Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and news reports. Therefore, today I am introducing the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 to increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year. As of March 1995 there were over 2 million reports in the stolen gun file of the FBI's National Crime Information Center including 7,700 reports of stolen machine guns and submachine guns. In a 9 year period between 1985 and 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 274,000 reports of stolen guns. Studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms note that felons steal firearms to avoid background checks. A 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State prison inmates notes that almost 10 percent had stolen a handgun, and over 10 percent of all inmates had traded or sold a stolen firearm. This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50 percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun. In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this month, the Bureau has a total of 36,000 firearms on its unrecovered firearms list. It is estimated that one-third of these firearms are categorized as handguns. All these studies and statistics show the extent of the problem of stolen guns. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will increase the maximum prison sentences for violation of existing stolen gun laws. Specifically, my bill increases the maximum penalty for violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years. The third statutory provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. For violating this provision, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to a maximum 15 years under by bill. And the fourth provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from any person, including a licensed firearm collector, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. As with the other three provisions, my bill increases this maximum penalty to 15 years. In addition to these amendments to title 18 of the U.S. Code, the bill I introduce today directs the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the illegal use of firearms. The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 will send a strong signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I continue to voice my support for the Middle East peace process and my work on behalf of soldiers Missing in Action and Prisoners of War. During the last Congress, I introduced the Missing Service Personnel Act, provisions of which were signed into law to restore critical Department of Defense procedures for identifying and recovering POW/MIAs. The Act ensures that our government is and will do everything in its power to return those lost during times of conflict. Last month, I introduced S. 484, the ``Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999'' which creates a significant incentive for foreign nationals to return any possibly surviving American POW/MIAs. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that continues my support for POW/MIAs and assists our Israeli allies in their efforts to learn the fate of several soldiers who were overtaken by Syrian forces in June 1982. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Torricelli, McCain, Kerry of Massachusetts, Smith of New Hampshire, Lugar, Coverdell, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Ashcroft, Kennedy, Schumer, Allard, and Santorum. This bill is a companion to legislation which Congressmen Lantos, Gilman, and 65 other members introduced in the House. Reports indicate that three soldiers of an Israeli tank crew were captured by Syrian forces at the 1982 battle of Sultan Yaqub in northern Lebanon. These men were later paraded through the streets of the Syrian capital of Damascus. They were never seen nor heard from again. Zachary Baumel, an American citizen and sergeant in the Israeli Defense Forces was one of those men. For over sixteen years, the Syrian government and the leadership of the PLO have failed to cooperate in the effort to determine their fate. In 1993, Yasser Arafat produced the most tangible link to the missing men, returning half of Baumel's identification dog tag. For the last five years, however, no additional information has been forthcoming. The bill I introduce today requires the State Department to raise this issue with the Syrian government and leaders of the Palestinian Authority and provide the Congress with a report on the information that has been uncovered. It also requires that Palestinian and Syrian cooperation in this effort be a factor in the consideration for future U.S. assistance. This legislation is a targeted approach to address the unique and compelling merits of this case in which an American-born Israeli soldier and his comrades remain unaccounted for in a time of war. As Americans know all too well, the bitter legacy of missing soldiers and POWs can haunt a nation and interfere with efforts to build better relations between former enemies. Clearly, resolving the issue of the MIAs can only strengthen American efforts to make Middle East peace into a reality. This is the first week of the Jewish month of Nissan--the month of the Jewish holiday of Passover--the ancient festival that celebrates freedom. I can think of no time that is more appropriate to propose this legislation, and to hopefully begin a process that will help to resolve the fate of Zachary Baumel and his comrades after so many years. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I continue to voice my support for the Middle East peace process and my work on behalf of soldiers Missing in Action and Prisoners of War. During the last Congress, I introduced the Missing Service Personnel Act, provisions of which were signed into law to restore critical Department of Defense procedures for identifying and recovering POW/MIAs. The Act ensures that our government is and will do everything in its power to return those lost during times of conflict. Last month, I introduced S. 484, the ``Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999'' which creates a significant incentive for foreign nationals to return any possibly surviving American POW/MIAs. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that continues my support for POW/MIAs and assists our Israeli allies in their efforts to learn the fate of several soldiers who were overtaken by Syrian forces in June 1982. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Torricelli, McCain, Kerry of Massachusetts, Smith of New Hampshire, Lugar, Coverdell, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Ashcroft, Kennedy, Schumer, Allard, and Santorum. This bill is a companion to legislation which Congressmen Lantos, Gilman, and 65 other members introduced in the House. Reports indicate that three soldiers of an Israeli tank crew were captured by Syrian forces at the 1982 battle of Sultan Yaqub in northern Lebanon. These men were later paraded through the streets of the Syrian capital of Damascus. They were never seen nor heard from again. Zachary Baumel, an American citizen and sergeant in the Israeli Defense Forces was one of those men. For over sixteen years, the Syrian government and the leadership of the PLO have failed to cooperate in the effort to determine their fate. In 1993, Yasser Arafat produced the most tangible link to the missing men, returning half of Baumel's identification dog tag. For the last five years, however, no additional information has been forthcoming. The bill I introduce today requires the State Department to raise this issue with the Syrian government and leaders of the Palestinian Authority and provide the Congress with a report on the information that has been uncovered. It also requires that Palestinian and Syrian cooperation in this effort be a factor in the consideration for future U.S. assistance. This legislation is a targeted approach to address the unique and compelling merits of this case in which an American-born Israeli soldier and his comrades remain unaccounted for in a time of war. As Americans know all too well, the bitter legacy of missing soldiers and POWs can haunt a nation and interfere with efforts to build better relations between former enemies. Clearly, resolving the issue of the MIAs can only strengthen American efforts to make Middle East peace into a reality. This is the first week of the Jewish month of Nissan--the month of the Jewish holiday of Passover--the ancient festival that celebrates freedom. I can think of no time that is more appropriate to propose this legislation, and to hopefully begin a process that will help to resolve the fate of Zachary Baumel and his comrades after so many years. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am opposed the Enzi-Reid amendment on Indian gaming because it will continue the ``stand-off'' that exists between the tribes and states, preventing them from reaching fair gaming agreements. There are members in the Chamber who are downright against gaming. That is not what this debate is about. Under Federal law, tribes are limited to the types of gaming allowed under the laws of the State in which they reside. In my own State of Colorado as an example, there are two tribes, the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute. They are limited to slot machines and low-stakes table games, just as the other gaming towns in Colorado. In Utah, State law prohibits all gaming: tribal, non-tribal or otherwise. The intention of the Federal law, IGRA, was that in States where gaming is limited or prohibited, tribes would be limited or prohibited from operating gaming as well. But today's debate is about whether a Governor of a State can limit a type of business activity to certain groups simply by refusing to negotiate. That is unfair and un-American. There are many tribes and States that have sat down and negotiated such agreements that are binding and effective. There are some States that refuse to negotiate at all with tribes-- leaving those tribes without the ability to conduct gaming and without the ability to generate much-needed revenues. This is the core problem: whether accomplished through legislation, through the kind of secretarial procedures we are talking about today, or whether through tribal-State negotiations, these impasses should be brought to an end. Let's not forget how we got here. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Cabazon that unless a State prohibited gaming entirely, such as Utah and Hawaii now do, the State's regulations would not apply to gaming conducted on Indian lands within that State. This caused a clamor by the States and a year later the Congress responded by passing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This act was a compromise and for the first time gave State governments a role in what kind of gaming would occur on Indian reservations within a State's borders. In 1996, the High Court ruled in Seminole that tribes cannot sue States and require them to negotiate for gaming compacts. Some States, have used the Seminole case to refuse to talk to tribes completely. That is unfair at the very least. As my colleagues know, I am a big supporter of tribal-State negotiations on matters from business development, to jurisdictional issues, to taxes. If it is good enough for tribes to have to negotiate, it is good enough for States as well. So while I think that each State's public policy should determine the scope of all gaming conducted in that State, I also believe the current State of the law gives States what is in reality a Veto over tribes in this field. I was here in 1988, in fact, and helped write the IGRA legislation, and I can tell you it was never the intent of Congress to provide such a veto. I should point out to my colleagues that in many cases non-Indian gaming is promoted and even operated by State governments, so there is an element of competition. I believe some States have refused to negotiate in order to preserve their monopoly on gaming. To begin to address this situation, the Department of Interior has proposed a process that is based on the IGRA statute. Though the process does need refinement, I do not believe the secretary should be stopped from developing alternative approaches to these impasses. Coming from a Western State, I am as supportive as anybody in this chamber of States rights, but those who say this process overrides the States are wrong. Under the proposal, if a State objected to a decision made by the Interior Secretary, that State could challenge that decision in Federal court. For those who fear the department is acting without oversight, I point out that Congress will have the authority to review any proposed regulations before they take effect. As the proposal comes before the authorizing committees, any new regulations will get a careful review and if those regulations are found to be unacceptable, they simply will not pass. We will legislate a new approach if they do not pass. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and allow the regulatory and legislative process to work. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

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, March 24, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a Hearing on S. 399, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999. The Hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 202-224-2251. committee on rules and administration

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, although Communism released its oppressive grip on the people of Russia nearly ten years ago, its fingerprints of racism and ethnic intolerance persist. Today, I call the attention of my colleagues to the troubling surge of anti-Semitic rhetoric by the Russian Duma's Communist Party leaders who have sought to place the blame of Russia's social and economic ills on its Jewish community. As the new co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am submitting a resolution to help address this disturbing situation. This resolution is a companion to H.Con.Res. 37 which was introduced by Congressman Chris Smith, Chairman of the Helsinki Commission. In October of last year, General Albert Makashov, Communist Party member of the Duma, insulted and threatened the Jewish community with physical retribution for what he asserted as being a cause of Russia's current instabilities. When other members of the Duma sought to censure General Makashov for his comments, Communist party members blocked the measure on two different occasions and the Duma failed to condemn his statements. Then in December, Viktor Ilyukhin, Communist Party member and Chairman of the Security Committee, asserted that the Jews were committing `genocide against the Russian people'. He further referenced the influence of President Yeltsin's `Jewish entourage' and called for ethnic quotas in these posts to counter Jewish influence. It is imperative that the Russian Duma be sent a clear message that these expressions of racism and ethnic hatred will not go unnoticed by the U.S. Today, I am joined by Senators Lautenberg, Abraham, Smith of Oregon, Brownback, Torricelli, Reid, Cleland, Burns, and Feingold in submitting a resolution which condemns these anti-Semitic statements made by the Russian Duma. It likewise commends the actions taken by those in the Duma who sought to censure the Communist Party leaders and commends President Yeltsin for his forceful rejection of the statements. This resolution also reiterates the firm belief of the Congress that peace and justice cannot be achieved as long as governments and legislatures promote policies based upon anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia. In light of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov's upcoming visit to the U.S., this resolution is especially timely. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution which underscores the U.S. commitment to religious freedom and human rights.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, just as it recognizes foreign governments, the United States is called upon to consider extending its recognition to Indian tribal governments here at home. From the first days of the republic, the Congress has acted to recognize the unique legal and political relationship the United States has with the Indian tribes. Reforming the process of recognition is the goal of the legislation I am introducing today. Just as the United States at times refuses to recognize foreign governments, there are and always have been tribal governments which have not been recognized by the Federal government. This lack of recognition does not alter the ``Indian-ness'' of a tribe's members; rather it merely means that there is no formal political relationship between that tribal group and the United States. Federal recognition is critical to tribal groups because it triggers eligibility for services and benefits provided by the United States because of their status as members of federally recognized Indian tribes. I want to be clear--I am not advocating for the approval of every petition for recognition, and I am not proposing that the petitions receive a limited or cursory review. I am concerned with the viability of the current recognition process and am interested in seeing fairness, promptness, and finality brought into that process while providing basic assurances to already-recognized tribes regarding their inherent rights. Federal recognition can be accomplished in two ways: through the enactment of federal legislation; or through the administrative process that occurs, or more accurately does not occur, within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Over the years, uncertainty has developed over just how or when the Bureau would process tribal group applications for recognition. In short, the current process is not getting the job done. The process in the Department of the Interior is time consuming and costly, although it has improved from its original state. Some tribal groups allege that the Department's process leads to unfair and unfounded results. It has frequently been hindered by a lack of staff and resources needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions. At the same time, the Congress extends recognition to tribes with little or no reference to the legal standards and criteria employed by the Department. The amount of time some tribal groups have had to wait before their petitions are acted on in some cases is outrageous. Sometimes these applications for recognition are pending literally for decades. The concerns expressed go beyond the delays I mentioned and involve the viability of the current recognition process itself. As with any decision-making body, fairness and timeliness are the keys to maintaining a credible system which holds the confidence of affected parties. I believe that it is in the interests of all parties to have a clear deadline for the completion of the recognition process. In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations to establish criteria and procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes by the Secretary. Since that time to date, tribal groups have filed hundreds of petitions for review. Of those, 42 have been resolved, and 179 are new petitioners; During this same time, 89 expressed letters of intent to petition, and 5 required legislative authority to proceed which are now deemed inactive. The remainder are in various stages of consideration by the Department either ready for active status or are already placed on active status. During this same time to date, the Congress has recognized 7 other tribal groups through legislation. In the last twenty years, the Committee on Indian Affairs held oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At each of those hearings the record clearly showed that the process is not working properly. At a Committee on Indian Affairs hearing in 1995, the Bureau testified that at the current rate of review and consideration, it would take several decades to eliminate the entire backlog of tribal petitions. The record from numerous previous hearings reveals a clear need for the Congress to address the problems affecting the recognition process. The bill I am introducing today will go a long way toward resolving the problems which have plagued both the Department of the Interior and tribal petitioners over the years. This bill, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1999, provides the required clarification and changes that will help tribal petitioners and the United States in providing fair and orderly administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition to eligible Indian groups. The key element of this bill is that it removes the recognition process from the BIA and places it in a temporary and independent ``Commission on Indian Recognition.'' This bill provides that the Commission will be an independent agency, composed of three members appointed by the President, and authorized to hold hearings, take testimony and reach final determinations on petitions for recognition. The bill provides strict but realistic time-lines to guide the Commission in the review and decision making process. Under the existing process in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, some petitioners have waited ten years or more for even a cursory review of their petition. The bill I am introducing today requires the Commission to set a date for a preliminary hearing on a petition not later than 60 days after the filing of a documented petition. Not later than 30 days after the conclusion of a preliminary hearing, the Commission would be required to either decide to extend federal acknowledgment to the petitioner or to require the petitioner to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. The current recognition process becomes so expensive that the consideration of petitions are stretched out over a number of years because there have been no real deadlines for these decisions. This bill will allow for a cost-effective process for the BIA and the petitioners, will provide definite time-lines for the administrative recognition process, and ``sunsets'' the Commission in 12 years. To ensure fairness, the bill provides for appeals of adverse decisions to the federal district court here in the District of Columbia. To ensure promptness, the bill authorizes adequate funding for the costs of processing petitions through the Commission. The bill also provides finality for both the petitioners and the Department by requiring all interested tribal groups to file their petitions within 6 years after the date of enactment and requiring the Commission to complete its work within 12 years from enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this much-needed reform legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, to encourage states and tribes to negotiate and enter fair and binding tax compacts, I introduce today the Inter-Governmental Tax Agreement Act of 1999. In 1998, I introduced similar legislation to provide a mechanism, short of litigation, for the collection of state retail sales taxes. The Committee on Indian Affairs held several hearings on the issue of taxation involving tribes and sales made on Indian lands and heard from tribal leaders, state tax officials, private retailers, and other affected parties. Though no resolution was reached, the voluminous record developed by the Committee has helped flesh out the issue of taxation and has led to a fuller picture being developed. Because there is much confusion about Indians and tax matters, I should be clear and explain exactly what we are talking about when we address these matters. Indian tribal governments, like state governments, pay no federal taxes on income earned by the tribe. Individual members of Indian tribes pay the same taxes other citizens of the United States pay: federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and a host of other taxes. What we are focusing on with this bill are state taxes on retail sales made to non-Indians on goods such as tobacco and fuel when the transaction occurs on Indian lands. As late as 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes are legitimately levied taxes and set out several possible remedies available to states including lawsuits against tribal officials and negotiating a tax compact. The court was equally clear, however, that because of tribal common law immunity from lawsuits, tribes cannot be sued to collect the tax revenues. Consistent with that opinion, at least 18 states and dozens of Indian tribes have chosen to negotiate and enter into tax agreements. At the Committee hearing in March 1998, it was estimated that more than 200 ``intergovernmental tax agreements'' are now in place covering a variety of retail goods. These agreements detail the collection and remittance of tax revenues by the tribe to the state on sales to non-members of the tribe, and often allow for an ``administrative fee'' paid to the tribe for their efforts to collect and remit the tax revenues. Two factors were presented to the Committee which are legitimate issues for debate in the 106th Congress. First, the question of services provided by the state and/or the tribe to Indians and non- Indians living on tribal lands; and second, the devastating impact on Indian economies as a result of ``dual'' state and tribal taxes levied on the same transaction. This legislation encourages state-tribal agreements by requiring that states and tribes attempt to resolve their differences in good faith through negotiations aimed at entering into a tax compact. If efforts to reach agreement through negotiations and mediation fail, under this bill the Interior Secretary may refer the matter to the ``Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Panel'' consisting of representatives of the departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury, Indian tribal governments, and State governments. Rather than create an entirely new mechanism, the framework provided by this bill relies on existing mediation services provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to assist the Panel in carrying out its duties in arriving at fair agreements. The history of state-tribal relations is one full of acrimony with brief periods of cooperation. The tax issue is an emotional one with a long history, Mr. President, but I am hopeful that fair and equitable solutions to matters involving states, tribes and taxation can be developed with the input of all affected parties. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce another key piece of legislation to encourage private sector development on Indian lands. This bill is aimed at removing the obstacles that stand in the way of responsive government and greater levels of business activity in Indian country--the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform and Business Development Act of 1999. Over the years, laws, regulations and policies have been built up-- often with good intentions--but have outlived their usefulness or relevance to the contemporary needs of Indian tribal governments and economies. More importantly, the multi-layered bureaucracies, federal as well as tribal, have been repeatedly identified as a barrier to Indian entrepreneurship and business development on and around Indian lands. Efforts to reduce bureaucracy are not new or unique to Indian country. Governments around the world have begun embarking on efforts to downsize and streamline government operations to an appropriate level--one that complements human endeavors rather than hindering them. The bill I am introducing today is part of the much-needed effort to accomplish the same goal to benefit the business environments on Indian lands nationwide. The legislation requires a comprehensive review of the laws and regulations affecting investment and business decisions on Indian lands, and requires the Regulatory Reform and Business Development on Indian lands Authority to determine the extent to which such laws and regulations unnecessarily or inappropriately impair investment and business development on Indian lands. The Authority is also required to determine how such laws and regulations impact the financial stability and management efficiency of tribal governments. Under the provisions of this bill, the Authority is required to conduct the review and within one year report the findings and recommendations to the Congress and the President for further actions. Mr. President, this is not the first time an effort of this sort has been proposed, but I believe that if conducted properly, it can serve as a lasting and constructive initiative to further the long-term health and prosperity of tribal governments and economies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this key measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 1999 to encourage tribal economic development, provide for disclosures regarding tribal sovereign immunity, and eliminate excessive and unproductive bureaucratic oversight of tribal decisions. As many of my colleagues are aware, most Indian tribes are not in the position to fund all, or even most of their governmental operations through taxes imposed on reservation-based activities or assets. Often a tribe's own land and other natural resources are the only means a tribe has to fund its activities or to promote economic development within its reservation boundaries. Since land is the basic trust resource, the United States has the authority and the responsibility to oversee the lease of tribal lands. Where tribes propose to enter leases of their lands, a federal statute provides that the lease is only valid if it is approved by the Interior Department. My proposed bill does not affect the federal government's authority to approve leases. My bill addresses non-lease agreements between Indian tribes and those that provide services that relate to the tribe's lands. Not that long ago, tribes had to rely on federal bureaucrats to devise ways to develop their lands, to negotiate leases, and to then approve those leases. In many instances, tribes are now developing their own proposals. To assist in the development of a private sector, I want to encourage this entrepreneurial spirit. There are strong indications, however, that an ancient federal statute is impeding every Indian tribe's ability to enter into agreements with those who might be hired by the tribe to assist it in developing its lands. Like most laws, this statute was enacted with the best intentions. I speak of a law enacted over 125 years ago; a law enacted when many Indians had to rely on translators to read the treaties between the United States and their tribal government. The statute I propose to amend was enacted in 1871, and it survives in much the same form today as it did then--64 Congresses ago. Section 81, as it is known, provides that a contract ``relating to Indian lands'' is not valid unless it is approved by the Secretary. Section 81 imposes no limits on how long the BIA may take to review the agreement or even what standards apply to decide whether the contract should be approved or denied. The bill I introduce today addresses these issues and others. First, the bill gives the Secretary 90 days to review a proposed contract. This is the same amount of time the Secretary has to review contracts relating to the management of gaming facilities. My bill provides that if the government takes no action for 90 days, then the tribe can proceed with the project unhindered by the lack of approval. All other federal laws will still apply to the agreement. Second, the Secretary must identify the types of contracts that are not covered by this statute. A tribe can submit such contracts and the BIA has 45 days to determine whether they are covered by the law. The Secretary is still authorized to reject any contract that violates federal law. Finally, the bill incorporates a suggestion made in 1988 by then- Assistant Secretary Ross Swimmer to ``eliminate the current statutory requirements that the Secretary approve the tribal selection of attorneys and attorney fees.'' To allow the selection of counsel, without the Secretary's oversight, is fundamental to Indian self- determination. My bill addresses one other key matter. Like other sovereign governments, Indian tribes are free to negotiate with potential business partners whether, in what form, and to what extent the parties can sue and be sued under a contract they enter. My bill recognizes a tribe's discretion in this area and it leaves it in place. After numerous hearings conducted in the 105th Congress and in previous congresses, I believe the record is clear: Indian tribes have been increasingly responsible in their consideration of immunity decisions. I am concerned, however, about those who may enter into agreements with Indian tribes knowing that the tribe retains immunity but at a later time insist that they have been treated unfairly by the tribe raising the immunity defense. Under my bill, the Secretary must deny approval of contracts if the agreement in question fails to state that the parties recognize that the tribe is immune from suit unless immunity is expressly waived. Excessive federal regulation, especially if it impedes business and economic development in Indian Country, needs to be eliminated. Whether we put this belief in terms of the Contract with America, or the initiative to reinvent government, our objective is the same. There is no group of people who have experienced more federal regulation of every aspect of their lives than Indians. This bill represents a commitment to reduce unnecessary and anachronistic federal bureaucratic requirements. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the Indian Needs Assessment, Program Evaluation and Policy Coordination Act of 1999 to bring about needed reforms in the way Indian programs are designed and funded. As the annual funding debates over Indian programs show us year after year, rational and equitable funding decisions are made more difficult because of the lack of accurate and up to date information about the needs of tribal governments and tribal members. The ability of the Congress to target unmet needs and make available adequate funds for tribes and tribal members is directly related to the quantity and quality of information available about the type and degree of demand for federal programs and services. Within one year of the enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, each Federal agency or department is required to conduct an ``Indian Needs Assessment'' (``INA'') aimed at determining the needs of tribes and Indians eligible for programs and services administered by such agency or department. To facilitate information collection and analysis, the bill requires the development of a uniform method, criteria and procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service needs of tribes and Indians. The resulting ``Indian Needs Assessments'' are to be filed with the Committees on Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of Representatives. In addition to a Needs Assessment, the bill also requires that each Federal agency or department responsible for providing services to Indians file an ``Annual Indian Program Evaluation'' (``AIPE'') with these same committees. The AIPE will measure the performance and effectiveness of the programs under the jurisdiction of that agency or department, and include recommendations as to how such programs can be improved. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

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, March 17, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 400, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1999. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 202/224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, to encourage states and tribes to negotiate and enter fair and binding tax compacts, I introduce today the Inter-Governmental Tax Agreement Act of 1999. In 1998, I introduced similar legislation to provide a mechanism, short of litigation, for the collection of state retail sales taxes. The Committee on Indian Affairs held several hearings on the issue of taxation involving tribes and sales made on Indian lands and heard from tribal leaders, state tax officials, private retailers, and other affected parties. Though no resolution was reached, the voluminous record developed by the Committee has helped flesh out the issue of taxation and has led to a fuller picture being developed. Because there is much confusion about Indians and tax matters, I should be clear and explain exactly what we are talking about when we address these matters. Indian tribal governments, like state governments, pay no federal taxes on income earned by the tribe. Individual members of Indian tribes pay the same taxes other citizens of the United States pay: federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and a host of other taxes. What we are focusing on with this bill are state taxes on retail sales made to non-Indians on goods such as tobacco and fuel when the transaction occurs on Indian lands. As late as 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes are legitimately levied taxes and set out several possible remedies available to states including lawsuits against tribal officials and negotiating a tax compact. The court was equally clear, however, that because of tribal common law immunity from lawsuits, tribes cannot be sued to collect the tax revenues. Consistent with that opinion, at least 18 states and dozens of Indian tribes have chosen to negotiate and enter into tax agreements. At the Committee hearing in March 1998, it was estimated that more than 200 ``intergovernmental tax agreements'' are now in place covering a variety of retail goods. These agreements detail the collection and remittance of tax revenues by the tribe to the state on sales to non-members of the tribe, and often allow for an ``administrative fee'' paid to the tribe for their efforts to collect and remit the tax revenues. Two factors were presented to the Committee which are legitimate issues for debate in the 106th Congress. First, the question of services provided by the state and/or the tribe to Indians and non- Indians living on tribal lands; and second, the devastating impact on Indian economies as a result of ``dual'' state and tribal taxes levied on the same transaction. This legislation encourages state-tribal agreements by requiring that states and tribes attempt to resolve their differences in good faith through negotiations aimed at entering into a tax compact. If efforts to reach agreement through negotiations and mediation fail, under this bill the Interior Secretary may refer the matter to the ``Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Panel'' consisting of representatives of the departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury, Indian tribal governments, and State governments. Rather than create an entirely new mechanism, the framework provided by this bill relies on existing mediation services provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to assist the Panel in carrying out its duties in arriving at fair agreements. The history of state-tribal relations is one full of acrimony with brief periods of cooperation. The tax issue is an emotional one with a long history, Mr. President, but I am hopeful that fair and equitable solutions to matters involving states, tribes and taxation can be developed with the input of all affected parties. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce another key piece of legislation to encourage private sector development on Indian lands. This bill is aimed at removing the obstacles that stand in the way of responsive government and greater levels of business activity in Indian country--the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform and Business Development Act of 1999. Over the years, laws, regulations and policies have been built up-- often with good intentions--but have outlived their usefulness or relevance to the contemporary needs of Indian tribal governments and economies. More importantly, the multi-layered bureaucracies, federal as well as tribal, have been repeatedly identified as a barrier to Indian entrepreneurship and business development on and around Indian lands. Efforts to reduce bureaucracy are not new or unique to Indian country. Governments around the world have begun embarking on efforts to downsize and streamline government operations to an appropriate level--one that complements human endeavors rather than hindering them. The bill I am introducing today is part of the much-needed effort to accomplish the same goal to benefit the business environments on Indian lands nationwide. The legislation requires a comprehensive review of the laws and regulations affecting investment and business decisions on Indian lands, and requires the Regulatory Reform and Business Development on Indian lands Authority to determine the extent to which such laws and regulations unnecessarily or inappropriately impair investment and business development on Indian lands. The Authority is also required to determine how such laws and regulations impact the financial stability and management efficiency of tribal governments. Under the provisions of this bill, the Authority is required to conduct the review and within one year report the findings and recommendations to the Congress and the President for further actions. Mr. President, this is not the first time an effort of this sort has been proposed, but I believe that if conducted properly, it can serve as a lasting and constructive initiative to further the long-term health and prosperity of tribal governments and economies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this key measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 1999 to encourage tribal economic development, provide for disclosures regarding tribal sovereign immunity, and eliminate excessive and unproductive bureaucratic oversight of tribal decisions. As many of my colleagues are aware, most Indian tribes are not in the position to fund all, or even most of their governmental operations through taxes imposed on reservation-based activities or assets. Often a tribe's own land and other natural resources are the only means a tribe has to fund its activities or to promote economic development within its reservation boundaries. Since land is the basic trust resource, the United States has the authority and the responsibility to oversee the lease of tribal lands. Where tribes propose to enter leases of their lands, a federal statute provides that the lease is only valid if it is approved by the Interior Department. My proposed bill does not affect the federal government's authority to approve leases. My bill addresses non-lease agreements between Indian tribes and those that provide services that relate to the tribe's lands. Not that long ago, tribes had to rely on federal bureaucrats to devise ways to develop their lands, to negotiate leases, and to then approve those leases. In many instances, tribes are now developing their own proposals. To assist in the development of a private sector, I want to encourage this entrepreneurial spirit. There are strong indications, however, that an ancient federal statute is impeding every Indian tribe's ability to enter into agreements with those who might be hired by the tribe to assist it in developing its lands. Like most laws, this statute was enacted with the best intentions. I speak of a law enacted over 125 years ago; a law enacted when many Indians had to rely on translators to read the treaties between the United States and their tribal government. The statute I propose to amend was enacted in 1871, and it survives in much the same form today as it did then--64 Congresses ago. Section 81, as it is known, provides that a contract ``relating to Indian lands'' is not valid unless it is approved by the Secretary. Section 81 imposes no limits on how long the BIA may take to review the agreement or even what standards apply to decide whether the contract should be approved or denied. The bill I introduce today addresses these issues and others. First, the bill gives the Secretary 90 days to review a proposed contract. This is the same amount of time the Secretary has to review contracts relating to the management of gaming facilities. My bill provides that if the government takes no action for 90 days, then the tribe can proceed with the project unhindered by the lack of approval. All other federal laws will still apply to the agreement. Second, the Secretary must identify the types of contracts that are not covered by this statute. A tribe can submit such contracts and the BIA has 45 days to determine whether they are covered by the law. The Secretary is still authorized to reject any contract that violates federal law. Finally, the bill incorporates a suggestion made in 1988 by then- Assistant Secretary Ross Swimmer to ``eliminate the current statutory requirements that the Secretary approve the tribal selection of attorneys and attorney fees.'' To allow the selection of counsel, without the Secretary's oversight, is fundamental to Indian self- determination. My bill addresses one other key matter. Like other sovereign governments, Indian tribes are free to negotiate with potential business partners whether, in what form, and to what extent the parties can sue and be sued under a contract they enter. My bill recognizes a tribe's discretion in this area and it leaves it in place. After numerous hearings conducted in the 105th Congress and in previous congresses, I believe the record is clear: Indian tribes have been increasingly responsible in their consideration of immunity decisions. I am concerned, however, about those who may enter into agreements with Indian tribes knowing that the tribe retains immunity but at a later time insist that they have been treated unfairly by the tribe raising the immunity defense. Under my bill, the Secretary must deny approval of contracts if the agreement in question fails to state that the parties recognize that the tribe is immune from suit unless immunity is expressly waived. Excessive federal regulation, especially if it impedes business and economic development in Indian Country, needs to be eliminated. Whether we put this belief in terms of the Contract with America, or the initiative to reinvent government, our objective is the same. There is no group of people who have experienced more federal regulation of every aspect of their lives than Indians. This bill represents a commitment to reduce unnecessary and anachronistic federal bureaucratic requirements. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the Indian Needs Assessment, Program Evaluation and Policy Coordination Act of 1999 to bring about needed reforms in the way Indian programs are designed and funded. As the annual funding debates over Indian programs show us year after year, rational and equitable funding decisions are made more difficult because of the lack of accurate and up to date information about the needs of tribal governments and tribal members. The ability of the Congress to target unmet needs and make available adequate funds for tribes and tribal members is directly related to the quantity and quality of information available about the type and degree of demand for federal programs and services. Within one year of the enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, each Federal agency or department is required to conduct an ``Indian Needs Assessment'' (``INA'') aimed at determining the needs of tribes and Indians eligible for programs and services administered by such agency or department. To facilitate information collection and analysis, the bill requires the development of a uniform method, criteria and procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service needs of tribes and Indians. The resulting ``Indian Needs Assessments'' are to be filed with the Committees on Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of Representatives. In addition to a Needs Assessment, the bill also requires that each Federal agency or department responsible for providing services to Indians file an ``Annual Indian Program Evaluation'' (``AIPE'') with these same committees. The AIPE will measure the performance and effectiveness of the programs under the jurisdiction of that agency or department, and include recommendations as to how such programs can be improved. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, just as it recognizes foreign governments, the United States is called upon to consider extending its recognition to Indian tribal governments here at home. From the first days of the republic, the Congress has acted to recognize the unique legal and political relationship the United States has with the Indian tribes. Reforming the process of recognition is the goal of the legislation I am introducing today. Just as the United States at times refuses to recognize foreign governments, there are and always have been tribal governments which have not been recognized by the Federal government. This lack of recognition does not alter the ``Indian-ness'' of a tribe's members; rather it merely means that there is no formal political relationship between that tribal group and the United States. Federal recognition is critical to tribal groups because it triggers eligibility for services and benefits provided by the United States because of their status as members of federally recognized Indian tribes. I want to be clear--I am not advocating for the approval of every petition for recognition, and I am not proposing that the petitions receive a limited or cursory review. I am concerned with the viability of the current recognition process and am interested in seeing fairness, promptness, and finality brought into that process while providing basic assurances to already-recognized tribes regarding their inherent rights. Federal recognition can be accomplished in two ways: through the enactment of federal legislation; or through the administrative process that occurs, or more accurately does not occur, within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Over the years, uncertainty has developed over just how or when the Bureau would process tribal group applications for recognition. In short, the current process is not getting the job done. The process in the Department of the Interior is time consuming and costly, although it has improved from its original state. Some tribal groups allege that the Department's process leads to unfair and unfounded results. It has frequently been hindered by a lack of staff and resources needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions. At the same time, the Congress extends recognition to tribes with little or no reference to the legal standards and criteria employed by the Department. The amount of time some tribal groups have had to wait before their petitions are acted on in some cases is outrageous. Sometimes these applications for recognition are pending literally for decades. The concerns expressed go beyond the delays I mentioned and involve the viability of the current recognition process itself. As with any decision-making body, fairness and timeliness are the keys to maintaining a credible system which holds the confidence of affected parties. I believe that it is in the interests of all parties to have a clear deadline for the completion of the recognition process. In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations to establish criteria and procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes by the Secretary. Since that time to date, tribal groups have filed hundreds of petitions for review. Of those, 42 have been resolved, and 179 are new petitioners; During this same time, 89 expressed letters of intent to petition, and 5 required legislative authority to proceed which are now deemed inactive. The remainder are in various stages of consideration by the Department either ready for active status or are already placed on active status. During this same time to date, the Congress has recognized 7 other tribal groups through legislation. In the last twenty years, the Committee on Indian Affairs held oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At each of those hearings the record clearly showed that the process is not working properly. At a Committee on Indian Affairs hearing in 1995, the Bureau testified that at the current rate of review and consideration, it would take several decades to eliminate the entire backlog of tribal petitions. The record from numerous previous hearings reveals a clear need for the Congress to address the problems affecting the recognition process. The bill I am introducing today will go a long way toward resolving the problems which have plagued both the Department of the Interior and tribal petitioners over the years. This bill, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1999, provides the required clarification and changes that will help tribal petitioners and the United States in providing fair and orderly administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition to eligible Indian groups. The key element of this bill is that it removes the recognition process from the BIA and places it in a temporary and independent ``Commission on Indian Recognition.'' This bill provides that the Commission will be an independent agency, composed of three members appointed by the President, and authorized to hold hearings, take testimony and reach final determinations on petitions for recognition. The bill provides strict but realistic time-lines to guide the Commission in the review and decision making process. Under the existing process in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, some petitioners have waited ten years or more for even a cursory review of their petition. The bill I am introducing today requires the Commission to set a date for a preliminary hearing on a petition not later than 60 days after the filing of a documented petition. Not later than 30 days after the conclusion of a preliminary hearing, the Commission would be required to either decide to extend federal acknowledgment to the petitioner or to require the petitioner to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. The current recognition process becomes so expensive that the consideration of petitions are stretched out over a number of years because there have been no real deadlines for these decisions. This bill will allow for a cost-effective process for the BIA and the petitioners, will provide definite time-lines for the administrative recognition process, and ``sunsets'' the Commission in 12 years. To ensure fairness, the bill provides for appeals of adverse decisions to the federal district court here in the District of Columbia. To ensure promptness, the bill authorizes adequate funding for the costs of processing petitions through the Commission. The bill also provides finality for both the petitioners and the Department by requiring all interested tribal groups to file their petitions within 6 years after the date of enactment and requiring the Commission to complete its work within 12 years from enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this much-needed reform legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the confirmation by the Senate last night of Mr. Montie Deer to become Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission--the federal regulatory body overseeing certain Indian gaming activities nationwide. After a hearing in February of this year, the Committee on Indian Affairs reported Mr. Deer to the full Senate. Mr. Deer is a qualified and dedicated public servant who most recently was the United States Attorney in Kansas. Since 1988, Indian gaming has become a source of much-needed revenue for Indian tribal governments to provide jobs, services and frankly, hope, where there is not much. There are now some 185 tribes operating some form of gaming operations, with annual revenues of nearly $7 billion. The National Indian Gaming Commission was created 11 years ago. This three-member agency has the responsibility to monitor and regulate certain forms of gaming conducted on Indian lands. The NIGC has the authority to approve management contracts; conduct background investigations; approve tribal gaming ordinances; and review and conduct audits of the books and records of Indian gaming operations. The NIGC also has the authority and the responsibility to enforce violations of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, NIGC regulations and approved tribal gaming ordinances. Those involved with Indian gaming understand the need for a strong, effective Commission--one that protects the integrity of games offered by tribes. As we did last session, the Committee on Indian Affairs will soon consider legislation to strengthen the Commission and ensure it has the resources it needs to fulfill its obligations. A strong Commission is meaningless without strong leadership and last night the Senate acted to ensure that strong and effective leadership will be the order of the day.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Drug Certification Improvement Act of 1999 to strengthen and improve the annual drug certification process of countries which are fully cooperating with the United States to fight drug trafficking. This bill is based on legislation, S. 457, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. I am concerned that the current system, in place since 1986, no longer works as Congress intended. As we witnessed last Friday, February 26th, the administration issued its certification for 1999. This certification penalizes only two countries--Burma and Afghanistan--for not fully cooperating with the United States to combat drug trafficking. The administration's certification also granted waivers on national security grounds to four countries--Paraguay, Haiti, Cambodia, and Nigeria--so they will continue to receive United States aid. This certification, with only two countries sanctioned, raises serious concerns about the viability and effectiveness of the existing certification process and its underlying statutory authority. This concern is reflected in a Washington Post news report of February 27, 1999, which stated: ``The Administration's relatively forgiving approach reflects an effort to lower the profile on the certification reviews and thereby reduce the political tensions it has often created.'' Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too late and not specific enough to address the problems. Congress also lacks timely and specific information that would assist in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. The existing law also gives a free ride to countries which are decertified but then granted waivers and continue to receive aid because it is deemed to be in the national interest of the United States. These waivers allow the provision of aid year after year to countries not fully cooperating with the United States. What incentive do these countries have to improve their cooperation? The current certification process is set forth in section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It requires the president to submit to Congress by March 1 of each year a list of major illicit drug producing and transiting countries which he certifies are fully cooperating with the United States Under existing law, the president has three options: One, certify a country which has cooperated fully with U.S. anti-drug efforts or has taken adequate steps on its own to comply with the 1988 U.N. anti-drug trafficking convention. Two, decertify a country for not fully cooperating. Or three, decertify a country but provide a waiver because it is in the national interests of the United States to continue to provide aid. Currently, when a country is decertified, at least 50 percent of U.S. bilateral foreign aid is suspended in the current fiscal year. In fact, that country may lose more than 50 percent of its current funding if the State Department has not yet released the aid. Unless the country is recertified, all U.S. aid is suspended in subsequent fiscal years. And, the United States is required to vote against loans in the multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank. Congress has 30 days from receipt of the President's certification to enact a joint resolution disapproving the President's action. If Congress passes such a resolution, the President can veto it and require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto. Congress also has its prerogative to pass a resolution at other times, but it too would be subject to a presidential veto. The alternative I am proposing today would basically put countries ``on probation.'' By putting countries on notice that the United States has serious concerns about their lack of cooperation, it would provide a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. concerns. My legislation builds on the existing carrot and stick approach in the certification process. The carrot is certification although for a finite period of time of 7 months. During this ``probationary period,'' all U.S. aid continues to flow and the United States remains supportive in international development banks. The President also stipulates which specific conditions must be met by that country to improve its cooperation with the United States and to continue receiving U.S. aid. Not only is sufficient notice provided to the country, but to the Congress as well. The stick is a penalty similar to that under existing law. If after 7 months the country does not comply with the stipulations made by the President to improve its cooperation with the United States, 100 percent of U.S. bilateral aid is cut off. The United States also would vote against aid in the multilateral development banks if the country does not comply with U.S. stipulations, as provided for under current law. These penalties would remain in effect until the President notifies Congress that the country has complied with the stipulations made in the President's original probationary certification. My bill also provides reasonable notice to Congress. Under this alternative, Congress would be informed about those specific concerns which the President identified regarding a country's lack of cooperation. Congress also would be able to track that country's progress during the 7-month probationary period and, of course, maintain its prerogative to pass legislation as it deems necessary. I believe this would help avoid contentious battles between Congress and the administration which appear to be a main reason for the limited certification we see from the administration this year. It is clear that the existing certification process is flawed. The Drug Certification Improvement Act of 1999 provides a new certification option to fix the process, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Drug Certification Improvement Act of 1999 to strengthen and improve the annual drug certification process of countries which are fully cooperating with the United States to fight drug trafficking. This bill is based on legislation, S. 457, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. I am concerned that the current system, in place since 1986, no longer works as Congress intended. As we witnessed last Friday, February 26th, the administration issued its certification for 1999. This certification penalizes only two countries--Burma and Afghanistan--for not fully cooperating with the United States to combat drug trafficking. The administration's certification also granted waivers on national security grounds to four countries--Paraguay, Haiti, Cambodia, and Nigeria--so they will continue to receive United States aid. This certification, with only two countries sanctioned, raises serious concerns about the viability and effectiveness of the existing certification process and its underlying statutory authority. This concern is reflected in a Washington Post news report of February 27, 1999, which stated: ``The Administration's relatively forgiving approach reflects an effort to lower the profile on the certification reviews and thereby reduce the political tensions it has often created.'' Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too late and not specific enough to address the problems. Congress also lacks timely and specific information that would assist in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. The existing law also gives a free ride to countries which are decertified but then granted waivers and continue to receive aid because it is deemed to be in the national interest of the United States. These waivers allow the provision of aid year after year to countries not fully cooperating with the United States. What incentive do these countries have to improve their cooperation? The current certification process is set forth in section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It requires the president to submit to Congress by March 1 of each year a list of major illicit drug producing and transiting countries which he certifies are fully cooperating with the United States Under existing law, the president has three options: One, certify a country which has cooperated fully with U.S. anti-drug efforts or has taken adequate steps on its own to comply with the 1988 U.N. anti-drug trafficking convention. Two, decertify a country for not fully cooperating. Or three, decertify a country but provide a waiver because it is in the national interests of the United States to continue to provide aid. Currently, when a country is decertified, at least 50 percent of U.S. bilateral foreign aid is suspended in the current fiscal year. In fact, that country may lose more than 50 percent of its current funding if the State Department has not yet released the aid. Unless the country is recertified, all U.S. aid is suspended in subsequent fiscal years. And, the United States is required to vote against loans in the multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank. Congress has 30 days from receipt of the President's certification to enact a joint resolution disapproving the President's action. If Congress passes such a resolution, the President can veto it and require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto. Congress also has its prerogative to pass a resolution at other times, but it too would be subject to a presidential veto. The alternative I am proposing today would basically put countries ``on probation.'' By putting countries on notice that the United States has serious concerns about their lack of cooperation, it would provide a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. concerns. My legislation builds on the existing carrot and stick approach in the certification process. The carrot is certification although for a finite period of time of 7 months. During this ``probationary period,'' all U.S. aid continues to flow and the United States remains supportive in international development banks. The President also stipulates which specific conditions must be met by that country to improve its cooperation with the United States and to continue receiving U.S. aid. Not only is sufficient notice provided to the country, but to the Congress as well. The stick is a penalty similar to that under existing law. If after 7 months the country does not comply with the stipulations made by the President to improve its cooperation with the United States, 100 percent of U.S. bilateral aid is cut off. The United States also would vote against aid in the multilateral development banks if the country does not comply with U.S. stipulations, as provided for under current law. These penalties would remain in effect until the President notifies Congress that the country has complied with the stipulations made in the President's original probationary certification. My bill also provides reasonable notice to Congress. Under this alternative, Congress would be informed about those specific concerns which the President identified regarding a country's lack of cooperation. Congress also would be able to track that country's progress during the 7-month probationary period and, of course, maintain its prerogative to pass legislation as it deems necessary. I believe this would help avoid contentious battles between Congress and the administration which appear to be a main reason for the limited certification we see from the administration this year. It is clear that the existing certification process is flawed. The Drug Certification Improvement Act of 1999 provides a new certification option to fix the process, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, as an original cosponsor of his resolution to recognize the life and achievements of a remarkable man, the late Congressman from Arizona, Morris K. ``Mo'' Udall. Congressman Udall served with distinction in the House of Representatives from 1961 to 1991. Until the advanced stages of Parkinson's disease forced him into early retirement, Mo was an active and vital member of Congress. I came to know him well during my years in the House when Congressman Udall chaired the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Congressman Udall's death this past December marked the end of his courageous battle against Parkinson's disease and of a life-long dedication to public service. His commitment and devotion to the environment, government reform, health care and civil rights advanced these causes and established a legacy that will not soon be forgotten. However, as a former athlete myself, I will forever remember Mo as the 6-foot, 5-inch former professional basketball player, with a heart of gold and wonderful sense of humor. It is impossible to fully recognize the impact that Congressman Udall's tireless efforts have had on this Congress, the State of Arizona, and our Nation. Mere words cannot express the respect, gratitude and sense of loss that we feel for this extraordinary man. I can only say, ``Thank you, Mo.'' We will all miss you.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Craig, Kyl, Crapo, Gorton, and Grams who are original cosponsors of the bill. This bill enforces our position as strong supporters of American public lands and private property rights, and is based upon legislation which I introduced in the 105th Congress, S. 2098. Since then I have received input from Coloradans and revised the bill accordingly, as I am concerned about the setting aside of public lands by the federal government for international agreements and oversight. The absence of congressional oversight in such programs as the United Nations Biosphere Reserve is of special concern to me. The United Nations has designated 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States which contain a total area greater than the size of my home state of Colorado. The United Nations remains the only multi-national body to share perspectives on a global scale. The United States, as the leading economic and military world power, should maintain an influential role. However, the intrusive implications of the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program have created a problem that must be addressed by the Congress. A Biosphere Reserve is a federally-zoned and coordinated region that could prohibit certain uses of private lands outside of the designated international area. The executive branch is agreeing to manage the designated area in accordance with an underlying agreement which may have implications on non-federal land outside the affected area. For example, when residents of Arkansas discovered a plan by the United Nations and the administration to advance a proposed Ozark Highland Man and Biosphere Reserve without public input, the plan was withdrawn in the face of public pressure. This type of stealth tactic to accommodate international interests does not serve the needs and desires of the American people. Rather, it is an encroachment by the Executive branch on congressional authority. We are facing a threat to our sovereignty by the creation of these land reserves in our public lands. I also believe the rights of private landowners must be protected if these international land designations are made. Even more disturbing is the fact the executive branch elected to be a party to this ``Biosphere Reserve'' program without the approval of Congress or the American people. The absence of congressional oversight in this area is a serious concern. In fact most of these international land reserves have been created with minimal, if any, congressional input or oversight or public consultation. The current system for implementing international land reserves diminishes the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its constitutional power to make laws that govern lands belonging to the United States. Congress must protect individual property owners, local communities, and state sovereignty which may be adversely impacted economically by any such international agreements. As policymaking authority is further centralized by the executive branch at the federal level, the role of ordinary citizens in the making of this policy through their elected representatives is diminished. The administration has allowed some of America's most symbolic monuments of freedom, such as the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall to be listed as World Heritage Sites. Furthermore the United Nations has listed national parks including Yellowstone National Park--our nation's first national park--as a World Heritage Site. Federal legislation is needed to require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the borders of the United States is made part of an international land reserve. My bill reasserts Congress' Constitutional role in the creation of rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States and its people. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to support its passage.

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, March 3, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to Mark-up the Committee's Budget Views & Estimates letter to the Budget Committee for FY 2000 Indian programs. (The Joint Hearing with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on American Indian Trust Management Practices in the Department of the Interior will immediately follow). The Meeting/ Hearing will be held in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 202/224-2251. committee on health, education, labor, and Pensions

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999. This bill would persuade foreign nationals to take the bold steps needed to return any possibly surviving American POW/MIAs home alive. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Gregg and Helms as original cosponsors. With the passage of the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, the Senate this week has made great strides in providing for the men and women of our armed forces. I am continuing this effort today. This bill would grant asylum in the United States to foreign nationals who personally deliver a living American POW/MIA from either the Vietnam War or the Korean War to the United States. Citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, or any of the states of the former Soviet Union who deliver living American POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War would be granted asylum here. Similarly, citizens of North Korea, China, or any of the states of the former Soviet Union who deliver living American POW/MIAs from the Korean War would also be granted asylum. Of course, that foreign national's immediate family, including their spouse and children, would also be granted asylum in the U.S. since their safety, and even their lives, would most likely be imperiled by such a daring rescue of surviving American POW/MIAs. While some may doubt that any American POW/MIAs from these two wars remain alive, official U.S. policy distinctly recognizes the possibility that U.S. POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War could still be alive and held captive in Indochina. As the Defense Department's current position states: Although we have thus far been unable to prove that Americans are still being held against their will, the information available to us precludes ruling out that possibility. Actions to investigate live-sighting reports receive and will continue to receive necessary priority and resources based on the assumption that at least some Americans are still held captive. Should any report prove true, we will take appropriate action to ensure the return of those involved. The bill I am introducing today supports this official position and enables the possibility of bringing any surviving U.S. servicemen home alive. Since the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, there have been reports of live sightings of American POW/MIAs being held in Indochina. While the majority of these live-sightings have been resolved over the years, and have decreased in recent years, the possibility of Americans still being held remains. Two Russian translations of Vietnamese documents were discovered in Soviet archives in 1993 which contain detailed statistics indicating that approximately twice as many American POWs were being held by Vietnam in late 1972 than were actually ever returned to the United States. Furthermore, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs' final report in 1993 concluded that about 100 U.S. POWs that were expected to be returned by Vietnam were never returned and that at least some of them may still be alive and held captive in Indochina. It is also possible that American POW/MIAs are still being held in North Korea. A few years ago a 1996 Defense Department internal report was uncovered that concluded that between 10-15 POW/MIAs may still be alive and held against their will in North Korea. The Bring Them Home Alive Act includes the states of the former Soviet Union, for just cause. Longstanding rumors that American POW/ MIAs from both the Vietnam War and the Korean War were transferred to the Soviet Union were recently reinforced by the memoirs of recently deceased Soviet General Dmitri Volkogonov. As reported in a January 12, 1999, Washington Times article, Gen. Volkogonov wrote of seeing a secret KGB document from the 1960s outlining a plan to transfer U.S. POWs being held in Vietnam to the Soviet Union. The goal of this secret KGB plan was ``to bring knowledgeable Americans to the Soviet Union for intelligence (gathering) purposes.'' During a Congressional Delegation visit to Russia late last year, Russian General Sergeyev tacitly confirmed the existence of this document. While some officials contend this plan was never carried out, this is far from certain. In addition, the cumulative weight of compelling circumstantial evidence supports the assertion that American POWs were also transferred to the Soviet Union during the Korean War. Finally, a key section of this bill would help spread news of the Bring Them Home Alive Act around the world. This is needed to help make sure that the key foreign nationals who need to hear about this act, do so. My bill calls on the International Broadcasting Bureau to use its assets, including Worldnet Television and its Internet sites, to spread the news. The bill also calls on Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia to participate. If this bill leads to even one long-held POW/MIA being returned home to America alive, this effort will be well worth it, 10,000 times over. Even though it has been many years since these two wars ended, they have not ended for any Americans who may have been left behind and are still alive. As long as there remains even the remotest possibility that there may be any surviving POWs, we owe it to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, and their families, to do everything possible to bring them home alive. This is the least we can do after all they have sacrificed. Key groups involved in Veterans and POW/MIA issues have endorsed this legislation, including the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition, the VietNow National POW/MIA Committee, and the Coalition of Families of Korean and Cold War POW/MIAs. Naturally, I welcome any additional endorsements that any of the other important organizations involved in POW/MIA related issues may wish to provide. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999, the Washington Times article, and the letters of endorsement be included in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999. This bill would persuade foreign nationals to take the bold steps needed to return any possibly surviving American POW/MIAs home alive. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Gregg and Helms as original cosponsors. With the passage of the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, the Senate this week has made great strides in providing for the men and women of our armed forces. I am continuing this effort today. This bill would grant asylum in the United States to foreign nationals who personally deliver a living American POW/MIA from either the Vietnam War or the Korean War to the United States. Citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, or any of the states of the former Soviet Union who deliver living American POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War would be granted asylum here. Similarly, citizens of North Korea, China, or any of the states of the former Soviet Union who deliver living American POW/MIAs from the Korean War would also be granted asylum. Of course, that foreign national's immediate family, including their spouse and children, would also be granted asylum in the U.S. since their safety, and even their lives, would most likely be imperiled by such a daring rescue of surviving American POW/MIAs. While some may doubt that any American POW/MIAs from these two wars remain alive, official U.S. policy distinctly recognizes the possibility that U.S. POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War could still be alive and held captive in Indochina. As the Defense Department's current position states: Although we have thus far been unable to prove that Americans are still being held against their will, the information available to us precludes ruling out that possibility. Actions to investigate live-sighting reports receive and will continue to receive necessary priority and resources based on the assumption that at least some Americans are still held captive. Should any report prove true, we will take appropriate action to ensure the return of those involved. The bill I am introducing today supports this official position and enables the possibility of bringing any surviving U.S. servicemen home alive. Since the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, there have been reports of live sightings of American POW/MIAs being held in Indochina. While the majority of these live-sightings have been resolved over the years, and have decreased in recent years, the possibility of Americans still being held remains. Two Russian translations of Vietnamese documents were discovered in Soviet archives in 1993 which contain detailed statistics indicating that approximately twice as many American POWs were being held by Vietnam in late 1972 than were actually ever returned to the United States. Furthermore, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs' final report in 1993 concluded that about 100 U.S. POWs that were expected to be returned by Vietnam were never returned and that at least some of them may still be alive and held captive in Indochina. It is also possible that American POW/MIAs are still being held in North Korea. A few years ago a 1996 Defense Department internal report was uncovered that concluded that between 10-15 POW/MIAs may still be alive and held against their will in North Korea. The Bring Them Home Alive Act includes the states of the former Soviet Union, for just cause. Longstanding rumors that American POW/ MIAs from both the Vietnam War and the Korean War were transferred to the Soviet Union were recently reinforced by the memoirs of recently deceased Soviet General Dmitri Volkogonov. As reported in a January 12, 1999, Washington Times article, Gen. Volkogonov wrote of seeing a secret KGB document from the 1960s outlining a plan to transfer U.S. POWs being held in Vietnam to the Soviet Union. The goal of this secret KGB plan was ``to bring knowledgeable Americans to the Soviet Union for intelligence (gathering) purposes.'' During a Congressional Delegation visit to Russia late last year, Russian General Sergeyev tacitly confirmed the existence of this document. While some officials contend this plan was never carried out, this is far from certain. In addition, the cumulative weight of compelling circumstantial evidence supports the assertion that American POWs were also transferred to the Soviet Union during the Korean War. Finally, a key section of this bill would help spread news of the Bring Them Home Alive Act around the world. This is needed to help make sure that the key foreign nationals who need to hear about this act, do so. My bill calls on the International Broadcasting Bureau to use its assets, including Worldnet Television and its Internet sites, to spread the news. The bill also calls on Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia to participate. If this bill leads to even one long-held POW/MIA being returned home to America alive, this effort will be well worth it, 10,000 times over. Even though it has been many years since these two wars ended, they have not ended for any Americans who may have been left behind and are still alive. As long as there remains even the remotest possibility that there may be any surviving POWs, we owe it to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, and their families, to do everything possible to bring them home alive. This is the least we can do after all they have sacrificed. Key groups involved in Veterans and POW/MIA issues have endorsed this legislation, including the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition, the VietNow National POW/MIA Committee, and the Coalition of Families of Korean and Cold War POW/MIAs. Naturally, I welcome any additional endorsements that any of the other important organizations involved in POW/MIA related issues may wish to provide. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999, the Washington Times article, and the letters of endorsement be included in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.