association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Neighborhoods. Mr. President, if there is one thing Congress absolutely ought to do while we are trusted with our jobs it should be to protect American families and their interests. This tax is fundamentally unfair and would never survive if it were being proposed today. I urge my colleagues to support the repeal of the Death-tax and help restore a small degree of integrity to the tax structure imposed on America's families. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend. Mr. President, certainly there are Members of this Chamber who are downright against gaming. I understand that. As Senator Inouye mentioned, even his State has no gaming. But I do not believe that is what this debate is about. For me, very frankly, it is about whether we keep our word or we do not keep our word. The Senator mentioned that literally for every treaty ever signed by the Federal Government, Indian tribes ended up losing by virtue of the Government breaking the treaty. No one speaks more eloquently than Senator Inouye about the destructive forces that have been heaped upon American Indians at the hands of the U.S. Government. I think he does it very eloquently because of his own background. He is a man of great bravery, who just received America's highest award. He is a Medal of Honor recipient. Yet he fought in a war during which his own people were interned in camps at the hands of the Federal Government. Certainly, Senator Inouye is held in the highest esteem throughout Indian country, as he is in this body. But I think many of our colleagues ought to study the old treaties, even though most of them were broken--not all--by the Federal Government. Indian people have a very special relationship with the Federal Government. It would do us well if we read some of the old promises we made and didn't keep. The Senator talked a little about the problems we have on reservations. But I don't think it is really understood by people who spend most of their time, as we say, ``outside the reservation.'' You ought to go to Pine Ridge, SD, where unemployment is 70 percent, usually. It is rarely less than 50 percent. It is sometimes higher than 70 percent--where every third young lady tries suicide before she is out of her teenage years; and young men, too. Too many of them succeed. With fetal alcohol syndrome compared to the national average, 1 out of every 50,000 babies born in America suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome. For those who do not know what that is, that is a disease they get when they are inside of their mother because their mother drinks. It is about 1 out of 50,000 nationwide. But in Pine Ridge, SD, in some years it is 1 out of 4 babies. It is a disease that is totally preventable. Yet it is incurable once they have it. They get it from their mother drinking too much. They are institutionalized for life, at a huge cost in terms of human tragedy and the American taxpayer. If you had those numbers in any town in America--whether it is the high school dropout rate, or the suicide rate, whether it is death by violent actions, whether it is fetal alcohol syndrome, or anything else--if you had anything near that in the outside culture, it would be considered devastating to that community. Believe me, people would be here on the floor clamoring for the Senate to do something about it. There are very few things that work on Indian reservations that try to bring new money to the reservation. In 1988, when Senator Inouye was the leader on the Senate side on the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act, and I was on the House side as one of the people involved originally in the writing of that bill, certainly then none of us knew that it would grow to such proportions. But clearly it has done some good. It is not all good. Obviously, there are stresses and pressures. When you increase any kind of economic activity in a local community, there are more people on the highways. There are more people in the schools and parks. We understand that. If you look at the outside of it in terms of what it has done to help youngsters with scholarships, what it has done to help senior citizens who had no other income, and what it has done to provide money for tribes that have been able to invest that money into other enterprises, it is overwhelmingly positive. I have to tell you that it seems that every year we have to fight this fight. Almost every year, somebody comes down here with a microphone who wants to take a hit at the little opportunities Indians have in Indian country because of gaming. I point out, my gosh, that I live on the Southern Ute Reservation in Colorado 150 yards from a tribal casino. I see who works it. I see if there is any increase in crime--or other kinds of wild accusations we sometimes hear on the Senate floor. Believe me, they are mostly wrong. First of all, the majority of people who work in the Indian reservations are not Indian. At least 50 percent in most of the casinos are not Indians. It has helped whole communities. They pay income taxes just as anybody else--Indian people and non-Indian. It has put revenue into the coffers of the Federal Government and State governments. Under Federal law, in 1988, as you know, tribes were limited to the types of gaming allowed under the laws of the States in which they reside. Some States simply don't allow gaming at all. Therefore, those tribes in those States can't do it. We made sure that the tribes were factored in in 1988. In my own State, tribes are limited to just slot machines and low-stakes table games. The State of our friend from New Mexico has a little higher limit. Other States have higher limits. But it is with the approval of the States under a contractual agreement between the States and the tribes. In Utah, there is no gambling whatsoever. Therefore, the tribes cannot have any form of gaming. The intent of the Federal Indian Gaming Act was that in States where gaming is limited or prohibited, tribes would be similarly limited or prohibited. It was an agreement made with the States. They were not locked out. They were completely included in the process and certainly in the dialog when we wrote this bill in the first place. There are many tribes and States that sat down and worked out their agreements that are binding and effective. We often hear about an isolated case where something is not working very well. But often we don't study all of the overwhelmingly positive effects. There are some Governors whom we know who have refused to negotiate at all with the tribes in their States, leaving those tribes without the ability to legally conduct gaming activities. That wasn't assumed. We passed the IGRA Act in 1988. We didn't think there would be some Governors who simply wouldn't negotiate and would stonewall and not come to the table. But there have been some. We should remember how we got here. In the wake of the 1987 Cabazon decision by the Supreme Court which held that State gaming laws did not apply to Indian gaming conducted on Indian lands, States clamored for a role in the writing of IGRA and regulating of the gaming on Indian lands. They got it. Congress responded in 1988 by enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which provided an unprecedented opportunity for States to participate in the conduct and regulation of Indian gaming conducted entirely on Indian lands. Reverse that a little bit. Do you think Indian tribes are in the loop or are able to participate in the conduct of regulation of State activities that are off Indian lands? They don't have the voice that States do within tribal governments. That act was a compromise and for the first time gave the State governments a role in what gaming would occur on Indian lands. While Congress intended State participation, we intended to participate but we never intended that the States' refusal to negotiate would serve as an effective veto by any State over a tribe's right to conduct such gaming. Today's debate is about whether a Governor or State can limit the type of activity of certain groups simply by refusing to negotiate. That is unfair. I think it is un-American. As my colleagues know, I happen to be from the West. Most westerners are strong States rights people. We continually harangue the Federal Government for eroding States rights. We are always down here over business development or use of public lands. If it is good enough for a tribe to have to negotiate, then it should also be good enough for the State to have to negotiate, as was implied in IGRA. While I believe that each State's public policy should determine the scope of gaming in that State, I also believe the current state of the law gives States what is in reality a veto over tribes. That is unacceptable. I should point out to my colleagues that in many cases non-Indian gaming is promoted and even operated by State governments, such as State lotteries. It is an element of competition that should not be lost on this body. No one wants to share the revenue if they think they can make it all. I understand that. That is American business. But I believe some States have refused to bargain simply in order to preserve that monopoly on gaming. To begin to break the stalemate, the Interior Department proposed a process based on the IGRA statute. Senator Inouye alluded to that. Though the process may need refinement, I don't believe the Secretary should be stopped from developing alternative approaches to this impasse. I believe it is in the interests of all parties that the Federal courts be allowed to render final, binding decisions to clarify the authority of the Secretary. That has not been finished. That is ongoing now. Adoption of this amendment would certainly short circuit that process. By the way, there has been a similar amendment already rejected by the House of Representatives. I think it will unduly interfere with the litigation that is now at hand and deny the parties the clarification they need. Last year, Secretary Babbitt made a commitment to Chairman Gorton, to the Senate as a whole, to refrain from implementing any further regulations until the Federal courts, including the appellate level, rule on the merits of the legal issues involved. That litigation is now endangered by this amendment, which prohibits the Secretary from taking any action to implement those regulations, including the actions that will allow the matter to ``ripen'' and allow it to be pursued to a conclusion. Coming from a Western State, I am as supportive as anyone in this body of States rights, but those who say this process ``overrides the Governors'' are wrong. Under the proposal, if a State objects to a decision made by the Interior Secretary, that State can challenge the decision in Federal court. For those who fear the Department is acting without oversight I point out that Congress has the authority to review any proposed regulations before they take effect. As the proposal comes before the authorizing committees, any new regulations will get a careful review and if they are found wanting, they will not pass. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and allow the process to work. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no objection to the voice vote. I will be on the losing side, but when we get to conference, I will have a lot more to say about it.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the reports of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the General Accounting Office on Risk Management and Tort Liability. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to mark up pending committee business, to be followed by a hearing on S. 2283, to amend the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) to make certain amendments with respect to Indian tribes. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am delighted to speak on behalf of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, a man who has distinguished himself in the House and now in the Senate for more than 40 years. He is also a man for whom I have tremendous respect and regard as a truly national leader on a wide range of issues. Later today at a White House ceremony, Daniel Inouye will be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by the President. This memorable occasion is one that has been much anticipated and long overdue. I have had the honor and opportunity to serve with Senator Inouye in Congress over the past 14 years, and we have worked side by side on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs over the past 8 years. On many occasions, I have witnessed his courage and leadership in standing up for serious issues and problems that have affected all Americans including our collective national defense. These qualities and traits can be witnessed throughout Senator Inouye's life, career, and his service in the United States Army during World War II. I would like to recount for those unfamiliar with the experience of Dan Inouye and the ``Go for Broke'' regiment a brief history of the heroics and commitment to his men and the United States during his service in the 2nd Battalion, 442nd ``Go for Broke'' Regimental Combat Team in the War. In April of 1945, Army 1st Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye, was leading a platoon of the 2nd Battalion, when it came under fire from a bunker manned by Italian Fascists fighting for their Axis partners the Nazis. There was no cover on the hill, so Inouye crawled up alone to scout. As he was taking out a hand grenade to destroy the first position, he was hit in the abdomen by a bullet which came out his back, barely missing his spine. Although wounded, Inouye was still able to pull the pin out of the grenade and run to within five yards of the nearest of the three machine guns, and throw the grenade inside the position. He continued to lead the platoon and advance alone against a machine gun nest which had his men pinned down. He tossed two hand grenades with devastating effect before his right arm was shattered by a German rifle grenade at close range. With his left hand, he tossed his last grenade and attacked the Italian Fascists with a submachine gun. Then he was hit in his right leg and fell down the hill. Inouye refused to be evacuated until his men were deployed in defensive positions. First Lieutenant Inouye spent 20 months in Army hospitals after losing his right arm. He returned to Hawaii as a Captain with a Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star, Purple Heart with cluster, and 12 other medals and citations. After graduating with a law degree from George Washington University, he entered politics, and after Hawaii became a state Dan Inouye won election to the United States House of Representatives as the state's first Congressman. He was reelected to a full term in 1960 and won election to the United States Senate in 1962. Mr. President, I cannot fully express to you or others the deep respect I have for this man, to the leadership he has provided to this country and the sacrifices he has made during these accomplishments. Senator Inouye continues to inspire admiration and respect among all who serve with him-- Republicans and Democrats alike. Dan Inouye is a leader and hero to Americans across the country and a man that I am proud to consider my colleague as well as my friend. I am pleased that the President has chosen to recognize his service and bestow upon such a deserving man as Dan Inouye the Medal of Honor. It is my hope that young people around our country will look to Dan Inouye and his many traits and accomplishments--Army officer, Congressman, Senator--and realize as he does that first and foremost, he is an American. In this regard I would like to quote Major General Jacob Devers, Chief of the Army Field Offices, ``These men . . . more than earned the right to be called just Americans, not Japanese Americans. Their Americanism may be described only by degree, and that the highest.'' I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to mark up pending committee business, to be followed by a hearing on S. 2283, to amend the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) to make certain amendments with respect to Indian tribes. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 22, 2000 at 11 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to mark up the following: S. 2719, to provide for business development and trade promotion for Native Americans; S. 1658; to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota; and S. 1148, to provide for the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe certain benefits of the Missouri River Pick-Sloan Project; to be followed by a hearing, on the Indian Trust Resolution Corporation. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251. committee on rules and administration

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I seek recognition to raise an issue of importance to my home state of Colorado with the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Shelby. I commend my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, for his effective leadership on this important Transportation Appropriations bill. I take this opportunity to call to his attention a matter of highway safety in the increasingly congested Denver Metro area, particularly the I-25 ramps project near downtown Denver. I-25 is the most congested highway artery in the State of Colorado and has more accidents per miles driven than any other traffic corridor in the State. All of the ramps in this project area are separated by inadequate distances. Funds for this project would increase these distances and therefore increase safety. The amount of traffic directed onto the 17th Avenue and 23rd Avenue ramps off of I-25 is expected to grow to a point that would overwhelm the already unsafe traffic volumes on these ramps. I am concerned that even today, the ramps are substandard and could be considered unsafe. Under the design recommendations of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the minimum safe distance between an ON and OFF ramp is 1,600 feet. These ramps are only 435 and 750 feet apart. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for these ramps is 40,800 yet the current ramps are designed for only 12,000 ADT. These ramps are currently at 340 percent over capacity and they can't handle more traffic without funding for this project. I have been working with the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations to help the Denver Metro area and Colorado and very much appreciate the Chairman's assistance. A key priority for me is to improve highway safety in Metro Denver through this ramps project. Because of the budget constraints, however, the subcommittee was not able to include the project at this time. Will the Chairman be able to assist my efforts in seeking this funding as we move towards Conference?

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to mark up the following: S. 1586, Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments; S. 2351, Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act; S. Res. 277, Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the Policy of Indian Self-Determination; S. 2508, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Amendments of 2000; and H.R. 3051, Jicarilla Water Feasibility Study; to be followed by a hearing, on S. 2282, to encourage the efficient use of existing resources and assets related to Indian agricultural research, development and exports within the Department of Agriculture. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building. Those wishing additional information contact committee staff at 202- 224-2251. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Motor Carrier Fairness Act of 2000. This legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Transportation and Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from taking action to finalize, implement, or enforce a rule relating to the hours of service of drivers for motor carriers. Trucking is the backbone of the U.S. economy. The industry transports approximately 80 percent of the nation's freight, and well over 70 percent of communities in the United States depend solely on trucking to deliver their goods. The hours of service are arguably the single most important rule governing how trucking companies and truck drivers operate. However, the Department's proposed rules fail to consider the impact of the proposal on the nation's economy as well as the drivers. The fundamental change in hours is a shift from an 18 hour, to a 24- hour clock. Under DOT's proposed rules, a driver's basic workday would be 12 hours on, 12 hours off with mandatory two consecutive days off. I was amazed to find out that by imposing these changes and increasing the number of off-duty hours DOT creates the need for a 50 percent increase in the number of refrigerated and dry van trucks. This in turn translates into an additional 180,000 drivers and trucks on already crowded roads, just to keep the current economy moving. I know, from speaking to freight carriers in my home state of Colorado, that the job market is already short approximately 80,000 drivers, and these trucking companies are experiencing substantial problems finding the necessary number of drivers for their operations. There are many reasons why this bill is necessary. For example DOT's proposals would: Reduce driver's salaries since they are paid per mile. By reducing the overall working time from 15 to 12 hours, salaries will also decrease. A 12-hour day will not allow drivers to take advantage of income opportunities that fluctuating freight volumes provide. Furthermore, as an article in the Denver Post reported today, the mandatory weekend time off could result in thousands of dollars of lost income per year for drivers. Overcrowded rest stops. There are an estimated 187,000 parking stalls in truck stops around the country and the 2.5 to 3 million Class 8 trucks, and the result is overcrowded rest stops. Most drivers will be forced to use public rest stops, gas stations or even highway ramps to comply with the proposed rules. In fact the DOT held a field hearing yesterday at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds in Colorado. Truckers there specifically warned of the re-emergence of thieves, scam artists, and prostitutes who linger around truck stops, preying on resting truckers. These rules would inevitably crowd the highways with more trucks. Since waiting time at loading docks is considered ``on-duty'' hours, refrigerated carriers will need 70 percent more trucks in order to meet delivery times and dry-freight haulers another 50 percent. This means that 600,000 to 700,000 more trucks will be needed in order to keep with the current delivery pace. In another example from the afore mentioned article, a mozzarella cheese maker in Denver will have to add 23 new truck tractors in order to compensate for the down time of drivers forced to idle because of these new rules. I might also add that this proposal claims to reduce the number of highway fatalities, but as we can see the need to add more trucks to our roads will only increase the possibility of highway accidents occurring. The number of truck related accidents has actually decreased 34 percent in the last 10 years, so we should not allow the DOT to reverse this trend through its proposed rule. Another area of concern regards the issue of the ``electronic onboard recorders'' that will track the drivers hours. The cost of equipping Type I and II long haul trucks with these devices is most certainly going to be passed on for the companies to bear. These devices, at approximately $1,000 apiece, could put some smaller hauling companies out of business. Mr. President, I have been and still am a trucker. In fact, I just renewed my commercial drivers license last year. I understand first hand the concerns that most workers in this industry have with the proposed regulations. The trucking industry provides millions of Americans with on-time delivery. Our economy is dependent on this, and I believe that these proposed rules have not taken the impact of this aspect into consideration. The cost of DOT's plan is not limited to the trucking industry as a whole, but will disrupt our nation's supply chain which consequentially will have a ripple effect on the rest of our economy, not to mention American jobs. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President. Today in my capacity as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I introduce a resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, one of the key international agreements of our time. I am pleased to be joined by all Senate Commissioners, Senators Hutchison, Lautenberg, Abraham, Brownback, Hutchinson, Graham, Dodd, and Feingold, who are original cosponsors. A companion resolution also is being introduced today in the House by our colleague, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who chairs the Helsinki Commission. Five years ago, during the 20th anniversary celebrations in Helsinki, President Gerald Ford said: ``The Helsinki Accords, the Final Act, was the final nail in the coffin of Marxism and communism in many, many countries, and helped to bring about the change to a more democratic political system and a change to a more market-oriented economic system.'' Indeed, the Helsinki Final Act, signed by President Ford in 1975, marked the beginning of a process which has served U.S. interests in advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law within a comprehensive framework covering the security, economic and human dimensions. The legacy of Helsinki is especially historic with respect to what is now referred to as the ``human dimension.'' The Helsinki process--now named the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), is rightly credited with playing a contributing role in bringing down the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain, and, in 1991, the Soviet Union. In short, the Helsinki process helped make it possible for the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to regain their freedom and independence. Both Western governments and private individuals increasingly cited the Final Act, adopted by consensus, as a yardstick for measuring human rights performance, citing commitments which the violating governments freely undertook. Human rights groups, including the Helsinki Monitoring Groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, as well as in Czechoslovakia and Poland grounded their activities in the Helsinki principles. During the communist era, members of these groups often sacrificed their personal freedom and in some instances their lives for their courageous and vocal support for the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. The pressure of governmental efforts and public opinion in both East and West contributed greatly to change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Responding to a dramatically changed, post-Cold War world, the OSCE has evolved into a useful institutional tool for addressing many of the challenges confronting Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community today. The OSCE is the one political organization that unites all the countries of Europe, including all of the former Soviet republics, the United States and Canada, to face today's challenges. One of the primary strengths of the Helsinki process is its comprehensive nature and membership, where current human rights, military security, and trade and economic issues can be pursued. The OSCE, now expanded to 55 from the original 35 countries, has been working hard to minimize conflict and bring all sides together, especially in the last decade which has seen several horrible regional conflicts, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya. The OSCE has played an increasingly active role in civilian police- related activities, including training, as an integral part of the Organization's efforts in conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. It has also played an important role in promoting greater transparency through the adoption and implementation of various confidence and security-building measures designed to reduce the risk of conflict in Europe. Other challenges that the OSCE is increasingly addressing include the promotion of economic reforms through enhanced transparency for market economic activity, environmental responsibility, the importance of the rule of law and fighting organized crime and corruption. And, of course, human rights remains very much on the OSCE's agenda, including but not limited to, the eradication of torture, free media, respect for the rights of individuals belonging to national minorities, and ending discrimination against Roma and Sinti. Unfortunately, serious human rights abuses continue in all too many OSCE countries. The main challenge facing the participating States of the OSCE remains the implementation of the commitments contained in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents. The Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, will continue to work in accordance with our mandate to monitor and encourage compliance by all the signatory States with their Helsinki commitments. Mr. President, this resolution commemorates the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act and authorizes the President to issue a proclamation reasserting America's commitment to full implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, and request that he convey to all signatories that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and democratic principles as well as economic liberty and the implementation of related commitments continue to be vital elements in promoting a new era of democracy, peace and unity in the OSCE region. Twenty-five years after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the principles enshrined in that historic document remain valid and continue to serve as an important tool in advancing U.S. interests in a region stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 2508, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Amendments of 2000. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building. Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I want to recognize the 13th Annual Rolling Thunder ``Ride for Freedom'' and highlight the important role Rolling Thunder plays in making sure that our nation's POW/MIAs are honored and never forgotten. The first time that Rolling Thunder's Ride for Freedom roared and rumbled its way to the Vietnam Memorial on Memorial Day 1988, 2,400 motorcycles banded together for the ride. Some 5,000 Veterans, their wives, children, and other citizens of all backgrounds gathered near the Vietnam Memorial Wall to honor and remember our nation's POW/MIAs. Since then, Rolling Thunder has grown into an international event that garners national attention and focuses it on remembering our POW/MIAs. In fact, Rolling Thunder has become such a large presence that anyone who happens to be anywhere near our nation's Capital cannot help but notice it. For example, last year's Rolling Thunder run included over 250,000 motorcycles and 400,000 participants. There were people at last year's run from every state in the nation, and many foreign countries including Canada, England, Germany, France, Austria, Holland, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Made up of over 40 Chapters throughout the United States, Rolling Thunder is a volunteer, non- profit organization. I would like to thank the several organizations whose support and efforts have helped make Rolling Thunder possible here in Washington D.C. for the past twelve years: the Virginia Police, Virginia State Police, Maryland Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, Park Police, Park Services and the Pentagon. I also want to take this opportunity to highlight some legislation I sponsored and Rolling Thunder supports. Rolling Thunder's input and support has been invaluable to the legislative process. The first bill I want to mention is S. 484, the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999. This legislation would grant asylum in the United States to foreign nationals from key countries who personally deliver a living American POW/MIA from either the Vietnam War or the Korean War to the United States. A key section of this bill would help spread news of the Bring Them Home Alive Act around the world. This is needed to help make sure that the key foreign nationals who need to hear about this act, hear about it. The bill calls on the International Broadcasting Bureau to use its assets, including WORLDNET Television and its Internet sites, to spread the news. The bill also calls on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia to participate. If this bill leads to even one long-held POW/MIA being returned home to America alive this effort will be well worth it--10,000 times over. Even though it has been decades since these two wars ended, they have not ended for any Americans who may have been left behind and are still alive or their families and friends. As long as there remains even the slightest possibility that there may be surviving POWs in these regions, we owe it to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines to do everything possible to bring them home alive. This is the least we can do after all they have sacrificed. Today, I am especially pleased to announce that S. 484 passed the Senate last Wednesday, May 24th. Now we need to get it passed in the House of Representatives and enacted into law. Rolling Thunder was also helpful in getting another important bill enacted into law, the National POW-MIA Recognition Act, legislation I sponsored in the 105th Congress. This law requires that the POW-MIA flag be displayed on important national buildings--all across America--on six important days. These days include: Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Independence Day, Armed Forces Day, Flag Day and National POW-MIA Recognition Day. Rolling Thunder captures the American people's attention--and those elected to represent them--and then brightly focuses our attention on remembrance of, and continuing duty to, our nation's POWs and MIAs. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I want to recognize Drug Courts and highlight the invaluable role they play in our Nation's war on drugs. As I have done at this time of the year for the past two years, I take this opportunity to call my colleagues' attention to the significant contribution Drug Courts make. Above all, I want to take this opportunity to once again recognize and applaud the dedicated professionals who have made our Nation's Drug Courts the successes they are today. As our Drug Courts enter their eleventh year of operation, they are as important as ever in our Nation's battle against drug abuse and the devastating impact drugs have on our Nation and its families. Over the past year 100-plus new Drug Courts have been established throughout the country, bringing the total number to over 700. Additionally, Drug Courts are now expanding internationally, underscoring their value around the world. I am especially glad to hear that some of our Drug Courts' best practices are now being tailored to the needs and values of native communities, which for many years have suffered disproportionally from the scourge of substance abuse. The kinds of programs offered by Drug Courts could play a vital role in breaking the ``Iron Triangle'' of substance abuse, gangs and crime that trap far too many of our Nation's Native Americans and others in a cycle of poverty and hopelessness. Next week--from June 1st and 3rd, 2000--the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) will host the 6th Annual NADCP Drug Court Training Conference entitled ``Expanding the Vision: The New Drug Court Pioneers.'' in San Francisco, California. The NADCP expects that this year's drug court conference will be the largest ever, with over 3,000 drug court professionals slated to attend. This year, six individuals will receive the 2000 NADCP New Pioneers Award. I congratulate and thank each of these six outstanding people. I especially want to recognize an award recipient from my home state of Colorado, the Denver District Attorney, William Ritter, Jr. The Denver Drug Court is the first--ever drug court system which now handles 75 percent of all drug cases filed in the city and county of Denver. All offenders, with the exception of illegal aliens, those arrested with a companion non-drug felony case or who have two or more prior felony convictions, are handled in this court. Most individuals are assessed within 24 hours of arrest. The pre-trial case managers monitor offenders on bond, while they await entry into the program. Over 8,000 participants have entered the program since it began operations on July 1, 1994. As the Chairman of the Treasury and General Government Subcommittee, which funds the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), I took the opportunity to visit the Denver Drug Court with ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey. We met with the Drug Court professionals and observed their judicial procedures. We also saw first-hand how the court's programs have a direct impact on drug-abusing offenders. I believe the Denver Drug Court serves as a role model for the next generation of Drug Court practitioners Drug Courts continue to revolutionize the criminal justice system. The strategy behind Drug Courts departs from traditional criminal justice practice by placing non-violent drug abusing offenders into intensive court supervised drug treatment programs instead of prison. Drug Courts aim to reduce drug abuse and crime by employing tools like comprehensive judicial monitoring, drug testing, supervision, treatment, rehabilitative services, as well as other sanctions and incentives for drug offenders. Statistics show us that Drug Courts work. More than 70 percent of Drug Court clients have successfully completed the program or remain as active participants. Drug Courts are also cost-effective. They help convert many drug-using offenders into productive members of society. This is clearly preferable to lengthy or repeated incarceration, which traditionally has yielded few gains for those struggling with drugs or our Nation as a whole. Drug Courts are proving to be an effective tool in our fight against both drug abuse and other drug-related crime. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing those Drug Court professionals who are improving their communities by dedicating themselves to this worthwhile concept and expanding the vision for the next generation of practitioners.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 611, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1999. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building. Note: This hearing was originally scheduled for 9:30 a.m., May 17. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my fellow chairman Senator Bond in introducing the HUBZones in Native America Act of 2000. The act is designed to make sure that federal procurement dollars are targeted to the areas that are most in need of an economic boost. These areas are called ``historically underutilized business zones'' and under the Act, Indian reservations are defined as ``historically underutilized business zones''. Tribal economies continue to be among the most depressed and economically stagnant in the country. Though some well-situated tribes are benefiting from gambling, most tribes and Indian people live in Third World conditions. In the 106th Congress, the emphasis of the Committee on Indian Affairs has been that of Indian economic development. The ultimate goal for Native economies is self-sufficiency. Programs, such as this, bridge the gap between Native economies and private enterprise. On May 10, 1999, the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Indian Affairs held a joint hearing on the implementation of the HUBZones Act of 1997 and its impact on Indian communities. During that hearing three main issues were aired that are remedied by the amendments we introduce today: Eligibility of Indian Lands in Oklahoma; Eligibility of Indian Lands in Alaska; and Eligibility of Tribally-owned enterprises. The original intent of the HUBZone program was to re-target existing federal contracting dollars into America's distressed communities, including Alaska Native and Indian communities. The changes reflected in the HUBZones in Native America Act of 2000 build on the original intent of the Act, and make further steps to ensure that Alaska Native and Indian communities fully participate in this competitive program. I look forward to perfecting the obstacles that remain. I am hopeful that the legislation introduced today will encourage long-term economic growth in Native communities by expanding business opportunities and job creation activities.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, at 2 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on Implementation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, P.L. (101-644). The hearing will be held in room 562, Dirksen Senate Building. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224- 2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 1148, to provide for the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska certain benefits of the Missouri River Pick-Sloan Project and S. 1658, to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota. The hearing will be held in the Committee room, 485 Russell Senate Building. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye today in introducing a bill to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (the ``IHCIA'' or the ``Act''). The United States first began to provide health services to Indians in 1824 as part of the War Department's handling of Indian affairs. In 1849 this responsibility went to the newly-created Interior Department where it rested until 1955 when it was transferred to the Public Health Service's Indian Health Agency. In 1970, President Nixon issued his now-famous ``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs'' laying out the rationale for a more enlightened Indian Policy--Indian Self Determination. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, and the amendments to each over the years can be traced directly to the fundamental change proposed in 1970. I am happy to say that legislation I proposed earlier this session, the Indian Self Governance Amendments of 1999, have passed the House and the Senate and awaits final action. With the introduction of this bill, we re-affirm the core principles that were part of the 1976 legislation: (1) that federal health services are consistent with the unique federal-tribal relationship; (2) that a goal of the U.S. is to provide the quantity and quality of services to raise the health status of Indians; and (3) that Indian participation in the planning and management of health services should be maximized. First enacted in 1976, this IHCIA provides the authorization for programs run by the Indian Health Service and is the legislation most responsible for raising the health status of Indian people to a level that, while still alarming, is not nearly as serious as it was just twenty-five years ago. Before the passage of the Act in 1976 the mortality rate for Indian infants was 25% higher than that of non-Indian babies. The death rates for mothers was 82% higher and the mortality rates from infectious disease caused diarrhea and dehydration was 138% greater. Today we can see marked improvements. Infant mortality rates have been reduced by 54%, maternal mortality rates have been reduced by 65%, tuberculosis mortality by 80% and overall mortality rates have been reduced by 42%. While encouraging, these statistics mask the fact that the health status of Native people in America is still poor and below that of all other groups. There are 3 issues in particular that need to be raised: urban Indians; Indian health facilities construction needs; and the booming problem of diabetes. As past censuses have shown, the 2000 decennial census is likely to show that more than one-half of the 2.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives reside off-reservation and are what commonly called ``urban Indians.'' Though the health services framework that now exists has slowly begun to acknowledge this trend, I am concerned that urban Indian health care needs require a more focused approach. An ongoing problem that continues to confront the tribes, the IHS, and the Congress is the growing backlog in health care facilities construction. Recent estimates show that these needs top $900 million and federal appropriations simply will not satisfy these needs. I strongly believe that innovative proposals need to be made, refined and perfected in order to accomplish our common goal. I am heartened by the success of the Joint Venture Program and want to explore other proposals to get these facilities built. Ailments of affluence continue to seep into native communities and erode the quality of life and very social fabric that holds these communities together. Alcohol and substance abuse continue to take a heavy toll and diabetes rates are reaching alarmingly high rates. Most troubling is the increasing obesity and diabetes that is showing up with alarming frequency in Native youngsters. It is now time to take that extra step an to look at the positive things we have accomplished and build upon them. This bill is a step in the right direction. It is the product of months-long consultations by a group of very dedicated individuals consisting of Indian tribal leaders, legal professionals and representatives of the private and public health care sectors. The group reviewed existing law and has proposed changes to improve the current system by stressing local flexibility and choice, and making it more responsive to the health needs of Indian people. The Committee on Indian Affairs has already had one hearing on the bill and will continue to review it in the months ahead. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.