Ben Campbell

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.

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.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, on Sunday, May 2nd, John Elway, who for 16 seasons has been the uncontested leader of the Denver Broncos and a valuable civic leader and mentor for young Americans, officially announced his retirement from the NFL. He will be sorely missed. From extraordinary moments like ``The Drive'' in the 1986 AFC Championship Game to countless other picturesque instances, all we have are the many memories now. How do you replace a legend? You can't. Exactly 16 years from the date of his announcement--May 2, 1983--the Denver Broncos acquired John Elway from, the then Baltimore Colts in return for offensive lineman Chris Hinton, quarterback Mark Herrman, and the Broncos' first round draft pick in the 1984 draft. That day will go down as arguably the best day in Broncos' history, and one of the best in football history. I had the pleasure on January 27, 1998 of addressing my colleagues on the Senate floor regarding the accomplishments of one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL, John Elway, with Senate Resolution 167. On February 3, 1999, I again had the honor of calling to my colleagues' attention the outstanding accomplishments of the Denver Broncos and John Elway for capturing another Super Bowl victory. Today I have the distinct honor of congratulating John Elway for a remarkable career and would like to thank him for all he contributed to Colorado and to our nation. Mr. President, John Elway's career has been packed with astonishing statistics; 148 victories, the NFL record for a quarterback; nine Pro Bowl selections; 5 Super Bowl starts, another NFL record; two Super bowl Championships; 300 career touchdown passes; over 50,000 passing yards; Super Bowl XXXIII's Most Valuable Player; the NFL's Most Valuable Player in 1987; the American Football Conference's Most Valuable Player in 1993; and 47 fourth-quarter comebacks, to name just a few of the many highlights of a stellar career. John Elway's leadership and dedication to excellence have benefitted the Broncos, the city of Denver, the state of Colorado, and America. John Elway, your place in Canton, Ohio in the Pro Football Hall of Fame awaits. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Bureaucracy Accountability Act of 1999. This legislation is clearly needed because when federal bureaucracies are faced with a decision between enforcing their rules and regulations or complying with our nation's laws they all to often choose to ignore the law and follow their rules. These bureaucracies can get away with ignoring laws passed by Congress, signed into law and then interpreted by our federal courts because of a technical, legal loophole. Bureaucracies ought not ignore our laws and courts simply because they may find it easier and more convenient to stick with their familiar rules and regulations rather than changing their ways and complying with the law. And when these bureaucracies choose to ignore the law it is almost always average Americans who end up suffering. There are thousands of stories of Americans who have been wrongfully denied their rightful benefits because some federal agency refuses to follow the legal decisions reached by our federal courts. In these situations ordinary American citizens must comply with the law, but federal agencies may simply choose to ignore that same law whenever they may so choose. This is not equal justice under the law. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a justice system in which everyone is required to obey the laws as they are interpreted and enforced through our courts. When there are disagreements appeals can be made to higher courts. But otherwise, when the courts have spoken, we all must obey the law or face the consequences, as it was intended. Currently, if a federal court in one jurisdiction rules against a federal agency's rule, that same federal agency can continue to follow that same rule in other jurisdictions, even if it is to the detriment of the American citizens they are purportedly serving. This needlessly leads to years of costly legal wrangling while also compounding the pain and suffering American citizens endure as they try to secure the same services other Americans are already receiving in neighboring jurisdictions. Some of the more egregious actions are seen in the Social Security Administration, the federal agencies running Medicare and Medicaid, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Internal Revenue Service. In legal terms, this bill would prevent federal agencies from pursuing policies of unjustifiable nonacquiesence with, or the relitigation of, judicial precedents as established through the federal courts. This legislation is a revised version of S. 1166, a bill I introduced in the 105th Congress. The bill I am introducing today contains perfecting language reflecting the valuable input I received during a June 15, 1998, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts hearing on S. 1166. During that hearing, a fellow Coloradan, Lynn Conforti, testified about how her claims for disability benefits were repeatedly denied by the Social Security Administration, not on the basis of existing law, but on the basis of bureaucratic policies. Her testimony highlighted how her physical suffering was compounded by severe financial troubles and mental anguish as a result of her 32-month struggle with the Social Security Administration. This was her return for 27 years of contributing to Social Security. Ms. Conforti hopes to be able to return to work in the future, but she still requires access to the resources she needs to continue her rehabilitation efforts. Finally, Ms. Conforti was awarded her disability benefits by an Administrative Law Judge in an on the record determination. Ms. Conforti's story is just one sad example of how agencies too often fail to help the very people whose need is real. Thousands of other Americans go through similar experiences each year. Something clearly must be done to ensure that federal agencies comply with federal law. There are important organizations that also make it clear that something needs to be done. The Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, serves as the Federal Judiciary's governing body. The Judicial Conference has identified federal agency nonacquiesence as a policy that undermines legal certainty and the fair application of the law. The American Bar Association has also strongly recommended that Congress pass legislation to stop federal agencies from disregarding federal judicial decisions. In addition, organizations such as the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Diabetes Research Institute also came out in support of last year's bill, S. 1166. It's time we made sure federal agencies comply with the law. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Federal Bureaucracy Accountability Act of 1999 be printed in the Record following my comments.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the 25th year anniversary of the Blue Knights International Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club. The Blue Knights International Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club is a fraternal organization of law enforcement professionals and their families actively serving communities throughout the United States, Canada, Australia, France, England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Mexico. This fraternal organization was established in Bangor, Maine, in 1974 and has grown to more than 10,000 members both male and female. They share a common bond of promoting motorcycling, which includes safety and awareness to the non-motorcycle riding public. In addition, the Blue Knights also assists many organizations and communities with developing and implementing fund-raising programs such as the March of Dimes ``Bikers for Babies,'' the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Breast Cancer Foundation's ``Race for the Cure'' and the Blue Knights ``Youth Identification Program.'' The combined efforts of the Blue Knights has made a positive contribution to society. The Blue Knights began in April 1974 when Ed Gallant, a police officer with the Bangor Police Department, had an idea and several of his colleagues worked with him to see the idea become a reality. The idea was to form a motorcycle club for people in law enforcement. The news of the Blue Knights organization spread after an article in the Bangor Daily News was picked up by U.P.I. inquiries started pouring in and consequently chapters started to form worldwide. As an honorary member of the Blue Knights, I have had the privilege of meeting numerous members from around the world and participate in many worthy causes. On this, their 25th anniversary, I applaud the efforts of the Blue Knights and look forward to learning of their future successes.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Bureaucracy Accountability Act of 1999. This legislation is clearly needed because when federal bureaucracies are faced with a decision between enforcing their rules and regulations or complying with our nation's laws they all to often choose to ignore the law and follow their rules. These bureaucracies can get away with ignoring laws passed by Congress, signed into law and then interpreted by our federal courts because of a technical, legal loophole. Bureaucracies ought not ignore our laws and courts simply because they may find it easier and more convenient to stick with their familiar rules and regulations rather than changing their ways and complying with the law. And when these bureaucracies choose to ignore the law it is almost always average Americans who end up suffering. There are thousands of stories of Americans who have been wrongfully denied their rightful benefits because some federal agency refuses to follow the legal decisions reached by our federal courts. In these situations ordinary American citizens must comply with the law, but federal agencies may simply choose to ignore that same law whenever they may so choose. This is not equal justice under the law. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a justice system in which everyone is required to obey the laws as they are interpreted and enforced through our courts. When there are disagreements appeals can be made to higher courts. But otherwise, when the courts have spoken, we all must obey the law or face the consequences, as it was intended. Currently, if a federal court in one jurisdiction rules against a federal agency's rule, that same federal agency can continue to follow that same rule in other jurisdictions, even if it is to the detriment of the American citizens they are purportedly serving. This needlessly leads to years of costly legal wrangling while also compounding the pain and suffering American citizens endure as they try to secure the same services other Americans are already receiving in neighboring jurisdictions. Some of the more egregious actions are seen in the Social Security Administration, the federal agencies running Medicare and Medicaid, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Internal Revenue Service. In legal terms, this bill would prevent federal agencies from pursuing policies of unjustifiable nonacquiesence with, or the relitigation of, judicial precedents as established through the federal courts. This legislation is a revised version of S. 1166, a bill I introduced in the 105th Congress. The bill I am introducing today contains perfecting language reflecting the valuable input I received during a June 15, 1998, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts hearing on S. 1166. During that hearing, a fellow Coloradan, Lynn Conforti, testified about how her claims for disability benefits were repeatedly denied by the Social Security Administration, not on the basis of existing law, but on the basis of bureaucratic policies. Her testimony highlighted how her physical suffering was compounded by severe financial troubles and mental anguish as a result of her 32-month struggle with the Social Security Administration. This was her return for 27 years of contributing to Social Security. Ms. Conforti hopes to be able to return to work in the future, but she still requires access to the resources she needs to continue her rehabilitation efforts. Finally, Ms. Conforti was awarded her disability benefits by an Administrative Law Judge in an on the record determination. Ms. Conforti's story is just one sad example of how agencies too often fail to help the very people whose need is real. Thousands of other Americans go through similar experiences each year. Something clearly must be done to ensure that federal agencies comply with federal law. There are important organizations that also make it clear that something needs to be done. The Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, serves as the Federal Judiciary's governing body. The Judicial Conference has identified federal agency nonacquiesence as a policy that undermines legal certainty and the fair application of the law. The American Bar Association has also strongly recommended that Congress pass legislation to stop federal agencies from disregarding federal judicial decisions. In addition, organizations such as the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Diabetes Research Institute also came out in support of last year's bill, S. 1166. It's time we made sure federal agencies comply with the law. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Federal Bureaucracy Accountability Act of 1999 be printed in the Record following my comments.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding receipt of the resolution, the Senate now begin an hour of debate equally divided in the usual form with respect to H. Con. Res. 92, a resolution relating to the tragedy in Littleton, CO. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the preamble or resolution, and that immediately following the debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the resolution, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to display three ceremonial Indian objects as I make my statement.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I, too, thank the leadership for affording the Senate an opportunity to express our profound sorrow and to offer condolences to the families and friends of the fallen people of Littleton, CO. I understand that a resolution addressing this issue will arrive from the House of Representatives at about 4:30 today. I expect that many Members may want to make comments at that time. The tragic truth is that the angels are now carrying the souls of 13 innocent people to the everlasting glory of heaven. A resolution alone would never express the degree of sorrow we feel. Certainly all of America has much to do to heal our Nation and to rid ourselves of hate and vengeance. Until that resolution is pending, and in order to observe, acknowledge, and honor a moment of silence called for throughout the State of Colorado, I now ask that the Senate observe a moment of silent prayer for 2 minutes.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 4, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on Census 2000, Implementation in Indian Country. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building. committee on indian affairs

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 5, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on Tribal Priority Allocations. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building. subcommittee on energy, research, development, production and resolution

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many of my colleagues in the Senate will speak on this resolution today. I know that the families and, indeed, all of Colorado appreciate their deep and heartfelt sorrow. On my father's side, as you know, Mr. President, I am Cheyenne, so I would like to begin speaking in the manner of his people. This fan comes from the eagle. The old people call the eagle the keeper of the Earth, the one that watches over the domain of the Grandfather Spirit. This pipe carries the smoke with the words and the thoughts from the people who use it to the Creator. This flute is used to carry songs of love, forgiveness, and brotherhood. So, Mr. President, I hope that the voices of all the council fires and pipes send our pleas as Senators as we ask for guidance as we try to rid ourselves of violence in this Nation. I would like the great winged brother that he has chosen as our national symbol of freedom and justice to oversee all of his children. Further, I would like the winds to carry the sweetness and harmony and tolerance of the flute to the Grandfather Spirit. Mr. President, traditional Indian people do not believe that death is finite. Indeed, they believe that mortal remains return to Mother Earth from which they came, but the soul, which is the part of you that is timeless, goes on to the next world to be forever in the presence of the Great Spirit in a place that is absent of avarice and greed, devoid of hunger and sickness, barren of anger, jealousy, and hate. It is a place of goodness where springtime is forever. That is the place where Indian people believe the innocent victims of Columbine High School have journeyed. Although their time on Earth was far too short, the elders remind us that the grace of the Creator made our lives so much better by allowing them to be with us for a time, however short. Columbine High School will go on because our departed friends would have it so, but it will never forget. I have heard the debate thus far on this terrible tragedy, and I have to ask: Are more laws the answer? I frankly do not know, Mr. President. Seventeen Federal laws and I think over 6 State laws were broken during that terrible tragedy. Would 1 more or 100 more have helped? I do not know. I suppose there will be a rush to judgment. And I expect a torrent of proposed legislation, and perhaps some of it will help, perhaps not. But certainly I, as one Senator, will consider any proposal to make things better. Mr. President, none of us have all the answers. But we know we cannot legislate tolerance. We cannot mandate that you love your neighbor. We can pass no law requiring Americans to respect each other. Those qualities are learned, as is hate and intolerance. Government has its place, Mr. President, but so do churches, families, clubs, schools, teams, and indeed complete communities. I hope that we do not confuse who should do what. And let our actions reflect the Good Book at least as much as it does the law book. But above all, let us keep the memory of these innocent children and a heroic teacher alive as we strive for a solution. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, last Wednesday, I came to the floor of the Senate to thank my colleagues who offered their sympathies for the victims and their families involved in the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. I also wanted the people in Colorado to know that our hearts in the United States Senate were with all of the families through this terrible and tragic time. Since then, the victims have been identified. Today, it is with deep sadness that I include for the Record the names of the innocent victims at Columbine High School. I believe it is a fitting tribute for the United States Senate to recognize these 12 students and one teacher who lost their lives in such an unthinkable way. Cassie Bernall, Steven Curnow, Corey De Pooter, Kelly Fleming, Matthew Kechter, Daniel Mauser, Daniel Rohrbough, William ``Dave'' Sanders, Rachel Scott, Isaiah Shoels, John Tomlin, Lauren Townsend, Kyle Velasquez.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Bureau of Indian Affairs Capacity and Mission. The hearing will be held in Room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friends, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and the Senator from California for the condolences and well wishes they have offered. Yesterday, the parents in Jefferson County, CO, said goodbye to their children on their way to school as they have done on countless mornings, and as I have done, and as you have also done as a parent over the years. But for some, that goodbye must now be their final farewell. As a parent and grandparent and the husband of a person who taught school for over 10 years, I can't imagine the agony those families are feeling this morning. Today, my whole State is paralyzed with grief, as you might know. Hundreds of families in Colorado endured a life-or-death lottery-- knowing students at Columbine High School were dead, but not knowing if their youngsters were among those killed. It is tragic that on Earth Day the remains of those students will be returned to the Earth while their souls go to heaven. The community of Littleton is a very nice town. I visit there often. Mr. President, Columbine High School is a fine school, with a fine staff, a good curriculum and nice youngsters. It has no history of racial violence or gang trouble or anything of that nature. It was not a school you would ever expect something like this to happen in. Certainly, there is a story in that and a tragedy. For those families, there will be no more hurried breakfasts, no more arguments over curfews when they send the youngsters to school, no more report cards, no more money for trips to the malls, and no more plans for after they leave high school. What really frightens me is that, despite our best intentions to prevent this from happening, these horrors find a way to continue. In fact, Colorado has had a law on the books since 1994 that prevents any weapons from going into a public school. But they still do. With a gun, a bomb, a knife, a club, or whatever, young people are using violence as a way to resolve disagreements. I don't know how we got there. Perhaps nobody does. I can remember the days when young people decided it was OK to have disagreements in the streets and they might have fist fights after school, or drag races, things of that nature. Those means were not right or acceptable, but those days are long gone. Now, too often they tend to kill their way to solutions. The disputes in those days were between two individuals, and they ended up shaking hands. Somebody lost and somebody won. In those days, we all lived through it. Now, all too often some of the parties to a conflict lose their lives. I don't know when we traded pugilism for pipe bombs. Frankly, I don't think they have found all the bombs at Littleton High School. They are still searching. In fact, one went off at 2 o'clock this morning. I don't know when these youngsters got accustomed to killing each other. But I know we often blame television, we blame movies, we blame video games, and we blame a number of other things. But those children in Jefferson County and their families ache every day. I just wanted to tell the people of Colorado that my colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, Senator Lautenberg, and a number of others have all offered their sympathies, and want people in Colorado to know that our hearts in the United States Senate are with all of the families through this terrible and tragic time. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I address an issue that is of vital importance to the national security of our country and the stability of the Middle East. While Iran's development of nuclear technologies has been a growing concern for the last few years, recent developments demand a response to this serious situation. Last November, Iran signed an accord with Russia to speed up completion of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, calling for an expansion of the current design and construction of the $800 million, 1,000 megawatt light-water reactor in southern Iran. Despite serious United States objections and concerns about the project, Russia maintains its longstanding support for the project and the development of Iran's nuclear program. Though Russian and Iranian governments insist that the reactor will be used for civilian energy purposes, the United States national security community believes that the project is too easy a cover for Iran to obtain vital Russian nuclear weapons technology. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu condemned the Iranian-Russian nuclear cooperation accord as a threat to the entire region, stating: The building of a nuclear reactor in Iran only makes it likelier that Iran will equip its ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. . . . Such a development threatens peace, the whole region and in the end, the Russians themselves. On January 13 of this year, the administration underscored the gravity of this situation and imposed economic sanctions against three Russian institutes for supplying Iran with nuclear technology. But, I believe more needs to be done. While the Khatami government in Iran has made some reform efforts since it was elected in 1997, Iran continues to oppose the Middle East peace process, has broadened its efforts to increase its weapons of mass destruction, and remains subject to the influences of its hard- line defense establishment. As reports of Iran's human rights violations continue, State Department reports on international terrorism indicate Iran's continued assistance to terrorist forces such as Hamas, Hizballah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This clear and consistent record of behavior seriously calls to question Iran's active pursuit to enhance its nuclear facilities. Though Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction have been a growing global concern for several years, international fears were confirmed when in July of last year, Iran demonstrated the strength of its offensive muscle by test-firing its latest Shahab-3 missle. Capable of propelling a 2,200-pound warhead for a range of 800 miles, this missile now allows Iran to pose a significant threat to our allies in the Middle East. The potential results of Iran's successful development of effective nuclear technologies hold horrific implications for the stability of the Middle East. As an original cosponsor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, and signatory of two letters in the 105th Congress to the administration to raise this issue with the Russian leadership, I believe the Senate must continue the effort in light of this growing threat. Today I am joined by Senator Sessions in introducing the Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1999 as a means to hinder the development of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The House version of this legislation is also being introduced today by Congressman Menendez of New Jersey. This bill requires the withholding of proportional voluntary United States assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for programs and projects supported by the Agency in Iran. This legislation specifically aims to limit the Agency's assistance of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Last October, this legislation was passed in the House by a recorded vote of 405 to 13, but was not considered by the Senate before the adjournment of the 105th Congress. In the interest of United States national security and for that of our allies, it is vital we ensure that United States funds are not promoting the development of Iran's nuclear capabilities. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I address an issue that is of vital importance to the national security of our country and the stability of the Middle East. While Iran's development of nuclear technologies has been a growing concern for the last few years, recent developments demand a response to this serious situation. Last November, Iran signed an accord with Russia to speed up completion of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, calling for an expansion of the current design and construction of the $800 million, 1,000 megawatt light-water reactor in southern Iran. Despite serious United States objections and concerns about the project, Russia maintains its longstanding support for the project and the development of Iran's nuclear program. Though Russian and Iranian governments insist that the reactor will be used for civilian energy purposes, the United States national security community believes that the project is too easy a cover for Iran to obtain vital Russian nuclear weapons technology. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu condemned the Iranian-Russian nuclear cooperation accord as a threat to the entire region, stating: The building of a nuclear reactor in Iran only makes it likelier that Iran will equip its ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. . . . Such a development threatens peace, the whole region and in the end, the Russians themselves. On January 13 of this year, the administration underscored the gravity of this situation and imposed economic sanctions against three Russian institutes for supplying Iran with nuclear technology. But, I believe more needs to be done. While the Khatami government in Iran has made some reform efforts since it was elected in 1997, Iran continues to oppose the Middle East peace process, has broadened its efforts to increase its weapons of mass destruction, and remains subject to the influences of its hard- line defense establishment. As reports of Iran's human rights violations continue, State Department reports on international terrorism indicate Iran's continued assistance to terrorist forces such as Hamas, Hizballah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This clear and consistent record of behavior seriously calls to question Iran's active pursuit to enhance its nuclear facilities. Though Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction have been a growing global concern for several years, international fears were confirmed when in July of last year, Iran demonstrated the strength of its offensive muscle by test-firing its latest Shahab-3 missle. Capable of propelling a 2,200-pound warhead for a range of 800 miles, this missile now allows Iran to pose a significant threat to our allies in the Middle East. The potential results of Iran's successful development of effective nuclear technologies hold horrific implications for the stability of the Middle East. As an original cosponsor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, and signatory of two letters in the 105th Congress to the administration to raise this issue with the Russian leadership, I believe the Senate must continue the effort in light of this growing threat. Today I am joined by Senator Sessions in introducing the Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1999 as a means to hinder the development of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The House version of this legislation is also being introduced today by Congressman Menendez of New Jersey. This bill requires the withholding of proportional voluntary United States assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for programs and projects supported by the Agency in Iran. This legislation specifically aims to limit the Agency's assistance of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Last October, this legislation was passed in the House by a recorded vote of 405 to 13, but was not considered by the Senate before the adjournment of the 105th Congress. In the interest of United States national security and for that of our allies, it is vital we ensure that United States funds are not promoting the development of Iran's nuclear capabilities. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I offer an important piece of legislation. The bill I offer today, called the American Family Tax Relief Act of 1999, is a modest, but important tax relief package. This bill is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. Substantively, this bill provides all Americans with needed tax relief. If the need for tax relief isn't yet apparent to everyone, tomorrow will remind all Americans of the need when they submit tax returns which reflect an ever larger percentage of their income going to the federal government. This bill is also important as a symbol to the American public that Congress remains committed to the principle of a smaller federal government and lower taxes. We should not use the unusually good economic times we enjoy as an excuse to delay providing tax relief to hard-working American families. No, we should instead take this wonderful opportunity to recommit ourselves to fiscal discipline and responsibility. We are already taking important steps in this regard by locking up the social security trust fund to ensure its solvency. We are also devoting a significant portion of the surplus to retiring publicly held debt, which will reduce the drain on federal spending for interest on this debt. The next step is to provide tax relief. This is a platform many of us have stood upon, and is therefore a pledge we must honor. If we can't provide tax cuts in good times, think how difficult it would be in bad times. This bill I offer today has five different components: the largest component of this legislation would lower all individual income tax rates by 5%. Although this is substantially less than the 10% tax cut I have also supported, this modest reduction will more easily fit in the budget offsets after social security solvency and debt retirement have been addressed. By letting all Americans keep more of their income, they will be free to spend or save more of it. By now, we all know that the end result of this is a healthier, more robust economy. The second component would expand the lowest income tax bracket, a targeted tax break for middle income tax payers. In addition to the 5% across the board reduction, many middle income earners would now fall into the lowest tax bracket, thereby paying even lower taxes than they would under the existing tax code. Third, I would repeal the marriage penalty. Last year during my reelection campaign, I heard from hundreds of Coloradans asking me to repeal this offensive part of the tax code. I agree with all of them that we need a tax code that underscores the value we place on encouraging families, not one that discourages or penalizes marriage. This bill would do that. Fourth, this bill would bring needed relief to many taxpayers by allowing the full deductibility of health insurance. Even folks who don't meet the minimum criteria needed to itemize their deductions, often single folks or lower income folks, could still deduct their health insurance. This is a critical step towards providing all Americans with health insurance coverage and reducing the cost of this critical component of modern life. The last piece of this bill would encourage greater individual responsibility for retirement planning. By allowing a taxpayer to contribute more into an IRA without being taxed, more individuals will contribute more to their own retirement. The end result would be less reliance and less strain on Social Security and other entitlement programs. The more Congress can lead the way in weaning ourselves off of federal entitlements by encouraging individual retirement planning, the more government will shrink while increasing its efficiency. I conclude by inviting my colleagues to take a good look at this bill and work with me on reasonable changes and to support its passage.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I offer an important piece of legislation. The bill I offer today, called the American Family Tax Relief Act of 1999, is a modest, but important tax relief package. This bill is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. Substantively, this bill provides all Americans with needed tax relief. If the need for tax relief isn't yet apparent to everyone, tomorrow will remind all Americans of the need when they submit tax returns which reflect an ever larger percentage of their income going to the federal government. This bill is also important as a symbol to the American public that Congress remains committed to the principle of a smaller federal government and lower taxes. We should not use the unusually good economic times we enjoy as an excuse to delay providing tax relief to hard-working American families. No, we should instead take this wonderful opportunity to recommit ourselves to fiscal discipline and responsibility. We are already taking important steps in this regard by locking up the social security trust fund to ensure its solvency. We are also devoting a significant portion of the surplus to retiring publicly held debt, which will reduce the drain on federal spending for interest on this debt. The next step is to provide tax relief. This is a platform many of us have stood upon, and is therefore a pledge we must honor. If we can't provide tax cuts in good times, think how difficult it would be in bad times. This bill I offer today has five different components: the largest component of this legislation would lower all individual income tax rates by 5%. Although this is substantially less than the 10% tax cut I have also supported, this modest reduction will more easily fit in the budget offsets after social security solvency and debt retirement have been addressed. By letting all Americans keep more of their income, they will be free to spend or save more of it. By now, we all know that the end result of this is a healthier, more robust economy. The second component would expand the lowest income tax bracket, a targeted tax break for middle income tax payers. In addition to the 5% across the board reduction, many middle income earners would now fall into the lowest tax bracket, thereby paying even lower taxes than they would under the existing tax code. Third, I would repeal the marriage penalty. Last year during my reelection campaign, I heard from hundreds of Coloradans asking me to repeal this offensive part of the tax code. I agree with all of them that we need a tax code that underscores the value we place on encouraging families, not one that discourages or penalizes marriage. This bill would do that. Fourth, this bill would bring needed relief to many taxpayers by allowing the full deductibility of health insurance. Even folks who don't meet the minimum criteria needed to itemize their deductions, often single folks or lower income folks, could still deduct their health insurance. This is a critical step towards providing all Americans with health insurance coverage and reducing the cost of this critical component of modern life. The last piece of this bill would encourage greater individual responsibility for retirement planning. By allowing a taxpayer to contribute more into an IRA without being taxed, more individuals will contribute more to their own retirement. The end result would be less reliance and less strain on Social Security and other entitlement programs. The more Congress can lead the way in weaning ourselves off of federal entitlements by encouraging individual retirement planning, the more government will shrink while increasing its efficiency. I conclude by inviting my colleagues to take a good look at this bill and work with me on reasonable changes and to support its passage.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a truly remarkable woman, Mrs. Isabel ``Bella'' Romero, of Greeley, Colorado. This gallant woman's life was prematurely cut short last year after courageously fighting ovarian cancer for six years. Bella's dedication to improving our world transcends her career as an inspirational middle school principal and educator and as a woman devoted to her family. Her selfless pursuit of bringing out the best in all she came in contact with has made her passing that much greater. She is fondly missed by her friends and family, but her legacy lives on through all those whose lives she touched. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Denver Post on this remarkable Coloradan be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, at 1:45 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on welfare reform implementation in Indian country. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Murkowski as an original co-sponsor of legislation to amend the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. This is the first step in reforming the way Indian trust funds are managed and invested for the benefit of the Indian tribes and their citizens. On March 3, 1999, the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing on trust fund management practices in the Department of the Interior. We held the hearing because the Secretary of the Interior issued an order in January that I believe undermined the authority of the Special Trustee for American Indians and violated the spirit and letter of the 1994 Act. Nothing at the hearing changed my mind. As a result, I proposed an amendment to the FY 1999 Supplemental Appropriations bill to suspend the implementation of this order while we sort out the legitimacy and effectiveness of ongoing trust management reforms within the Department. This should be done through legislation and congressional oversight, not secretarial orders drafted with no tribal input. Today's bill is the next step. It will enable Congress, Indian tribes, and the Administration to begin the difficult task of undoing 100 years of mismanagement and neglect by the United States. Most Americans are unfamiliar with this issue so let me describe what we are talking about. Beginning in 1849, the federal government, as trustee for the tribes, built a system to identify and track Indian land holdings, land leases, income from those leases, and other Indian assets, and created ``trust funds'' to be managed for the benefit of their Indian beneficiaries. Over the years, the United States has failed to keep track of the funds and the documents supporting the funds. In addition, the Department is prevented by law from investing these funds in anything other than U.S.-guaranteed investments which bring returns much lower than what is possible in the open market. For these reasons, the trustee has failed to adequately maintain this system and to maximize returns on investment, with Indians as the predictable losers once again. These facts raise the question of whether the federal government is the appropriate place for these accounts. The money in these accounts, or that is supposed to be in these trust fund accounts, is Indian money that has been entrusted to the United States. It is not federal money. There are billions of dollars at stake: in 1997, the Department's Tribal Reconciliation Project stated that it was unable to reconcile some $2.4 billion in tribal funds. For Indians that means they have no access to the money and do not receive the benefit from their own money. There are at least three major aspects to the problem. First, efforts by the Department to identify and gather all documentation to determine accurate trust fund balances; second, the efforts to put in place new computers and management systems; and third, the need to provide Indian tribes with the flexibility to maximize the return on fund investments in the interim as the first two initiatives continue. This legislation is aimed at the third of these problems. As the Committees work to fix the mistakes of the past, we can give tribes the flexibility and freedom to invest their money in the financial instruments they choose. This legislation will allow Indian tribes the option to leave their funds with the Department for management and investment or to transfer the funds to qualified financial institutions, including Indian-owned banks, in order to receive competitive returns on investment. The bill will direct the Secretary of Interior to consult with the nation's top banker, the Comptroller of the Currency, in negotiating contracts with federally-approved financial institutions for the investment of funds now managed by the United States. Let me be clear: tribes are not required to move their accounts into the private market. It is an option. This bill does not represent a ``surrender'' in the efforts to find the missing funds and documents. In fact, just the opposite. Under the bill, the Secretary is obligated to continue to search for documents that will give a more accurate account balance to the tribes. That brings up another troubling issue--the possibility that some documents will never be found. It is bad enough that some have been permanently lost due to neglect. But a story in today's Washington Times raises the possibility that, even worse, some documents may have been purposely destroyed. The story says that the plaintiffs suing the government over trust funds mismanagement have given the judge affidavits accusing Interior Department officials of destroying trust fund documents to conceal them from the court. If this is true, it would be the worst violation of the trust responsibility in decades. I should point out that this bill is the first, not the last, word on our efforts to clean up the trust funds mess and to give Indians the chance to take risks, generate higher rates of returns, and bring economic opportunities where none now exist. Also, this bill is subject to change. I welcome input from Indian Country as we work to perfect it. As Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I am committed to working with and assisting the tribes in the many reforms that are necessary to bring increased hope and opportunities to their communities. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Murkowski and me in bringing real reform and real change to Indian trust funds management. After 150 years, it's about time we think and act boldly to bring this sad chapter in American history to a close. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to authorize States to recognize each other's concealed weapons laws and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation is designed to support the rights of States and to facilitate the right of law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families, and their property. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The language of this bill is based on my bill, S. 837, in the 105th Congress and is similar to a provision in S. 3, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hatch. In light of the importance of this provision to law-abiding gunowners and law enforcement officers, I am introducing this freestanding bill today for the Senate's consideration and prompt action. This bill allows States to enter into agreements, known as ``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons laws of those States included in the compacts. This is not a Federal mandate; it is strictly voluntary for those States interested in this approach. States would also be allowed to include provisions which best meet their needs, such as special provisions for law enforcement personnel. This legislation would allow anyone possessing a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in their respective State to also carry it in another State, provided that the States have entered into a compact agreement which recognizes the host State's right-to-carry laws. This is needed if you want to protect the security individuals enjoy in their own State when they travel or simply cross State lines to avoid a crazy quilt of differing laws. Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in this body have always strived to protect the interests of States and communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill would allow States to decide for themselves. Specifically, the bill allows that the law of each State govern conduct within that State where the State has a right-to-carry statute, and States determine through a compact agreement which out-of-State right-to-carry statute will be recognized. To date, 31 States have passed legislation making it legal to carry concealed weapons. These State laws enable citizens of those States to exercise their right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The second major provision of this bill would allow qualified current and former law enforcement officers who are carrying appropriate written identification of that status to be exempt from State laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. This provision sets forth a checklist of stringent criteria that law enforcement officers must meet in order to qualify for this exemption status. Exempting qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, I believe, would add additional forces to our law enforcement community in our unwavering fight against crime. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help our nation's state and local law enforcement officers acquire the bullet resistant equipment they need to protect themselves from would- be killers. I am joined today by my colleague, Senator Torricelli, as an original cosponsor of this legislation. This bill, the ``Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999,'' is based on S. 2253, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. This bill 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. For the purposes of this bill I use the technically more accurate term ``bullet resistant'' instead of the more commonplace ``bullet proof'' since, even though we all wish they could be, few things are truly ``bullet proof.'' 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. The Officer Dale Claxton bill 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 bill builds upon this worthy program by expanding it to help them acquire additional types of bullet resistant equipment. The bill I introduce today has four main components. The first part authorizes continued funding for the current Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act program at $25 million per year. The second and central part of this legislation 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. The third component of this bill, as promoted by Senator Torricelli, would authorize a $25 million matching grant program for the purchase of video cameras for use in law enforcement vehicles. These three matching grants are authorized for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 and would be allocated 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. The final key part of this bill provides the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) with $3 million over 3 years 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 bill 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. Under the bill, the Institute would give priority in testing and feasibility studies to law enforcement partnerships developed in coordination with existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs). 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 needed and accelerate the development of new lifesaving bullet resistant technologies. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help our nation's state and local law enforcement officers acquire the bullet resistant equipment they need to protect themselves from would- be killers. I am joined today by my colleague, Senator Torricelli, as an original cosponsor of this legislation. This bill, the ``Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999,'' is based on S. 2253, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. This bill 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. For the purposes of this bill I use the technically more accurate term ``bullet resistant'' instead of the more commonplace ``bullet proof'' since, even though we all wish they could be, few things are truly ``bullet proof.'' 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. The Officer Dale Claxton bill 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 bill builds upon this worthy program by expanding it to help them acquire additional types of bullet resistant equipment. The bill I introduce today has four main components. The first part authorizes continued funding for the current Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act program at $25 million per year. The second and central part of this legislation 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. The third component of this bill, as promoted by Senator Torricelli, would authorize a $25 million matching grant program for the purchase of video cameras for use in law enforcement vehicles. These three matching grants are authorized for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 and would be allocated 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. The final key part of this bill provides the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) with $3 million over 3 years 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 bill 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. Under the bill, the Institute would give priority in testing and feasibility studies to law enforcement partnerships developed in coordination with existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs). 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 needed and accelerate the development of new lifesaving bullet resistant technologies. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.