Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to transfer the title to the Vallecito Reservoir in southwestern Colorado to the Pine River Irrigation District. This transfer has been developed after close consultation and extensive meetings with the Pine River Irrigation District, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. This bill contributes toward my ongoing goal of developing local cooperation and control of public resources, while addressing the concerns of managing site-specific resources, recreation, and environmental protection. It fits with my long-held belief that we need to downsize the role of the Federal Government, while allowing the State and local entities which are most affected to manage valuable resources. For the past twenty-five years, the District has managed the Vallecito Reservoir for the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill will allow the District, which has developed extensive expertise and knowledge, to purchase the reservoir which they manage. The concerns of the public are addressed through provisions which require certain conditions be met before the title can be transferred. Once the transfer is complete the Pine River District will continue to manage the reservoir in compliance with State and Federal law. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 3715 introduced in the House of Representatives by our colleague Congressman Scott McInnis. The House already has held a hearing on this legislation. Therefore, I am hopeful that the Senate can move rapidly to complete this transfer.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take the time today to introduce a bill that will help millions of water consumers throughout my state. The Denver Water Department has developed a unique plan to re-use non- potable water for irrigation and industrial uses. This bill would simply authorize the Denver Water Department to access federal funds to assist in the implementation of this plan. The Mayor of Denver has fully endorsed this legislation. I am delighted to assist the Mayor and the great City of Denver. Denver Water Department serves over a million customers and is the largest water supplier in the Rocky Mountain region. Due to uncertain water supplies in the semi-arid west, it is critical to make wise use of every drop of water. With this in mind, over the past several years Denver Water has developed a plan to treat and reuse some of its water supply for uses not involving human ingestion, such as irrigation and industrial purposes. In this manner, Denver will stretch its water supply without the cost and potential environmental disruption of building new reservoirs. It will also ease the demand on fresh drinking-quality water supplies. The Denver Nonpotable Reuse Project will treat secondary wastewater, that is water which has already been used once in Denver's system. It is an environmentally and economically viable method for extending and conserving our limited water supplies. The water quality will meet all Colorado and federal standards. The water will still be clean and odorless, but since it will be used for irrigation and industrial uses around the Denver International Airport and the Rocky Mountain Wildlife Refuge, the additional expense to treat it for drinking will be avoided. The nonpotable project is constructed in three phases and ultimately will result in an additional useable water supply of 15,000 acre feet. The use of the nonpotable water for irrigation and industrial customers will free potable water supplies for up to 30,000 homes. Construction will include a treatment plant and a distribution system that is separate from the potable water system. Phase I will serve customers in the vicinity of the reuse plant, including a Public Service Company power plant, other industrial users and other public areas. Phase II will add irrigation for parks and golf courses in the former Stapleton Airport and the recently closed Lowry Air Force Base redevelopment areas. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which is being converted to a national wildlife refuge, will also use the reuse water to maintain lake levels on-site and to provide water for wildlife habitats. Phase III will service existing parks as well as new development of a commercial corridor leading to the Denver International Airport. With the construction of Phase II, the irrigation, heating and cooling, and car washing facilities at Denver International Airport will convert to reuse water, where a dual distribution system has already been installed. This plan would benefit many Coloradans, and would help relieve many of the water burdens faced in the Denver region. Again, I'd like to thank Mayor Webb for his support, and I am hopeful this bill can be quickly passed and put into effect. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Mayor's letter and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to transfer the title to the Vallecito Reservoir in southwestern Colorado to the Pine River Irrigation District. This transfer has been developed after close consultation and extensive meetings with the Pine River Irrigation District, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. This bill contributes toward my ongoing goal of developing local cooperation and control of public resources, while addressing the concerns of managing site-specific resources, recreation, and environmental protection. It fits with my long-held belief that we need to downsize the role of the Federal Government, while allowing the State and local entities which are most affected to manage valuable resources. For the past twenty-five years, the District has managed the Vallecito Reservoir for the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill will allow the District, which has developed extensive expertise and knowledge, to purchase the reservoir which they manage. The concerns of the public are addressed through provisions which require certain conditions be met before the title can be transferred. Once the transfer is complete the Pine River District will continue to manage the reservoir in compliance with State and Federal law. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 3715 introduced in the House of Representatives by our colleague Congressman Scott McInnis. The House already has held a hearing on this legislation. Therefore, I am hopeful that the Senate can move rapidly to complete this transfer.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Honesty in Sweepstakes Act of 1998. Every day millions of senior citizens and other innocent consumers receive sweepstakes announcements that boldly announce that they have just won millions of dollars or some other prize, perhaps a luxury cruise, when in fact they have not. Millions of Americans also receive cashier's check look-alikes, made out to their name, and written for thousands of dollars, as a ploy to get them to purchase some product or service. But upon close scrutiny, these cashier's check look-alikes are actually worthless. These two tactics are some of the most pervasive deceptive direct mail marketing ploys being used today. Theses slick direct mail marketing ploys prey directly upon the better elements of the American character: optimism, good nature, trust, and natural tendency to accept things at face value. The recent increase of news reports detailing how American consumers are being deliberately misled into believing that they have just won a huge prize, only to find out later that they were taken advantage of, clearly shows that the problem is getting worse. All across our country, families' home mail boxes are being stuffed with increasingly deceptive direct mail marketing ploys, and senior citizens are particulary vulnerable to these deceptive tactics. Something needs to be done to restore honesty in sweepstakes. This legislation has two key provisions. The first ensures accuracy and honesty in direct mail sales promotions that use sweepstakes or other games of chance to entice consumers to buy their products or services. The second provision promotes honest forthrightness when cashier's check look-alikes are used in direct mail sales promotions. Together, this legislation's two key provisions will benefit American consumers, the U.S. Postal Service, and the direct mail marketing industry. First, my bill will protect American consumers from deceptive marketing practices. It will accomplish this by requiring that direct mail marketers provide consumers with honest, up-front and clear disclosure of what is being sent to their mail boxes. These new disclosure standards will enable consumers to quicky separate mail that is truly important from mail that is deceptively designed to look important by masquerading as something that it is not. Second, the bill helps the Postal Service do its job better. This bill will strengthen the Postal Service's efforts by enabling it to halt the delivery of deceptive mass mailings. This legislation will reassure the American people that the Postal Service is on their side, and not on the side of those who would use the Postal Service to deliver deceptive marketing ploys. Finally, this legislation will benefit the direct mail marketing industry as a whole. It will enhance the public image of the majority of direct mail marketers that are honest by compelling companies that use deceptive marketing practices, and whose activities taint the entire industry, to either clean up their act or get out. For many years, direct mail marketers have successfully sold their products without resorting to deception. Let's return to those days. The Honesty in Sweepstakes Act is built on a solid foundation of precedents. The key principle for the sweepstakes portion of this legislation is based on the way in which lotteries clearly disclose important information, like the total chances of winning. As for achieving the same goal for the printed materials used in direct mail marketing, this honesty is achieved through requiring the disclosure to be printed on top and in easy to read font sizes. It is also similar to food labeling, letting you know what is inside the product. The cashier's check look-alike portion of this bill is founded on precedent in current law that allows the Postal Service to dispose of, or otherwise refuse to deliver, government look-alike materials. My bill simply expands this current statutory provision to include cashier's check look-alikes. This bill addresses deceptive sweepstakes in two important ways. First, it requires an announcement to be clearly printed on the face of the envelope to state that ``This is a sweepstakes. You have not automatically won.'' This announcement must be clearly printed in a large 16 point font, or in an even larger font in some circumstances, so that it is crystal clear and easy for everyone to read. Many of our nation's seniors will especially benefit from this large font size requirement. Second, this bill requires that important information be printed clearly on the top of the first page of enclosed material, including the chances of winning the big prize being promoted and that no purchase is necessary to participate. For cashier check look-alikes, this bill calls for a 16 point font notice that ``This is not a check. This has no cash value.'' The days of deceptive marketers burying all of the important information and other disclaimers in fine print are numbered. Enforcement is triggered by the consumers themselves. When people receive sweepstakes and cashier's check look-alikes that do not meet the honesty guidelines laid out in this bill, they should contact the Post Office and register a complaint. These consumer complaints can then trigger a postal investigation of the materials in question. If the Postal Service finds that the materials do not live up to the Honesty in Sweepstakes guidelines, the Postal Service can then dispose of the mail accordingly, either by disposing of it or returning it to the sender. As a result, marketers who are not complying with the Honesty in Sweepstakes standards will then take a loss on the production and postage costs associated with that mailing. Needless to say, the company will quickly learn its lesson and produce marketing materials that are more forthright and honest. I have consulted with the Attorneys General of both my home state of Colorado, and of the state of Florida, which is in the forefront of the effort to fight deceptive sweepstakes practices. These two offices expressed support for both this bill's goals and new approach. The Attorneys General were also glad to hear that this bill contains a clause stating that nothing in this bill will preempt state law. This important clause gives each of our respective states the freedom to enact its own additional guidelines as it sees fit. I appreciate the helpful feedback and support these two states' Attorneys General have shown. For too long, too many of our senior citizens and other innocent consumers have been victimized by deceptive sweepstakes and cashier's check look-alikes. This bill will end this practice, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I begin my statement today thanking the various individuals and organizations that support the drug court programs. I have always been a strong supporter of drug court, and wish to express my pleasure with the ``National Drug Court Week'' events that are scheduled in Washington, DC this week. Recognizing the importance of practitioners who work on drug courts and the significant contributions that drug courts have made, and continue to make, in reducing drug use and crime in our communities is extremely important. I believe in the success of the drug courts and wish to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of drug court professionals. Drug Courts are revolutionizing the criminal justice system. The strategy behind drug courts departs from traditional criminal justice practice by placing nonviolent drug abusing offenders into intensive court supervised drug treatment instead of prison. Some drug courts target first time offenders, while others concentrate on habitual offenders. They all aim to reduce drug abuse and crime. Drug court programs have expanded from the original 12 in 1994 to around 400 today. Drug courts provide comprehensive judicial monitoring, drug testing and supervision, treatment and rehabilitative services, and sanctions and incentives for drug using offenders. The success of the drug court system is well documented. More than 70% of drug court clients have successfully completed the program or remain as active participants. Additionally, the cost of drug court programs are significantly less than the cost of incarceration and traditional court systems. In my home state of Colorado the drug court movement is growing. Started in 1994, the Denver Drug Court assigns defendants to one of three tracks. Tracks 1 and 2 are community supervision and treatment tracks. Track 3 is a serious offender incarceration track. These tracks establish the different type of programs that are offered to various offenders. Approximately 75% of all drug cases are appropriate for the community supervision track. At any given time, approximately 1500 cases are under court supervision. An analysis of post-conviction progress reviews of offenders under Track 1 or Track 2 demonstrates that 67% of those individuals complied with the Drug Court Program and did not use any illegal substances. Since the graduation of the first class in July 1995, the Drug Court has successfully graduated over 500 individuals. Of the 100 graduates who have been out of the Drug Court for one year or longer, only 10% have been rearrested for a felony offense. Last year, General McCaffrey and I had the opportunity to observe the Denver Drug Court. Through this experience I was able to see first hand the judicial procedures surrounding drug courts. I was impressed with Denver's Drug Court procedures, and believe in the success they will yield. I am pleased with the success of the Denver Drug Court program and support the growing programs within Colorado. I believe the success of drug courts is well documented and strong Congressional support should be given to the rehabilitation of future drug offenders. Traditional incarceration has yielded little gains for our drug offenders. Costs are too high and the rehabilitation rate is minimal. The drug courts of America are an excellent way to make strides forward in our fight against drugs. I commend the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) in their planning and sponsoring of ``National Drug Court Week'' events here in Washington. The recognition of this excellent program and promotion of its initiatives is well deserved.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to note the inclusion in the Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998 (ISTEA) of key provisions to provide increased funding for Indian roads, highways, and bridges; to provide for the allocation of scarce ISTEA dollars for Indian tribes pursuant to a flexible negotiated rule-making procedure; and to ensure that all ISTEA funds will be made available to tribes that choose to enter contracts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, P.L. 93-638. These provisions are critical because they recognize the high level of unfunded infrastructure needs in Indian country, and respect Indian tribal authority and capacity to administer ISTEA dollars in ways that are tailored to unique local conditions and needs. These provisions will assist tribes in attracting and retaining investment and job- creating activities to Indian reservations. There are many reasons why it is imperative that Indian tribes foster vigorous economies. In 1996, Congress enacted a reform of the welfare system that requires able- bodied Americans to be industrious and look first to themselves, not the government, for help and hope. That law is now being implemented across the country. Most reservation economies are heavily reliant on federal transfer payments. Most Americans have read about the grinding poverty most Indian people face: high unemployment, lack of decent housing, and poor health, alcoholism, diabetes, cancer, and a staggering suicide rate. The success of the welfare reform law depends on the availability of jobs that can take the place of transfer payments and government assistance. In Indian country, with a national unemployment rate of 52%, job opportunities are scarce. There is a role for the federal government in helping Indian communities make the transition from dependence to self-reliance. Employment training, removing barriers to lending, and increasing Indian entrepreneurship are essential if tribes are to be successful in creating jobs. By far the most important is in fostering relationships with the private sector, which requires a solid physical infrastructure which can support business needs. In an economy increasingly reliant on global opportunities, tribes must be competitive. There are many investment opportunities, and other things being equal, tribal economies without basic infrastructure are not as attractive as those that can provide the amenities necessary for successful ventures. I am very pleased to have supported these provisions and am committed to building a solid private sector in Indian country, creating job opportunities for Indian people, and lessening dependence on the federal government. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the testimony of the Honorable Bobby Whitefeather, Chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, and Mr. John Sunchild, Executive Director of the National Tribal Development Association, regarding reservation infrastructure needs and economic development which was submitted to the Committee on Indian Affairs as providing key insights into the infrastructure problem in Indian country.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet in open session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998 beginning at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on Tribal Justice Programs. Focus on joint Department (DOJ/DOI) Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative and other related tribal justice issues. The hearing will be held in room G-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 202/224-2251.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Counterfeiting Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1998. My bill would tighten the sentencing guidelines' base offense level in recognition of the fact that advances in computer and printing technology have fundamentally changed the nature of counterfeiting. This bill would bring our nation's counterfeiting laws out of Gutenberg's printing press era and into the modern computer age. Counterfeiting of our nation's currency is a serious and growing problem. Incidents of computer generated counterfeiting have increased dramatically over the last three years. In 1995 only one half of one percent of counterfeit U.S. currency passed were computer generated. Today, just three short years later, computer generated counterfeits account for approximately 43 percent of the counterfeits passed. Traditional counterfeiters use offset printing production methods that require specialized equipment including printing presses, engraved printing press plates and green ink. These counterfeiters encounter a cumbersome process that is messy, is harder to conceal, and requires them to produce in large batches. However, a rapidly growing number of today's counterfeiters are using personal computers, scanners, digital imaging software, full color copiers, and laser and inkjet printers. They can also use the Internet to instantaneously transmit the computer images needed for counterfeiting. This technology, which is readily available and increasingly affordable, enables criminals to produce high-quality counterfeit currency in small batches and at a low cost. It is this ability for counterfeiters to easily produce in small batches that has rendered our sentencing guidelines outdated and less effective as a deterrent. Our sentencing guidelines under current law are based in a world where the realities of offset printing required counterfeiters to produce in rather large batches. That reality no longer exists. Basically, the more counterfeit currency a counterfeiter got caught with, the stiffer the sentence. Using computer technology, today's counterfeiters can simply print out smaller batches of counterfeit currency whenever they want to. This allows these criminals to effectively fly just under the radar of our sentencing guideline thresholds. The administration recently acknowledged the extent of the problem. In a March 5, 1998, letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin wrote that ``increases in computer counterfeiting cases represent not only a threat to our law enforcement interests, but also seriously threaten the integrity of our U.S. currency. Maintaining the stability and integrity of U.S. currency is essential to preserving the benefits derived from the dollar's status as a world currency.'' In response to these enhanced counterfeiting techniques, the Department of Treasury has been redesigning our nation's currency to make it harder to counterfeit. In addition the Secret Service has stepped up its battle against counterfeiters, both at home and abroad. But more needs to be done. This bill is another important step to toughen the penalties for counterfeiting. Specifically, my bill strengthens the sentencing guidelines so that increases are based on offense levels determined by the amount of counterfeit bills produced and a point system based on the offender's prior criminal history. Under current law, the base offense begins with level 9 for convictions involving $2,000 in counterfeit currency or less. Increases in this level occur according to the amount of counterfeit bills over $2,000. Thus a defendant's guideline range in counterfeiting cases depends largely on the amount of counterfeit inventory seized when the operation is shut down. Increases in sentencing are also determined by the prior criminal history of the offender. Points are added for such things as: prior imprisonment; offenses committed while on probation, parole, or supervised release; offenses committed less than two years from prior release; and other misdemeanor and petty offenses. Under current law at base offense level 9, seven points are needed for the imposition of a prison sentence of 12 to 18 months. Without these points for prior criminal history many offenders simply are being released on probation. I believe these sentencing guidelines are too lenient and fail to address the growing problem of counterfeiting. Therefore, my bill increases the base offense level in section 2B5.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by not less than two levels to level 11. Under my bill, an offender would need only four points to receive the same 12 to 18 month sentence which previously required seven points. This relates to all counterfeiting offenses to address the overall harm counterfeiting can have on the integrity of U.S. currency. Second, my bill adds a sentencing enhancement of not less than two levels for counterfeiting offenses that involve the use of computer printer or a color photocopying machine. This would place this new class of computer counterfeiters at an offense level of 13. Here, an offender would need zero points to receive the same 12 to 18 month sentence. The increase in my bill would provide for actual prison sentences in many of the cases where previous offenders were only receiving probation. I believe this legislation clearly addresses our growing problem with counterfeiters by imposing stricter sentencing penalties. Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the very underpinnings of our economy, the American people's confidence in the integrity and value of our nation's currency, the U.S. dollar. The ``Counterfeiting Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1998'' will send a clear message to criminals who are even thinking about counterfeiting. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Tribal Conflict Resolution, Tort Claims and Risk Management Act of 1998 to continue the discourse on matters involving Indian tribal governments such as providing a mechanism for the collection of legitimate state retail sales taxes and affording a remedy to those persons injured by the acts of tribal governments, or those acting on their behalf. By introducing this legislation, I am hopeful that tribal leaders, concerned parties, and those affected by the actions of tribal governments can find some common ground and craft innovative solutions to these issues which I believe will continue to hamper Indian tribes unless dealt with appropriately. It has been said that because of Indian tribal immunity from lawsuits, states have no enforcement mechanism to collect state retail taxes on transactions made to non-members. Similarly, opponents of tribal immunity charge that tribal immunity prevents injured persons from seeking legal recourse for their injuries. The Supreme Court has held that on retail sales made to non-members, Indian tribes are under a duty to collect and remit such state taxes. The Court made it clear that there are numerous remedies available to the states in such situations including suits against tribal officials; levying the tax at the wholesale level before goods enter reservation commerce; negotiating agreements with the tribes involved; and if these prove unworkable, then seeking congressional action. At least 18 states and numerous tribes have chosen the negotiations route to settling their differences short of litigation and acrimony. Testimony presented to the committee on March 11, 1998, revealed that there are approximately 200 intergovernmental agreements between Indian tribes and states providing for the collection and remittance by the tribes of state sales taxes on sales made to non-members. Rather than waive the immunity of all tribes--those who have chosen to deal with the issue of taxation through agreement and those who have not--the legislation I introduce today declares the policy of the United States to be the reaffirmation of the federal obligation to protect Indian tribes, people, and trust resources and property of Indian tribes. In fulfilling that obligation, the United States should make available the framework and machinery for the amicable settlement and resolution of disputes, including tax matters, involving states and Indian tribes. The achievement of mutual agreements is the major objective of this bill, and in addition to encouraging such agreements, this legislation provides for the creation of an ``Intergovernmental Alternative Dispute Resolution Panel'' to consider and render decisions on tax matters that cannot be resolved through negotiation. The panel will be composed of a five member team including representatives of the Departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury; one representative of state governments; and one representative of tribal governments. Rather than create a ``new'' mediation framework, this bill relies on the existing Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide mediation services for such situations. Title II of the bill is intended to provide a remedy in tort situations for those tribes that are not covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act, or covered by private secured liability insurance. This title would require the Secretary of Interior to obtain or provide tort liability insurance or equivalent coverage for each Indian tribe that receives tribal priority allocations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Because many, if not most, Indian tribes maintain some type of insurance coverage, the Secretary is obligated to determine the type and adequacy of coverage already provided in order to avoid duplicative or redundant coverage. Significantly, and as is the case with insurance policies now in place for many tribal governments, the policy of insurance must contain a provision prohibiting the carrier from raising the defense of sovereign immunity with respect to any tort action filed involving the tribe. In this way, injured persons would be afforded a remedy. Such policies would also contain a provision precluding any waiver for pre-judgment interest or punitive damages. The Secretary would prescribe regulations governing the amount and nature of claims covered by such insurance policy, and would also set a schedule of premiums payable by any tribe that is provided insurance under this bill. Lastly, as Indian tribes have begun to re-develop their economies and are beginning to assert their influence, issues and matters have developed that should receive the attention of a full-time, intergovernmental body to review and analyze such situations. This legislation creates the ``Joint Tribal-Federal-State Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs'' to thoughtfully and deliberately consider matters such as law enforcement, civil and criminal jurisdiction, taxation, transportation, economic development, and related issues. Two years after enactment, the commission is required to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the President, the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate, and the Committee on Resources in the House of Representatives. Finally, let me say that I do not agree with those who suggest that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity is an anachronism and one no longer deserving of protection. Several of the states, as well as the federal government, have chosen to waive their immunity from suit in very limited circumstances and under strict conditions. It is simply inaccurate to suggest that tribal governments are the last repository of immunity. Whether by limiting damage awards as some states have done, or eliminating entire classes of activities that will not trigger immunity waivers as the federal government has done in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the doctrine of immunity is alive and well in the United States. That there are issues that need to be dealt with I agree; that the way to address these issues is through involuntary, broad-based waivers of immunity, I disagree heartily. I call on the quiet, thoughtful, and reasonable people on both sides of these issues to craft solutions that respects Indian tribal governments and yet provides reasonable solutions for legitimate problems that do exist. Mr. President, I ask that the contents of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of American public lands and private property rights, 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. That is why today I introduce companion legislation to H.R. 901, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, introduced by Representative Don Young, to preserve American sovereignty and halt the extension of the executive branch into congressional constitutional 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. Congress must protect individual property owners, local communities, and State sovereignty which may be adversely impacted economically by any such international agreements. 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. The executive branch may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention of Biodiversity, to which the United States is not a party, and one which our country has refused to ratify. 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. 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. As policymaking authority is further centralized at the executive branch 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. Federal legislation is needed to require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the borders of 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of American public lands and private property rights, 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. That is why today I introduce companion legislation to H.R. 901, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, introduced by Representative Don Young, to preserve American sovereignty and halt the extension of the executive branch into congressional constitutional 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. Congress must protect individual property owners, local communities, and State sovereignty which may be adversely impacted economically by any such international agreements. 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. The executive branch may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention of Biodiversity, to which the United States is not a party, and one which our country has refused to ratify. 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. 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. As policymaking authority is further centralized at the executive branch 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. Federal legislation is needed to require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the borders of 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. 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 Indian Tribal Conflict Resolution, Tort Claims and Risk Management Act of 1998 to continue the discourse on matters involving Indian tribal governments such as providing a mechanism for the collection of legitimate state retail sales taxes and affording a remedy to those persons injured by the acts of tribal governments, or those acting on their behalf. By introducing this legislation, I am hopeful that tribal leaders, concerned parties, and those affected by the actions of tribal governments can find some common ground and craft innovative solutions to these issues which I believe will continue to hamper Indian tribes unless dealt with appropriately. It has been said that because of Indian tribal immunity from lawsuits, states have no enforcement mechanism to collect state retail taxes on transactions made to non-members. Similarly, opponents of tribal immunity charge that tribal immunity prevents injured persons from seeking legal recourse for their injuries. The Supreme Court has held that on retail sales made to non-members, Indian tribes are under a duty to collect and remit such state taxes. The Court made it clear that there are numerous remedies available to the states in such situations including suits against tribal officials; levying the tax at the wholesale level before goods enter reservation commerce; negotiating agreements with the tribes involved; and if these prove unworkable, then seeking congressional action. At least 18 states and numerous tribes have chosen the negotiations route to settling their differences short of litigation and acrimony. Testimony presented to the committee on March 11, 1998, revealed that there are approximately 200 intergovernmental agreements between Indian tribes and states providing for the collection and remittance by the tribes of state sales taxes on sales made to non-members. Rather than waive the immunity of all tribes--those who have chosen to deal with the issue of taxation through agreement and those who have not--the legislation I introduce today declares the policy of the United States to be the reaffirmation of the federal obligation to protect Indian tribes, people, and trust resources and property of Indian tribes. In fulfilling that obligation, the United States should make available the framework and machinery for the amicable settlement and resolution of disputes, including tax matters, involving states and Indian tribes. The achievement of mutual agreements is the major objective of this bill, and in addition to encouraging such agreements, this legislation provides for the creation of an ``Intergovernmental Alternative Dispute Resolution Panel'' to consider and render decisions on tax matters that cannot be resolved through negotiation. The panel will be composed of a five member team including representatives of the Departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury; one representative of state governments; and one representative of tribal governments. Rather than create a ``new'' mediation framework, this bill relies on the existing Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide mediation services for such situations. Title II of the bill is intended to provide a remedy in tort situations for those tribes that are not covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act, or covered by private secured liability insurance. This title would require the Secretary of Interior to obtain or provide tort liability insurance or equivalent coverage for each Indian tribe that receives tribal priority allocations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Because many, if not most, Indian tribes maintain some type of insurance coverage, the Secretary is obligated to determine the type and adequacy of coverage already provided in order to avoid duplicative or redundant coverage. Significantly, and as is the case with insurance policies now in place for many tribal governments, the policy of insurance must contain a provision prohibiting the carrier from raising the defense of sovereign immunity with respect to any tort action filed involving the tribe. In this way, injured persons would be afforded a remedy. Such policies would also contain a provision precluding any waiver for pre-judgment interest or punitive damages. The Secretary would prescribe regulations governing the amount and nature of claims covered by such insurance policy, and would also set a schedule of premiums payable by any tribe that is provided insurance under this bill. Lastly, as Indian tribes have begun to re-develop their economies and are beginning to assert their influence, issues and matters have developed that should receive the attention of a full-time, intergovernmental body to review and analyze such situations. This legislation creates the ``Joint Tribal-Federal-State Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs'' to thoughtfully and deliberately consider matters such as law enforcement, civil and criminal jurisdiction, taxation, transportation, economic development, and related issues. Two years after enactment, the commission is required to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the President, the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate, and the Committee on Resources in the House of Representatives. Finally, let me say that I do not agree with those who suggest that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity is an anachronism and one no longer deserving of protection. Several of the states, as well as the federal government, have chosen to waive their immunity from suit in very limited circumstances and under strict conditions. It is simply inaccurate to suggest that tribal governments are the last repository of immunity. Whether by limiting damage awards as some states have done, or eliminating entire classes of activities that will not trigger immunity waivers as the federal government has done in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the doctrine of immunity is alive and well in the United States. That there are issues that need to be dealt with I agree; that the way to address these issues is through involuntary, broad-based waivers of immunity, I disagree heartily. I call on the quiet, thoughtful, and reasonable people on both sides of these issues to craft solutions that respects Indian tribal governments and yet provides reasonable solutions for legitimate problems that do exist. Mr. President, I ask that the contents of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Counterfeiting Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1998. My bill would tighten the sentencing guidelines' base offense level in recognition of the fact that advances in computer and printing technology have fundamentally changed the nature of counterfeiting. This bill would bring our nation's counterfeiting laws out of Gutenberg's printing press era and into the modern computer age. Counterfeiting of our nation's currency is a serious and growing problem. Incidents of computer generated counterfeiting have increased dramatically over the last three years. In 1995 only one half of one percent of counterfeit U.S. currency passed were computer generated. Today, just three short years later, computer generated counterfeits account for approximately 43 percent of the counterfeits passed. Traditional counterfeiters use offset printing production methods that require specialized equipment including printing presses, engraved printing press plates and green ink. These counterfeiters encounter a cumbersome process that is messy, is harder to conceal, and requires them to produce in large batches. However, a rapidly growing number of today's counterfeiters are using personal computers, scanners, digital imaging software, full color copiers, and laser and inkjet printers. They can also use the Internet to instantaneously transmit the computer images needed for counterfeiting. This technology, which is readily available and increasingly affordable, enables criminals to produce high-quality counterfeit currency in small batches and at a low cost. It is this ability for counterfeiters to easily produce in small batches that has rendered our sentencing guidelines outdated and less effective as a deterrent. Our sentencing guidelines under current law are based in a world where the realities of offset printing required counterfeiters to produce in rather large batches. That reality no longer exists. Basically, the more counterfeit currency a counterfeiter got caught with, the stiffer the sentence. Using computer technology, today's counterfeiters can simply print out smaller batches of counterfeit currency whenever they want to. This allows these criminals to effectively fly just under the radar of our sentencing guideline thresholds. The administration recently acknowledged the extent of the problem. In a March 5, 1998, letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin wrote that ``increases in computer counterfeiting cases represent not only a threat to our law enforcement interests, but also seriously threaten the integrity of our U.S. currency. Maintaining the stability and integrity of U.S. currency is essential to preserving the benefits derived from the dollar's status as a world currency.'' In response to these enhanced counterfeiting techniques, the Department of Treasury has been redesigning our nation's currency to make it harder to counterfeit. In addition the Secret Service has stepped up its battle against counterfeiters, both at home and abroad. But more needs to be done. This bill is another important step to toughen the penalties for counterfeiting. Specifically, my bill strengthens the sentencing guidelines so that increases are based on offense levels determined by the amount of counterfeit bills produced and a point system based on the offender's prior criminal history. Under current law, the base offense begins with level 9 for convictions involving $2,000 in counterfeit currency or less. Increases in this level occur according to the amount of counterfeit bills over $2,000. Thus a defendant's guideline range in counterfeiting cases depends largely on the amount of counterfeit inventory seized when the operation is shut down. Increases in sentencing are also determined by the prior criminal history of the offender. Points are added for such things as: prior imprisonment; offenses committed while on probation, parole, or supervised release; offenses committed less than two years from prior release; and other misdemeanor and petty offenses. Under current law at base offense level 9, seven points are needed for the imposition of a prison sentence of 12 to 18 months. Without these points for prior criminal history many offenders simply are being released on probation. I believe these sentencing guidelines are too lenient and fail to address the growing problem of counterfeiting. Therefore, my bill increases the base offense level in section 2B5.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by not less than two levels to level 11. Under my bill, an offender would need only four points to receive the same 12 to 18 month sentence which previously required seven points. This relates to all counterfeiting offenses to address the overall harm counterfeiting can have on the integrity of U.S. currency. Second, my bill adds a sentencing enhancement of not less than two levels for counterfeiting offenses that involve the use of computer printer or a color photocopying machine. This would place this new class of computer counterfeiters at an offense level of 13. Here, an offender would need zero points to receive the same 12 to 18 month sentence. The increase in my bill would provide for actual prison sentences in many of the cases where previous offenders were only receiving probation. I believe this legislation clearly addresses our growing problem with counterfeiters by imposing stricter sentencing penalties. Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the very underpinnings of our economy, the American people's confidence in the integrity and value of our nation's currency, the U.S. dollar. The ``Counterfeiting Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1998'' will send a clear message to criminals who are even thinking about counterfeiting. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill 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 in open session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 1998 beginning at 10 p.m. to mark up the following: S. 1691, the American Indian Equal Justice Act; and S. 2069, a bill to permit the mineral leasing of Indian land located within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The meeting will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, on March 11, 1998, the Senate passed S. 1605, the Bulletproof Vest and Partnership Grant Act of 1998 which I introduced along with my colleagues Senators Leahy and Hatch. On May 12, 1998, with strong bipartisan support, the House passed this bill and with mutually agreed upon modifications. Today, the Senate is about to pass this legislation by a unanimous vote and send it to the President for signature and enactment into law. I wish to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the Committee's ranking member Senator Leahy, for their help and support with this important legislation. Two nights ago, on Wednesday, May 13, 1998, in observance of National Police Week, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund held the Tenth Annual Memorial Candlelight Vigil and Reception honoring the fallen men and women in the line of duty. My heart goes out to the families and friends of these men and women and I am proud to be a part of a potential solution to this tragedy that faces police officers in the line of duty. This legislation is endorsed by 38 Attorneys General, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Associations of Police Organizations. They know this legislation will benefit police and sheriffs' departments around the country. There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against violent criminals. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law enforcement officers face everyday on the front lines protecting our communities. Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and deadly weapons at their disposal. In fact, figures from the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that approximately 150,000 law enforcement officers--or 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and local officers--do not have access to bulletproof vests. Unfortunately, many police departments just do not have the resources to purchase vests on their own. The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives of more than 1,500 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put, bulletproof vests save lives. This Friday afternoon, at the 17th annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, the families, friends and colleagues of police officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty this past year will gather on the West Front of the Capitol to remember the courage and sacrifice of their fallen loved ones. This heartfelt ceremony marks the climax of National Police Week here in Washington, DC. A perfect way to show tribute to these fallen men and women is through passage of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 by both houses of Congress. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 will form a partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies in order to make sure that police officers who need bulletproof vests get one. It will do so by authorizing up to $25 million per year for a new grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice. The program will provide 50-50 matching grants to state and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and body armor. To ensure that the funding goes first to those police departments which need it most, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance is given discretion to give preferential consideration to smaller departments whose budgets are scarce. Additionally, those jurisdictions which do not receive any funding under the local law enforcement block grant program will be given preference. Furthermore, at least half of the funds available under this program will be awarded to jurisdictions with less than 100,000 residents. While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a vest. Body armor often means the difference between life and death.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I want to express my support for the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act, S. 1618, which addresses the unauthorized switching of telephone service carriers by competing service providers. This abusive practice has become an increasing problem in my home state of Colorado where slamming has grown at an alarming rate. Last October, Chairman Burns of the Communications Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a field hearing in Denver on this issue. In addition to this hearing, anti-slamming legislation has recently passed the Colorado State Legislature. With Colorado as one of the nation's top five states in complaints-per-million customers, I intend to vote for this anti- slamming legislation. I also am pleased that S. 1618 incorporates provisions from my Anti- Slamming Bill, S. 1051 which I introduced on July 22, 1997. This language requires that the FCC annually report to Congress the ``Top Ten'' slammers for each year, as well as carriers assessed fines or penalties during the same period. The ``Top Ten'' list identifies those carriers subject to the highest number of subscriber slamming complaints compared to the total number of subscribers they serve. This ratio approach ensures that large companies are not automatically singled out by virtue of having a large customer base. The focus of my ``Top Ten'' amendment is on those companies with the highest percentage of slamming complaints relative to their total customer base. This ``Top Ten'' list will give Congress an annual opportunity to review and publicly comment on this serious problem known as ``slamming''. I am convinced that this approach coupled with the language in S. 1618, will prove valuable in deterring carriers from engaging in illegal tactics.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 12, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on Indian gaming focusing on lands taken into trust for purposes of gaming. The hearing will be held in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 6, 1998 at 10 a.m. on tribal sovereign immunity, focusing on torts. The hearing will be held in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. subcommittee on investigations

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a measure to help Indians and tribal businesses foster entrepreneurship and vigorous reservation economies. Indian tribes face many challenges, but the greatest priority is in building stronger economies and providing jobs to tribal members. With this bill, I intend to unshackle Indian entrepreneurship to provide jobs and revenues for reservation economies. When the Europeans landed in the New World to explore and build settlements, they were greeted by Native people with a long tradition of inter-tribal and regional trade. The tribes traded pelts and furs, hand-woven baskets, blankets, virtually limitless arts and crafts, weapons, and a variety of Native grown and gathered foods. Unrestrained by bureaucrats and free to roam their own lands, the tribes enjoyed a standard of material well-being that, while not ideal, was a far cry from the Third World conditions most Indian people live in today. Over the course of 200 years this tradition has been replaced by rules and regulations that continue to stifle Indian entrepreneurship and instead promise cradle-to-grave ``security'' based on federal transfer payments. The practical results of federal domination is predictable: lifeless reservation economies and the absence of a private sector to create wealth and sustain employment for Indian people. The current statistical profile of Indian people is poor and shows little sign of improvement. Despite the popular belief that gaming has made millionaires of all Indians, the reality is otherwise as most Indian gaming revenues are more like church bingo than like Las Vegas or Atlantic City. In the Great Depression, the national unemployment rate was 20 percent and it was called a ``national crisis.'' Indian country has an unemployment rate running at 50 percent, and there are no comments, no sense of urgency and little attention being paid. There are other reasons job opportunities are needed. In 1996, the Congress enacted a welfare reform law that provides transition assistance to welfare recipients and rightly requires able-bodied Americans to get and keep jobs. In rural areas, particularly on Indian reservations, the welfare reform will hit hard because employment opportunities are scarce. The goal of this and future efforts is to increase value-added activities on reservations in such fields as manufacturing, energy, agriculture, livestock and fisheries, high technology, arts and crafts, and a host of service industries. The United States has the responsibility to preserve, protect and maximize tribal assets and resources, and an obligation to improve the standards of living of Indian people. In this legislation, that responsibility is primarily in removing the barriers to success the federal government itself has created over the years. The bill aims to make best use of and streamline existing programs to provide the necessary tools to enable tribes to attract outside capital and technical expertise. This model has proven highly successful in the self governance arena and in the Indian job training program, known as the ``477'' program. The bill would provide better coordination of existing business development programs in the Commerce Department and maximize the resources made available to tribes. The tribes have a responsibility as well. As a matter of Indian self determination, the tribes are increasingly administering federal services, programs, and activities in lieu of the federal government. This has led to more capable and accountable tribal governments. A fundamental precept of self-government is a reduction in the dependence on the federal bureaucracy and federal funds and by assuming a greater role in funding their own self government. The Committee on Indian Affairs recently held a hearing on economic development and one of the findings was that the tribes need to provide governance infrastructure and friendly business environments if they want to attract and retain investment. Whether by adopting commercial codes, or tribal courts that can address business issues, or regulations that do not repel the private sector, tribal efforts are critical if this effort is to succeed. Under the bill, the Native American Business Development Office in the Commerce Department will coordinate existing programs, including those for international business and tourism, aimed at development on Indian lands. This bill does not create any new programs but rather is intended to achieve more efficiency in those that already exist within existing budget authority. The bill also prohibits assistance under the act from being used for gaming on Indian lands. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary to create a task force on regulatory reform and business development to analyze existing laws and regulations that are restraining business and economic development on Indian lands. Again, the bill is not intended to create a new entity, but recognizes that there is great need to strip away the layers of unnecessary rules and regulations that stifle Indian businesses. I urge those that are critical of Indian gaming to join me in providing alternatives to build strong and diversified tribal economies for the benefit of tribes, tribal members, and surrounding communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions of the bill and an article written by James Gwartney for the Wall Street Journal dated April 10, 1998, entitled ``Less Government, More Growth'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a measure to help Indians and tribal businesses foster entrepreneurship and vigorous reservation economies. Indian tribes face many challenges, but the greatest priority is in building stronger economies and providing jobs to tribal members. With this bill, I intend to unshackle Indian entrepreneurship to provide jobs and revenues for reservation economies. When the Europeans landed in the New World to explore and build settlements, they were greeted by Native people with a long tradition of inter-tribal and regional trade. The tribes traded pelts and furs, hand-woven baskets, blankets, virtually limitless arts and crafts, weapons, and a variety of Native grown and gathered foods. Unrestrained by bureaucrats and free to roam their own lands, the tribes enjoyed a standard of material well-being that, while not ideal, was a far cry from the Third World conditions most Indian people live in today. Over the course of 200 years this tradition has been replaced by rules and regulations that continue to stifle Indian entrepreneurship and instead promise cradle-to-grave ``security'' based on federal transfer payments. The practical results of federal domination is predictable: lifeless reservation economies and the absence of a private sector to create wealth and sustain employment for Indian people. The current statistical profile of Indian people is poor and shows little sign of improvement. Despite the popular belief that gaming has made millionaires of all Indians, the reality is otherwise as most Indian gaming revenues are more like church bingo than like Las Vegas or Atlantic City. In the Great Depression, the national unemployment rate was 20 percent and it was called a ``national crisis.'' Indian country has an unemployment rate running at 50 percent, and there are no comments, no sense of urgency and little attention being paid. There are other reasons job opportunities are needed. In 1996, the Congress enacted a welfare reform law that provides transition assistance to welfare recipients and rightly requires able-bodied Americans to get and keep jobs. In rural areas, particularly on Indian reservations, the welfare reform will hit hard because employment opportunities are scarce. The goal of this and future efforts is to increase value-added activities on reservations in such fields as manufacturing, energy, agriculture, livestock and fisheries, high technology, arts and crafts, and a host of service industries. The United States has the responsibility to preserve, protect and maximize tribal assets and resources, and an obligation to improve the standards of living of Indian people. In this legislation, that responsibility is primarily in removing the barriers to success the federal government itself has created over the years. The bill aims to make best use of and streamline existing programs to provide the necessary tools to enable tribes to attract outside capital and technical expertise. This model has proven highly successful in the self governance arena and in the Indian job training program, known as the ``477'' program. The bill would provide better coordination of existing business development programs in the Commerce Department and maximize the resources made available to tribes. The tribes have a responsibility as well. As a matter of Indian self determination, the tribes are increasingly administering federal services, programs, and activities in lieu of the federal government. This has led to more capable and accountable tribal governments. A fundamental precept of self-government is a reduction in the dependence on the federal bureaucracy and federal funds and by assuming a greater role in funding their own self government. The Committee on Indian Affairs recently held a hearing on economic development and one of the findings was that the tribes need to provide governance infrastructure and friendly business environments if they want to attract and retain investment. Whether by adopting commercial codes, or tribal courts that can address business issues, or regulations that do not repel the private sector, tribal efforts are critical if this effort is to succeed. Under the bill, the Native American Business Development Office in the Commerce Department will coordinate existing programs, including those for international business and tourism, aimed at development on Indian lands. This bill does not create any new programs but rather is intended to achieve more efficiency in those that already exist within existing budget authority. The bill also prohibits assistance under the act from being used for gaming on Indian lands. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary to create a task force on regulatory reform and business development to analyze existing laws and regulations that are restraining business and economic development on Indian lands. Again, the bill is not intended to create a new entity, but recognizes that there is great need to strip away the layers of unnecessary rules and regulations that stifle Indian businesses. I urge those that are critical of Indian gaming to join me in providing alternatives to build strong and diversified tribal economies for the benefit of tribes, tribal members, and surrounding communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions of the bill and an article written by James Gwartney for the Wall Street Journal dated April 10, 1998, entitled ``Less Government, More Growth'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Before I close, I want to recognize the work of our former distinguished colleague in this body from the State of Colorado, Senator Hank Brown, who is one of this country's most ardent supporters of NATO expansion. Few have played a more crucial or steadfast role in the effort to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in the NATO alliance. His outstanding work will have a lasting impact. After much consideration of the cost and military implications of the pending resolution of ratification to expand NATO, I intend to vote in favor of this resolution. It is in the national security interest of the United States and our allies. Exhibit 1 Warsaw, February 28, 1998 Hon. Mr. Trent Lott, Senate Republican Majority Leaders, Hon. Mr. Tom Daschle, Senate Democratic Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Distinguished Senators: The Senate of the United States of America will soon vote on NATO enlargement with respect to Czech, Hungarian and Polish membership. It will be an important political decision with particular implications for the security of many nations, especially of those from Central and Eastern Europe. Decisions of the member state of the North Atlantic Alliance and the United States' decision particularly, will provide our region, which suffered so much in the XXth century, with stability, security and lasting democratic order. As leaders of all parliamentary caucuses in the Polish Parliament--those ruling as well as in the opposition--we assure you, Honorable Senators, that this question of Polish membership in NATO is vital for security of the Euroatlantic region and enjoys overwhelming support in our society. Poland as a future member of NATO would like to be not only a security consumer but also a security provider. At the same time, we are determined to fulfill all necessary Alliance obligations--including financial ones. It is our hope that the United States Senate will meet the expectations of millions of Poles and will give consent and advice to the President of the United States to ratify the Protocolls of Accession. We address ourselves to you, as American Statesmen, to use your authority to assure the successful outcome of the Senate vote on NATO enlargement. We remain, respectfully yours, Leszek Miller, Chairman, Parliamentary Caucus, Democratic Left Alliance. Janusz Dobrosz, Chairman, Parliamentary Caucus, Polish Peasant Party. Marian Krzaklewski, Chairman, Parliamentary Caucus, Solidarity Election Action. Tadeosz Syryjczyk, Chairman, Parliamentary Caucus, Union for Freedom. Jan Olszewski, Chairman, Parliamentary Group, Movement for the Reconstruction of Poland. The Ambassador of Hungary, April 28, 1998. Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, U.S. Senate, 380 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Campbell: As the U.S. Senate continues its debate on the enlargement of NATO and the accession of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the Alliance, I am writing to you as the representative of the Hungarian Government in the United States. I highly appreciate your interest in this matter important for both the security of the United States and that of the European continent. I understand that you need assurances of our countries commitment to share the financial burdens of the enlargement. Earlier last year, the Hungarian Government decided to raise the ratio of defense expenditures within the GDP by 0.1 percent annually until Hungary reaches the average level of defense spending by current NATO members of the same size as Hungary. Given the 4%+ growth of our GDP, this commitment will result in a 8-10% yearly increase of defense spending in real terms. Since both domestic and international financial institutions project the same or more growth in the years to come, it will be an ``increasing slice of a growing pie'' and my country's commitment to meet all the financial obligations stemming from our accession is supported by a solid economic background. Mr. Senator, I remember that during the Appropriations Committee hearing last fall, you raised a concern that the U.S. cost implications would be unclear until NATO adopts its Target Force Goals report. It is true that this study will be adopted in June by the NATO Ministerial, however I should clarify that the Target Force Goals include military requirements to be fulfilled by the 3 nations. These requirements are national expenses and to be exclusively financed by the applicants, thus, they would not have an impact on the U.S. costs. It is clearly stated in one of the conditions of the Resolution of Ratification that ``the United States is under no commitment to subsidize the national expenses necessary for Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic to meet its NATO commitments''. As a matter of fact, during our recent accession talks Hungary underwent a thorough ``screening'' by NATO which resulted in a conclusion that all the military requirements of NATO accession can be paid from the existing defense budgets. With the above, I would reiterate the commitment of the Hungarian Government to pay all the necessary expenses of our membership. It is our fundamental interest to successfully adapt into an alliance that continues to be successful. This approach is supported by all the parliamentary parties of Hungary. This was also communicated to the U.S. Senate: our Foreign Minister visited Washington twice during the last half a year and meeting your distinguished colleagues as well as the leaderships of both aisles, he assured them about our firm commitment. Enclose please find the Hungarian Government's memorandum on the enlargement that includes the financial commitment, as well. The memorandum was disseminated in the Senate in February. I hope you will find the above useful in your consideration. I look forward to a continuing cooperation with you. Sincerely yours, Dr. Gyorgy Banlaki.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, after much consideration of the pending resolution of ratification to expand NATO, I intend to vote in favor of this resolution. It is in the national security interest of the United States and our allies. But, as the Senate continues this historic debate on the expansion of the NATO alliance to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, I would like to make some observations about the cost implications of expanding NATO and steps we have taken in the Senate to address them. When the Senate committees began to consider NATO expansion last year, I was skeptical. The Senate, I feared, was approaching this issue with insufficient information or appreciation for the costs of such expansion for the American taxpayer. That is why I joined with our colleague from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, on a letter of June 25, 1997, to the President requesting specific facts and analysis regarding the cost and military implications of NATO expansion. I continued to pursue the cost issue last October, when the Senate Appropriations Committee held a series of hearings on this important issue. On the first day, the committee heard about the policy implications of NATO expansion from Defense Secretary Cohen and Secretary of State Albright. The next day, the committee heard about the military implications from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command, General Clark. What came out of both days of hearings was the fact that no definitive estimates existed for the true costs of NATO expansion. The committee heard how the original Defense Department estimates may have been inflated because they took into account a fourth country, rather than only those three currently invited to join NATO. Those estimates also considered a greater Russian threat than actually existed because of that country's recent reductions in force. The generals testified that, first, specific military requirements will be developed; then, NATO will determine the costs for meeting those requirements. The third day of those hearings was critical. On October 23, 1997, I asked a witness from the General Accounting Office to provide for the Committee a definitive analysis of the cost of this expansion. During that hearing, I expressed my concern that no official estimates yet existed about what the U.S. contribution will be to an expanded NATO. IN fact, the title of the GAO report summed it up--``Cost Implications for the United States Remain Unclear.'' The hearing also revealed that the GAO cost estimates lacked critical information, such as the $60 million in bilateral aid which the U.S. had already provided the three invited countries. In response to my question, the GAO conceded the $60 million was American taxpayers' money and should be counted. Ultimately, I was informed that an accurate projection could not be provided for some months. Then in February of this year, the administration provided much lower figures for the U.S. share of NATO expansion--approximately $40 million each year over the next 10 years. This estimate stood in stark contrast to the much larger figures that had been quoted just months before. Because of my concerns about the unpredictability of future expansion costs, I joined the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, on his amendments as an original cosponsor. The Senate adopted these amendments earlier this evening. They establish limits on the U.S. share of the common NATO budget and ensure Congress has the necessary authority to keep close watch over these costs in the future years of expansion. Another important aspect of the cost issue is the expected contributions from the new members of NATO. Although Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made tremendous economic strides since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, there have been concerns about their ability to live up to their individual cost commitments to NATO. It is important for the Senate to fully consider the commitments from these countries so the American taxpayers will not be forced to shoulder an unfair burden in the future. Therefore, I obtained letters of commitment from each of these Governments and ask unanimous consent that the text of the letters be printed in the Record following my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.)

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today we are voting on the FY 1998 Supplementary Appropriations bill which contains very important disaster relief and funding for our military operations overseas. In this bill before us, Congress funds emergency disaster relief for El Nino related storms on both coasts and in the southeast. We also provide important funding for our military personnel in Bosnia. Although I have been on record consistently opposing our continued presence in Bosnia, I support our military men and women while they are there. This bill provides that important support. This appropriations bill also funds our military mission in Iraq. While I am skeptical of the dubious and undefined U.S. plan in this region, I again vote to make sure our military personnel serving our country there are well equipped and defended. This bill provides this assurance. This bill also provides some important local relief for Colorado. This legislation contains language to assist the City of Boulder. Boulder needs to replace a water pipeline that crosses Forest Service lands. The language in the bill provides assurance that Boulder does not abandon its original easement when it agrees with the Forest Service to relocate the pipeline. This bill also contains important relief for the National Forests in northern Colorado. Recently, a unique meteorological situation occurred in Routt County, near Steamboat Springs, called a blowdown. A blowdown is exactly that--winds of such terrific and concentrated force blew down almost every tree in the region. It looked as though a large nuclear bomb was detonated above. This devastating disaster affected 20,000 acres of land, almost all which was on national forest land and was the largest such blowdown ever recorded in the Rocky Mountains. Part of the $10 million appropriated by this bill to the National Forest System would support the cleanup efforts in the Routt National Forest in Colorado. This would assist the local communities which rely on the natural resources of the Routt National Forest for tourism, recreation, agriculture, and timber can get back to normal. Not only will this help economies of the local communities, but it is vital for the health of the Routt National Forest and the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area. This funding will allow the Forest Service to establish a timber salvage plan for the responsible harvest of the downed timber and maintain the roads that will be necessary for this to take place. While the prospect of a timber sale may seem objectionable to some people, I believe the responsible harvest of this timber in the national forest is preferential to the chance a natural or accidental forest fire might occur there.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess for 2 minutes for the purpose of welcoming Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. John Prescott, to the floor. In addition, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Sir Christopher Mayer, the British Ambassador to the United States.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.