Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I reintroduce legislation to transfer the Collbran project from the Federal Government back to the people it serves. The bill is designed with only one goal in mind, to guarantee the growing population in the Grand Valley of Colorado a supply of water that they have relied on for the last 30 years. At the same time, this legislation will be a model for transitioning the Federal Government out of the daily operations of facilities where its useful participation has ceased. This transfer will also be an important and symbolic step in downsizing the Federal Government, returning power to the States and localities, while contributing to our continuing efforts to balance the Federal budget. The Western slope of Colorado, like the rest of the Colorado Plateau, has a unique blend of rich natural resources and beautiful scenery. This fortunate combination attracts and sustains a strong economy of both industry and tourism. Much of this booming economic development and recreational opportunities would not exist if not for the water and electricity provided by the various Federal reclamation projects in the West. These projects were authorized in the Federal Reclamation Act in 1902 by a visionary Congress which saw the need and importance of water projects to the development of the West. Without such projects, there would be virtually no farming, mining, or ranching and little tourism. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to shed the Collbran project at this time because the goals of the project have been met. The project, completed in 1964, provides a reliable supply of irrigation water to the users on the arid west slope of Colorado. This project is the main water supplier for a growing population in the Grand Valley, currently serving over 55,000 people. It also provides electric power to the grid that serves several Western States. It is also time now to transfer the Collbran project because, as the Bureau of Reclamation has acknowledged, due to unanticipated circumstances this project has been a net-cash drain on the Treasury. The Ute Water Conservancy District, the public entity that will purchase the project, will pay the remaining debt on the project, reimbursing the Government completely, returning over $12 million to the Federal Treasury. It is time for the Government to stand aside. Let me stress that this transfer will not in any way jeopardize any of the recreation opportunities available in Vega Reservoir and related Collbran project reservoirs. In fact, this legislation will transfer the Vega Reservoir from the Federal Government to the State of Colorado, ensuring continued recreation opportunities there. This bill also preserves all water and power operations of the existing Collbran project. I also want to emphasize that we have striven to accommodate environmental groups' concerns. Although there is no reason to think that a mere transfer of ownership, without affecting the operations, should require the water district to perform an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, I have accommodated the environmental community's requests and eliminated any reference to NEPA. In this way, I have ensured that the transfer will fully comply with all environmental laws. Finally, as a symbol of the Ute Water Conservancy's good faith, this bill explicitly requires that the conservancy district contributes $600,000 to the Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and that the project itself will remain subject to future ESA-related obligations that could be imposed on similar projects. Again, the object of this legislation is merely to ensure a reliable supply of quality water for the residents of the Grand Valley who have depended upon this supply for the last 30 years. This bill proposes a fiscally and environmentally sound and sensible transfer of an existing Federal project to the people it serves. I look forward to working with all interested parties as this bill proceeds. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I reintroduce legislation to transfer the Collbran project from the Federal Government back to the people it serves. The bill is designed with only one goal in mind, to guarantee the growing population in the Grand Valley of Colorado a supply of water that they have relied on for the last 30 years. At the same time, this legislation will be a model for transitioning the Federal Government out of the daily operations of facilities where its useful participation has ceased. This transfer will also be an important and symbolic step in downsizing the Federal Government, returning power to the States and localities, while contributing to our continuing efforts to balance the Federal budget. The Western slope of Colorado, like the rest of the Colorado Plateau, has a unique blend of rich natural resources and beautiful scenery. This fortunate combination attracts and sustains a strong economy of both industry and tourism. Much of this booming economic development and recreational opportunities would not exist if not for the water and electricity provided by the various Federal reclamation projects in the West. These projects were authorized in the Federal Reclamation Act in 1902 by a visionary Congress which saw the need and importance of water projects to the development of the West. Without such projects, there would be virtually no farming, mining, or ranching and little tourism. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to shed the Collbran project at this time because the goals of the project have been met. The project, completed in 1964, provides a reliable supply of irrigation water to the users on the arid west slope of Colorado. This project is the main water supplier for a growing population in the Grand Valley, currently serving over 55,000 people. It also provides electric power to the grid that serves several Western States. It is also time now to transfer the Collbran project because, as the Bureau of Reclamation has acknowledged, due to unanticipated circumstances this project has been a net-cash drain on the Treasury. The Ute Water Conservancy District, the public entity that will purchase the project, will pay the remaining debt on the project, reimbursing the Government completely, returning over $12 million to the Federal Treasury. It is time for the Government to stand aside. Let me stress that this transfer will not in any way jeopardize any of the recreation opportunities available in Vega Reservoir and related Collbran project reservoirs. In fact, this legislation will transfer the Vega Reservoir from the Federal Government to the State of Colorado, ensuring continued recreation opportunities there. This bill also preserves all water and power operations of the existing Collbran project. I also want to emphasize that we have striven to accommodate environmental groups' concerns. Although there is no reason to think that a mere transfer of ownership, without affecting the operations, should require the water district to perform an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, I have accommodated the environmental community's requests and eliminated any reference to NEPA. In this way, I have ensured that the transfer will fully comply with all environmental laws. Finally, as a symbol of the Ute Water Conservancy's good faith, this bill explicitly requires that the conservancy district contributes $600,000 to the Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and that the project itself will remain subject to future ESA-related obligations that could be imposed on similar projects. Again, the object of this legislation is merely to ensure a reliable supply of quality water for the residents of the Grand Valley who have depended upon this supply for the last 30 years. This bill proposes a fiscally and environmentally sound and sensible transfer of an existing Federal project to the people it serves. I look forward to working with all interested parties as this bill proceeds. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would provide for a 1-year extension of the work opportunity tax credit, authorizing the credit beyond this fiscal year through the end of fiscal year 1998. My colleagues know well the history behind the work opportunity tax credit. It is the successor to the targeted jobs tax credit which expired 2 years ago and which received some criticism that it was an ineffective incentive mechanism. However, Congress felt that there could be some type of worthwhile incentive which could encourage employers to hire individuals from economically disadvantaged groups, and as a result, the credit was revised, renamed the work opportunity tax credit, and incorporated into the Small Business Job Protection Act (P.L. 104-188), which the Congress passed and the President signed into law last year. The revised tax credit, with tougher standards, such as in the area of certification and retention requirements, was authorized for 1 fiscal year and is set to expire on September 30, 1997. The legislation I am introducing today would simply provide for an extension of the work opportunity tax credit for 1 additional fiscal year, through September 30, 1998. There are several reasons for the extension. First, employers now have a tax incentive to hire individuals from targeted economically disadvantaged groups, providing these individuals with jobs and valuable work experience. In the wake of the historic welfare reform legislation which was signed into law last year, I believe this incentive to put people to work is a vital one, and it should be given the opportunity to work. Second, Congress authorized this credit for 1 year to allow the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, and the Congress to study the costs and benefits of the credit. To date, there are no statistics available. And while we await a more complete set of statistics on how the revised tax credit is performing, I believe the Congress should begin consideration of an extension of this credit to allow more employers to take part in the program and to provide an assurance to employers and potential employees alike that there is an incentive which is available to stimulate job opportunities. The sooner we are able to provide an extension for the credit, the more secure both the employers and the employees who take part in this credit will be. In addition, authorizing the credit for an additional fiscal year will provide this Congress with a set of statistics available from multiple fiscal years, not just 1, allowing us to better assess the costs and benefits of the WOTC. I am hopeful that the revised tax credit will prove more successful than its predecessor. I have long been a supporter and advocate for the promotion of job opportunities and job training for at-risk youth and ex-offenders, in particular. Any incentive to put more Americans to work should be given the chance to succeed; 1 year is simply not enough. With that, I ask this bill be referred to the appropriate committee. During the 105th Congress, a number of tax proposals will be under consideration, and it is my hope that, by introducing this measure, the work opportunity tax credit does not get lost in the shuffle and expire prematurely. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would provide for a 1-year extension of the work opportunity tax credit, authorizing the credit beyond this fiscal year through the end of fiscal year 1998. My colleagues know well the history behind the work opportunity tax credit. It is the successor to the targeted jobs tax credit which expired 2 years ago and which received some criticism that it was an ineffective incentive mechanism. However, Congress felt that there could be some type of worthwhile incentive which could encourage employers to hire individuals from economically disadvantaged groups, and as a result, the credit was revised, renamed the work opportunity tax credit, and incorporated into the Small Business Job Protection Act (P.L. 104-188), which the Congress passed and the President signed into law last year. The revised tax credit, with tougher standards, such as in the area of certification and retention requirements, was authorized for 1 fiscal year and is set to expire on September 30, 1997. The legislation I am introducing today would simply provide for an extension of the work opportunity tax credit for 1 additional fiscal year, through September 30, 1998. There are several reasons for the extension. First, employers now have a tax incentive to hire individuals from targeted economically disadvantaged groups, providing these individuals with jobs and valuable work experience. In the wake of the historic welfare reform legislation which was signed into law last year, I believe this incentive to put people to work is a vital one, and it should be given the opportunity to work. Second, Congress authorized this credit for 1 year to allow the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, and the Congress to study the costs and benefits of the credit. To date, there are no statistics available. And while we await a more complete set of statistics on how the revised tax credit is performing, I believe the Congress should begin consideration of an extension of this credit to allow more employers to take part in the program and to provide an assurance to employers and potential employees alike that there is an incentive which is available to stimulate job opportunities. The sooner we are able to provide an extension for the credit, the more secure both the employers and the employees who take part in this credit will be. In addition, authorizing the credit for an additional fiscal year will provide this Congress with a set of statistics available from multiple fiscal years, not just 1, allowing us to better assess the costs and benefits of the WOTC. I am hopeful that the revised tax credit will prove more successful than its predecessor. I have long been a supporter and advocate for the promotion of job opportunities and job training for at-risk youth and ex-offenders, in particular. Any incentive to put more Americans to work should be given the chance to succeed; 1 year is simply not enough. With that, I ask this bill be referred to the appropriate committee. During the 105th Congress, a number of tax proposals will be under consideration, and it is my hope that, by introducing this measure, the work opportunity tax credit does not get lost in the shuffle and expire prematurely. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate to recognize the historic importance of the Denver summit of eight, and the contributions made by my home State of Colorado and many Coloradans in hosting this historic summit. This meeting marks a historic change in the G-7 summit. For the first time in the 23-year history of these economic summits, Russia has been asked to participate to an unprecedented degree. At the Denver summit of eight, Russia will participate as a member, rather than as a passive observer who in the past were only allowed to engage in a post-summit dialog with the G-7. In this important substantive and symbolic step, President Yeltsin will join with the leaders of the seven leading industrialized nations of Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and the United States to discuss monetary and economic policy. After this significant development was announced at the recent United States-Russia summit, the name of the meeting was changed from G-7 to the Denver summit of eight. As Coloradans, we are proud to have such a distinguished group of leaders coming to our State. And, as an honorary chairman, along with Senator Allard and Congresswoman DeGette, I am proud that Colorado was chosen to host this historically important meeting. The Denver area is symbolically important for being centrally located between our European partners to the east, our Japanese partner to the west, and the Canadian partner to the north. Furthermore, the thriving industries in Colorado and the robust economy of the Denver area reflect the growing economic importance of Colorado in the international arena. The Denver area is a recognized leader in aerospace, telecommunications, biotechnology, high technology, health care, education, recreation, and tourism. We are proud to share these achievements with the rest of the global community. I would also like to commend those dedicated Coloradans who serve as law enforcement officials, emergency medical technicians, firefighters, and health care providers, as well as the countless volunteers, who will provide invaluable services and contributions in support of the summit. Given the importance of this meeting, they have been working hard on their preparations to help ensure that the summit will proceed smoothly. This summit would not be possible without their donations of time, hospitality, and commitment. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, April 29, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485, Russell Senate Building to mark-up S. 459, a bill to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974. An Oversight Hearing on P.L. 102-575, the San Carlos Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992 will immediately follow the Business Meeting. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Campbell pertaining to the introduction of S. 587, S. 588, S. 589, S. 590, and S. 591 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce five pieces of legislation affecting Federal lands in my home State of Colorado. The purpose of these bills is to facilitate the process of consolidating our Federal lands into contiguous blocks which makes their management more efficient and less costly. Much of the land over which the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service has management authority contains numerous inholdings which may have been old mining claims or other privately owned parcels. This patchwork ownership often creates management problems. For example, a particular parcel may block the public's access to other Federal lands. The presence of an inholding may limit the tools which can be used by the Federal agency to manage the land. If a controlled fire is needed to clear underbrush or stop the spread of insects, the presence of private land in the midst of the area may well preclude the use of fire as a management tool. All these considerations require much more time, and adds to the expense of caring for Federal lands. Whenever an owner of these private parcels willingly offers to sell or exchange their lands, it is important that the Federal Government is able to accomplish these transactions to increase management efficiency and public use. The designated Federal agencies have reviewed these bills and the legislation reflects their input. The first bill, the Larson and Friends Creek exchange, directs the Secretary of the Interior to exchange lands of equal value for several small parcels within the Handies Peak Wilderness Study Area and Red Cloud Peak Wilderness Study Area in Hinsdale County, CO. This exchange will allow the study areas to better fit the definition of a wilderness area. The second bill, the Slate Creek addition to Eagles Nest Wilderness, provides for the expansion of the wilderness area in Summit County, CO. The current owners of this parcel are willing to convey it to the United States only if it is added to the existing wilderness area and permanently managed as wilderness. This addition will increase public access to the wilderness. The third bill, Raggeds Wilderness boundary adjustment, is necessary to correct the effects of earlier erroneous land surveys. Certain landowners in Gunnison County, CO, who own property adjacent to the Raggeds Wilderness have occupied or improved their property in good faith based upon a survey they reasonably believed to be accurate. This bill is necessary to accomplish an adjustment of the boundary between the private landowners and the wilderness area. The entire area involved in this adjustment is less than 1 acre. The fourth bill, Miles land exchange, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey lands of equal value in exchange for the Miles parcel located adjacent to the Routt National Forest in Routt County, CO. The purpose of this exchange is to improve on-the-ground management of public lands which are now isolated and difficult to manage. It will eliminate the need for long standing special use permits and add riparian acres to the national forest. The final bill, the Dillon Ranger District transfer, allows for a boundary adjustment to transfer the Dillon Ranger District from the Arapaho National Forest to the White River National Forest. The Dillon District is already under the jurisdictional management of the White River National Forest. However, this technical correction is necessary because any official publications of the U.S. Forest Service references the district as a part of the Arapaho National Forest and confuses the public. I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record with letters of support from various county governments in which these lands are located.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce five pieces of legislation affecting Federal lands in my home State of Colorado. The purpose of these bills is to facilitate the process of consolidating our Federal lands into contiguous blocks which makes their management more efficient and less costly. Much of the land over which the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service has management authority contains numerous inholdings which may have been old mining claims or other privately owned parcels. This patchwork ownership often creates management problems. For example, a particular parcel may block the public's access to other Federal lands. The presence of an inholding may limit the tools which can be used by the Federal agency to manage the land. If a controlled fire is needed to clear underbrush or stop the spread of insects, the presence of private land in the midst of the area may well preclude the use of fire as a management tool. All these considerations require much more time, and adds to the expense of caring for Federal lands. Whenever an owner of these private parcels willingly offers to sell or exchange their lands, it is important that the Federal Government is able to accomplish these transactions to increase management efficiency and public use. The designated Federal agencies have reviewed these bills and the legislation reflects their input. The first bill, the Larson and Friends Creek exchange, directs the Secretary of the Interior to exchange lands of equal value for several small parcels within the Handies Peak Wilderness Study Area and Red Cloud Peak Wilderness Study Area in Hinsdale County, CO. This exchange will allow the study areas to better fit the definition of a wilderness area. The second bill, the Slate Creek addition to Eagles Nest Wilderness, provides for the expansion of the wilderness area in Summit County, CO. The current owners of this parcel are willing to convey it to the United States only if it is added to the existing wilderness area and permanently managed as wilderness. This addition will increase public access to the wilderness. The third bill, Raggeds Wilderness boundary adjustment, is necessary to correct the effects of earlier erroneous land surveys. Certain landowners in Gunnison County, CO, who own property adjacent to the Raggeds Wilderness have occupied or improved their property in good faith based upon a survey they reasonably believed to be accurate. This bill is necessary to accomplish an adjustment of the boundary between the private landowners and the wilderness area. The entire area involved in this adjustment is less than 1 acre. The fourth bill, Miles land exchange, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey lands of equal value in exchange for the Miles parcel located adjacent to the Routt National Forest in Routt County, CO. The purpose of this exchange is to improve on-the-ground management of public lands which are now isolated and difficult to manage. It will eliminate the need for long standing special use permits and add riparian acres to the national forest. The final bill, the Dillon Ranger District transfer, allows for a boundary adjustment to transfer the Dillon Ranger District from the Arapaho National Forest to the White River National Forest. The Dillon District is already under the jurisdictional management of the White River National Forest. However, this technical correction is necessary because any official publications of the U.S. Forest Service references the district as a part of the Arapaho National Forest and confuses the public. I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record with letters of support from various county governments in which these lands are located.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Finally, I would simply like to reiterate my support for S. 522. I would like to be able to tell my constituents that Congress recognized the need to safeguard their personal tax records and took action accordingly by passing this legislation and sending it on to the President for signature. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Apr. 9, 1997] IRS Audit Reveals More Tax Browsing (By Stephen Barr) The Internal Revenue Service fired 23 employees, disciplined 349 and counseled 472 other workers after agency audits found that government computers were still being used to browse through the tax records of friends, relatives and celebrities, an IRS document released yesterday showed. The document, covering fiscal 1994 and 1995, listed 1,515 cases where employees were accused of misusing computers. After accounting for the firings, the disciplinary action and the counseling, 33 percent of the cases were closed without any action and the remaining 12 percent took retirement or were cleared. Yesterday's disclosure, made by Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), marked the second time that IRS employees have been faulted for peeking at tax records. A probe in 1993 and 1994 turned up more than 1,300 employees suspected of using government computers to browse through tax files. At the time, the IRS promised ``zero tolerance'' for such snooping. But the new data indicate the problem has continued and the agency does not know how big a problem it has on its hands. ``I don't know what kind of new math they are using, but that doesn't sound like zero tolerance to me,'' Glenn said at a news conference, where he released excerpts of IRS documents and a General Accounting Office (GAO) report. Government employees face criminal penalties for misuse of computer databases, but loopholes have thwarted prosecution of some IRS employees who snooped in files but did not disclose the information to others. Glenn and other lawmakers, including House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer (R-Tex.), have proposed legislation this year to tighten the laws. David A. Mader, the IRS chief for management, said ``browsing is not widespread'' at the 102,000-employee agency, but stressed that curious employees must understand that even one unauthorized peek in tax files undercuts the IRS goal of fair and confidential tax administration. The IRS supports efforts to tighten laws, he said. ``It is challenging to change the behavior of an organization this size,'' Mader said. Not every employee deserves to be fired when accused of browsing, he said, but ``we ought to start with the assumption we're going to fire them and then look at the circumstances. The disclosure of additional IRS employee snooping comes at a time when privacy advocates are increasingly worried about the government's growing dependence on computers and information technology. The GAO, for example, has issued more than 30 reports in the last four years describing how government systems are vulnerable to ``hackers'' and even federal employees who want to change data, commit fraud or disrupt an agency's operations. The GAO, in reviewing IRS computer security at Glenn's request, found that five IRS centers could not account for about 6,400 computer tapes and cartridges that might contain taxpayer data. Since the GAO audit, however, 5,700 of the tapes and cartridges have been found, Mader said. He said the problem involved inventory controls and that no tapes were lost. In two centers, computer printouts containing taxpayer data were left unprotected and unattended in open areas, the GAO said. GAO found some computer problems were so sensitive that the congressional watchdog agency feared public disclosure could jeopardize IRS security. As a result, Glenn received a confidential report on those problems and the GAO-prepared report released yesterday leaves out some matters and does not identify the tax processing centers with lax security practices. But the breaches of taxpayer privacy led congressional investigators to conclude that IRS computer systems operate with ``serious weaknesses'' that place tax returns and tax files ``at risk to both internal and external threats,'' GAO said. The IRS handles more than 200 million taxpayer returns each year at 10 primary centers. After the returns are processed, the data are electronically transmitted to a central computer site, where master files on each taxpayer are maintained and updated. To avoid compromising taxpayer information, the IRS developed a software program to monitor the electronic trail left by employees as they call up tax returns and files on their computer screens. The program, the Electronic Audit Research Log (EARL), also signals managers when an employee's work pattern or use of command codes appears at odds with the tasks assigned. The audit trail covered about 58,000 employees who use the IRS's main computer system. But the GAO found EARL does not monitor IRS employees using secondary computer systems and does not effectively distinguish between browsing and legitimate work. The IRS internal audit, in a section on disciplining employees, said, ``Some employees, when confronted, indicate they browsed because they do not believe it is wrong and that their will be little or no consequence to them if they are caught.'' The IRS document added that agency managers ``apply vastly different levels of discipline for similar offenses,'' sending ``an inconsistent message to the workforce.'' Glenn called for swift passage of his bill to end loopholes in the law that allow some federal workers to escape prosecution for browsing through records. He cited a federal appeals court decision in February that overturned a guilty verdict against a Ku Klux Klansman employed by the IRS in Boston who browsed through tax records of suspected white supremacists, a family adversary and a political opponent. Last year, a former IRS employee was acquitted of criminal charges after peeking at the records of Elizabeth Taylor, Lucille Ball, Tom Cruise, Elvis Presley and other celebrities. In both cases, there was little or no testimony to prove that the IRS workers passed information to others or used the information in a criminal way. Congress expanded criminal penalties last year to deter the use of computer data without proper authorization, but the provision does not apply to paper tax returns or magnetic tapes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 522, legislation which would allow civil and criminal penalties to be imposed for the unauthorized access of tax returns and return information by employees of the Internal Revenue Service or other Federal employees. It is altogether appropriate that this issue should come before both the House and Senate on April 15, and I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Senators Coverdell and Glenn, to work together on this bipartisan piece of legislation. Abuse by employees of the IRS has been of concern to Members of Congress for many years. Over the years numerous Coloradans have written me to express their concerns with this type of abuse as well. And with the recent release of the report by the General Accounting Office detailing its findings on security problems at the IRS, in addition to reports on browsing by IRS employees through private taxpayer files, this issue has once again come to the forefront. This morning, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government, I held a hearing to receive testimony on the issue of browsing. For the record, I would like to state the witnesses included: Senator John Glenn; Larry Summers, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; Dr. Rona B. Stillman, Chief Scientist for Computers and Telecommunications with the GAO; Margaret Milner Richardson, Commissioner of the IRS; and Valerie Lau, inspector general of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It became clear in all of the witnesses' testimonies this morning that currently it is not necessarily illegal for IRS employees to browse through taxpayer files. The law, as it exists, makes it difficult for the IRS to take effective action against those employees who are caught browsing taxpayer files. Those IRS employees who do access the computerized or paper records of celebrities, friends, or enemies most often do so just for the fun of it. However, let me tell you--taxpayers do not find this activity very funny. It is an invasion of privacy, and unauthorized browsing should be punishable with civil and criminal penalties. During this morning's hearing, Treasury officials kept referring to taxpayers as ``customers''. Well, I would like to clarify that in my State Coloradans do not consider themselves customers. If anything, they consider themselves victims. Unfortunately, taxpayers have become victims of browsing, and they currently have no assurances that browsers will be held accountable for their actions. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit a couple of items for the record to be printed immediately following my statement. First, I have an article from the Washington Post. In addition, I would also like to submit a relevant section of the Electronic Audit Research Log's Executive Steering Committee Report on taxpayer privacy.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, today I join Senator McCain in introducing the Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation will amend the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA] and will serve the best interests of Indian children across the United States in the process. The ICWA is a procedural statute and this legislation clarifies and strengthens the procedures contained in it. The bill strengthens the statute by providing certainty, stability, and finality to adoptions and other placements involving Indian children. In the 104th Congress, this legislation received the support of parties affected by and knowledgeable of ICWA-related adoptions: tribal organizations, and non-Indian adoption attorneys. The bill I am cosponsoring today addresses the major concerns of these parties in a way that strengthens the existing ICWA, and provides certainty and finality to non-Indian adoptive families. Most important, this bill serves the best interests of Indian children and enhances the integrity of Indian families. Adoption and child custody proceedings are delicate and emotional matters for all involved: for the Indian child; for the birth parents; for the Indian tribe; and for the adoptive parents. My own experience as a youth is helpful in providing a context for ICWA and why it was enacted. I grew up in California, many miles from the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana where my tribe and relatives lived. I am lucky in that even though I was not raised on the reservation, I still cling to my tribal identity, my culture, and the spiritual traditions that make me a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Many Indian youth are not so lucky, and once removed from their Indian families, tribes and cultures, never regain what they have lost. The 1978 statute has worked well since its inception, and the reasons it was introduced are crucial to understanding the act and the legislation we introduce today. After exhaustive congressional testimony and many years of hard work the Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978. Prior to 1978 there were no available protections for Indian children, families, or tribes in situations involving the unwarranted and forced removal of Indian children from their families, tribes, and rich cultures. The cold fact is that prior to ICWA between 25 percent and 35 percent of all Indian children were separated from their families and given to adoptive families or placed in foster care or in institutions. Through exhaustive hearings prior to enactment of the 1978 act, the Congress realized that at the staggering rate of Indian child removal, it would have been simply a matter of time before Indian families and tribes would literally be sapped of their futures--their precious children. The ICWA is procedural in nature and is designed to protect the best interests of Indian children by reinforcing the strong interests Indian families and tribes have in maintaining their relationships with their children. The act also recognizes that tribal authorities and tribal courts are the appropriate authorities over Indian adoptions and placements. Just as we in the majority often speak of maintaining families and traditions and of respecting the rights of local governments, this act is one of the few Indian statutes that actually does both. Non-Indian institutions, including State courts, do not and cannot completely understand the unique culture and relationships that make up tribal life. Because they cannot know these facts and these relationships, they should not be given authority to make child custody decisions involving Indian children. Practically, State authorities are not in a position to make these decisions. Legally, they should not be allowed to make these decisions. The right of any sovereign nation, including Indian nations, includes the right to determine who is and who is not a member or citizen. The legislation we introduce today preserves those most basic rights of Indian tribes: tribal self- preservation and self-determination. Mr. President, I want to say a word about adoptive parents and families. The decision to adopt a child or children is one that is done out of the noblest motives, and with much love and affection. It is often a process fraught with many obstacles, both emotional and financial. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for adoptive parents. This legislation will provide adoptive parents with the security they sometimes lack under current law. The bill will provide what many have complained of: finality and security in cases involving Indian children. For the past several years, there have been highly publicized cases involving Indian children and what some felt were late interventions by tribes in these proceedings. By strengthening the procedures of ICWA this bill will make cases like the ones we saw last year a thing of the past. Parties seeking placement of Indian children would be required to file detailed notices with the tribe that includes biographical information on the child, as well as information regarding the rights of the tribe in responding to the notice. With the notice in hand, the tribe must decide if it wants to intervene or not, and to inform the party seeking placement of its intentions. By requiring tribes to file written notice of intervention and providing time limits within which tribes can intervene in proceedings, adoptive parents can be assured that they will not face the prospect of having final or near final. These procedural demands are not unduly burdensome and fall equally on both the parties seeking placement and tribal governments. The truth is that many of these inflammatory and well-publicized cases involved unethical attorneys and other adoption professionals who advised their Indian clients to conceal or not reveal their Indian heritage in an effort to expedite the adoption. Because ICWA-related adoptions and proceedings involve procedural requirements, some attorneys and professionals seek to cut corners and save time and money. Not only is this shortsighted, but is damaging to all parties involved in an adoption or custody proceeding. By expediting these adoptions, the attorneys interests were served. But what about the Indian children, Indian families, Indian tribes, and non-Indian adoptive families? As we have seen, these people have had to endure long, bitter, and costly court battles some of which continue to this day. The legislation we introduce today will provide tough civil and criminal penalties to any person that willfully falsifies facts regarding whether a child is Indian or whether a parent is Indian; makes false or fraudulent statements; or falsifies documents containing facts related to the proceeding. These provisions are not radical notions. They simply provide that if you are involved in an ICWA-related proceeding, and if you do not want to lose your money and your freedom, follow the law. No good adoption attorney worth his salt will fear these penalties if he or she follows the law and is forthright with the facts. I urge my colleagues to join in enacting this crucial legislation to bring stability and certainty to adoptions and other proceedings involving Indian children.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, today I join Senator McCain in introducing the Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1997. This legislation will amend the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA] and will serve the best interests of Indian children across the United States in the process. The ICWA is a procedural statute and this legislation clarifies and strengthens the procedures contained in it. The bill strengthens the statute by providing certainty, stability, and finality to adoptions and other placements involving Indian children. In the 104th Congress, this legislation received the support of parties affected by and knowledgeable of ICWA-related adoptions: tribal organizations, and non-Indian adoption attorneys. The bill I am cosponsoring today addresses the major concerns of these parties in a way that strengthens the existing ICWA, and provides certainty and finality to non-Indian adoptive families. Most important, this bill serves the best interests of Indian children and enhances the integrity of Indian families. Adoption and child custody proceedings are delicate and emotional matters for all involved: for the Indian child; for the birth parents; for the Indian tribe; and for the adoptive parents. My own experience as a youth is helpful in providing a context for ICWA and why it was enacted. I grew up in California, many miles from the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana where my tribe and relatives lived. I am lucky in that even though I was not raised on the reservation, I still cling to my tribal identity, my culture, and the spiritual traditions that make me a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Many Indian youth are not so lucky, and once removed from their Indian families, tribes and cultures, never regain what they have lost. The 1978 statute has worked well since its inception, and the reasons it was introduced are crucial to understanding the act and the legislation we introduce today. After exhaustive congressional testimony and many years of hard work the Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978. Prior to 1978 there were no available protections for Indian children, families, or tribes in situations involving the unwarranted and forced removal of Indian children from their families, tribes, and rich cultures. The cold fact is that prior to ICWA between 25 percent and 35 percent of all Indian children were separated from their families and given to adoptive families or placed in foster care or in institutions. Through exhaustive hearings prior to enactment of the 1978 act, the Congress realized that at the staggering rate of Indian child removal, it would have been simply a matter of time before Indian families and tribes would literally be sapped of their futures--their precious children. The ICWA is procedural in nature and is designed to protect the best interests of Indian children by reinforcing the strong interests Indian families and tribes have in maintaining their relationships with their children. The act also recognizes that tribal authorities and tribal courts are the appropriate authorities over Indian adoptions and placements. Just as we in the majority often speak of maintaining families and traditions and of respecting the rights of local governments, this act is one of the few Indian statutes that actually does both. Non-Indian institutions, including State courts, do not and cannot completely understand the unique culture and relationships that make up tribal life. Because they cannot know these facts and these relationships, they should not be given authority to make child custody decisions involving Indian children. Practically, State authorities are not in a position to make these decisions. Legally, they should not be allowed to make these decisions. The right of any sovereign nation, including Indian nations, includes the right to determine who is and who is not a member or citizen. The legislation we introduce today preserves those most basic rights of Indian tribes: tribal self- preservation and self-determination. Mr. President, I want to say a word about adoptive parents and families. The decision to adopt a child or children is one that is done out of the noblest motives, and with much love and affection. It is often a process fraught with many obstacles, both emotional and financial. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for adoptive parents. This legislation will provide adoptive parents with the security they sometimes lack under current law. The bill will provide what many have complained of: finality and security in cases involving Indian children. For the past several years, there have been highly publicized cases involving Indian children and what some felt were late interventions by tribes in these proceedings. By strengthening the procedures of ICWA this bill will make cases like the ones we saw last year a thing of the past. Parties seeking placement of Indian children would be required to file detailed notices with the tribe that includes biographical information on the child, as well as information regarding the rights of the tribe in responding to the notice. With the notice in hand, the tribe must decide if it wants to intervene or not, and to inform the party seeking placement of its intentions. By requiring tribes to file written notice of intervention and providing time limits within which tribes can intervene in proceedings, adoptive parents can be assured that they will not face the prospect of having final or near final. These procedural demands are not unduly burdensome and fall equally on both the parties seeking placement and tribal governments. The truth is that many of these inflammatory and well-publicized cases involved unethical attorneys and other adoption professionals who advised their Indian clients to conceal or not reveal their Indian heritage in an effort to expedite the adoption. Because ICWA-related adoptions and proceedings involve procedural requirements, some attorneys and professionals seek to cut corners and save time and money. Not only is this shortsighted, but is damaging to all parties involved in an adoption or custody proceeding. By expediting these adoptions, the attorneys interests were served. But what about the Indian children, Indian families, Indian tribes, and non-Indian adoptive families? As we have seen, these people have had to endure long, bitter, and costly court battles some of which continue to this day. The legislation we introduce today will provide tough civil and criminal penalties to any person that willfully falsifies facts regarding whether a child is Indian or whether a parent is Indian; makes false or fraudulent statements; or falsifies documents containing facts related to the proceeding. These provisions are not radical notions. They simply provide that if you are involved in an ICWA-related proceeding, and if you do not want to lose your money and your freedom, follow the law. No good adoption attorney worth his salt will fear these penalties if he or she follows the law and is forthright with the facts. I urge my colleagues to join in enacting this crucial legislation to bring stability and certainty to adoptions and other proceedings involving Indian children.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I express my concern for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. I first want to reiterate my firm belief that a permanent geological repository represents the most responsible solution for the ultimate disposition of spent commercial nuclear reactor fuel. Presently, this radioactive material sits in temporary storage at 70 or so sites around the country, including my State, Colorado. Colorado also has several tons of the much deadlier plutonium haunting Rocky Flats, less 20 miles from Denver. So, I am no stranger to nuclear material, the related hazards and costs. Nor is my view different from that of any other Coloradan, or citizen of any other State--I want safe, efficient, responsible solutions to the questions presented by nuclear technology. But S. 104 does not present a safe, responsible solution to the question of commercial spent fuel and I cannot vote for it. First, S. 104 would make Denver the crossroads of radioactive material on an almost daily basis for the next 30 years. S. 104 will send much of the spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste from eastern States traveling west through Denver on I-70, while trans-uranic waste from Idaho will travel south through Denver on I-25 to New Mexico. Therefore, my first point of concern is that Colorado would bear the brunt of the risks of truck and train accidents and the risks of radioactive releases almost every day, for the next 30 years. This gives me great pause. Only with the utmost confidence in the transportation details--the routing plans, the casks housing the spent fuel assemblies, the emergency response preparedness--would I feel comfortable subjecting the residents of Colorado to this great burden. I do not have that confidence yet. In fact, for example, the Colorado Highway Patrol has indicated that I-70 west of Denver is simply not suitable for the safe transportation of radioactive materials. Federal preemption through S. 104, however, threatens to override the CHP's designation and force the use of the I- 70 corridor anyway. I do not mean to suggest that this is my only concern with S. 104, or that this concern in and of itself would be sufficient to cause my opposition. If the bulk of S. 104 represented a sound, responsible solution to an urgent national problem, then my analysis would be quite different. S. 104 is not such a bill, however. Although no one can deny the growing problem of spent nuclear fuel throughout our country, the problem is currently not one of safety, but one of cost. It costs the utilities and, therefore, the ratepayers a lot of money to store this material in temporary facilities. Again, Colorado is not immune. Many Colorado ratepayers contributed to the nuclear waste fund, which was established to finance the permanent disposal of this material, and must pay to maintain storage. But, by all accounts, safety is not an urgent issue for temporary, onsite storage in Colorado or any other State. Were safety an urgent consideration at this point, again, my analysis would be quite different. What concerns me most, however, is the chronology of disposal in S. 104. This bill requires that the Energy Department construct an interim storage site 100 miles north of Las Vegas, NV, and begin accepting spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste well before the permanent repository at nearby Yucca Mountain, NV, is licensed, or even found suitable for permanent disposal. Consequently, there is the very real danger that, even if the permanent site is for some reason deemed unsuitable for disposal of the spent fuel, it will be used anyway simply because the waste would already be nearby at the interim site. Worst yet, there is the danger that the material would remain at the interim site indefinitely. Finally, there is the haunting specter that if Yucca Mountain is not found suitable as a permanent repository, all the spent fuel then stored at the interim site would have to be shipped back across the country--through Colorado again--to some other site. I am sympathetic to the pressures bearing on the nuclear utilities and the ratepayers who have paid once already to have this material disposed of and who must pay again to store this waste while Yucca Mountain is prepared. I also understand that the Energy Department is contractually obligated to begin removing the spent fuel from the States by 1998. But, the safe, responsible disposition of material that will remain deadly for many tens of thousands of years is simply not like buying a car. If it takes some years longer than anticipated, if it costs more money than we thought at first, so be it. In finding a safe place in which to keep this material for a time longer in duration than all of recorded human history, 5, 10, even 20 additional years should not deter us. In the context of radioactive waste, truly, I would rather be safe, than sorry. These words point the way to a better approach to a daunting national problem. S. 104 does not.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to begin my statement today describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves us to the core of our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the Armed Forces of our Nation. Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that train our future military leaders. These academies have varied missions and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders for their particular service. On the grounds of each academy is a chapel, a spectacular place that at once identifies itself as a place of worship. In each chapel, a place has been reserved for the prisoners of war and the missing in action from their particular service. A pew has been set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have returned from battle. This hallowed place has been set aside so that all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a moving and emotional moment to pause at this reserved pew, to be encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of those soldiers, sailors, and pilots and to be inspired today by what they have done. We can do more to honor the memory of the POW's and MIA's who have served in our Nation's wars. Therefore, today I am introducing the National POW/MIA Recognition Act of 1997. This act would authorize the POW/MIA flag to be displayed over military installations, post offices, and memorials around the Nation and other appropriate places of significance on Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and on the last business day before each of the preceding holidays. A companion bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jane Harman from California. Congress has officially recognized the National League of Families POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag would be a powerful symbol to all Americans that we have not forgotten--and will not forget. As you know, the United States has fought in many wars, and thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or listed as missing in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than 147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country. The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we care not only for them, but also for their families who personally carry with them the burden on sacrifice. We want them to know that they do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served. As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom. Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too will the display of their flag over military installations and other Government offices be a special reminder that we have not forgotten-- and will not forget. Before this coming Memorial Day I invite my Senate colleagues to please join me in passing this bill to display the POW/ MIA flag on national days of celebration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to begin my statement today describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves us to the core of our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the Armed Forces of our Nation. Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that train our future military leaders. These academies have varied missions and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders for their particular service. On the grounds of each academy is a chapel, a spectacular place that at once identifies itself as a place of worship. In each chapel, a place has been reserved for the prisoners of war and the missing in action from their particular service. A pew has been set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have returned from battle. This hallowed place has been set aside so that all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a moving and emotional moment to pause at this reserved pew, to be encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of those soldiers, sailors, and pilots and to be inspired today by what they have done. We can do more to honor the memory of the POW's and MIA's who have served in our Nation's wars. Therefore, today I am introducing the National POW/MIA Recognition Act of 1997. This act would authorize the POW/MIA flag to be displayed over military installations, post offices, and memorials around the Nation and other appropriate places of significance on Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and on the last business day before each of the preceding holidays. A companion bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jane Harman from California. Congress has officially recognized the National League of Families POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag would be a powerful symbol to all Americans that we have not forgotten--and will not forget. As you know, the United States has fought in many wars, and thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or listed as missing in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than 147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country. The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we care not only for them, but also for their families who personally carry with them the burden on sacrifice. We want them to know that they do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served. As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom. Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too will the display of their flag over military installations and other Government offices be a special reminder that we have not forgotten-- and will not forget. Before this coming Memorial Day I invite my Senate colleagues to please join me in passing this bill to display the POW/ MIA flag on national days of celebration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 1 p.m. to accommodate a number of Senators who have requested time to speak. By consent, at 1 p.m. the Senate will begin consideration of S. 104, the Nuclear Policy Act. The leader hopes the Senate will be able to make substantial progress on this important legislation during today's session. Rollcall votes are therefore possible throughout the day, and the Senate may be in session into the evening if necessary. As always, all Senators will be notified as to when any votes are scheduled. He also reminds all Members that we are now beginning a lengthy period of legislative session prior to the next scheduled recess, and he also asks for the cooperation of all of our colleagues as we attempt to move forward and complete action on a number of important issues during this period. Mr. President, I also ask for about 10 minutes for a statement on a bill I am introducing, if I may.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485, Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on issues of juvenile justice in Indian country. Those wishing additional information should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224-2251. committee on small business

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this month both Houses of Congress have been engaged in a difficult debate over whether to uphold or overturn the President's certification of Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States to fight drug trafficking. This debate has had a growing negative impact on U.S. relations with an important country and trading partner along our southern border. The debate also has shown how the certification process under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is not as effective as Congress originally intended it to be. Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too late and not specific enough to fix the problems. Moreover, access to more timely and specific information would assist Congress in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Therefore, on Tuesday of this week, I introduced S. 457, a bill to provide a new option to the President to place countries such as Mexico on a probationary status of 7 months, during the period of March 1 through September 30. If by the end of this probationary period, the target country complies with the specific conditions stipulated by the President, full certification would be granted. However, if these conditions are not met, the United States would act firmly by cutting off aid beginning on October 1 of this year. I am pleased that the compromise the Senate is considering today reflects to some extent the main components of my bill. The pending resolution recognizes that Mexico has taken insufficient steps to stop drug trafficking and it stipulates a 6-month period of time in which the President will review Mexico's progress in this area. The resolution also requires the President to submit a report to Congress by September 1 on Mexico's progress. However, the resolution we consider today does not nearly go far enough. Its findings regarding Mexico are not specific; it does not provide specific steps Mexico must take to continue receiving aid; and it does not amend the existing law to improve the certification process in the future, as my bill does. I am voting in favor of the pending resolution today because it is the only legislation the Senate will consider this week to address the certification of Mexico. Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to support S. 457 to improve the certification process for the future. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to extend the authorization for certain programs under the Native American Programs Act of 1974. This bill is critical to continue the availability of a modest amount of grant funds used by native communities nationwide to foster economic growth, develop tools for good governance methods, and promote social welfare. The authorization for most of these programs has expired and though the administration has requested funding for fiscal year 1998 at fiscal year 1997 levels, it has not introduced legislation to reauthorize the act. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that. These programs are administered through the Administration for Native Americans [ANA] located within the Department of Health and Human Services. By awarding annual grants on a competitive basis, the Native American Programs Act promotes self-sufficiency and self-determination by encouraging tribes, villages, and other native communities to develop and plan local strategies in economic and social development. The program is designed to build greater capacity at the tribal level for better governance, more vibrant and diversified economies, and social development. The ANA Program has proven successful for native communities since its inception and has generated widespread support by America's native communities. The centerpiece of the program are grants made under the Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) Program; grants to tribes enhance tribal environmental regulatory capabilities; and grants made to preserve and rehabilitate native languages. This legislation will simply extend for 4 years until fiscal year 2000 the authorization for these modestly funded yet very successful programs to strengthen and rebuild tribal communities around the United States. I urge my colleagues to join with me in enacting this reauthorization so that these proven tools for development can again be made available to native peoples around the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary and the bill language be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this month Congress has been considering the important issue of whether to uphold or overturn the President's certification of Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States to fight drug trafficking. I am concerned that without congressional action, the Senate must choose between two less than ideal options: First, to support the President's certification of Mexico and continue business as usual, thereby downplaying serious deficiencies in Mexico's efforts; or second, to decertify Mexico, with or without a waiver, which might destabilize an important country along our southern border. Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too late and not specific enough to fix the problems. Moreover, access to more timely and specific information would assist Congress in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Therefore, today I propose a bill to provide an alternative approach. This legislation would provide the administration a new option to certify countries such as Mexico on probationary status for 7 months, which extends from March 1 through September 30, the end of the fiscal year. However, during this time period, the country on probationary certification is expected to comply with certain conditions stipulated by the President. If these conditions are not met at the end of this 7- month period, the United States will act firmly, such as by cutting off aid. This alternative would put countries on notice that the United States has serious concerns about their lack of cooperation. But, it would provide a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. concerns. This constructive notice period would be less disruptive to our bilateral relations. We saw last week some of the damage which could occur in our relationship with Mexico after the House voted to decertify Mexico within 90 days if certain criteria are not met. News reports quoted Mexico's President, Ernesto Zedillo, as stating: ``This is where we draw the line. Our sovereignty and dignity as a nation are not negotiable.'' My bill also provides better notice to Congress. Under this alternative, Congress would be informed about those specific concerns which the President identified regarding a country's lack of cooperation. Congress also would be able to track that country's progress during the 7-month probationary period and, of course, maintain its prerogative to pass legislation as it deems necessary. I believe this would help avoid the contentious battle in which the Congress and the administration currently are engaged this month over Mexico. It is no surprise that many Senators feel strongly about decertifying Mexico. Reports indicate that as much as 70 percent of the cocaine entering the United States comes through Mexico; up to 30 percent of the heroin used in the United States comes through Mexico; and 80 percent of imported marijuana comes through Mexico. Recent developments in that country have exacerbated what is already a serious flow of illegal drugs into the United States. For example, according to a news report in the March 2 San Diego Union Tribune, Mexican authorities are now preventing our DEA agents and law enforcement officers from carrying their weapons into Mexico. In response, the DEA reportedly pulled its agents out of cross-training and intelligence-gathering projects in Mexico along the border. Agents and officers now fear they will become targets for gangs and drug traffickers, especially if Mexico's certification is revoked. This is intolerable. Further motivating the push to decertify Mexico is the recent arrest of Mexico's drug czar, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, on allegations he was being paid to protect one of Mexico's top drug lords. The general is reported to have extensive drug ties, dating back to at least 1993, at the same time he was supposed to be fighting drug use and trade in his country. Any information that the general may have possessed has been compromised. Nor is he alone in being corrupt. According to a Los Angeles Times report on March 3, court documents from two drug gang assassins indicate that approximately 90 percent of the law enforcement officers in Tijuana and the State of Baja California in Mexico are corrupt. These developments raise serious concerns among DEA agents, who cannot adequately do their job if they do not receive the help of their Mexican counterparts. During his testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Security on February 27, 1997, Thomas Constantine, the Administrator of the DEA, called fighting drug trafficking without assistance from other countries nearly impossible. In light of these disturbing developments, I wrote to the President last Friday expressing my concern with his certification of Mexico. I also urged the administration to take all necessary steps to ensure Mexico does its fair share in controlling the flow of illicit drugs across its border into the United States. Decertifying Mexico will not make this process any easier. Yet, we cannot risk the implication that we condone Mexico's failed drug policy by fully certifying Mexico without certain conditions. Certification of Mexico in light of the compelling facts of that country's involvement in drug trafficking also makes a mockery of the certification provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act. In light of these facts, I am concerned that the President has certified Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States. However, I am also concerned that decertifying Mexico could destabilize a country important to us and cause a potential crisis on our southern border. Unfortunately, that is the choice the administration has under existing law. Therefore, the bill I introduce today would amend the existing law to avoid this type of problem in the future. The current certification process is set forth in section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It requires the President to submit to Congress by March 1 of each year a list of major illicit drug producing and transiting countries which he certifies are fully cooperating with the United States. This bill offers a good middleground--I urge support. Under existing law, the President has three options: One, certify a country which has cooperated fully with U.S. anti-drug efforts or has taken adequate steps on its own to comply with the 1988 U.N. anti- drug trafficking convention. Two, decertify a country for not fully cooperating. Or three, decertify a country but provide a waiver because it is in the national interests of the United States to continue to provide aid. Under this law, when a country is decertified, at least 50 percent of U.S. bilateral foreign aid is suspended in the current fiscal year. In fact, that county may lose more than 50 percent of its current funding if the State Department has not yet released the aid. Unless the country is recertified, all U.S. aid is suspended in subsequent fiscal years. And, the United States is required to vote against loans in the multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank. Congress has 30 days from receipt of the President's certification to enact a joint resolution disapproving the President's action. If Congress passes such a resolution, the President can veto it and require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto. Congress also has its prerogative to pass a resolution with other timeframes, which would be subject to a Presidential veto. We saw this last week when the House passed a resolution to decertify Mexico within 90 days if certain criteria are not met. On February 28, 1997, the President submitted his annual list to Congress. This report indicated that 23 countries, including Mexico, are certified as fully cooperating; three countries were determined not to be fully cooperating, but were deemed in the national interest-- Belize, Lebanon, and Pakistan--and six countries were decertified (Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, and Syria. The impact of this process on Mexico could be dramatic. If Congress were to pass a resolution of disapproval within the 30-day review period and the President does not exercise his waiver authority, the impact would include: Suspension of at least 50 percent of United States assistance for the current fiscal year; total suspension of aid in the next fiscal year, unless Mexico were recertified; and the United State would vote against loans to Mexico in the multilateral development banks. Mexico receives $17 million in bilateral aid from the United States and, according to the Export-Import Bank, 56 applications from Mexico could be affected which total $3.24 billion. The alternative that I am proposing today provides a middle ground because it revisits the certification issue more often during the course of the year. The President also is given more flexibility in labelling countries more accurately. I'm also concerned that under existing law, we are giving a free ride to countries which are decertified but then are granted a waiver and continue to receive aid because it is deemed in the national interest of the United States. These waivers, in essence, allow the provision of aid year after year to countries not fully cooperating with the United States. What incentive do these countries have to improve their cooperation? My legislation builds on the existing carrot and stick approach in the certification process. This type of approach has been successful with other problems in the past, and I think it would go a long way to avoid similar controversies in the future like the one we have seen surrounding the Mexico certification this month. Under my bill, the carrot is certification, although for a finite period of time of 7 months. During this probationary period, all U.S. aid continues to flow and the United States remains supportive in international development banks. The President also stipulates which specific conditions must be met by that country to improve its cooperation with the United States and to continue receiving U.S. aid. Not only is sufficient notice provided to the country, but to the Congress as well. The stick is a penalty similar to that under existing law. If after 7 months the country does not comply with the stipulations made by the President to improve its cooperation with the United States, 100 percent of U.S. bilateral aid is cut off. The United States also would vote against aid in the multilateral development banks if the country does not comply with U.S. stipulations, as provided for under current law. These penalties would remain in effect until the President notifies Congress that the country has complied with the stipulations made in the President's original probationary certification. In my opinion, this alternative approach would force fuller compliance by countries and, in future cases similar to Mexico, help avoid a potential crisis in those countries. We need to send a very strong message to our neighbors in Mexico and similarly situated countries when we do not believe that they are fully cooperating with United States efforts to combat drug trafficking. But, to risk a crisis along our own border is asking for greater trouble. I believe that a compromise solution, as outlined in my proposal, is the most reasonable way to address similar circumstances in the future, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to extend the authorization for certain programs under the Native American Programs Act of 1974. This bill is critical to continue the availability of a modest amount of grant funds used by native communities nationwide to foster economic growth, develop tools for good governance methods, and promote social welfare. The authorization for most of these programs has expired and though the administration has requested funding for fiscal year 1998 at fiscal year 1997 levels, it has not introduced legislation to reauthorize the act. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that. These programs are administered through the Administration for Native Americans [ANA] located within the Department of Health and Human Services. By awarding annual grants on a competitive basis, the Native American Programs Act promotes self-sufficiency and self-determination by encouraging tribes, villages, and other native communities to develop and plan local strategies in economic and social development. The program is designed to build greater capacity at the tribal level for better governance, more vibrant and diversified economies, and social development. The ANA Program has proven successful for native communities since its inception and has generated widespread support by America's native communities. The centerpiece of the program are grants made under the Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) Program; grants to tribes enhance tribal environmental regulatory capabilities; and grants made to preserve and rehabilitate native languages. This legislation will simply extend for 4 years until fiscal year 2000 the authorization for these modestly funded yet very successful programs to strengthen and rebuild tribal communities around the United States. I urge my colleagues to join with me in enacting this reauthorization so that these proven tools for development can again be made available to native peoples around the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary and the bill language be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this month Congress has been considering the important issue of whether to uphold or overturn the President's certification of Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States to fight drug trafficking. I am concerned that without congressional action, the Senate must choose between two less than ideal options: First, to support the President's certification of Mexico and continue business as usual, thereby downplaying serious deficiencies in Mexico's efforts; or second, to decertify Mexico, with or without a waiver, which might destabilize an important country along our southern border. Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too late and not specific enough to fix the problems. Moreover, access to more timely and specific information would assist Congress in exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Therefore, today I propose a bill to provide an alternative approach. This legislation would provide the administration a new option to certify countries such as Mexico on probationary status for 7 months, which extends from March 1 through September 30, the end of the fiscal year. However, during this time period, the country on probationary certification is expected to comply with certain conditions stipulated by the President. If these conditions are not met at the end of this 7- month period, the United States will act firmly, such as by cutting off aid. This alternative would put countries on notice that the United States has serious concerns about their lack of cooperation. But, it would provide a fair period of time during which those countries could address U.S. concerns. This constructive notice period would be less disruptive to our bilateral relations. We saw last week some of the damage which could occur in our relationship with Mexico after the House voted to decertify Mexico within 90 days if certain criteria are not met. News reports quoted Mexico's President, Ernesto Zedillo, as stating: ``This is where we draw the line. Our sovereignty and dignity as a nation are not negotiable.'' My bill also provides better notice to Congress. Under this alternative, Congress would be informed about those specific concerns which the President identified regarding a country's lack of cooperation. Congress also would be able to track that country's progress during the 7-month probationary period and, of course, maintain its prerogative to pass legislation as it deems necessary. I believe this would help avoid the contentious battle in which the Congress and the administration currently are engaged this month over Mexico. It is no surprise that many Senators feel strongly about decertifying Mexico. Reports indicate that as much as 70 percent of the cocaine entering the United States comes through Mexico; up to 30 percent of the heroin used in the United States comes through Mexico; and 80 percent of imported marijuana comes through Mexico. Recent developments in that country have exacerbated what is already a serious flow of illegal drugs into the United States. For example, according to a news report in the March 2 San Diego Union Tribune, Mexican authorities are now preventing our DEA agents and law enforcement officers from carrying their weapons into Mexico. In response, the DEA reportedly pulled its agents out of cross-training and intelligence-gathering projects in Mexico along the border. Agents and officers now fear they will become targets for gangs and drug traffickers, especially if Mexico's certification is revoked. This is intolerable. Further motivating the push to decertify Mexico is the recent arrest of Mexico's drug czar, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, on allegations he was being paid to protect one of Mexico's top drug lords. The general is reported to have extensive drug ties, dating back to at least 1993, at the same time he was supposed to be fighting drug use and trade in his country. Any information that the general may have possessed has been compromised. Nor is he alone in being corrupt. According to a Los Angeles Times report on March 3, court documents from two drug gang assassins indicate that approximately 90 percent of the law enforcement officers in Tijuana and the State of Baja California in Mexico are corrupt. These developments raise serious concerns among DEA agents, who cannot adequately do their job if they do not receive the help of their Mexican counterparts. During his testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Security on February 27, 1997, Thomas Constantine, the Administrator of the DEA, called fighting drug trafficking without assistance from other countries nearly impossible. In light of these disturbing developments, I wrote to the President last Friday expressing my concern with his certification of Mexico. I also urged the administration to take all necessary steps to ensure Mexico does its fair share in controlling the flow of illicit drugs across its border into the United States. Decertifying Mexico will not make this process any easier. Yet, we cannot risk the implication that we condone Mexico's failed drug policy by fully certifying Mexico without certain conditions. Certification of Mexico in light of the compelling facts of that country's involvement in drug trafficking also makes a mockery of the certification provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act. In light of these facts, I am concerned that the President has certified Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States. However, I am also concerned that decertifying Mexico could destabilize a country important to us and cause a potential crisis on our southern border. Unfortunately, that is the choice the administration has under existing law. Therefore, the bill I introduce today would amend the existing law to avoid this type of problem in the future. The current certification process is set forth in section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It requires the President to submit to Congress by March 1 of each year a list of major illicit drug producing and transiting countries which he certifies are fully cooperating with the United States. This bill offers a good middleground--I urge support. Under existing law, the President has three options: One, certify a country which has cooperated fully with U.S. anti-drug efforts or has taken adequate steps on its own to comply with the 1988 U.N. anti- drug trafficking convention. Two, decertify a country for not fully cooperating. Or three, decertify a country but provide a waiver because it is in the national interests of the United States to continue to provide aid. Under this law, when a country is decertified, at least 50 percent of U.S. bilateral foreign aid is suspended in the current fiscal year. In fact, that county may lose more than 50 percent of its current funding if the State Department has not yet released the aid. Unless the country is recertified, all U.S. aid is suspended in subsequent fiscal years. And, the United States is required to vote against loans in the multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank. Congress has 30 days from receipt of the President's certification to enact a joint resolution disapproving the President's action. If Congress passes such a resolution, the President can veto it and require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto. Congress also has its prerogative to pass a resolution with other timeframes, which would be subject to a Presidential veto. We saw this last week when the House passed a resolution to decertify Mexico within 90 days if certain criteria are not met. On February 28, 1997, the President submitted his annual list to Congress. This report indicated that 23 countries, including Mexico, are certified as fully cooperating; three countries were determined not to be fully cooperating, but were deemed in the national interest-- Belize, Lebanon, and Pakistan--and six countries were decertified (Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, and Syria. The impact of this process on Mexico could be dramatic. If Congress were to pass a resolution of disapproval within the 30-day review period and the President does not exercise his waiver authority, the impact would include: Suspension of at least 50 percent of United States assistance for the current fiscal year; total suspension of aid in the next fiscal year, unless Mexico were recertified; and the United State would vote against loans to Mexico in the multilateral development banks. Mexico receives $17 million in bilateral aid from the United States and, according to the Export-Import Bank, 56 applications from Mexico could be affected which total $3.24 billion. The alternative that I am proposing today provides a middle ground because it revisits the certification issue more often during the course of the year. The President also is given more flexibility in labelling countries more accurately. I'm also concerned that under existing law, we are giving a free ride to countries which are decertified but then are granted a waiver and continue to receive aid because it is deemed in the national interest of the United States. These waivers, in essence, allow the provision of aid year after year to countries not fully cooperating with the United States. What incentive do these countries have to improve their cooperation? My legislation builds on the existing carrot and stick approach in the certification process. This type of approach has been successful with other problems in the past, and I think it would go a long way to avoid similar controversies in the future like the one we have seen surrounding the Mexico certification this month. Under my bill, the carrot is certification, although for a finite period of time of 7 months. During this probationary period, all U.S. aid continues to flow and the United States remains supportive in international development banks. The President also stipulates which specific conditions must be met by that country to improve its cooperation with the United States and to continue receiving U.S. aid. Not only is sufficient notice provided to the country, but to the Congress as well. The stick is a penalty similar to that under existing law. If after 7 months the country does not comply with the stipulations made by the President to improve its cooperation with the United States, 100 percent of U.S. bilateral aid is cut off. The United States also would vote against aid in the multilateral development banks if the country does not comply with U.S. stipulations, as provided for under current law. These penalties would remain in effect until the President notifies Congress that the country has complied with the stipulations made in the President's original probationary certification. In my opinion, this alternative approach would force fuller compliance by countries and, in future cases similar to Mexico, help avoid a potential crisis in those countries. We need to send a very strong message to our neighbors in Mexico and similarly situated countries when we do not believe that they are fully cooperating with United States efforts to combat drug trafficking. But, to risk a crisis along our own border is asking for greater trouble. I believe that a compromise solution, as outlined in my proposal, is the most reasonable way to address similar circumstances in the future, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici and Vice Chairman Inouye in introducing the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997, to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. [ISTEA]. More than any other communities in the United States, Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages suffer from a lack of adequate infrastructure, and the necessary tools to build and maintain that infrastructure. The United States has a special responsibility to Indian tribal governments to help them achieve economic self- sufficiency and political self-determination. Economies today, whether State, tribal, or national, are increasingly dependent on interstate and international commerce for their livelihoods. Solid physical infrastructure is the foundation for those economies. Federal ISTEA funding to tribal governments has lagged behind spending for States and local governments over the years, despite acute and unmet needs in Indian country. Poor and unsafe roads and highways, crumbling bridges, and nonexistent transit and transportation systems all contribute to and result in tribal economies that are third world in nature. In addition to facilitating the delivery of basic social services such as health, education, and nutrition to tribal members, solid physical infrastructures act as an incentive to outside investors to invest in tribal economies and to locate their businesses on tribal lands. The legislation I am cosponsoring today recognizes the special Federal obligations, and will assist in the development and maintenance of Indian transportation infrastructures and in the process pave the way for higher levels of economic growth and job creation. By increasing the funds available for the Indian reservation roads program, this bill will provide immediate relief to those tribes that have a backlog of road development and maintenance. By strengthening the capacity of tribes through transportation enhancement activities, the reservation bridges programs, and technical centers, this legislation will ensure that Indian tribes are not precluded from building stronger, more vibrant communities. I urge my colleagues to join in enacting this legislation so critical to tribal governments and economies across the Nation.