Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I just asked unanimous consent that all first-degree amendments to the Treasury and general government appropriations bill be offered by 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, July 1.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate Calendar No. 169, the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and general government appropriations bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am now pleased to lay before the Senate the committee recommendation for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and various independent agencies. The bill was crafted by the Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government and contains a total of $27,737,971,000 in new budget authority. Of that, $14,533,811,000 is for mandatory accounts. The committee recommendation is within the 302(b) allocations and strikes a delicate balance between congressional priorities, administration initiatives, and agency requirements. This would not have been possible without the hard work and cooperation of the new ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and his staff. This bill consists of mostly salaries and expenses accounts and the majority of the increases for agencies is to simply allow them to maintain current levels. There are very few new initiatives in this bill. Title I provides a total of $12,213,529,000 for the Department of the Treasury. This is $162,601,000 less than the administration request. The committee has again placed a priority on Treasury's law enforcement needs as well as support for efforts by State and local law enforcement. Here are a few highlights from Title I: $312,400,000 to the Customs Service to retain 5,000 current Customs employees since the user fee proposed by the administration has not been enacted. Emphasis on the need for the Gang Resistance Education and Training program--called GREAT--by including $3 million more than the administration request for grants to State and local law enforcement. Expansion of the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative into 10 additional cities, bringing the total to 37 cities. This will allow ATF to track and prosecute those who supply guns to our youth. Funding for the Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy to allow AFT to more comprehensively investigate NICS denials in order to make sure that felons do not possess guns. Full funding to the IRS for customer service training and to implement the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Title II provides $93,436,000 for the United States Postal Service, and continues to require free mailing for overseas voters and the blind as well as six-day delivery, and prohibit the closing or consolidation of small and rural post offices. Title III recommends a total of $553,128,000 for the Executive Office of the President, $86,370,000 less than the administration request. This includes the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Federal drug control programs, and funding for the national anti-drug media campaign. Of special note, the committee: Recommends establishing a separate account for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, and has provided $31,100,000 for that program to transfer much needed technology to State and local law enforcement. Provides $188,277,000 for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program which will allow continuation of existing HIDTA programs at their current levels. These programs highly acclaimed by local law enforcement. Recommends a total of $145,500,000 for the national anti-drug media campaign. Title IV is independent agencies such as the Federal Election Commission, the General Services Administration, and the National Archives, as well as agencies involved in Federal employment such as the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Office of Personnel Management. Also included in this title are mandatory accounts to provide for Federal retirees, health benefits, and life insurance. The committee recommends a total of $14,877,878,000 for this title. For the third year in a row, the administration has not requested funding for courthouse construction. Unfortunately, due to the very limited funding available to the committee, we have not included any new courthouse construction projects in this bill. In order to stay within our 302(b) allocations, the subcommittee was forced to make very difficult decisions, as were all Appropriations subcommittees. As a result, this bill is very tightly crafted to allow the agencies to continue their vital work. Very few new initiatives were recommended and we were not able to accommodate all of our colleagues' requests due to funding constraints. I remind my colleagues that any funding amendments must be offset and, frankly, there is very little fat in this bill. If amendments are offered, we would ask the sponsor to identify the accounts we should be reducing to accomplish their goal. Finally, I would like to again thank the ranking member, Senator Dorgan, for his hard work and support. This bill would not have been possible without his assistance, and that of his staff Barbara Retzlaff and Elizabeth Blevins. I also thank my staff: Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin and Lula Edwards for their tireless and invaluable work on this bill. This bill has been a collaborative effort and it deserves the support of the Senate. I yield the floor to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment is a technical correction to the GSA Federal buildings fund. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all first- degree amendments to the Treasury and general government appropriations bill must be offered by 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, July 1.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent the following individuals have floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of S. 1282, the Treasury and government appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2000: Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, Dylan Pressman, and Liz Blevins.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I intend to support the Manager's amendments package to the Fiscal Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000, which includes a modified version of a bill I introduced on June 10th, S.1212, the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999. I am pleased to have Senators Rick Santorum and Robert Byrd join me as original cosponsors of this amendment. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, and the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, for their assistance and support of this amendment. While this amendment's language is a compromise, and is not as strong as S. 1212 which I introduced earlier this month, it is an important first step in the right direction. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the coming months to help promote American taxpayers, workers and key industries as the U.S. begins to spend billions of dollars to rebuild Kosovo and, as expected in the future, the rest of Yugoslavia. This amendment will help American workers and companies get the first best shot at those Kosovo reconstruction opportunities that are being paid for with U.S. foreign aid funds. As a result, a large portion of the American taxpayer's dollars destined for the Kosovo reconstruction effort will be invested in the purchase of American made goods and services whenever possible. This legislation will benefit both the people of Kosovo and American workers. The people of Kosovo will have reconstructed homes, hospitals, factories, bridges, powerplants and telecommunication systems. The American people will benefit as a significant portion of their hard- earned taxpayer dollars come back to the U.S. in the form of new orders for American made goods and services. New jobs will be created. With this legislation we can make the best out of a looming, costly, and long term burden on our nation's budget. This will be especially important for some of our key industries, such as agriculture and steel, that are facing hard times here at home. Other hard working Americans from industries like manufacturing, engineering, construction, high tech and telecommunications will also enjoy new opportunities to produce goods and services destined for export overseas. For example, our ranchers and farmers, many of whom are being severely harmed by a combination of tough competition at home, cheap imports and closed markets overseas will benefit. This bill will help provide them with the opportunity to strengthen their share in Europe's Southeastern markets. Our steel workers, many of whom are also in a tough situation, will benefit as U.S. made steel is used to reconstruct, homes, hospitals, factories, bridges and other necessary infrastructure. American steel would also be used as American made construction equipment and tractors are delivered to the Balkans. American engineers, contractors and other service providers will play a key role in rebuilding telecommunications and other necessary infrastructure projects. The American taxpayers have already borne the lion's share of waging the war in Kosovo. Our pilots flew the vast majority of the combat sorties. In addition, the Foreign Operations Supplemental Appropriations bill that passed last month provided $819 million for humanitarian and refugee aid for Kosovo and surrounding countries. It has been estimated that peace keeping operations will cost an additional $3 billion in the first year alone. This is just the beginning. In the future, American taxpayers will be spending tens of billions of dollars more as we participate in what apparently is an open-ended peacekeeping effort. Without this legislation those countries who largely sat on the sidelines while we fought will be allowed to sweep in and clean up. The American taxpayers' dollars should not be used to profit Western European conglomerates. The American people deserve better. This Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Amendment will help remedy this situation. Yet another problem this bill would help alleviate is our exploding trade deficit which is on track to an all time high of approximately $250 billion by the end of this year. In March of this year alone, the U.S. posted a record one month trade deficit of $19.7 billion. Furthermore, many of the other industrialized countries that regularly distribute foreign aid do not do so with no strings attached. For many years now, countries like Japan have also required that the foreign aid funds they distribute be used to buy products produced by their domestic companies. The degree to which the Japanese government uses ``tied aid'' to the benefit of Japanese companies and boost their exports was underscored by a recent quote that can be found in the June, 1999, issue of the ``Look Japan'' magazine. When referring to Japanese efforts to help neighbor countries recover from the Asian economic crisis, Oshima Kenzo, the Director of the Economic Cooperation Bureau at Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: This enormous machine of Japanese aid has barely begun to move. Aid to Asian countries in crisis is something that must be done on an ``all-Japan'' basis . . . The purpose of aid to Asia is primarily to provide relief to Asian countries, but it has a secondary aspect of reenergizing the Japanese economy too, so there are many domestic hopes riding on this as well. While my original Kosovo reconstruction language in S. 1212 included tougher ``Buy America'' provisions, this amendment's compromise language will allow U.S. foreign aid funds to be used to purchase goods and services produced in ``least-developed countries.'' This is something we can do while still serving the purpose of this amendment. For example, U.S. steel workers will still have the first shot at producing steel for the Kosovo reconstruction effort since countries such as Japan, South Korea and Brazil, all of whom have been taking a heavy toll on the U.S. steel industry here at home, most definitely are not ``least developed countries.'' American telecommunications, heavy equipment manufacturers and a wide variety of other U.S. industries will also benefit. If America's Airmen, Sailors, Marines and Soldiers are good enough to wage a war, then America's hard working taxpayers, including steel and manufacturing workers, engineers and contractors are good enough to help rebuild shattered countries. If we are called on to put the Balkans back together, we should do it with a fair share of goods and services made in America. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 322, the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Recognition Act of 1999. It is a fitting and appropriate tribute to have this legislation honoring Dr. King pass the full Senate on Flag Day which is being commemorated today. This legislation will amend the Flag Code to add the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the American flag should be displayed nationwide. It is a testament to the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr., that nearly every major city in the U.S. has a street or school named after him. Dr. King, a minister, prolific writer and Nobel Prize winner originated the nonviolence strategy within the activist civil rights movement. He was one of the most important black leaders of his era and in American history. When Dr. King was tragically assassinated on April 4, 1968, he had already transformed himself as a national hero and a pioneer in trying to unite a divided nation. He strove to build communities of hope and opportunity for all and recognized that all Americans must be free to truly have a great country. Dr. King was a person who wanted all people to get along regardless of their race, color or creed. His holiday came about due to the work of many determined people who wanted all of us to pause to remember his legacy. Senate passage of S. 322 will further recognize his legacy. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999. This legislation would require that the United States foreign aid funds committed to the reconstruction of Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans in the wake of the Kosovo conflict will be used to purchase American-made goods and services whenever possible. This legislation provides a win-win approach to reconstruction by helping the people of Kosovo and others who live in the Balkans who have suffered as a result of the Kosovo conflict while also looking out for American workers. The people of Kosovo and the Balkans will win by having new homes, hospitals, factories, bridges, and much more rebuilt. They will have roofs over their heads, places to go for health care and to work, and the roads and bridges needed to get there. The American people will win as a sizable portion of their hard- earned taxpayer dollars will come back to the United States in the form of new orders for American-made goods and services. New jobs will be created. With this legislation we can make the best out of a looming, costly, and long-term burden on our Nation's budget. This will be especially important for some of our key industries, such as agriculture and steel, that are facing hard times here at home. Other hard-working Americans from industries like manufacturing, engineering, construction, and telecommunications will also enjoy new opportunities to produce goods and services for the people of Southeastern Europe. For example, our ranchers and farmers, many of whom are being severely harmed by a combination of tough competition at home, cheap imports and closed markets overseas will benefit. This bill will help provide them with the opportunity to strengthen their share in Europe's Southeastern markets. Our steel workers, many of whom are also in a tough situation, will benefit as U.S. made steel is used to reconstruct homes, hospitals, factories, and bridges. American engineers, contractors, and other service providers will play a key role in rebuilding telecommunications and other necessary infrastructure projects. To ensure that the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act does not unduly hinder the reconstruction effort, it allows for American foreign aid funds to be used to buy goods and services produced by other parties in cases where U.S. made goods and services are deemed to be ``prohibitively expensive.'' The American taxpayers are already bearing the lion's share of waging the war in Kosovo. To date, our nation's military has spent about $3 billion Kosovo war effort. Our pilots flew the vast majority of the combat sorties. In addition, the Foreign Operations supplemental appropriations bill that passed last month provided $819 million for humanitarian and refugee aid for Kosovo and surrounding countries. It has been estimated that peace keeping operations will cost an additional $3 billion in the first year alone. This is just the beginning. In the future, American taxpayers will be spending many tens of billions of dollars more as we participate in the apparently open- ended peacekeeping effort. Without this legislation, those countries who largely sat on the sidelines while we fought will be allowed to sweep in and clean up. The American taxpayers' dollars should not be used as a windfall profits program to boost Western European conglomerates. The American people deserve better. The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999 would remedy this situation. Yet another problem this bill would help alleviate is our exploding trade deficit which is on track to an all time high of approximately $250 billion by the end of this year. In March of this year alone, the United States posted a record 1 month trade deficit of $19.7 billion. Furthermore, many of the other industrialized countries that regularly distribute foreign aid do not distribute it with no strings attached. For many years now, countries like Japan have also required that the foreign aid funds they distribute be used to buy products produced by their domestic companies. We also must face the reality that there is much more to rebuilding this region than money can buy. The various ethnic groups residing throughout the Balkans must realize that they have to change their hearts and ways if there is to be any lasting peace and prosperity. We cannot do this for them. They have to do it for themselves, as communities, families, and individuals. If they commit themselves to rule of law, freedom of speech, free and open markets, the primacy of the ballot box over bullets and a live and let live tolerance of others, they will be well on their way as they head into the new millennium. Once again, here we are reconstructing a part of Europe. Once again, we did not start the war, but we had to finish it and then were called on to come in, pick up the pieces, and put them back together again. If America's airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers are good enough to win a war, then America's hard-working taxpayers, including farmers, steel workers, and engineers are good enough to help rebuild shattered countries. If we are called on to put the Balkans back together, we should do it with a fair share of goods and services made in America. The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act will help make sure that both the victims of the Kosovo conflict and the American people win. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999. This legislation would require that the United States foreign aid funds committed to the reconstruction of Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans in the wake of the Kosovo conflict will be used to purchase American-made goods and services whenever possible. This legislation provides a win-win approach to reconstruction by helping the people of Kosovo and others who live in the Balkans who have suffered as a result of the Kosovo conflict while also looking out for American workers. The people of Kosovo and the Balkans will win by having new homes, hospitals, factories, bridges, and much more rebuilt. They will have roofs over their heads, places to go for health care and to work, and the roads and bridges needed to get there. The American people will win as a sizable portion of their hard- earned taxpayer dollars will come back to the United States in the form of new orders for American-made goods and services. New jobs will be created. With this legislation we can make the best out of a looming, costly, and long-term burden on our Nation's budget. This will be especially important for some of our key industries, such as agriculture and steel, that are facing hard times here at home. Other hard-working Americans from industries like manufacturing, engineering, construction, and telecommunications will also enjoy new opportunities to produce goods and services for the people of Southeastern Europe. For example, our ranchers and farmers, many of whom are being severely harmed by a combination of tough competition at home, cheap imports and closed markets overseas will benefit. This bill will help provide them with the opportunity to strengthen their share in Europe's Southeastern markets. Our steel workers, many of whom are also in a tough situation, will benefit as U.S. made steel is used to reconstruct homes, hospitals, factories, and bridges. American engineers, contractors, and other service providers will play a key role in rebuilding telecommunications and other necessary infrastructure projects. To ensure that the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act does not unduly hinder the reconstruction effort, it allows for American foreign aid funds to be used to buy goods and services produced by other parties in cases where U.S. made goods and services are deemed to be ``prohibitively expensive.'' The American taxpayers are already bearing the lion's share of waging the war in Kosovo. To date, our nation's military has spent about $3 billion Kosovo war effort. Our pilots flew the vast majority of the combat sorties. In addition, the Foreign Operations supplemental appropriations bill that passed last month provided $819 million for humanitarian and refugee aid for Kosovo and surrounding countries. It has been estimated that peace keeping operations will cost an additional $3 billion in the first year alone. This is just the beginning. In the future, American taxpayers will be spending many tens of billions of dollars more as we participate in the apparently open- ended peacekeeping effort. Without this legislation, those countries who largely sat on the sidelines while we fought will be allowed to sweep in and clean up. The American taxpayers' dollars should not be used as a windfall profits program to boost Western European conglomerates. The American people deserve better. The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999 would remedy this situation. Yet another problem this bill would help alleviate is our exploding trade deficit which is on track to an all time high of approximately $250 billion by the end of this year. In March of this year alone, the United States posted a record 1 month trade deficit of $19.7 billion. Furthermore, many of the other industrialized countries that regularly distribute foreign aid do not distribute it with no strings attached. For many years now, countries like Japan have also required that the foreign aid funds they distribute be used to buy products produced by their domestic companies. We also must face the reality that there is much more to rebuilding this region than money can buy. The various ethnic groups residing throughout the Balkans must realize that they have to change their hearts and ways if there is to be any lasting peace and prosperity. We cannot do this for them. They have to do it for themselves, as communities, families, and individuals. If they commit themselves to rule of law, freedom of speech, free and open markets, the primacy of the ballot box over bullets and a live and let live tolerance of others, they will be well on their way as they head into the new millennium. Once again, here we are reconstructing a part of Europe. Once again, we did not start the war, but we had to finish it and then were called on to come in, pick up the pieces, and put them back together again. If America's airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers are good enough to win a war, then America's hard-working taxpayers, including farmers, steel workers, and engineers are good enough to help rebuild shattered countries. If we are called on to put the Balkans back together, we should do it with a fair share of goods and services made in America. The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act will help make sure that both the victims of the Kosovo conflict and the American people win. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Private Property Protection Act of 1999. This bill would require that Interior Department personnel obtain either the property owner's permission or a properly attained and legal search warrant before they enter someone's private property. America's law abiding private property owners, especially our ranchers and farmers, should not be subject to unwarranted trespassing and egregious random searches by federal bureaucrats. They deserve to be treated fairly and according to the law, just like other Americans. They deserve the same private property rights that other Americans enjoy. Under our legal system, if appropriate sworn law enforcement officers can demonstrate to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that a person has broken the law, and that there is a justified need to enter a property, then those law enforcement officials can obtain a search warrant to enter and search a private property. This is reasonable, just and how it should be. I have a firsthand understanding of this from the time I served as a Deputy Sheriff. However, all too often our ranchers, farmers and other private property owners are being denied these same basic legal property rights when it comes to federal employees operating under endangered species laws. Interior Department employees are trespassing on private property without the owner's permission or a search warrant. Many of these Interior Department employees who are trespassing have no sworn legal authority whatsoever. Disturbing incidents of federal agency personnel operating outside of the law, and willfully trespassing on private property without any legal just cause, threatens to erode our fundamental property rights. One particular case that occurred in El Paso County, in my home state of Colorado, stands as a prime example. A February 5th, 1999 article entitled ``Federal employee pleads no contest to trespassing'' in the AG JOURNAL illustrates this El Paso County case. Last fall, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree criminal trespassing. This individual is one of the many thousands employed by the Interior Department, and had no legal basis to be on a private ranch located near Colorado Springs. His sentence included a $138 fine and 30 hours of community service. I applaud the El Paso County District Attorney's Office for standing up to federal lawyers and pursuing this case to its rightful conclusion. It is a small but important victory for American private property owners. It also illustrates a disturbing ability of some federal employees to act as though they are above the law. Furthermore, the American taxpayers are picking up the tab for the legal defense of these trespassers. When I inquired with both the Interior Department and the Justice Department as to how much taxpayer money was spent to defend the convicted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service trespasser, they did not disclose the specific dollar amount. These agencies seem to be sending federal personnel the message: ``Go ahead and trespass on private property. If you get caught, we'll go ahead and fix it because we think that the benefits of trespassing outweigh the costs of getting caught.'' This is not acceptable. Unfortunately, the El Paso County incident is far from isolated. It is certain that every year, hundreds of private property owners, ranchers and farmers are subject to trespassing by federal employees. We will never know how many trespassing cases go unreported because Americans feel that they can not beat the federal government's bureaucrats and lawyers, and fear that if they do, there may be retribution. The Colorado Cattlemen's Association has written a letter of support for the Private Property Protection Act of 1999. I appreciate their support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Private Property Protection Act of 1999. This bill would require that Interior Department personnel obtain either the property owner's permission or a properly attained and legal search warrant before they enter someone's private property. America's law abiding private property owners, especially our ranchers and farmers, should not be subject to unwarranted trespassing and egregious random searches by federal bureaucrats. They deserve to be treated fairly and according to the law, just like other Americans. They deserve the same private property rights that other Americans enjoy. Under our legal system, if appropriate sworn law enforcement officers can demonstrate to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that a person has broken the law, and that there is a justified need to enter a property, then those law enforcement officials can obtain a search warrant to enter and search a private property. This is reasonable, just and how it should be. I have a firsthand understanding of this from the time I served as a Deputy Sheriff. However, all too often our ranchers, farmers and other private property owners are being denied these same basic legal property rights when it comes to federal employees operating under endangered species laws. Interior Department employees are trespassing on private property without the owner's permission or a search warrant. Many of these Interior Department employees who are trespassing have no sworn legal authority whatsoever. Disturbing incidents of federal agency personnel operating outside of the law, and willfully trespassing on private property without any legal just cause, threatens to erode our fundamental property rights. One particular case that occurred in El Paso County, in my home state of Colorado, stands as a prime example. A February 5th, 1999 article entitled ``Federal employee pleads no contest to trespassing'' in the AG JOURNAL illustrates this El Paso County case. Last fall, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree criminal trespassing. This individual is one of the many thousands employed by the Interior Department, and had no legal basis to be on a private ranch located near Colorado Springs. His sentence included a $138 fine and 30 hours of community service. I applaud the El Paso County District Attorney's Office for standing up to federal lawyers and pursuing this case to its rightful conclusion. It is a small but important victory for American private property owners. It also illustrates a disturbing ability of some federal employees to act as though they are above the law. Furthermore, the American taxpayers are picking up the tab for the legal defense of these trespassers. When I inquired with both the Interior Department and the Justice Department as to how much taxpayer money was spent to defend the convicted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service trespasser, they did not disclose the specific dollar amount. These agencies seem to be sending federal personnel the message: ``Go ahead and trespass on private property. If you get caught, we'll go ahead and fix it because we think that the benefits of trespassing outweigh the costs of getting caught.'' This is not acceptable. Unfortunately, the El Paso County incident is far from isolated. It is certain that every year, hundreds of private property owners, ranchers and farmers are subject to trespassing by federal employees. We will never know how many trespassing cases go unreported because Americans feel that they can not beat the federal government's bureaucrats and lawyers, and fear that if they do, there may be retribution. The Colorado Cattlemen's Association has written a letter of support for the Private Property Protection Act of 1999. I appreciate their support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I submit the Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution of 1999. This resolution's goal is to express the sense of the Senate that the United States should not end up paying more than its fair share of the Kosovo reconstruction effort. Specifically, the Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution states that the United States' share of the costs of reconstructing Kosovo and the surrounding region following the conflict in the Balkans should not exceed the United States' portion of NATO's three ``Common Funds Burdensharing'' budgets. Our contributions to NATO come in two basic forms. The first and most significant portion by far comprises our direct deployment of troops and equipment. Over the years America has contributed the lion's share of the troops and equipment. America's disproportionally heavy burden has continued into the late 1990s as the War in Kosovo clearly demonstrated. The vast majority of the fighting needed to wage the war in Kosovo was done in large part by American air power. We should not have to also carry the burden in the Kosovo reconstruction effort. That's why the Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution states that America's portion of the reconstruction costs should not exceed the portion we contribute to NATO's three Common Fund Accounts, which is smaller than our contributions of troops and equipment. Factors considered when determining each country's portion includes its respective Gross Domestic Product and other considerations. Over the past three decades the U.S. portion has declined, as it should. For the years 1996 through 1998, America's contribution to these three NATO common funds averaged around 23 percent according to the Congressional Research Service. Accordingly, this resolution calls for capping our portion of the reconstruction costs at the same level of 23 percent. In light of the fact that we carried the vast majority of the burden in ending the fighting I think that this is still too much. Perhaps 10 percent is a fairer share. It is time for our European allies to do their fair share. Following World War Two, a war that would not have been won without America, the American people invested in the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was vital in the effort to rebuild Europe from the ashes of WWII. Fifty years later we won the Cold War. Now, just yesterday, we put an end to the fighting in Kosovo. It is time for our NATO European allies to shoulder the financial burden to rebuild a region of their own continent that has been ravaged by war. The Kosovo Reconstruction Fair Share Resolution indicates that America will not pay more than our fair share. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity today to call my colleagues' attention to the importance of women's health care issues. I came to know the importance of women's health early in life. Some of you may know that my mother suffered from tuberculosis. Back in those days, patients with TB had to be isolated, so my mother was living in a sanatorium. I could not see her in person, only through the windows. In the past, women's health did not receive the attention it deserves. I believe it is time to change that. If we are to eliminate the diseases that especially afflict women today, we will need real dedication to the task of developing new treatments and prevention techniques. And because women make many of the health care decisions for families, their decisions touch the health of many people--children, spouses, elderly parents and relatives. In this great country of ours, where we emphasize personal responsibility, good health care decisions are fundamental to quality health. As medical science advances into new territory, expanded choices will give women unprecedented opportunities to live better and longer lives, and to affect the quality of health care in our country. Women will be called upon to take charge of their own health as well as to demand medical excellence for their families. Only with the help of such informed decision makers will we be able to develop policies which assure all Americans access to affordable, quality health care. In an effort to highlight women's health care and to make women aware of the health care choices that are available to them, I recently co- hosted a forum, Health Care: What Every Woman Should Know, with our former colleague in the Senate, Hank Brown, now President of the University of Northern Colorado. The conference featured a number of panelists who discussed the latest research and treatment of various kinds of cancer as well as depression and eating disorders. Legislative initiatives and solutions were also part of the forum agenda. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the forum agenda and an article from the Greeley Tribune newspaper highlighting remarks of the keynote speaker Assistant Surgeon General Susan Blumenthal be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, information we received at the forum will be helpful in my work on the Appropriations Committee as we consider funding priorities in the women's health area. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, June 6, 1999, was the 55th Anniversary of the historic Allied invasion of Europe on the beaches of Normandy, France, that spelled the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany. In America today, with unprecedented prosperity and material comfort, it is hard to appreciate the American experience leading up to World War II and the war itself. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was not only caught off guard, we were also caught unprepared for the war that loomed in Europe and in the Pacific that would involve the United States for 5 long years. Still plagued by the Great Depression, unemployment sky high and poverty all around, Americans accepted the challenge and responded like no people ever had. With scrap metal drives, rubber drives, gasoline and food rationing, and other efforts American men and women pulled together and contributed to the massive war effort. Americans of all races, creeds, colors, and backgrounds joined the military, worked in industrial plants, and assisted in too many ways to mention as the nation joined together to battle tyranny and oppression. America's economic and military might was called on to produce hundreds of thousands of planes, tanks, trucks, ships, boats, and weapons. We not only produced the materials for our own efforts but kept our Allies supplied with civilian and military goods to ensure an Allied victory. The ``Arsenal of Democracy'' was running at high gear from 1941 on, and all of these efforts came to a head in June, 1944. Even after the successful Africa campaign showed that the German war machine was not invincible, America and her Allies looked for a ``second front'' to draw Nazi Germany's attention and resources into other battles. Under the leadership of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allies began planning for just such a front with an amphibious invasion in Europe and America's fighting forces made the necessary preparations. Millions of men, and millions of tons of equipment, supplies, vehicles and weapons were delivered from the United States to England in preparation for the assault. Postponed several times because of poor weather in the English Channel, on June 5, 1944, General Eisenhower gave the final order that would unleash the historic battle. In the morning hours of June 6th, over 175,000 men from the streets of Philadelphia to Indian reservations of Arizona, from Alaska to Florida, landed on the beaches of Normandy, France. In the years since that day, we have seen movies about this, the most ambitious amphibious invasion ever attempted in history. Just last year we saw it vividly replayed with the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' in what the soldiers themselves said was an accurate portrayal what occurred so many years ago. As a veteran, and having read many eyewitness accounts of that day, I think that the real horrors of that day, and especially the first minutes of that historic landing, are simply unimaginable to us. Though the Allies enjoyed complete air superiority in the Normandy area, clouds shrouded the beaches diminishing the effect of Allied air power. At the landing beach that quickly became known as ``Bloody Omaha'', the Americans took the brunt of the German defenses. Entire companies of men were chopped down seconds after the doors dropped on the landing craft. The Germans poured fire down on the Americans, but they kept coming ashore wave after wave. Only alter an exhaustive day of fighting and dying, was the beachhead established. In 1999, it is easy to think of the D-Day invasion and of the Allied success in World War II as pre-determined. In 1944, it just was not so and Eisenhower and the Allied leaders knew that at that point victory was not assured and that the war could still be lost. It is humbling to read the never-delivered address General Eisenhower penned in case the Allies were driven back into the sea. In it, Eisenhower assumed all fault for a failed invasion attempt. Thankfully, he never had to deliver that address. From the beaches at Normandy, the Allies broke out, fought through the hedgerows, and went on to liberate Paris in July, 1944. From Paris to the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes, through the low countries and ultimately sweeping on to Berlin the Allies--with the Americans taking the lead--secured victory over Nazi Germany in April, 1945. It took four more months of island-to-island combat to defeat the Japanese Empire in August, 1945, and to achieve complete and total victory in World War II. This nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who made Normandy and the entire war effort the success it was. With each day, scores of D-Day veterans, many in their late 70's and 80's, pass away. As a generation, this group was unique in living and making real their unspoken code: faithfulness and duty to God, family, and country. The brave men of Normandy--both the survivors and those buried in the American Cemetery just up the hill from the landing beaches--from both humble and privileged beginnings, deserve to be honored by the Senate and the nation as whole. In this spirit I urge my colleagues to support me in honoring the veterans of D-Day and all veterans who have sacrificed for this great nation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as I did around this time last year, I want to recognize National Drug Court Week which is taking place next week. Since the Senate will be in recess at that time, I take this opportunity today to applaud our nation's drug courts and the people who have made them the successes they are today. Next week, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals will sponsor a training conference, suitably titled ``Celebrating Ten Years of Drug Courts: Honoring the Past, Looking to the Future,'' which will be held in Miami Beach, Florida. This year approximately 3,000 professionals from across the country, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, corrections personnel, rehabilitation and treatment providers, educators, researchers and community leaders will be attending the conference. These Drug Court professionals' dedication has had a significant positive impact on the communities they serve. The two and a half day conference will coincide with National Drug Court Week, June 1st though 7th, 1999. All across America, state and local governments have been recognizing drug courts and their dedicated professionals with resolutions, ceremonies and celebrations. The Drug Court growth rate has been accelerating over the past several years. While the first Drug Court was established in 1989, there are currently over 600 Drug Courts that are either operating or being established. This surge in growth is a product of success. Drug Courts are revolutionizing 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. Some Drug Courts target first time offenders, while others concentrate on habitual offenders. They all aim to reduce drug abuse and crime by employing a number of tools including comprehensive judicial monitoring, drug testing and supervision, treatment and rehabilitative services, and sanctions and incentives for drug offenders. Statistics show us that Drug Courts work. It has been well documented that both drug use and associated criminal behavior are substantially reduced among those offenders participating in the Drug Courts. More than 70 percent of drug court clients have successfully completed the program or remain as active participants. Drug Courts are also clearly cost-effective and help convert many drug-using offenders into productive members of society. Traditional incarceration has yielded few gains for our drug offenders. The costs are too high and the rehabilitation rate is minimal. Our Drug Courts are proving to be an effective alternative to traditional rehabilitation methods and are make strides forward in our fight against both drugs and crime. In 1997, General McCaffrey and I had the opportunity to visit the Denver Drug Court. Through this experience I was able to meet with Denver's Drug Court professionals and observe their judicial procedures and other program activities first hand. I was impressed with the Denver Drug Court professionals and procedures, and believe they will yield many successes. Today, as the chairman of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds the Office of National Drug Control Policy, I feel it is fitting to recognize on the floor of the U.S. Senate the important contributions our nation's Drug Court professionals are making toward reducing drug use and crime in our communities in time for National Drug Court Week. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the pending amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to enhance school safety. This bill is based in large part on the work of the Republican Juvenile Crime Task Force, on which I served. I am pleased to see that the amendment includes three provisions I proposed to the Task Force to help make our children's schools safer. The first provision authorizes the use of funds to train school personnel, including custodians and bus drivers. These key people on and near school grounds can be helpful in finding suspicious objects, pipe bombs, or other means of harm if they had the proper training. These personnel can be utilized for identifying potential threats, crisis preparedness, and emergency response. I intend to build on this work in the FY 2000 Treasury appropriations bill by supporting the role of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in training school personnel in the detection of weapons and explosives. The second provision authorizes the use of funds for the purchase of school security equipment and technologies, such as metal detectors, electronic locks, and surveillance equipment. This provision is based on S. 996, the ``Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 1999'' which I introduced on May 11, 1999. The third provision would invest more resources in School Resource Officers, including community policing officers. This important initiative expands the Cops in Schools program which I was pleased to author as S. 2235 in the 105th Congress. This bill was enacted into law in 1998 and this Spring the Justice Department is making $60 million available for this program in this year alone. School Resource Officers would work in cooperation with children, parents, teachers and principals to identify dangers and potentially dangerous kids before violence erupts and innocent children get hurt. The Ashcroft Amendment includes many other important provisions to enhance school safety. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this amendment. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that an important provision that is based on a bill I introduced earlier this year has been included in the pending legislation. This provision would provide Federal matching grants to help our state and local law enforcement officers acquire life saving bullet resistant equipment. This provision is based on S. 726, the Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999. S. 726 is named in memory of Dale Claxton, a Cortez, Colorado, police officer who was fatally shot through the windshield of his patrol car last year. A bullet resistant windshield could have saved his life. Unfortunately, incidents like this are far from isolated. All across our nation law enforcement officers, whether in hot pursuit, driving through dangerous neighborhoods, or pulled over on the side of the road behind an automobile, are at risk of being shot through their windshields. We must do what we can to prevent these kinds of tragedies as better, lighter and more affordable types of bullet resistant glass and other equipment become available. While I served as a deputy sheriff in Sacramento County, California, I became personally aware of the inherent dangers law enforcement officers encounter each day on the front lines. Now that I serve as a U.S. Senator here in Washington, DC, I believe we should do what we can to help our law enforcement officers protect themselves as they risk their lives while protecting the American people from violent criminals. One important way we can do this is to help them acquire bullet resistant glass and armored panels for patrol cars, hand held bullet resistant shields and other life saving bullet resistant equipment. This assistance is especially crucial for small local jurisdictions that often lack the funds needed to provide their officers with the life saving bullet resistant equipment they need. This Claxton bullet resistant equipment provision builds upon the successes of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 1605, which I introduced in the 105th Congress and the president signed into law last June. This program provides matching grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to help them purchase body armor for their officers. This provision builds upon this worthy program by expanding it to help them acquire additional types of bullet resistant equipment. The central part of the Claxton provision authorizes a new $40 million matching grant program to help state, local, tribal and other small law enforcement agencies acquire bullet resistant equipment such as bullet resistant glass and armored panels for patrol cars, hand held bullet resistant shields and other life saving equipment. This matching grant program is authorized for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 and would be administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance according to a formula that ensures fair distribution for all states, local communities, tribes and U.S. territories. To help ensure that these matching grants get to the jurisdictions that need them the most the bureau is directed to make at least half of the funds available to those smaller jurisdictions whose budgets are the most financially constrained. Another key part of the Claxton provision allocates $3 million over 3 years to the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct an expedited research and development program to speed up the deployment of new bullet resistant technologies and equipment. The development of new bullet resistant materials in the next few years could be as revolutionary in the next few years as Kevlar was for body armor in the 1970s. Exciting new technologies such as bonded acrylic, polymers, polycarbons, aluminized material and transparent ceramics promise to provide for lighter, more versatile and hopefully less expensive bullet resistant equipment. The Officer Dale Claxton provision also directs the NIJ to inventory existing technologies in the private sector, in surplus military property, and in use by other countries and to evaluate, develop standards, establish testing guidelines, and promote technology transfer. Our nation's state, local and tribal law enforcement officers regularly put their lives in harm's way and deserve to have access to the bullet resistant equipment they need. The Officer Dale Claxton bill will both get life saving bullet resistant equipment deployed into the field where it is are needed and accelerate the development of new lifesaving bullet resistant technologies. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this provision.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, each year half a million guns are stolen and thousands of violent crimes are committed with stolen guns. Furthermore, approximately half of the juvenile gun related crimes in this country involve stolen guns. To address this problem, I am pleased the amendment pending before the Senate to S. 254, includes provisions to increase the maximum prison sentence for existing stolen gun laws. This provision is based on S. 728, the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999, which I introduced on March 25, 1999. The extent of this problem was recently underscored by several news reports and studies. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year. Each year, the Federal Bureau of Investigations alone receives an average of over 274,000 official reports of stolen guns. A large number of stolen guns also go unreported. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms studies note that convicted felons often choose to steal firearms as a way to avoid mandatory background checks. In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this March, the Bureau had a total of 36,000 guns on its unrecovered stolen firearms list, with about one-third of them being handguns. As I mentioned earlier, the stolen gun problem is especially widespread and alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates shows that over 50 percent of them had stolen a gun. Clearly, with half a million guns being stolen each year, those criminals and juveniles stealing guns must not be very deterred by the current penalties. A provision within the bill before us today would address this problem by increasing prison sentences for violating current stolen firearms law provisions from a maximum of 10 years to a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. Specifically, under current federal law, it is illegal to steal a firearm from any person including licensed firearm collectors, dealers, importers, and manufacturers. It is also illegal to knowingly transport, ship, receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. Current sentencing guidelines cap the penalty for violating these stolen gun laws at a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. My provision calls for increasing the maximum prison sentence from 10 years to 15 years, and directs the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses. While I am a strong supporter of the rights of law abiding gun owners, I also firmly believe we need tougher penalties for criminals who steal guns or use stolen guns to commit crimes. This stolen gun penalty enhancement provision will send a clear signal to criminals that stealing or using stolen guns is something we take very seriously. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this provision. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 1999. This legislation would build on the successes of two bills I sponsored in the 105th Congress and that were signed into law, S. 2235, which established the Cops in Schools program and S. 1605, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998. Juvenile crime prevention, of course, is on all of our minds, particularly since the recent tragedy in Littleton. I think all of us know that violence has gone up among youngsters and it threatens a safe learning environment for our students at school. As a former teacher, a deputy sheriff, and parent, I developed a special sensitivity long before I came to the Senate. On April 20, in my home State, 13 innocent victims, 12 students and 1 very heroic teacher, were murdered at Columbine High School. This town is a very nice town. Littleton is a wonderful community. The school of Columbine is a nice school with few problems. I guess people are prone to say if it could happen there, it certainly could happen anywhere. Clearly, no student should have to go to school where they fear for their lives. Statistics on violence in schools are startling. In fact, recent reports indicated there were 173 violent deaths in U.S. schools between 1994 and 1998 and that 31% of children know someone their age who carries a gun. The National Education Association estimated that 100,000 youngsters carry guns to school and 160,000 children miss class every day because they fear physical harm. We know that government cannot fix it all. We are being leaned on, of course, to pass more and more laws to correct all these problems, but most of us know there has to be teamwork involving students and parents and families and communities and religious leaders and school administrators. This teamwork should also include law enforcement officers working closely with schools. Teachers and principals simply do not have the training or equipment or resources to deal with the problem. And they shouldn't have to, they should be focusing on teaching our kids. That's why I introduced S. 2235 last year, the School Resource Officers Partnership Grant Act of 1998, to help stop school violence. S. 2235, which was signed into law last October, will create thousands of vital partnerships between state and local law enforcement agencies, and the schools, parents and children they serve and protect. Schools that establish these partnerships would be eligible to receive federal funding through the Justice Department to hire School Resource Officers, also known as SROs. SROs are career law enforcement officers, with sworn authority, within the Community Policing program, and will work in and around our schools. Working in cooperation with youngsters, parents, teachers and principals, these SROs would be able to keep track of potentially dangerous kids and effectively deal with them before things escalate, violence errupts, and youngsters get hurt. These SROs would work in our schools, not as armed guards, but primarially as people who would help resolve conflicts. There is $60 million in Cops in School grants which will be distributed this year alone. In fact, the Justice Department has just announced the first round of grants with hundreds of schools in 42 states benefiting. The bill I am introducing today, the Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 1999, would build on the Cops in Schools program to help improve school safety. The Students Learning in Safe Schools Act would provide federal matching grants to help schools buy metal detectors, metal detecting wands, video cameras, and other equipment needed to help make our schools safer. This bill calls for a matching grant of $40 million for each of the 3 fiscal years from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002. The grants would be easily accessible to States, local governments, and school districts with a minimum of redtape. This is not a mandate, however. It is an opportunity for school districts to get some additional resources. This legislation calls for posting this new school safety equipment grant program on the Internet right next to the Cops in Schools program which can now be found on the Justice Department's web sight. This would help provide one stop shopping where people can go for help in getting both the safety personnel and safety equipment they need to help make their schools safer. I do not expect this legislation, of course, to solve all our problems but certainly it is another tool I hope will go a long way in reducing juvenile violence in schools. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 1999. This legislation would build on the successes of two bills I sponsored in the 105th Congress and that were signed into law, S. 2235, which established the Cops in Schools program and S. 1605, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998. Juvenile crime prevention, of course, is on all of our minds, particularly since the recent tragedy in Littleton. I think all of us know that violence has gone up among youngsters and it threatens a safe learning environment for our students at school. As a former teacher, a deputy sheriff, and parent, I developed a special sensitivity long before I came to the Senate. On April 20, in my home State, 13 innocent victims, 12 students and 1 very heroic teacher, were murdered at Columbine High School. This town is a very nice town. Littleton is a wonderful community. The school of Columbine is a nice school with few problems. I guess people are prone to say if it could happen there, it certainly could happen anywhere. Clearly, no student should have to go to school where they fear for their lives. Statistics on violence in schools are startling. In fact, recent reports indicated there were 173 violent deaths in U.S. schools between 1994 and 1998 and that 31% of children know someone their age who carries a gun. The National Education Association estimated that 100,000 youngsters carry guns to school and 160,000 children miss class every day because they fear physical harm. We know that government cannot fix it all. We are being leaned on, of course, to pass more and more laws to correct all these problems, but most of us know there has to be teamwork involving students and parents and families and communities and religious leaders and school administrators. This teamwork should also include law enforcement officers working closely with schools. Teachers and principals simply do not have the training or equipment or resources to deal with the problem. And they shouldn't have to, they should be focusing on teaching our kids. That's why I introduced S. 2235 last year, the School Resource Officers Partnership Grant Act of 1998, to help stop school violence. S. 2235, which was signed into law last October, will create thousands of vital partnerships between state and local law enforcement agencies, and the schools, parents and children they serve and protect. Schools that establish these partnerships would be eligible to receive federal funding through the Justice Department to hire School Resource Officers, also known as SROs. SROs are career law enforcement officers, with sworn authority, within the Community Policing program, and will work in and around our schools. Working in cooperation with youngsters, parents, teachers and principals, these SROs would be able to keep track of potentially dangerous kids and effectively deal with them before things escalate, violence errupts, and youngsters get hurt. These SROs would work in our schools, not as armed guards, but primarially as people who would help resolve conflicts. There is $60 million in Cops in School grants which will be distributed this year alone. In fact, the Justice Department has just announced the first round of grants with hundreds of schools in 42 states benefiting. The bill I am introducing today, the Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 1999, would build on the Cops in Schools program to help improve school safety. The Students Learning in Safe Schools Act would provide federal matching grants to help schools buy metal detectors, metal detecting wands, video cameras, and other equipment needed to help make our schools safer. This bill calls for a matching grant of $40 million for each of the 3 fiscal years from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002. The grants would be easily accessible to States, local governments, and school districts with a minimum of redtape. This is not a mandate, however. It is an opportunity for school districts to get some additional resources. This legislation calls for posting this new school safety equipment grant program on the Internet right next to the Cops in Schools program which can now be found on the Justice Department's web sight. This would help provide one stop shopping where people can go for help in getting both the safety personnel and safety equipment they need to help make their schools safer. I do not expect this legislation, of course, to solve all our problems but certainly it is another tool I hope will go a long way in reducing juvenile violence in schools. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce amendments to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (``ISDEA'') to provide for greater tribal self-governance for the programs and services of the Department of Health and Human Services (``HHS''). Over the years the poor circumstances and conditions of Native Americans have been compounded by vacillating federal policies and federal domination of matters affecting Indian people. This situation began to change in 1970, when President Nixon delivered his now-famous ``Message to Congress on Indian Affairs'', which laid the foundation for a more enlightened federal Indian policy. This new policy allowed tribes to forge their own destiny and challenged the federal government to find new, innovative ways to administer Indian programs. Because of the tangible benefits it has brought, this shift away from federal domination and toward Indian self-determination has been supported by every Administration since 1970. Indian self-determination fosters strong tribal governments and reservation economies. This policy has encouraged tribes to assume more responsibility for their own affairs, caused a reduction in the federal bureaucracy and, most importantly, improved the quality of services to tribal members. The most definitive expression of the policy change brought about by President Nixon was the ISDEA which authorized tribes to negotiate and enter into agreements with the U.S. to assume control over and operate federal programs which had been previously administered by federal employees. In the years after enactment of the ISDEA, Congress expanded on the framework by enacting tribal ``self-governance'' laws which created a demonstration project that authorized tribes to enter into ``compacts'' with the U.S., so that they may administer an array of services. The principles of the ISDEA are similar to those of block granting to the states. Instead of the federal government micro-managing Indian tribes, the federal government is contracting with tribes to perform those functions. Like states, tribes know best which governmental programs best serve their communities and how programs should be delivered. In short, the concept of local administration of federal dollars works. By continuing to build tribal capacity and expertise in the administration of programs and services previously administered by employees of the Department of the Interior and the HHS, the Act has forged stronger tribal governments and economies and led to a smaller federal presence in Indian affairs. The current self governance ``demonstration project'' in health care involves approximately 50 tribes. The legislation I introduce today builds on these successes, makes the self governance program permanent and expands an array of eligible functions available for tribal self governance to include the many programs, services and activities of the HHS, such as clinical services, public health nursing, mental health, substance abuse, community health representatives, and dental health. The bill ensures continued participation by the tribes now participating in the self governance project, and provides for participation by an additional 50 tribes or tribal organizations annually. This is far from a ``no-strings attached'' approach to federal programs. To participate, tribes must successfully complete legal and accounting requirements, as well as demonstrate financial stability and financial management capability. This legislation also addresses the issue of which functions may be performed by tribes and which may not. This bill differentiates between those services and activities that are federal, and therefore ineligible for tribal performance through a self-governance compact, and those that are not inherently federal, and therefore eligible for tribal performance through a self-governance compact. To track the progress made in raising the health status of Indians, the bill requires participating tribes to report health-related data to the Secretary so that an accurate picture of Indian health can be drawn. I am mindful that there are issues we need to explore further, such as contract support cost funding, and I fully anticipate that interested parties will have full and fair opportunity to raise their concerns during the legislative process. I am hopeful that after working with the tribes, the Administration and other interested parties, and after careful consideration by the Committee on Indian Affairs, we will be able to enact this important legislation to raise the health status of Native Americans and continue the unparalleled success of the Indian self-determination policies.