Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Tribal Conflict Resolution, Tort Claims and Risk Management Act of 1998 to continue the discourse on matters involving Indian tribal governments such as providing a mechanism for the collection of legitimate state retail sales taxes and affording a remedy to those persons injured by the acts of tribal governments, or those acting on their behalf.

By introducing this legislation, I am hopeful that tribal leaders, concerned parties, and those affected by the actions of tribal governments can find some common ground and craft innovative solutions to these issues which I believe will continue to hamper Indian tribes unless dealt with appropriately.

It has been said that because of Indian tribal immunity from lawsuits, states have no enforcement mechanism to collect state retail taxes on transactions made to non-members. Similarly, opponents of tribal immunity charge that tribal immunity prevents injured persons from seeking legal recourse for their injuries.

The Supreme Court has held that on retail sales made to non-members, Indian tribes are under a duty to collect and remit such state taxes. The Court made it clear that there are numerous remedies available to the states in such situations including suits against tribal officials; levying the tax at the wholesale level before goods enter reservation commerce; negotiating agreements with the tribes involved; and if these prove unworkable, then seeking congressional action.

At least 18 states and numerous tribes have chosen the negotiations route to settling their differences short of litigation and acrimony. Testimony presented to the committee on March 11, 1998, revealed that there are approximately 200 intergovernmental agreements between Indian tribes and states providing for the collection and remittance by the tribes of state sales taxes on sales made to non-members.

Rather than waive the immunity of all tribes-those who have chosen to deal with the issue of taxation through agreement and those who have not-the legislation I introduce today declares the policy of the United States to be the reaffirmation of the federal obligation to protect Indian tribes, people, and trust resources and property of Indian tribes. In fulfilling that obligation, the United States should make available the framework and machinery for the amicable settlement and resolution of disputes, including tax matters, involving states and Indian tribes.

The achievement of mutual agreements is the major objective of this bill, and in addition to encouraging such agreements, this legislation provides for the creation of an "Intergovernmental Alternative Dispute Resolution Panel" to consider and render decisions on tax matters that cannot be resolved through negotiation.

The panel will be composed of a five member team including representatives of the Departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury; one representative of state governments; and one representative of tribal governments. Rather than create a "new" mediation framework, this bill relies on the existing Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide mediation services for such situations.

Title II of the bill is intended to provide a remedy in tort situations for those tribes that are not covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act, or covered by private secured liability insurance.

This title would require the Secretary of Interior to obtain or provide tort liability insurance or equivalent coverage for each Indian tribe that receives tribal priority allocations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

Because many, if not most, Indian tribes maintain some type of insurance coverage, the Secretary is obligated to determine the type and adequacy of coverage already provided in order to avoid duplicative or redundant coverage.

Significantly, and as is the case with insurance policies now in place for many tribal governments, the policy of insurance must contain a provision prohibiting the carrier from raising the defense of sovereign immunity with respect to any tort action filed involving the tribe. In this way, injured persons would be afforded a remedy. Such policies would also contain a provision precluding any waiver for pre-judgment interest or punitive damages.

The Secretary would prescribe regulations governing the amount and nature of claims covered by such insurance policy, and would also set a schedule of premiums payable by any tribe that is provided insurance under this bill.

Lastly, as Indian tribes have begun to re-develop their economies and are beginning to assert their influence, issues and matters have developed that should receive the attention of a full-time, intergovernmental body to review and analyze such situations.

This legislation creates the "Joint Tribal-Federal-State Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs" to thoughtfully and deliberately consider matters such as law enforcement, civil and criminal jurisdiction, taxation, transportation, economic development, and related issues. Two years after enactment, the commission is required to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the President, the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate, and the Committee on Resources in the House of Representatives.

Finally, let me say that I do not agree with those who suggest that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity is an anachronism and one no longer deserving of protection. Several of the states, as well as the federal government, have chosen to waive their immunity from suit in very limited circumstances and under strict conditions.

It is simply inaccurate to suggest that tribal governments are the last repository of immunity. Whether by limiting damage awards as some states have done, or eliminating entire classes of activities that will not trigger immunity waivers as the federal government has done in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the doctrine of immunity is alive and well in the United States.

That there are issues that need to be dealt with I agree; that the way to address these issues is through involuntary, broad-based waivers of immunity, I disagree heartily. I call on the quiet, thoughtful, and reasonable people on both sides of these issues to craft solutions that respects Indian tribal governments and yet provides reasonable solutions for legitimate problems that do exist.