Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time continue to be charged to both sides.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleagues from Kansas and Minnesota. I point out a couple of things: It has been 5 years in which most of the Members voted down a cost-of-living increase for themselves; also, as they both remember when we were here on the floor with this bill a month or so ago, it was Senator Brownback's amendment and cosponsored by Senator Wellstone and me to delete that COLA increase from the original bill. So I think I have a pretty strong record. In fact, I have never voted for a pay increase in the U.S. Senate. And in fact when we did go to conference, as the Senator probably knows, both Senators probably know, there was a vote. It was a tie vote. It was not deleted. But Senator Kohl and I both voted against a pay raise in conference, if you want to use that phrase, but some people have a disagreement. However, we lost. The question here is, should we sink a $26 billion bill because we didn't get our way in conference or we didn't get our way on the floor? I have been torn with this myself, too. It is a difficult decision for all of us, but frankly I just think there is so much good in this bill that there are other options. Certainly we can return it to the Treasury. If Members do not want it, certainly they can give it to charity as I have done in the past. They can give it to scholarships. From my perspective, Mr. President, this bill is extremely important. Today is the date that funding runs out. It seems to me we need to pass the bill even if we don't agree with the various parts of it.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before proceeding with my statement, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2378. That will be Pat Raymond, Barbara Retzlaff, Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, and Frank Larkin.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, my colleague and I, Senator Kohl, are bringing before the Senate today the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill of the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies. This bill contains $25.6 billion in mandatory and discretionary funding for fiscal year 1998. Reaching this level of funding has not been an easy task, and I would like at this time to publicly thank the ranking member, Senator Kohl, for his cooperation and continued effort in supporting this bill. We have tried our best to be supportive of the requests of individual Senators, and I think our bill reflects that. This bill funds 40 percent of all Federal law enforcement. Adequate funding for this activity has been a top priority for both Senator Kohl and myself. In addition to providing sufficient funding for law enforcement, this bill goes a long way in encouraging the IRS to stay on track with modernization while at the same time addressing their needs for the year 2000 computer program. Also, this bill provides for a new $195 million antidrug campaign for the Office of National Drug Control Policy targeted at our Nation's youth. This is $20 million above what the administration has requested. In addition, this bill provides $10 million for the Drug Free Communities Act, a program which 27 Members of the Senate cosponsored. These funds will be used for the establishment of local counterdrug efforts focusing on successful local initiatives. The bill also includes $159 million for the high intensity drug trafficking areas, or HIDTA's, as they are known. This provides funding for the existing HIDTA's, which are in Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the southwest border, Washington/Baltimore, Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands, Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia/Camden, Cascade, the gulf coast, Lake County, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountains, San Francisco, and Detroit. In addition, funding is provided for the new HIDTA's in West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, central Florida and Wisconsin. The bill also provides $10 million for the ATF's Gang Resistance Education And Training Program, or GREAT, as it is known, which many of my colleagues also support. This program provides grants to local law enforcement agencies. There is also $13 million for an antidrug technology transfer program targeted at State and local law enforcement. This new program aims at getting much-needed counterdrug technology currently used by Federal law enforcement out to those in the State and local communities in their efforts to help them in their efforts in fighting the drug war. These are just a few of the items funded in this bill, Mr. President. This bill has taken lots of very, very hard work to stay within the budget agreement and still fund many important programs within the jurisdiction of the bill. I think this bill takes a strong stand for law enforcement while at the same time meeting the needs of many non- law enforcement agencies within the bill. Therefore, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I believe it goes a long way in supporting what we all believe is important, primarily to continue to do what we can to reduce crime in the Nation. Mr. President, this bill is the result of lots of hard work on behalf of Members and staff, too. I wish to thank all of them for that effort. I believe it deserves our support. I now yield to Senator Kohl, our ranking minority member.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, I commend Senator Wellstone for personally taking the lead on many of our children's issues in the U.S. Senate. I have always admired him for that. He knows my background from a home for orphans as a youngster, and I have always really appreciated his willingness to fight the battles for so many children in Congress who do not have a voice themselves. In this bill there are many dollars, in fact, many tens of thousands of dollars, that are going to eventually help youngsters. The GREAT Program is a good example, the Youth Crime Awareness Program is a good example. Just because we fund money through the Federal agencies doesn't mean that some of it has not gone to help reduce gang violence or trying to get youngsters away from a life of crime. I point out that I think in the other bills that have come before the Senate we have tried to at least keep the baseline steady, in fact, increased funding for many children programs in other areas of the national budget.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator. We have several requests for time on both sides of the aisle, Mr. President. I would be happy to have Senator Kohl yield time to Senator Wellstone.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 2378 making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, given that there are no further Senators seeking recognition, I yield my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the conference report for H.R. 2378, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will provide for a much needed clinical trial for the benefit of women's health. My bill would provide $20 million to the Nation's Office of Women's Health to conduct a large-scale clinical trial of digital mammography, involving 50,000 women and 20 sites, which could yield hard data in as little as a year regarding the potential of this technology. Digital mammography is our best bet for bringing the fight against breast cancer into the 21st century. This technology could answer the question of what age a woman should begin seeking annual mammograms. It could prevent unnecessary biopsies, as well as catch the countless breast masses undetected by conventional mammography. Dr. Martin Yaffe, a senior cancer-imaging researcher from Canada, is quoted in the Wall Street Journal of March 20, 1997, as drawing this comparison, ``Using a conventional x ray mammography to find a tumor in dense breast tissue is like trying to find a cotton ball in a cloud. Digital technology allows us to improve the quality of the image and avoid missing the cancer.'' While conventional mammography invokes the usual procedure for x rays, which views the film of a breast image on a light box, digital mammography takes advantage of an advanced x ray source for digital image capture, allowing image enhancement, feature recognition, and the ability to adjust the display contrast to highlight shadows and otherwise undetected signs of breast cancer. Mammography is the only means for detecting breast micro-calcifications, typically the earliest indicator of nonpalpable breast cancers. Many of my Senate colleagues have taken a personal and avid interest in combating breast cancer. With good reason. More than 40,000 women will lose their battle with breast cancer this year alone, while another 2.6 million will continue to live with the disease. Further, the rate of diagnosis has been steadily increasing for the last 50 years. For women aged 40 to 45, breast cancer is the leading cause of death. Given these staggering statistics and the fact that women are literally defenseless against this disease, it is imperative that we do everything possible to promote early detection and treatment. On June 3 of this year, 62 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee, urging funding for the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is world renowned and responsible for many of the most important advances in breast cancer research. It has even facilitated several small-scale trials in digital mammography. However, this program has, to date, proven unable to conduct a large- scale clinical trial of digital mammography. And yet, it is only a large-scale trial that can determine definitively the efficacy of this technology in saving women's lives. There are two bottom lines here. First, the trial would tell women at what age and with what frequency they should receive mammograms. Second, the trial would provide the Health Care Financing Administration with the data it needs to set a reasonable and appropriate cost for a digital mammography. We are all familiar with the role HCFA plays in setting not just rates of reimbursement but standards for reimbursement of healthcare services; the private sector takes its lead from HCFA. Once HCFA acts to make digital mammographies available to women, private pay insurers will follow suit. Therefore, in the interest of public health, the onus is on us to move these trials forward. The NIH has an appropriation from the Senate for next year that reflects almost a billion dollar boost. Rightly so. But despite that, the National Cancer Institute simply does not have the resources to fund a clinical trial of this size. Grant dollars are still scarce relative to the number of compelling grant applications. The reality that NCI is simply unable to dedicate the necessary resources to conduct a large-scale trial of digital mammography is unfortunate yet understandable. The Senate is aware of this dilemma, and shares the frustration of the Nation's breast cancer victims. In explaining its fiscal year 1998 allocation for the National Cancer Institute, the Appropriations Committee report for Labor, Health and Human Services and Education noted that ``the national investment in cancer research remains the key to bringing down spiraling heath care costs, as treatment, cures, and prevention remain much cheaper than chronic and catastrophic diseases, like cancer.'' As Congress is well aware, the financial cost of breast cancer is indeed staggering. We spend over $5 billion annually on healthcare for women fighting breast cancer, a figure that is matched in the cost of lost productivity to our overall economy. Further, the human cost of this disease is felt tenfold by the families and communities whose lives it touches. I realize this bill breaks with convention, to a certain degree. I am not assuming a level of scientific expertise that supplants that of the true experts at NIH. I am a firm believer in letting science drive where our research dollars are spent. However, I am willing to force the issue for the sake of women's health. We have available to us cutting edge technology that could yield us a remarkable return in the form of women's lives. My bill provides a modest sum to ensure that a large-scale clinical trial of digital mammography does not go unfunded any longer.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will provide for a much needed clinical trial for the benefit of women's health. My bill would provide $20 million to the Nation's Office of Women's Health to conduct a large-scale clinical trial of digital mammography, involving 50,000 women and 20 sites, which could yield hard data in as little as a year regarding the potential of this technology. Digital mammography is our best bet for bringing the fight against breast cancer into the 21st century. This technology could answer the question of what age a woman should begin seeking annual mammograms. It could prevent unnecessary biopsies, as well as catch the countless breast masses undetected by conventional mammography. Dr. Martin Yaffe, a senior cancer-imaging researcher from Canada, is quoted in the Wall Street Journal of March 20, 1997, as drawing this comparison, ``Using a conventional x ray mammography to find a tumor in dense breast tissue is like trying to find a cotton ball in a cloud. Digital technology allows us to improve the quality of the image and avoid missing the cancer.'' While conventional mammography invokes the usual procedure for x rays, which views the film of a breast image on a light box, digital mammography takes advantage of an advanced x ray source for digital image capture, allowing image enhancement, feature recognition, and the ability to adjust the display contrast to highlight shadows and otherwise undetected signs of breast cancer. Mammography is the only means for detecting breast micro-calcifications, typically the earliest indicator of nonpalpable breast cancers. Many of my Senate colleagues have taken a personal and avid interest in combating breast cancer. With good reason. More than 40,000 women will lose their battle with breast cancer this year alone, while another 2.6 million will continue to live with the disease. Further, the rate of diagnosis has been steadily increasing for the last 50 years. For women aged 40 to 45, breast cancer is the leading cause of death. Given these staggering statistics and the fact that women are literally defenseless against this disease, it is imperative that we do everything possible to promote early detection and treatment. On June 3 of this year, 62 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee, urging funding for the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is world renowned and responsible for many of the most important advances in breast cancer research. It has even facilitated several small-scale trials in digital mammography. However, this program has, to date, proven unable to conduct a large- scale clinical trial of digital mammography. And yet, it is only a large-scale trial that can determine definitively the efficacy of this technology in saving women's lives. There are two bottom lines here. First, the trial would tell women at what age and with what frequency they should receive mammograms. Second, the trial would provide the Health Care Financing Administration with the data it needs to set a reasonable and appropriate cost for a digital mammography. We are all familiar with the role HCFA plays in setting not just rates of reimbursement but standards for reimbursement of healthcare services; the private sector takes its lead from HCFA. Once HCFA acts to make digital mammographies available to women, private pay insurers will follow suit. Therefore, in the interest of public health, the onus is on us to move these trials forward. The NIH has an appropriation from the Senate for next year that reflects almost a billion dollar boost. Rightly so. But despite that, the National Cancer Institute simply does not have the resources to fund a clinical trial of this size. Grant dollars are still scarce relative to the number of compelling grant applications. The reality that NCI is simply unable to dedicate the necessary resources to conduct a large-scale trial of digital mammography is unfortunate yet understandable. The Senate is aware of this dilemma, and shares the frustration of the Nation's breast cancer victims. In explaining its fiscal year 1998 allocation for the National Cancer Institute, the Appropriations Committee report for Labor, Health and Human Services and Education noted that ``the national investment in cancer research remains the key to bringing down spiraling heath care costs, as treatment, cures, and prevention remain much cheaper than chronic and catastrophic diseases, like cancer.'' As Congress is well aware, the financial cost of breast cancer is indeed staggering. We spend over $5 billion annually on healthcare for women fighting breast cancer, a figure that is matched in the cost of lost productivity to our overall economy. Further, the human cost of this disease is felt tenfold by the families and communities whose lives it touches. I realize this bill breaks with convention, to a certain degree. I am not assuming a level of scientific expertise that supplants that of the true experts at NIH. I am a firm believer in letting science drive where our research dollars are spent. However, I am willing to force the issue for the sake of women's health. We have available to us cutting edge technology that could yield us a remarkable return in the form of women's lives. My bill provides a modest sum to ensure that a large-scale clinical trial of digital mammography does not go unfunded any longer.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many of my colleagues and I have received complaints from constituent companies, or from constituents who are affiliated with companies, which are encountering unfair and illegal business practices in other countries. What is especially disturbing is that many of these countries are receiving significant amounts of U.S. foreign assistance. Ukraine, for example, is the fourth largest recipient of United States foreign aid, receiving approximately $228 million in 1997. Yet, despite this generous U.S. assistance, corrupt government officials cheat and threaten U.S. businesses and investors. In March of this year, the Motorola Corp. pulled out of a $500 million investment because of arbitrary decisions made by powerful bureaucrats. News reports indicated that Motorola's decision came less than 2 weeks after the consortium it was leading was selected as one of three winners in a tight competition to install cellular phone networks in that country. As reported, the government kept changing the rules up to the last minute which drove Motorola to its startling decision to pull out. The Wall Street Journal called Motorola's experience ``a case study of the pitfalls faced by investors in Ukraine. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee of which I am a member held a hearing on May 6 regarding the Ukraine, Russia, and the New Independent States. The hearing considered the administration's request for millions of dollars in new funding for these countries. A number of subcommittee members and I raised with the witnesses specific examples of United States companies and American investors who are victims of corruption and dishonesty by the Ukrainian Government. I would like to take a minute and highlight some statements made by AID Assistant Administrator Thomas Dine at that hearing which underscore how serious the situation is in the Ukraine. Mr. Dine testified that ``there are real problems in the Ukraine. The perceived level of official and unofficial corruption is pervasive and deep.'' He also testified that ``the Deputy Prime Minister, the country's leading reformer, recently resigned.'' And, ``major and small U.S. companies, faced with harassment, intimidation, and bribery are leaving the country.'' Mr. Dine further testified that ``we cannot expect American investors to do business in Ukraine or any of the NIS countries if they are not going to be treated fairly.'' I fully agree with this last statement, and believe we in Congress should act to ensure American investors are treated fairly, especially in those countries which are receiving millions in American tax dollars. Corruption is a major problem for companies around the world. The World Bank recently surveyed international executives who identified corruption as the biggest problem they face in doing business in Latin America, the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa. And, we have seen disturbing news reports of the extent of corruption and illegal practices which are adversely affecting U.S. businesses abroad. A New York Times article of May 24, 1997, cited a Commerce Department finding that U.S. companies lost approximately $11 billion in contracts since mid-1994 because of bribery by their foreign competitors of foreign officials. And, this staggering loss is attributed only to those high-profile cases which were identified. Another report cited in the June 2, 1997, Economist Intelligence Unit, cited a loss of $45 billion to American companies because of corruption. How many more millions of dollars have U.S. companies lost because of corrupt practices by foreign officials? Mr. President, corruption in foreign countries hurts the U.S. economy. Trade with foreign countries creates and supports American jobs. Trade helps keep prices low, provides a greater selection of goods, and creates a larger market in which American companies can sell their products. Corruption limits the possibilities for U.S. investment and exports. It increases the risk and costs of doing business to the detriment of U.S. businesses and consumers. Some important steps are being taken on the international scene. In May 1997, the 29 member nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], which is composed of the world's largest industrialized nations, reached an agreement to fight corruption. This agreement is the first international accord which makes it a crime to bribe foreign officials. And, on July 31, the International Monetary Fund decided to end its $216 million loan agreement with Kenya because of corruption and governmental mismanagement in that country. But, more needs to be done. The United States, in effect, is subsidizing other countries which are harassing U.S. companies and American investors abroad. This is unfair to U.S. businesses and unfair to U.S. taxpayers. And, this practice should stop. That is why I am introducing today the International Anti-Corruption Act of 1997. This legislation requires the State Department to submit a report and the President to certify by March 1 of each year that countries which are receiving U.S. foreign aid are, in fact, conducive to American businesses and investors. If a country is found to be hostile to American businesses, its aid from the United States would be cut off. The certification would be based on whether a country is making significant progress in, and is committed to, economic reform aimed at stemming corruption. The specific factors of economic reform which the State Department would consider include: market principles, private ownership, equitable treatment of foreign private investment, adoption of a legal and policy framework necessary for such reform, protection of intellectual property rights, and respect for contracts. The certification also would determine whether that country is making significant progress to eliminate corrupt trade practices and become integrated into the world economy. Based on the State Department's findings, the countries would be assigned to one of three categories regarding their business climate: Conducive for U.S. business; not conducive to U.S. business; or hostile to U.S. business. If the President certifies that a country is hostile to U.S. businesses and investors, the U.S. Government would immediately cut off foreign aid to that country. The United States also would vote against any loans to this country in the multilateral development banks. The aid would remain suspended until the President certifies the country is making significant progress in implementing the specified economic indicators and is no longer hostile to U.S. business. If the President certifies that a country's business climate is not conducive for U.S. businesses, that country will, in effect, be put on probation. The country would continue to receive U.S. foreign aid through the end of the fiscal year, but aid would be cut off on the first day of the next fiscal year unless the President certifies the country is making significant progress in implementing the specified economic indicators and is committed to being conducive to U.S. business. This probationary period is similar to the one in S. 457, which I introduced on March 19, 1997, regarding the drug certification process. This new approach would provide a specific time period during which the country on probationary certification would be expected to comply with certain conditions stipulated by the administration. If these conditions were not met at the end of this period, the United States would act firmly and cut off aid. I initially designed this alternative to put countries on notice that the United States had serious concerns about their lack of cooperation. But, I also wanted to provide a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. concerns. I included the probationary period in the bill I am introducing today for those countries which fall in the ``not conducive for U.S. businesses'' category, because I believe it is important to provide adequate notice to these countries which may have important ties to the United States. And, access to more timely and specific information during this probationary period would assist Congress in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. The third category applies when the President certifies a country is conducive to U.S. businesses. Foreign aid continues without interruption. My bill includes the customary waiver authority where the national interests of the United States are at stake. For countries certified as hostile to or not conducive for U.S. business, aid can continue if the President determines it is in the national security interest of the United States. However, the determination expires after 6 months unless the President determines its continuation is important to our national security interest. The bill also contains a provision which would allow aid to continue to meet urgent humanitarian needs, including food, medicine, disaster and refugee relief; to support democratic political reform and rule of law activities; to create private sector and nongovernmental organizations that are independent of government control; or to develop a free market economic system. Finally, the bill directs the Commerce Department to establish a corruption hotline. Through this toll-free number, U.S. businesses and investors will be able to report unfair and illegal practices they are encountering in foreign countries. The Commerce Department would use that information in its investigations and would pass the information along to the State Department to be included in its annual report. At a time when we are working to balance the Federal budget and make tough spending choices here at home, we can no longer tolerate or afford to have our Government misdirect U.S. foreign assistance to corrupt countries, especially countries harassing American investors. I urge my colleagues to support the bill I am introducing today to fight corruption, protect American investors and businesses abroad, and improve the allocation of U.S. foreign aid. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many of my colleagues and I have received complaints from constituent companies, or from constituents who are affiliated with companies, which are encountering unfair and illegal business practices in other countries. What is especially disturbing is that many of these countries are receiving significant amounts of U.S. foreign assistance. Ukraine, for example, is the fourth largest recipient of United States foreign aid, receiving approximately $228 million in 1997. Yet, despite this generous U.S. assistance, corrupt government officials cheat and threaten U.S. businesses and investors. In March of this year, the Motorola Corp. pulled out of a $500 million investment because of arbitrary decisions made by powerful bureaucrats. News reports indicated that Motorola's decision came less than 2 weeks after the consortium it was leading was selected as one of three winners in a tight competition to install cellular phone networks in that country. As reported, the government kept changing the rules up to the last minute which drove Motorola to its startling decision to pull out. The Wall Street Journal called Motorola's experience ``a case study of the pitfalls faced by investors in Ukraine. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee of which I am a member held a hearing on May 6 regarding the Ukraine, Russia, and the New Independent States. The hearing considered the administration's request for millions of dollars in new funding for these countries. A number of subcommittee members and I raised with the witnesses specific examples of United States companies and American investors who are victims of corruption and dishonesty by the Ukrainian Government. I would like to take a minute and highlight some statements made by AID Assistant Administrator Thomas Dine at that hearing which underscore how serious the situation is in the Ukraine. Mr. Dine testified that ``there are real problems in the Ukraine. The perceived level of official and unofficial corruption is pervasive and deep.'' He also testified that ``the Deputy Prime Minister, the country's leading reformer, recently resigned.'' And, ``major and small U.S. companies, faced with harassment, intimidation, and bribery are leaving the country.'' Mr. Dine further testified that ``we cannot expect American investors to do business in Ukraine or any of the NIS countries if they are not going to be treated fairly.'' I fully agree with this last statement, and believe we in Congress should act to ensure American investors are treated fairly, especially in those countries which are receiving millions in American tax dollars. Corruption is a major problem for companies around the world. The World Bank recently surveyed international executives who identified corruption as the biggest problem they face in doing business in Latin America, the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa. And, we have seen disturbing news reports of the extent of corruption and illegal practices which are adversely affecting U.S. businesses abroad. A New York Times article of May 24, 1997, cited a Commerce Department finding that U.S. companies lost approximately $11 billion in contracts since mid-1994 because of bribery by their foreign competitors of foreign officials. And, this staggering loss is attributed only to those high-profile cases which were identified. Another report cited in the June 2, 1997, Economist Intelligence Unit, cited a loss of $45 billion to American companies because of corruption. How many more millions of dollars have U.S. companies lost because of corrupt practices by foreign officials? Mr. President, corruption in foreign countries hurts the U.S. economy. Trade with foreign countries creates and supports American jobs. Trade helps keep prices low, provides a greater selection of goods, and creates a larger market in which American companies can sell their products. Corruption limits the possibilities for U.S. investment and exports. It increases the risk and costs of doing business to the detriment of U.S. businesses and consumers. Some important steps are being taken on the international scene. In May 1997, the 29 member nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], which is composed of the world's largest industrialized nations, reached an agreement to fight corruption. This agreement is the first international accord which makes it a crime to bribe foreign officials. And, on July 31, the International Monetary Fund decided to end its $216 million loan agreement with Kenya because of corruption and governmental mismanagement in that country. But, more needs to be done. The United States, in effect, is subsidizing other countries which are harassing U.S. companies and American investors abroad. This is unfair to U.S. businesses and unfair to U.S. taxpayers. And, this practice should stop. That is why I am introducing today the International Anti-Corruption Act of 1997. This legislation requires the State Department to submit a report and the President to certify by March 1 of each year that countries which are receiving U.S. foreign aid are, in fact, conducive to American businesses and investors. If a country is found to be hostile to American businesses, its aid from the United States would be cut off. The certification would be based on whether a country is making significant progress in, and is committed to, economic reform aimed at stemming corruption. The specific factors of economic reform which the State Department would consider include: market principles, private ownership, equitable treatment of foreign private investment, adoption of a legal and policy framework necessary for such reform, protection of intellectual property rights, and respect for contracts. The certification also would determine whether that country is making significant progress to eliminate corrupt trade practices and become integrated into the world economy. Based on the State Department's findings, the countries would be assigned to one of three categories regarding their business climate: Conducive for U.S. business; not conducive to U.S. business; or hostile to U.S. business. If the President certifies that a country is hostile to U.S. businesses and investors, the U.S. Government would immediately cut off foreign aid to that country. The United States also would vote against any loans to this country in the multilateral development banks. The aid would remain suspended until the President certifies the country is making significant progress in implementing the specified economic indicators and is no longer hostile to U.S. business. If the President certifies that a country's business climate is not conducive for U.S. businesses, that country will, in effect, be put on probation. The country would continue to receive U.S. foreign aid through the end of the fiscal year, but aid would be cut off on the first day of the next fiscal year unless the President certifies the country is making significant progress in implementing the specified economic indicators and is committed to being conducive to U.S. business. This probationary period is similar to the one in S. 457, which I introduced on March 19, 1997, regarding the drug certification process. This new approach would provide a specific time period during which the country on probationary certification would be expected to comply with certain conditions stipulated by the administration. If these conditions were not met at the end of this period, the United States would act firmly and cut off aid. I initially designed this alternative to put countries on notice that the United States had serious concerns about their lack of cooperation. But, I also wanted to provide a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. concerns. I included the probationary period in the bill I am introducing today for those countries which fall in the ``not conducive for U.S. businesses'' category, because I believe it is important to provide adequate notice to these countries which may have important ties to the United States. And, access to more timely and specific information during this probationary period would assist Congress in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. The third category applies when the President certifies a country is conducive to U.S. businesses. Foreign aid continues without interruption. My bill includes the customary waiver authority where the national interests of the United States are at stake. For countries certified as hostile to or not conducive for U.S. business, aid can continue if the President determines it is in the national security interest of the United States. However, the determination expires after 6 months unless the President determines its continuation is important to our national security interest. The bill also contains a provision which would allow aid to continue to meet urgent humanitarian needs, including food, medicine, disaster and refugee relief; to support democratic political reform and rule of law activities; to create private sector and nongovernmental organizations that are independent of government control; or to develop a free market economic system. Finally, the bill directs the Commerce Department to establish a corruption hotline. Through this toll-free number, U.S. businesses and investors will be able to report unfair and illegal practices they are encountering in foreign countries. The Commerce Department would use that information in its investigations and would pass the information along to the State Department to be included in its annual report. At a time when we are working to balance the Federal budget and make tough spending choices here at home, we can no longer tolerate or afford to have our Government misdirect U.S. foreign assistance to corrupt countries, especially countries harassing American investors. I urge my colleagues to support the bill I am introducing today to fight corruption, protect American investors and businesses abroad, and improve the allocation of U.S. foreign aid. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to support my friend and colleague from Arizona in his efforts to address the needs of law enforcement in Indian country. Tribal governments are in desperate need of these funds, which will help them to combat the cancer of gang activity growing throughout the country. I listened very carefully to my friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan from New York, and I have to say that we are not trying to kill the Woodrow Wilson Center; we are just trying to prevent some young Americans from being killed. We are not trying to destroy it. We are trying to prevent a culture from being destroyed. I know, as all of my colleagues know, that we have to make some very tough choices if we are truly going to get our deficit under control and balance the budget. I don't know much about the Woodrow Wilson Center, but I suppose it is very important from a scholarly standpoint. The lives of people that are affected on Indian reservations with our youngsters going into gang activity, I think, is equally as important. I don't think we can put a price tag on their lives. The Senator talked about the memorial being a living memorial. I simply believe that Senator Kyl is on the right track when he wants to keep more youngsters on the Indian reservations also in that State--an alive State. They tell me that the scholars at the Wilson Center get about $43,000 a year to study different projects. I was looking at some of the projects. Very frankly, they may be very important, but some of them I don't quite understand. Let me read into the Record a few of the projects that have been done. Here is one: popular mystical sectarianism and models of rationality in prerevolutionary Russia; family and society in greater Syria; making China perfectly equal; creating language for westernization in early Meiji, Japan. I went to Meiji University in Japan and I don't remember that one. The rise and fall of childrearing experts in 20th century America. I would like to see somebody do a little more study on the rise and fall of children in America and where we have to go to prevent them from getting more involved in gangs. One that I almost can't pronounce is the malediction of malpractice medicine and misfortune in post-colonial Zimbabwe. That may be very important. I am not going to disagree with the Senator from New York. Maybe it is. I think that we have to recognize, though, that writing about starvation and starving are two different things. Doing studies about youngsters at risk who may be dying from gang violence and then talking to their families who have watched their youngsters die in gang violence are two different things. I wanted to reaffirm to the Senator from New York that we are not trying to destroy the Woodrow Wilson Center. I am sure it is very important. We just know that there are some things that we face that demand immediate attention, and we think this is one of the ways we can do it. As my colleague noted, over the past 5 years, homicide rates across America decreased by 22 percent. But on Indian reservations, it went up by 87 percent during the same 5 years. Yesterday, we had a joint hearing of the Indian Affairs and the Judiciary Committees. Testimony in that hearing revealed that gang violence poses a very special threat to America's Indian tribes that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Those tribes, we noted with interest through the testimony, that have a closer proximity to metropolitan areas, like Phoenix and Detroit, or any large metropolitan areas, that adds more and more pressure on inner-city gangs, like the Crips or Bloods, whatever, and they tend to migrate out and go to a path of least resistance--in this case, the Indian reservations. Studies conducted by Federal agencies, universities, and tribal governments reveal that gang activity within Indian country has steadily increased over the past decade. A study in 1997, as an example, of 132 tribes conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement Division estimated there were 375 active gangs with approximately 4,600 members. In Arizona alone, as Senator Kyl stated, a recent FBI study identified 177 gangs on 14 different reservations. Juvenile gang activities poses a unique threat to all jurisdictions. And, since there are multiple jurisdictions on Indian reservations, there are often people who should be prosecuted that simply fall through the cracks because of the time consumed in defining who is in charge, who has the jurisdiction for the person. In Indian country, the potential growth is even greater in this jurisdictional maze than it is from any downtown community that faces gang activities. These limitations on tribal courts and law enforcement authority are imposed by the Federal Government. We can't continue to tie the hands of the tribal justice systems, refuse to adequately fund their law enforcement, and then expect them to do an adequate job in protecting their citizens against gangs. The Office of Tribal Justice within the Department of the Interior recently stated that ``* * * it is twice as likely that a reported crime will be violent''--on the reservation--``as compared with the rest of the United States, yet there are only half as many law enforcement officers on Indian lands per capita.'' It is absolutely a problem that is just virtually out of control. The complexity and severity of youth violence and criminal gang activity within Indian country demands immediate attention. These funds will enable tribal governments to protect their citizens, and they will go far in fulfilling our obligation to protect and preserve the health and welfare of our Indian communities--and the people who are non- Indian who happen to live in those Indian communities. I know that the Woodrow Wilson Center is important. They get a great deal of private money from well-meaning and good-hearted Americans who contribute regularly to that center--unlike Indian reservations. You rarely have people who are going to donate money to the Indian people who are trying to reduce gang violence. They depend almost totally on Federal money to do this. With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl amendment, and I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I appreciate the time, and my colleague from Kansas allowing me to speak to this a little bit today. Yesterday, we had a very extended debate here on the floor of the Senate, and several of us took the opportunity to address this Nation's shameful history in its dealings with American Indians. One of the areas that is the most shameful is the history of failing to abide by its treaties and agreements with native tribes. This country, as you know, Mr. President, coming from a State that has so many Indian tribes, has had very little respect for the lands and rights of aboriginal people, including the rights of the Wyandotte Tribe in question today. For example, in 1966 the Congress enacted a law requiring the Wyandotte cemetery be transferred and sold. That law is still on the books, fortunately. The tribe, however, opposed the action and the cemetery was not sold. In this respect, the tribe was seeking to preserve its burial site, culture, and history at a time when the United States was ignoring the tribe's rights. Frankly, Mr. President, being the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I find nothing more distasteful to me than to referee intertribal fights. Those disagreements often pit family against family, brother against brother, sister against sister. But I feel compelled to speak out in support of the Brownback amendment today. Let me try and ferret through this as I understand it. We have two tribes linked by culture, linked by history, linked genetically, probably linguistically, too. The Oklahoma Wyandottes have trust title, although this is being contested as I understand in Federal court and also being dealt with in the Department of the Interior. The focal point is a cemetery. The Indians that have control of the cemetery, i.e., they have kept it up and taken care of it, are the Kansas Wyandottes. This cemetery, as Senator Brownback has said, has been a burial place for predominantly Indians ever since 1855, 140 years. Now, the Oklahoma Wyandottes want to build a casino on this cemetery. That in itself is very interesting to me, Mr. President, because those of us who live on reservations, who come from Indian country, we have known literally since childhood the reverence, the feeling that Indians have about burial places. Most of the time, regardless of years, they don't call them cemeteries. They call them holy places or burial places. They consider them places that should be undisturbed, treated with reverence, and very seriously. I pity the construction company that would ever try to build a high rise or a roadway or something of that nature through an Indian burial ground because they do have laws on the books, we have laws on the books right now dealing with Indian burial places that prevent construction in those areas. Well, very simply, Mr. President, just because they are Indian, they can't have it both ways, and it would seem to me there are many questions that are left unanswered if we try to make a policy change on an appropriations bill. For instance, we have not, to my knowledge, heard from the State of Kansas. Under the 1988 IGRA any tribe that wants to build a casino or open a casino within a State has to reach some kind of understanding with the State, not to exceed the State law in non-Indian owned casinos. To my knowledge, they have not done this. We have not heard, to my knowledge, from anybody at Huron who would be affected. We have haven't heard from people in the local communities, the citizens who are going to be affected or the mayor of Kansas City. We simply do not know, if we do pass this into law, how it would affect the ongoing litigation. I simply think it is the wrong vehicle. Now, I am not familiar beyond that with the circumstances of this case, but I think that we could be doing ourselves a disservice by not having the supporters of this, that is, the opponents of the Brownback amendment, bring it forward as a legislative piece of paper where we can deal with it in legislative committees. I am not aware of any bill being introduced to that effect either. So I would go on record, Mr. President, as saying that my feeling from a historical and cultural standpoint is this should continue to be used what it was originally used for, and that's basically what the Brownback amendment does. But no Congress is bound by the action of a previous Congress. We all know that. So if at later date a future Congress, whether it is the 106th, the 108th or whatever, feels it should reverse that because of something we don't know and do it by legislative action, then that's the way it should be done. Now, they tell me that the Wyandottes of Oklahoma were only informed as late as last week of the Brownback amendment, but by the same token many supporters of the Brownback amendment didn't know of the original language in this bill until the last couple of days. So I think they are on a level playing field from that standpoint. With that, Mr. President, I simply say I hope my colleagues would support the Brownback amendment. I yield the floor. I thank you.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I am very pleased to offer this substitute amendment that our colleagues have worked on, which accomplishes several things. First of all, it holds the tribes harmless to the fiscal year 1997 TPA levels; it follows the recommendations of the 1994 Joint Tribal/ DOI/BIA Task Force report by providing funding to the 309 small and needy Indian tribes; it provides $15.5 million for fixed costs and internal transfers; it provides for $17.1 million in increases to formula-driven programs; instead of having the BIA or the Congress allocate the remainder, it creates a mechanism comprised of Interior and BIA officials and tribal representatives from around the country to distribute the remaining $27.8 million. I think that is probably all we need for an explanation. With that, I move the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I have an amendment, but before I send it to the desk, I want to make a few remarks on H.R. 2107, the fiscal year 1998 Interior spending bill. I certainly want to commend the managers, Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, for their efforts in constructing a spending bill that balances the competing interests of the approximately 27 different agencies and programs included under the jurisdiction of this committee. As the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I want to acknowledge both Senator Gorton's and Senator Byrd's efforts in funding Indian programs that are administered through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service at the levels that meet or exceed the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request. Overall, the funding for these two agencies, which accounts for the great bulk of Federal spending on Indian-related programs, is significantly increased over fiscal year 1997 enacted levels to the tune of about $150 million. The committee has given priority to funding basic services that are provided to Indian communities through tribal priority allocation [TPA] of the BIA and through direct services provided by the Indian Health Service, while also funding several important construction initiatives, of which there is currently a tremendous backlog. While I have supported the priorities given to funding Indian programs, I have shared my concern with many colleagues over two provisions that remain in the bill. Senator Gorton has alluded to those two sections, section 118 relating to the means testing of TPA funding, and section 120 relating to the broad waiver of immunity imposed on tribal governments. Both are broad policy-related items that I felt should not be included in this spending measure. I am happy to announce that after several meetings--and Senator Gorton alluded to one we had yesterday afternoon--with concerned Members on these provisions, an acceptable accommodation has been made with regard to both of these provisions. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment that will reflect this agreement. I want to speak briefly to each of these provisions and why, as presently written, they would adversely impact tribal government activity to a degree that is all but unknown. As I informed my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee prior to markup, these two provisions constitute a dramatic departure from existing Federal Indian policy, which is based on promoting tribal economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. Sections 118 and 120 would seek to condition the receipt of TPA funding, requiring in section 120 that Indian tribal governments unilaterally waive their immunity from any and all lawsuits. Further, section 118 would require all tribal governments that receive TPA funding to be subjected to a form of means testing analysis of all the available tribal resources as a determining factor in future TPA funding allocations. The nature of these provisions would suggest that because TPA funding constitutes approximately $760 million, or over half of the overall BIA operating budget, there needs to be some higher level of accountability to the Congress and to the taxpayer over how these funds are allocated and that the appropriate means to this end is the proposed blanket waiver of immunity and an imposed means testing formula allocation. I want to be very clear and try to inform my colleagues that the impacts of these provisions, if enacted, have yet to be fully contemplated. We can't begin to contemplate what effect they would have on the native American people. For example, with regard to a broad waiver of immunity, as proposed in section 120, we could ask several questions: What are the potential liabilities that would be incurred by the executive branch agencies who serve as the Federal trustees to Indian tribal governments and, therefore, would have to defend the tribal governments in lawsuits? What specific actions would become the purview of the Federal courts under a broad waiver of immunity? Is it limited to non-Indian disputes with Indian tribes, or could any and all intertribal disputes also be heard in Federal court? More importantly, what will be the impact on the Federal courts as a result of section 120? Would it simply clog the courts with more litigation? Further, regarding section 118, we should ask: What resources should be included in any analysis of how to better allocate TPA funding? Could the BIA begin to implement any alternative allocation method beginning in fiscal year 1998, which begins in just 2 weeks, without any public input or hearings? These are very practical problems that arise when addressing both of these provisions. It is for these reasons that I have strongly advocated that the appropriate authorizing committees be involved in finding practical solutions to these very complex issues. As the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I have made it very clear that I am committed to examining these issues through the hearing process. I have told that to Senator Gorton and have followed it with a letter to him guaranteeing that we would hear a bill and we would also attempt to have a markup by April 30, 1998. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues for their wisdom in supporting this accommodation. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.