Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleagues ought to know that in the concluding paragraphs of the letter he disagrees with this amendment. But his conclusion about a process that needs repair is one that is embraced almost by all. My good friend from Colorado has legislation pending that would move the present recognition process from the BIA to a new commission. I agree with him on that approach. I believe it will take time to get that done. I presume there will be regulations and the like appended to it. It is not a question of debate about whether or not the process is in need of repair. It appears that everybody agrees with them because of what has happened and the various circumstances. We are talking about 222 petitions, and maybe more--all of which may be legitimate. But shouldn't we know in the end that there has been a process followed fairly by all and that there will be at the end of the day a conclusion that is just and reasonable and will withstand the test of time? That is all we are suggesting. The poignancy, I suppose, is because it impacts my State. I am aware of it because of what's going on in my State. If I had no petitions pending in my State, I wouldn't be standing here. I wouldn't be aware of the issue. But we are aware of it. I am worried about the future for the very same reasons that history suggests--that we will find out again that there is unnecessary division, hostility, and resentment growing. That should not be the case. I strongly urge that this amendment not be defeated--I suspect that it may be--and that we do something soon to repair a process that looks too cavalier. If there is just going to be recognition of all petitions coming forward, why don't we just say so straight out? If there is going to be a process to demonstrate satisfaction of some particular criteria, let us make sure it works. As it is now, it is catch as catch can. Sometimes the rules apply. Sometimes they don't. Of the seven criteria, some we follow rigorously, and some we don't at all. Some are applied in some cases and not in others. Some petitioners are granted, some are denied, and some are brought together. There are third choices inexplicably made. This isn't working right. It needs to be repaired. We can do that in a very short order because we recommend no new criteria. We just say codify the existing criteria, put it in shape, and let everybody know what the process is working so they can go through it in a reasonable way. It is outrageous that they should have to wait two or three decades for recognition. The fact is that we have supported additional resources here to the agency to try to provide the technical staff so decisions can be made within a reasonable amount of time. With these resources, people can be heard and the agency can reach final conclusions that I believe all Americans can support. That is what this amendment tries to do--nothing more than that and nothing less than that, but nothing more than that. Again, I suspect the amendment will be defeated, but I hope the end result is that we can get a better system. My State may regrettably find itself with some petitions granted that do not deserve to be, but maybe that is the price you pay for doing something about broader reform. I regret that there had to be a disagreement between people who support Native Americans. I admire them immensely. But as I look down the road here, I worry that if we don't straighten this situation out that we could find the situation getting worse. I don't want to see that happen. For those reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for a very eloquent statement. Let me also thank my colleague from Hawaii for a very eloquent statement he has made. I would not take issue with any comment he made about the relationship between the history of the U.S. Government and its treatment of Native American tribes going back to the founding days of this Republic. It is a sorry history in many instances and circumstances. The Senator very graciously mentioned my father. Let me mention my mother. My mother used to tell me all the time that two wrongs do not make a right. That we have done a terrible injustice to Native American people over the years does not justify, in my view, continuing a process that would allow recognition to occur where it may not be warranted. In America, where recognition should be extended and granted, the process must be fair. As for the recognition process--its history--my friend from Colorado makes a very strong statement. It is something of a historic anomaly in many ways; that's why recognition must even occur. The fact is that the current process is the law of the land. I can speak very directly about my own State. It is a difficult process, which is still ongoing for that matter. There are those in my State and others who would like to undo the recognition extended to the Mashantucket Pequots. Books have been written about it. Popular books have been written. That garnered national attention in questioning the recognition of that tribe. I have disagreed with them. I also know the process that the Mohican Tribe went through in my State. It was a very long and elaborate process, working very closely with the community leaders in the towns in which they are located-- State, as well as the National Government. Our point here is not about the history, as much as concern about the history is justified. It is not about the past, as legitimate as those arguments are. It is about today and the future. Let me quote, if I can, a letter I received from the National Congress of American Indians. By the way, the amendment that is part of the bill was considered for over a year and isn't written out of whole cloth. I showed this amendment to Native Americans around the country and asked them what they thought of the amendment. This letter I received from Tex Hall is dated September 12 of this year. He opposes the amendment. Let me be very clear. The National Congress of American Indians opposes the Dodd-Lieberman amendment, but listen to what he says in the letter. I am reading from the second paragraph. And I believe that tribal leaders agree with you it must be a rigorous process requiring the petitioner to demonstrate historical and continuous American Indian identity in a distinct community. We believe that the process could benefit from a serious review by Congress and a codification of the process and the criteria. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see the majority whip. I ask unanimous consent we extend the debate an additional 10 minutes, equally divided, so we can make some concluding remarks.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the amendment is offered on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman. I presume he will be coming to the floor at some point. He has a strong interest in the amendment. I want to be notified by the Chair when I have consumed 10 minutes, so I can leave time for Senator Lieberman. I begin by thanking my colleagues from Hawaii and Colorado. They were very generous--they are all the time, but particularly last week--in conducting a hearing on the subject matter that is the subject of this amendment. They graciously listened to a series of witnesses from the administration, from Connecticut, mayors from towns in Connecticut, along with other interested parties on the subject matter generally of the recognition process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So any discussion of the matter before us should begin with an expression of gratitude to both of these distinguished Members of the Senate for their willingness to listen to the case we presented. Again, I express my gratitude to them. They are friends of mine, and this is one of those awkward moments that can happen when good friends find themselves on opposite sides of an issue. Secondly, I had a good meeting last week with some of the national representatives of the Native American community from Indian country here in the Senate. I did state to them, which I will state here as well, that I take great pride in the relationship I have with my Indian constituents in Connecticut, as I have had around the country--on numerous occasions, whether appearing in Window Rock, AZ, or with the Gila River tribes, and others; with my good friend from Alaska, and others; I take a great deal of pride in my strong support for the Native American community. What brings us here, and what Senator Lieberman and I are raising, is the concern that we have over the present recognition process. It is a concern that was not generated by my State alone. It was, in fact, generated by a study done by the Government Accounting Office, backed by representatives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 2000, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs stated before the U.S. Congress that the system was terribly broken and in need of repair. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that. Now, there are suggestions on how best to repair this. The problem is that while we are waiting for the repairs to occur, recognitions are going forward. In many cases, of course, they will be proven to be absolutely well-deserved, but others may not be. My concern is when that happens, it not only does damage to the communities and others who may be adversely affected by those decisions, but I argue just as strongly that an adverse impact occurs as well on existing tribal nations that have long sought recognition, and suspicions are raised about the validity and credibility of the process. Those who have received recognition I think are devalued as well. There are now pending 222 recognition petitions before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have put up a chart showing where they are in the country. Many States, of course, have none; 37 States have at least 1 pending. In my State there are 12. Understand the size of my State. It is about 110 miles by 50 miles. There are national parks in this country that are larger geographically than my State. Some counties in various States are larger than Connecticut. So when you start talking about 12 petitions pending, you can begin to understand what the impact can be, particularly if there are concerns about the validity of some of the petitions pending. Massachusetts has 6, Rhode Island has 5, California has 53, North Carolina has 16, South Carolina has 11, Michigan has 10, Louisiana has 10, Missouri has 9, and so forth. My colleagues are more than welcome to look at the list I have. There is a particular poignancy in Connecticut because of the number. Every single petition may be entirely meritorious. I would not, for one, suggest that they should not be approved if, in fact, that is the case. But, if you will, what provoked this particular concern to raise this amendment was a decision reached only a few weeks ago where two petitioning parties in Connecticut recognition were each denied separate recognition. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs, contrary to the recommendation of the technical staff, recognized, in effect, a third tribe, and said both of these tribes are not two separate tribes, but one. That may be a very legitimate conclusion, but you can understand the concern when all of a sudden, without any hearings, they arrived at a third conclusion, and the Assistant Secretary found that to be the result. So that raises concerns, obviously, in the minds of many people. Imagine two people seeking grant applications, both applications are rejected, and the Secretary of some agency construed a third grant application. It seems to me that goes beyond any parameters that Congress has extended to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in this kind of a process. As I mentioned earlier, we have already seen statements from the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I quote him: I am troubled by the money backing certain petitions, and I do think it is time that Congress should consider an alternative to the existing process. Otherwise, we are more likely to recognize someone that might not deserve it. The more contentious and nasty things become, the less we feel we are able to do it. I know it is unusual for an agency to give up a responsibility like this, but this one has outgrown us. It needs more expertise and resources than we have available. Mr. President, we could not agree more. I am not suggesting with this amendment, by the way, that any of the applications should be rejected. This bill would involve a 1-year moratorium to put the brakes on in order to put in place a recognition process that is predictable, credible, that would allow people to have an opportunity to respond, if you will. I don't believe a year is asking too much. I know there are tribes that have been waiting decades, in some cases, for recognition. I feel as strongly about what has happened to them as I do in areas where recognition may be extended where it may not be warranted. The process is broken if you have to wait 25 years to be heard. That itself makes the case. That argues for the amendment and not against it. So we feel strongly this amendment is not an egregious reach of authority. Many people all the time ask us for support on various matters. I have certainly cast many votes where parts of the country have been affected by drought or other natural disasters. This is not a natural disaster. It is not even a disaster. It does not rise to that level, but my colleagues ought to understand when we have this kind of pressure occurring in a relatively small piece of geography where concerns are being raised despite recommendations of a technical staff and other recommendations, one can understand the urgency. I think any Senator representing his or her State faced with this kind of issue would take a similar position. It is with a sense of regret that we have moved forward. I wish we had more time to wait and that another year or two would be adequate. But in the next year or two, we are going to find a lot of these recognition petitions to have been ruled upon. They may be ruled invalid.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will let my colleagues proceed and share a few thoughts. The General Accounting Office is the last point I will make. In their study released last November, they were highly critical of the BLM. They did not just speak about Connecticut. They talked about the country. They said the Assistant Secretary has rejected several recent recommendations made by the technical staff, all resulting in either proposed or final decisions to recognize tribes when staff recommended against recognition. I am not suggesting staff is always right in these matters or suggesting they are right and the Assistant Secretary is wrong. However, it seems to me it ought to be a source of some trouble when we have that kind of conflict of opinions occurring. Especially with 222 petitions pending, with criteria being used selectively, I think it is dangerous and could provoke a lot of hostility which we ought to avoid. I urge the amendment be adopted, and I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today with Senator Allen to introduce the Aeronautics Research & Development Revitalization Act of 2002. This legislation is aimed at protecting the economic stability and national security of the United States by establishing a broad-based agenda to reinvigorate America's aeronautics and aviation R&D enterprise and maintain America's competitive leadership in aviation. Congressman Larson and other members of Congress introduced companion legislation in the House several months ago. The United States has dominated the aircraft industry for years. In 1985, we dominated the aerospace market controlling more than 73 percent of the commercial aircraft industry. Unfortunately, since 1985, the U.S. has fallen behind considerably. Today, we control less than 50 percent of the global market. Over the last decade, funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's aeronautics research and development program has fallen by approximately 50 percent. Last year, the European Commission and aerospace industry executives unveiled a report entitled ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020'' which outlines ambitious goals of attaining global leadership in aeronautics and creating a world class air transport system for Europe. The U.S. aeronautics industry is being left behind at the gates, and is now in a position where it must catch up in an effort not to lose its economic and technological dominance over the international aeronautics market. Europe has committed to spending more than $93 billion within the next 20 years in order to implement ``A Vision for 2020''. The Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2002 will provide a funding basis for NASA to plan and implement their ``Aeronautics Blueprint-Toward a Bold New Era of Aviation''. The ``Aeronautics Blueprint'' confronts the challenges that are faced by the aviation industry and puts forth a vision of what can be achieved by investments in aeronautics research and technology, and stresses the importance of combining the efforts of NASA, DOD, DoT, the FAA, academia, and industry. It does not, however, provide a program plan to actually achieve the vision, nor does it address the huge disparity between current NASA aeronautics funding and what is required to achieve the vision. The bill that Senator Allen and I are introducing today provides the necessary program plan needed to achieve the nation's aeronautics vision as found in the ``Aeronautics Blueprint,'' and stresses the importance of having agencies like NASA and FAA work closely together in achieving these goals. The Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2002 would reverse the trend of declining Federal investments in aeronautics and aviation R&D by doubling the authorization of funding over five years. Funding for NASA would increase to $900 million in 2005, which is approximately the level it was in 1998, and would increase to $1.15 billion in 2007. The legislation would also double funding for the FAA to more than $550 million in 2007. This bill will have a direct impact on technologies that can be easily incorporated into the commercial airline industry. The bill focuses on improving fuel-efficiency for commercial standard airliners, as well as noise reduction, improved emissions, wake turbulence, more stringent safety and security standards, a more efficient air-traffic control system, and supersonic transport. Universities will also be given resources to develop training methods for people who will make use of these technologies. Individual engineering graduate students studying aeronautics will be eligible for scholarships and summer employment opportunities which will be made possible through specific funding in this legislation. These new technologies will help our Nation militarily, as well. Planes will be able to fly farther than before, communications networks will be improved, making it easier to coordinate military operations, and quieter engines will make planes less detectable to ground forces that do not have the benefit of radar. Even transport missions will be much more efficient. The events of September 11 not only highlighted the importance of aviation to our entire economy, but they also demonstrated the need to enhance our aviation security system. This bill should, we believe, be part of our government's commitment to investment in the economic growth, security and safety of America's aviation and aeronautics sector.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today with Senator Allen to introduce the Aeronautics Research & Development Revitalization Act of 2002. This legislation is aimed at protecting the economic stability and national security of the United States by establishing a broad-based agenda to reinvigorate America's aeronautics and aviation R&D enterprise and maintain America's competitive leadership in aviation. Congressman Larson and other members of Congress introduced companion legislation in the House several months ago. The United States has dominated the aircraft industry for years. In 1985, we dominated the aerospace market controlling more than 73 percent of the commercial aircraft industry. Unfortunately, since 1985, the U.S. has fallen behind considerably. Today, we control less than 50 percent of the global market. Over the last decade, funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's aeronautics research and development program has fallen by approximately 50 percent. Last year, the European Commission and aerospace industry executives unveiled a report entitled ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020'' which outlines ambitious goals of attaining global leadership in aeronautics and creating a world class air transport system for Europe. The U.S. aeronautics industry is being left behind at the gates, and is now in a position where it must catch up in an effort not to lose its economic and technological dominance over the international aeronautics market. Europe has committed to spending more than $93 billion within the next 20 years in order to implement ``A Vision for 2020''. The Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2002 will provide a funding basis for NASA to plan and implement their ``Aeronautics Blueprint-Toward a Bold New Era of Aviation''. The ``Aeronautics Blueprint'' confronts the challenges that are faced by the aviation industry and puts forth a vision of what can be achieved by investments in aeronautics research and technology, and stresses the importance of combining the efforts of NASA, DOD, DoT, the FAA, academia, and industry. It does not, however, provide a program plan to actually achieve the vision, nor does it address the huge disparity between current NASA aeronautics funding and what is required to achieve the vision. The bill that Senator Allen and I are introducing today provides the necessary program plan needed to achieve the nation's aeronautics vision as found in the ``Aeronautics Blueprint,'' and stresses the importance of having agencies like NASA and FAA work closely together in achieving these goals. The Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2002 would reverse the trend of declining Federal investments in aeronautics and aviation R&D by doubling the authorization of funding over five years. Funding for NASA would increase to $900 million in 2005, which is approximately the level it was in 1998, and would increase to $1.15 billion in 2007. The legislation would also double funding for the FAA to more than $550 million in 2007. This bill will have a direct impact on technologies that can be easily incorporated into the commercial airline industry. The bill focuses on improving fuel-efficiency for commercial standard airliners, as well as noise reduction, improved emissions, wake turbulence, more stringent safety and security standards, a more efficient air-traffic control system, and supersonic transport. Universities will also be given resources to develop training methods for people who will make use of these technologies. Individual engineering graduate students studying aeronautics will be eligible for scholarships and summer employment opportunities which will be made possible through specific funding in this legislation. These new technologies will help our Nation militarily, as well. Planes will be able to fly farther than before, communications networks will be improved, making it easier to coordinate military operations, and quieter engines will make planes less detectable to ground forces that do not have the benefit of radar. Even transport missions will be much more efficient. The events of September 11 not only highlighted the importance of aviation to our entire economy, but they also demonstrated the need to enhance our aviation security system. This bill should, we believe, be part of our government's commitment to investment in the economic growth, security and safety of America's aviation and aeronautics sector.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, first of all, let me say, I know under the existing order of the unanimous consent request agreed to yesterday between the leaders--let me make a parliamentary inquiry. As I understand it, there is a vote to occur at 10:15; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me say, first of all, for the benefit of my colleagues, I know our staffs, right now, are working to see if it is possible to come to some compromise on the amendment that I proposed along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. My hope is that we might be able to do that. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Campbell and their staffs and my staff. They began to work last evening, talking about this matter. There was some discussion about possibly delaying this vote, but the leadership wanted to go forward with a vote this morning, and so we are going to try to work this out, if we can. That would be my fervent goal and desire. Let me state, again, why they are talking and working here. It was not my hope or desire to have to get involved in all of this, but each of us represents our respective State. And my State has been undergoing some additional pressures. There are some nine applications pending for designation for recognition. I have been--and still am--a strong supporter of the Native American community. I have a strong relationship with the two tribes in my State that have added tremendously to the economic well-being of my home State of Connecticut. What provoked this response among the constituents in my State, and provoked the approach that Senator Lieberman and I are taking, is that over a year ago we submitted a piece of legislation calling for a moratorium, a delay on the designation process, so that we could bring some rationality to the recognition process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; it seemed to be out of control. In fact, the previous Assistant Secretary at the BIA, on his departure, cited the significant problems that existed within the Bureau of Indian Affairs in terms of its recognition process. What happened in my State most recently was that two tribes sought recognition, and the BIA rejected both tribes and came up with a third approval that had never been sought, despite the fact that the two tribes had been in opposition to each other during the recognition process. Needless to say, my constituents believed they did not have an opportunity to be heard and don't understand how it is that when a recognition is being sought, all of a sudden a third alternative emerges that was never on the table. There is a concern that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is sort of out of control; that if this is the way things are going to proceed, we need to put a hold on here to figure out how it will work so people have an opportunity to respond. There are 200 designation applications pending in 37 different States. What I am talking about in my State, which is smaller than Yellowstone National Park--I said to my colleague from Montana yesterday, I think there are ranches in Montana that are probably larger than the State of Connecticut. So you can imagine, with nine applications pending in a State that is 100 miles by 40 or 50 miles, with an impact on 3\1/2\ million people, this is not insignificant. I sat here and voted for drought relief legislation. I voted for assistance to farmers in the Midwest. When there are hurricanes and fires, even though my State is not affected, I stand up and support those efforts because I respect the needs of various States. My State is now facing some real problems on this issue. And I am not asking to stop a process. I am not anti-Native American at all. My record is replete with indications of how strongly I feel about Native Americans. But I have an obligation to stand and speak for my constituency. And they are feeling threatened when they are not allowed to be heard. When they cannot participate in a debate that is going to have a huge impact on their lives, it seems to me something needs to be done. If I wait much longer, then the issue is going to be over, because I would vehemently oppose--vehemently oppose--any effort to reverse a designation and a recognition. That, to me, would be outrageous and a dreadful precedent. But once that recognition occurs, it is unlikely to ever be rolled back. So what I am trying to do is not, in any way, to suggest that those who have been designated or recognized--that anything be done there at all but merely in the future, as we are talking about this, shouldn't the people of my communities be notified? My Governor, my attorney general, the mayors of my towns that are surrounding these areas, shouldn't they be notified? What about in the other 37 States where this is going to occur. It may be in Connecticut today, but it may be your State next. I think being heard on these matters, being invited to participate--there are seven criteria that are listed in the regulations, and in some cases various criteria are totally disregarded. In some instances, the technical staff have made one recommendation and have been overruled by the Assistant Secretary, totally disregarding all the efforts and work done by the people at the BIA. So I do not like doing this. This is not the way I normally proceed, but I am in a tough place. I have to stand and speak for my constituents. I am hopeful we can find some compromise in the next few minutes to avoid asking our colleagues to make choices on matters such as this. This is not how I like to proceed, but if I let this go and another year comes and goes; and these processes go forward under a system, as it did with the two applications I just described, you can imagine how my constituents and yours may react down the road. I also am concerned that this is going to devalue the recognition process. For those who get recognition, to suggest somehow the process was not as thorough and as fair as it should be does a disservice to those who deserve recognition. So this process needs fixing. If we do not do that, everybody gets hurt by it and we build up a level of hostility that is unnecessary. This is a moratorium. The moratorium could end next week. It need not be a moratorium indefinitely. It just says a moratorium until you make these fixes. No new law is being requested here--nothing. It just says comply with the existing regulations and make sure the people are notified and invited to participate in a debate that can have a profound effect on their lives and their families. That is not too much to ask. It does not give them a veto power. It does not make it an adversarial proceeding. It just says we ought to invite people to participate. That is the American way. That is the way we do things. So this amendment merely says to have a moratorium until these matters are put in place and worked out. I do not know how my colleagues may vote. I may lose today. But as I stand here, I promise you, if you are one of the 36 other States and this comes to your State, then you are going to be standing where I am, and you are going to be insisting upon the same sort of thing. We stand and vote to support each other's needs when they occur. I am asking my colleagues to support me in this particular case because my State is feeling it. And we are not anti-Native American at all. Quite to the contrary. We are deeply proud of the Mohegan and Pequot Tribes in my State. I strongly supported their recognition efforts. In fact, I have been highly criticized in books because I stood in support of them when they were under threat of not being recognized. So I will not take a back seat to anyone in my determination to fight for them. But I need to fight for my constituency as well when they feel as though they are not being served well by a process that is fundamentally broken. And when the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Indian Affairs says the system is broken, it is not working, then we ought to pay attention. And that is what this amendment is designed to do. My fervent hope would be, with the staff of the committee, in the remaining 15 minutes or so we have, we put on the table an offer that would make this moratorium only exist for 1 year, to clarify some language they were concerned about. We can offer that, accept it, and move on. We need not have this become a divisive debate. I know the chairman of the committee and the ranking member are here, and they want to be heard. I have spoken my piece. I hope we can work it out in the next 15 minutes or so and then put this issue behind us. But if we cannot, I am going to ask my colleagues to support my State. Look to your own States. If you are unclear, inquire, because the issue will come to your State, I promise you, sooner or later. And this vote will be looked back upon as to where you stood on this issue when you, all of a sudden, are confronted, as we were, with two groups seeking recognition and neither one was approved, and then there is a third one. That is how bad this system is right now. That is wrong. That is unfair. My people deserve better than that. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment if a compromise is not reached. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. DODD. On or in relation to the Dodd amendment?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, before the unanimous consent request, I thank the distinguished majority whip. I thank my colleague from Hawaii, my colleague from Colorado, and the Senator from Montana as well. I apologize to colleagues who were counting on a vote. I know the leadership wants to have a vote. This matter is very important. If we can resolve this by not having a divisive Senate on this issue, I think that exceeds the importance of whether we have a vote. We are going to try to work this out so we can deal with the underlying cause of the amendment. I thank the Senators for offering my colleague from Connecticut and I a chance to come to a solution. We will ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the Dodd-Lieberman amendment. Then this will pop back up again, I presume, Tuesday when we come back after Yom Kippur and deal with the matter. I am confident that at that time we will have resolved this problem and we can vote on a compromise. I apologize. We worked late last night. I thank the Senators and their staffs. Senator Reid was on the phone until after 11:30. Time didn't permit us to get it done. I don't want to see the Senate vote on a matter of this importance without trying to resolve the differences. We will vote on a judgeship, but we will, at some point, vote on this matter--a compromise or the Dodd-Lieberman amendment. I hope it will be a compromise that will be satisfactory to everybody. I thank the Senator from Nevada. He works hard to keep things on track. This is something which I think rises to the level of reaching a compromise on an important effort.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great friend and outstanding public servant, Alan Kranowitz, who passed away on June 3, 2002, following a long battle with cancer. Alan's loss continues to reverberate throughout the Washington D.C. area, a testament to the enormous impact he had and the plethora of lasting friendships he made during his 25 years of service as a top advisor to Congressmen and Presidents. Alan was born and raised in New Britain, CT, and educated at Yale. He first came to Washington in 1965 to serve as executive assistant, and later as chief of staff to my father, Senator Thomas Dodd. By the time Alan left my father's office in 1971, he was one of my father's most valued and trusted aides. But Alan did not only add knowledge and outstanding political instincts to my father's office. Alan's wit, good nature, and personal appeal made him beloved beyond measure by everyone who was fortunate enough to have known him, or to have worked with him, in my father's Senate office, and beyond. After 1971, Alan moved easily between top congressional staff positions and key policy positions in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Starting off as Senate liaison for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Nixon, Alan soon became the chief lobbyist for the Office of Management and Budget in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. In the mid-1980s, Alan joined the Reagan White House as a chief legislative advisor and liaison, where his encyclopedic knowledge of policy and his personal ability to bridge differences between Democrats and Republicans made him a key player in shaping the legislative agenda of President Reagan's second term. Ken Duberstein, President Reagan's Chief of Staff, told The Washington Post and The New York Times that Alan was an invaluable part of Reagan's legislative team; that the White House ``relied heavily on [Alan] in determining what was possible and doable'' because Alan always offered ``absolutely unbiased, straightforward advice.'' Aside from working in the White House, in the 1980s, Alan also served as chief of staff to former Representative Tom Loeffler of Texas, and as a senior advisor to House Republican leader Bob Michel. In 1989, Ronald Reagan appointed Alan as an original council member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. For the past 12 years, Alan served as a senior vice president of the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors. I believe that Alan is best remembered in Washington as someone who brought integrity wherever he went, and excelled at whatever he did. In a town where one's political and institutional affiliations often define their career options, Alan moved easily from the Senate to the House, from Congress to the White House, and from Democratic to Republican positions. That's because it was Alan the man, not Alan the Democrat, or Alan the Republican, who lit up a room, who brought charm and grace along with him wherever he went, and who touched the hearts of everyone with whom he came in contact. Alan's was a life cut short, and he will be sorely missed. To Carol, his wife of 35 years, and to his sons, Jeremy and David, and everyone else in Alan's family, I offer my most heartfelt condolences for your loss. But I came to the floor of the Senate today not simply to mourn a loss, I came to the floor to celebrate a life. The life of Alan Kranowitz was truly a life well-lived. He touched so many and every one of us he touched is a better person because of it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to share a few thoughts on the eve of tomorrow's anniversary of the terrorist attack, September 11, 2001. Tomorrow, a lot of our colleagues, both in this Chamber and the other body, will be expressing themselves, with many Members attending memorial services at the Pentagon. The Senate, as a body, plans to come together late tomorrow morning to meet as a body and to share our thoughts with the country about the events of a year ago. I take this opportunity to remember and to honor the nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens and others who had come to this country to work--not all were Americans; the majority were--but lost their lives 1 year ago tomorrow in one of America's darkest of days. I also join all of America in paying tribute once again to the countless men and women whose acts of bravery and heroism so inspired us on that day and the days that followed the tragedy of September 11, and continue to serve as a solemn reminder that the American spirit shines as bright as ever despite the events of that day, that horrible day a year ago. Thousands of families across this great country of ours, including families in my home State of Connecticut--families in my State lost some 149 people, most of whom lost their lives in the World Trade Center--these families and their loved ones have endured a year of unimaginable grief and unimaginable bravery. Every American grieves with them as many of our fellow citizens the world over from around the globe have shared with us the sense of grief and horror of a year ago and have continued to relate to us and to share their thoughts and prayers with all Americans as a result of our commemoration of the events of 12 months ago. Over the past 12 months, I have heard countless stories, tragedies that were once unthinkable. In Connecticut, I know of a man who lost both his wife and his only child on that day a year ago; of parents who lost their young children in their twenties, just beginning their lives as young adults, with professional careers; of wives who had received the last phone calls from their husbands before the Twin Towers fell. Every American will always remember where they were when the Twin Towers were attacked and collapsed. Every American will always remember where they were when they heard a hijacked plane had crashed into the Pentagon, only a few blocks from where I am sharing these thoughts this afternoon. Every American will always remember how they felt upon learning that a group of passengers fought back against the terrorists who hijacked their plane before it crashed in the field of Pennsylvania. September 11, 2001, is a day that will be etched in all of our memories for the rest of our lives and etched in history forever. Although all Americans went through that day together, we will always share its memory. Last September 11 was also a deeply personal day for each and every one of us. We each had our own highly personal experiences during those horrid hours that began in the early morning-- that wonderful clear, bright, cloudless sky over the eastern part of our country. For me, the hours and days and weeks following the terrorist attacks were filled with immensely mixed emotions, as most of my colleagues know. I see my friend and colleague from Texas on the floor. We shared the great joy last year of having children come into our lives. My first child, my daughter Grace, was born just 48 hours after the attacks, born on September 13, at a hospital right across the river in Virginia. From the window of the maternity ward, my wife Jackie and I watched the smoke rising from the still-burning Pentagon as we held our newborn child in our hands. I can still vividly recall trying to balance my feelings of incredible, intense joy with this new beautiful life, mixed with the powerful feelings of horror and trepidation over what kind of a world my daughter Grace would grow up in, in the 21st century. Something heartened me that day. I have told this story on numerous occasions. In the hospital as my wife held our newborn daughter, many of the doctors and nurses, several of them who held her shortly after she was born, came from places outside of America to become citizens. Three of them came from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Lebanon. Here we are, 48 hours after the events, those countries had been the places of refuge for those engaged in the attacks on our country, and here were people from that very part of the world, United States citizens today, nurturing and caring for my newborn daughter. That was all the evidence I needed at that particular moment that America was attacked not for who we are, but for what we stand for: Freedom, liberty, and community. And we shared something very powerful in common: We were devastated over the attacks, and we were never prouder to be Americans, almost simultaneously. Word was already out that the terrorist attacks were the work of al- Qaeda, a fanatical group which hijacked planes, but also an otherwise peaceful religion, Islam, to perform their evil deeds. Word was out that Osama bin Laden and his minions of hate thought that by attacking us, our buildings, our Pentagon, and our planes, they could somehow divide our great Nation and somehow weaken our resolve to be a global power, to be a force for freedom and democracy around the globe. Word was out that those who hate the United States simply for who we are, for our freedoms, our prosperity, and our diversity, thought that by murdering thousands of innocent Americans and shattering the lives of thousands of families, our Nation would somehow lose its ability to function as a great democracy. They were wrong. We are today stronger, I argue, than ever. September 11 changed America forever. At one level, the attacks made us aware of our vulnerabilities and forced us to realize there is no such thing as the unthinkable. Yet at another level, the way in which the entire Nation came together, in the days and weeks and months after the attacks, has served as a profound and inspirational reminder to strengthen the American people and the breadth and depth of the American spirit. So as we mark this historic day, a day of sadness, we look back and remember September 11, not just for the tragedy it evokes but also in renewing our faith in the greatness of the wonderfulness of our Nation, in which we are charged temporarily to be custodians, as Members of this body, to see that that daughter of mine and the children of our colleague from Texas grow up in a world far safer than what we witnessed a year ago. That becomes our collective responsibility as public officials: To put aside differences and, wherever we can, to work together as one people to make our country stronger and better, to achieve that sense of perfection that the Founders of our Nation envisioned more than 200 years ago. With those thoughts in mind, I extend my deepest sympathies, my thoughts, and prayers to the families in my State and across our Nation who still grieve terribly for the loss they suffered a year ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me emphasize, I am offering this amendment now with the full understanding that my dear friend and colleague from Hawaii, the chairman of the committee, is reviewing this amendment to see whether it might be accepted. If it is, obviously we will deal with it in a different manner. Since we have some time and we are about to leave the Interior bill to go back to homeland security, it may be another day or two before we get back to the Interior appropriations bill. So I thought I would take advantage of this pause in the consideration of the Craig amendment to lay out what this amendment is, why I am offering it, and why it is so terribly important that we adopt it, or something like it, if we can. It is with some reluctance that I offer this amendment to address the process for recognizing Indian tribes in this country. I would have preferred to have the matter addressed at a different time and under different circumstance, but I raise it now because the matter has considerable urgency and importance in my State and other States. Currently, there are 200 petitions pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs by groups throughout our country seeking Federal recognition as Indian tribes. Nine of the petitions are in my State of Connecticut, a State 110 miles by 630 miles square. There are in addition to the two tribes that have been recognized in our State, with which I have a very close and warm relationship, the Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe, both of which have played a significant role in our State and with our citizens and have contributed to the well-being of our State. The two tribes have generated thousands of jobs in Connecticut and have provided much revenue for the State. I offer this amendment which in no way deals at all with tribes that have been recognized. I strongly support them and have been deeply involved in both the Mohegan and Pequot issues, sometimes going back to my days when I served in the other body, when the Tribes were first considered for recognition. We went through an extensive process. My concern has to do with the fact that the recognition process, by the admission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has broken down entirely. I will quote the former head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs: I am troubled by the money backing certain petitions and I do think it is time that Congress should consider an alternative to the [existing] process. [Otherwise,] we're more likely to recognize someone that might not deserve it. That was the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. We are reviewing petitions that are almost hard to imagine. We just had a situation in our State where two tribes opposing each other sought recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs did not approve either application but rather came up with a third choice--no one asked for it--and recognized the third choice. If that is not a system that is broken down, I don't know what is. All we are asking in this amendment is that communities, leaders, Governors, and the various States where the petitions are pending be notified of the petitions; that other tribes be notified as well as the petitions; that there be improved notice of petition to key persons who may have an interest in the petition, including the Governor and the attorney general of the State where a tribe seeks recognition; consideration of all relevant evidence submitted by a petitioner and other interested parties, including municipalities; require that a petitioner meet each and every one of the seven criteria for Federal recognition spelled out by the current Code of Federal Regulations; and require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal registry that includes express written findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria. We had a case not long ago where the criteria of showing a continuity of relationship had been broken by more than 70 years. The Assistant Secretary, despite the findings of the technical staff that said this gap would be enough to deny recognition, overruled the technical staff and approved it anyway. So what we are doing is not writing new criteria. These criteria are part of the Federal Registry. We want to codify them to say if these criteria are important, they ought to be adhered to. If you go through the recognition process, you must meet the criteria, as well as inform affected communities. Many States in the country have petitions pending. There are 200 pending. My State has nine. That is why there is a sense of urgency. Other States have petitions pending, as well. This is not about denying petitions. I happen to believe if criteria are met, these tribes ought to be recognized. In fact, I suggest the present process, as flawed and as broken as it is, devalues federal recognition so those that have been recognized, under stiff criteria, those who have gone through the process that took years in some cases, will see their recognition undermined in some sense if the future recognitions are granted where the criteria have not been met. That is what we are trying to avoid. This amendment imposes a moratorium on any new recognitions until the Bureau of Indian Affairs applies these criteria. They can do it quickly and move forward, or they can delay it. And in that case, we hold up here. We have also in this amendment provided some $1.9 million if funds are made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are some wonderful people working in this agency. But they do not have the resources needed when you have 200 applications pending, a relatively small staff, and if you are trying to do the historical research, the checking, all of the investigation that needs to be done, considering all the information that comes to you, you have to have the people who can help you do that. I don't require this spending because that might subject the amendment to a point of order, but I merely point out that these funds, if available, should be made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to allow them to do the job they would like to do. Again, I don't write anything new in terms of new criteria, new law, new hurdles. We take the existing criteria, we do say you must notify people and affected communities where this is going on so they can be heard and people have an opportunity to discuss what will happen if recognition is approved and we end up with a sense of community. I wish every single community could go through what we went through with the Mohegan Tribe in Connecticut when that Tribe was seeking recognition. The relationship with the surrounding communities that developed was not done under law. It was done because the leadership of the tribe and the leadership of the communities worked so closely together. As a result of that, today we have a wonderful relationship between a Native American tribe and the communities in which they reside. Recently, I participated in the opening of a new hotel at the Mohegan facility, and had dinner with the tribal council. The tribal council invited leaders throughout the State. Everyone was there to celebrate the remarkable event, this wonderful relationships that have emerged, and the contribution this tribe has made. With the Pequot Tribe, we have had a more difficult relationship with some of the communities, but they are working at it. There are still issues to be resolved and they are struggling to sort them out. We need to bring some sanity and some sensibility to a recognition process that is just not working. I wish there was some other way to deal with this. I don't ever want to support legislation to undo recognition where recognition has been granted. We are not talking about anything that would undermine the recognition of existing tribes in the country. It merely says for those petitions that are pending, the criteria should be met; that notice should be given; that opportunity to be heard should be made. We do not think that is a tremendous amount to be asking. We are looking at, in some cases, tremendous additional burdens on surrounding communities, on transportation, housing, and the like. We need to take that into consideration with Federal recognition as part of the process.

Mr. DODD. I see my wonderful friend, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. He and I have talked about this on numerous occasions, and he is aware of what I am doing with this amendment I drafted many months ago. I have gone through it and have had numerous conversations with Native American tribes about this amendment, as to what I wanted to do and why I thought it was important. I am very grateful for the responses I have had, the understanding here that this in no way derecognizes--in fact I would vehemently oppose any effort to derecognize any tribe in this country that has received Federal recognition. The point I am trying to make here is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs needs resources and it needs to follow a process so there is clarity; so everybody understands what happens and how it happens; so there is the information the people need; so there is an opportunity to respond; so the criteria will be met. You have great technical staff, great professional staff at the BIA. It is disheartening for them to go through a process and make recommendations and have an Assistant Secretary veto their hard work, and that has happened in too many instances. We have 200 applications pending--in my State nine of them--and a number of them are going to be decided in the next 7 or 8 months. If I could wait for the next Congress, wait for an authorization bill to come up, I would rather go that way. But next year the amendment I am offering would do little or nothing if recognition is granted in places it is not deserved. What heightens this more than anything else are some of the most recent applications. I know my friend from Colorado is aware of this, but we actually had two tribes seeking recognition. They opposed each other's recognition. The Bureau of Indian Affairs essentially rejected both applications and approved a third application that was never filed. You can understand the utter amazement of my constituents under those circumstances. That is like two people applying for a Federal grant, both being rejected, and a grant being awarded to an agency that never sought it. My colleagues who think the system is not broken: Look at that example. While your State may not be affected today, it could be, so we need to bring some order to this, provide the resources, make sure the criteria are met, and then we ought to accept and endorse and applaud when recognition occurs and not to undermine the recognition process when problems such as this arise. Again, I will take some additional time if necessary. I am hopeful my colleagues can just accept this amendment. I am not interested in going through a unnecessary process here, a lengthy process of debate on this. I would like to see if we could agree. I am not adding anything new. I am just taking the criteria and codifying them, and setting a moratorium. The moratorium could last a month or less if the criteria would be applied, so it need not delay things inordinately. I have tried every which way; I know of no other way we can get BIA's attention. We cannot get a bill up. We can't get things done, and the process goes on, and if a recognition comes through--I don't want to undo a recognition when it occurs. That would be outrageous. That would put in jeopardy every single recognized tribe, which would have to fear an act of Congress might somehow derecognize them. That is not the way to go. But if we don't bring in some sanity and we end up with circumstances such as those that happened in my State, I can see somebody passing legislation that might just do that, and it would not be because they are evil or bad but it would be because they see a system that is flawed and is providing recognition where it is not deserved, or worse, denying recognition where it was deserved because other financial interests objected to them reaching that status. So both the petitioner that deserves recognition and the neighbors of petitioners that do not are in jeopardy as a result of the present process. It's unfair and wrong. I am hopeful we can, as I say, adopt this and then convince the administration, convince the BIA to improve the process and go this route and straighten this out before we end up with a firestorm across the country that I think could do great damage to our Nation and to those that deserve recognition that might otherwise be adversely affected by it. I have not gone into the whole casino deal because I don't think that is the issue. If a tribe in my State deserves recognition and they go through the process, my State allows for Native American tribes to operate casinos. If a tribe deserves recognition and they open up a casino, if they deserve the recognition, then they deserve to go ahead with that. I may not be enthusiastic about it, but I don't believe we ought to be opposing recognition because Native American tribes all of a sudden have discovered a way to accrue some wealth. So my objection to this process is not grounded in the casino debate. I understand it. I am sympathetic in some ways. Mine is a small State, smaller than Yellowstone National Park. It is smaller than some counties in California or Montana, geographically. When you end up with two of the largest casinos in the world and the possibility of nine more in a little State, you can understand some frustration being felt. But my argument is not grounded on that point. If recognition is deserved, it ought to be granted. My concern is that the recognition process is so broken and so flawed that even the Assistant Secretary has described it as such. It is incumbent upon us, it seems to me, to try to do what we can to straighten this out. So this amendment is designed to impose a moratorium, take existing law, existing regulations, codify them so there is clarity in the process, there is a clear roadmap, so those petitioners seeking recognition and those opposing it for whatever reason can have a higher degree of expectation of what is expected of them and what the hurdles are that have to be met before recognition is granted or denied. With that, I have taken more time than I said I probably would. I am grateful to Senator Craig and Senator Domenici for laying aside their amendment so I could lay this down for the purpose of letting my colleagues know my interests. Hopefully we can find some common ground. My colleague from Colorado has an alternative idea. My concern is, if we don't get that done in the meantime, the recognition goes forward and obviously he is not going to offer a bill that is going to undo anything that has occurred already. For those of us who sense urgency on this issue, I am looking for some temporary filler here until we get to a more elaborate, more established process. My concern is by the time we get that done, the horses may be out of my barn, in a sense, and there will be nothing more than a historical tragedy in a way where I have nothing more to say to my colleagues except we missed an opportunity. It seems to me, if I do not try to do something here, then we are subject to the criticism that we knew a system was broken and we didn't make an effort to try to do something about it. With that, let me sit down, yield the floor, and listen to the good words of my friend.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. I say to my friend, Senator Craig, who is in the Chamber, in conversations with the distinguished majority whip a moment ago the suggestion was that we might temporarily lay aside the Craig amendment so I could offer an amendment. I am not going to take a lot of time on this, I would say to the ranking member on this bill. I will lay down this amendment and explain briefly what I would like to do. Since this involves the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, the chairman of the committee, is looking at the amendment, but I want to at least discuss this by taking a few minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Idaho be temporarily laid aside for the purposes of offering an amendment I would propose, with the full understanding that, obviously, the amendment by Senator Craig would preempt any consideration of my amendment, at least under the present circumstances.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I have, going back a number of months now, specifically transmitted this language, or language like it anyway, to one of the national tribal councils to get their input. I don't want to bring anything to the floor that in any way they would feel hostile about or toward.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the comments of my friend and colleague from South Carolina. Once again he makes a great deal of sense. I look forward to being supportive of his effort. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, is doing a remarkably fine job managing a very complicated piece of legislation. He deserves great deal of credit for taking on that responsibility. I have not had a chance to speak on the bill as of yet, but I don't want to miss the opportunity of congratulating him and thanking him, and all of our colleagues, for the work he has done and to thank Senator Hollings for his tireless efforts on related matters.