Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 2:00 p.m. in Executive Session to consider the nomination of Major General Robert T. Clark, USA for appointment to the grade of Lieutenant General and to be Commanding General, Fifth United States Army.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada raises an excellent point. I want to assure him and my colleagues that I strongly support the provisions of the Berry amendment and I am not interested in supporting any legislative action that would harm our nation's specialty metal industry or its employees. The exemption of the Berry amendment for the Multi-Year Aircraft Leasing Program was a unique situation and I do not believe the multi-year leasing program should be the basis for any modification of the important aircraft-by-aircraft content requirements inherent in the Berry amendment. I hope this fully addresses the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond to my good friend from Nevada, he is correct that this report language does state that Section 308 from the FY 2020 Supplemental Appropriations bill only applies to this specific Multi-year Aircraft Leasing Program and no other procurement or leasing program.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from West Virginia is correct.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct that it is our strong intention that the TLDD initiative be expanded and deployment accelerated by use of the $21.5 million of JCALS Army RDTE funds provided in the FY 2003 Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my cochairman Senator Stevens to present our recommendations to the Senate on the conference report for H.R. 5010, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003. The conference agreement represents a compromise reached after a month-long series of discussions by the managers. Our recommendations bring the total in the bill to $355.1 billion, $298 million below the Senate passed bill and $395 million above the House level. This conference agreement represents a good faith effort to balance the priorities of the House and Senate in meeting our National Security requirements. I am confident it achieves that objective. Our time is brief today, so I will not detail all of the items in this measure. But I want to make three points. First, this bill is likely to be one of the two appropriations bills to be completed before the election. As such, there were many items that members sought to have included in this conference report. I am happy to report to the Senate that no extraneous matters were included by the conferees. This is a very clean bill. Second, last week the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. It is imperative we pass this bill before we recess to ensure our forces have the support they require to carry out whatever missions our Nation asks them. Third, I commend my co chairman, Senator Stevens, for his work on this bill. He was instrumental in defending many of the priorities of the Senate, including our efforts to support strong financial management in DoD: Fully funding the C-17 program and paying off our unfunded liability on shipbuilding programs. As always, my friend was assisted in this by his very capable staff led by Steve Cortese, and including Sid Ashworth, Kraig Siracuse, Jennifer Chartrand, Alicia Farrell, and Nicole Royal. I also want to note the fine work of my staff: Charlie Houy, David Morrison, Susan Hogan, Mazie Mattson, Tom Hawkins, Bob Henke, Leslie Kalan, Menda Fife, and Betsy Schmid. Mr. President, finally I commend the House for their courtesy and cooperation. Chairman Lewis and Representative Murtha could not have been more gracious. While there were many issues upon which we differed, we were able to resolve those in a friendly and constructive fashion. I note as well the great work of their fine staff led by Kevin Roper and Greg Dahlberg, and including: Betsy Phillips, Doug Gregory, Alicia Jones, Greg Walters, Paul Juola, Steve Nixon, David Norquist, Greg Lankler, Clelia Alvarado, Paul Terry, Sarah Young, Sherry Young, Chris Mallard, David Killian and Bill Gnacek. Mr. President this is a good bill, it is exactly what our armed forces need, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Hearing on S. 2986, a bill to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for 25 years in the Air Force Nurse Corps: Col. Patricia E. Boyle. Colonel Boyle began her career as an intern and then staff nurse at Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, TX. She quickly rose through the ranks and served at Air Force bases throughout the country, including Peterson Air Force Base, AFB CO, Vandenburg AFB, CA, Wright- Patterson AFB, OH, and Robins AFB, GA. In each assignment, she excelled and overcame every challenge, and was rewarded with greater responsibilities and opportunities. Colonel Boyle has been recognized throughout her career as a leader who could motivate others to give the best they had to offer. Her talent for teaching and mentoring personnel, as well as her creativity and skill in management were instrumental in many of the successes the Air Force Medical Service enjoys today. Above all, she is a compassionate nurse who always put the welfare of her patients first. Colonel Boyle served with distinction as a fellow on my staff from 1999 to 2000, and in this capacity greatly strengthened the acclaimed Department of Defense Tri-Service Nursing Research Program, among other highly valuable efforts. In her follow-on assignment as director of Congressional and Public Affairs in the Office of the Air Force Surgeon General, she worked tirelessly behind the scenes in the department of Defense to make TRICARE for Life a reality for senior military retirees. The Surgeon General and his staff depended daily on her astute judgment and seasoned advice to meet the increasingly difficult challenges faced by our military departments today as they provide exemplary health care around the world in the 21st century. Colonel Boyle has made a substantial difference in the lives of our young troops and their families everywhere, and has improved the lot of our retired military patriots who have sacrificed so much. She always went the extra mile to serve her country and her fellow man. Her performance reflects greatly on herself, the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation on behalf of a grateful Nation for her dedicated service. Congratulations, Col. Patricia Boyle. I wish you Godspeed.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Hearing on S. 2694, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2002. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I wish to take a moment to express my appreciation and admiration for my good friend from North Carolina, Senator Jesse Helms. I have had the privilege of working with Senator Helms for the past 30 years. Although he and I do not share the same ideologies, Senator Helms has always kept his word to me. In this day and age, ``trustworthiness'' is a trait that is becoming increasingly rare, particularly in the political arena. Yet Senator Helms has remained true to himself and his upbringing. Senator Helms is trustworthy. Senator Helms is a true statesman and gentleman, courteous, courageous, and compassionate. He is a man who understands what it means to do one's duty to God, country, and family. He emulates the idea upon which America was founded, the idea that each individual controls his or her destiny and has a right to pursue and achieve their dreams, and that great societies are built by people who are inspired and motivated to reach high and work hard. Senator Helms has, on many occasions, inspired and motivated me. He has set an example for me and my colleagues. His life is a model of one who honors and defends the Constitution, works to make our country a better place, and conducts himself with dignity and respect for others. I thank my dear friend for the many courtesies he has extended to me throughout the years. I will miss his kindness and friendship. To Senator Helms and his wife, Dot, I wish them many years of happiness and continued good health in the bright years ahead.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider the following: S. 2743, a bill to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 2799, a bill to provide for the use and distribution of certain funds awarded to the Gila River, Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and for other purposes; S. 2989, A bill to protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from condemnation until a final decision is made by the Secretary of the Interior regarding a pending fee to trust application for that land; S. Res. 321, A resolution commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the Founding of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, AIHEC; Nomination of Phil Hogen to serve as Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission; and Nomination of Quannah Crossland Stamps to serve as Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on Saturday, September 28, 2002, Hawaii lost a beloved and extraordinary daughter, Patsy Takemoto Mink, who represented Hawaii in the U.S. House of Representatives for 24 years. I extend to her husband, John, and daughter, Wendy, my sincerest condolences. The passing of Congresswoman Mink is a great loss for our Nation and our State, and it is a personal loss for me. She was an honorable colleague and a dear friend throughout our political careers. I was privileged to work with Patsy in 1956, when we were both members of the Hawaii Territorial House of Representatives. She was the first Asian-American woman elected to the Hawaii Legislature. In the 1960s, we both gave speeches at Democratic National Conventions. She was Chairwoman of the Honolulu City Council. In 1964, she joined me as a member of Hawaii's Congressional Delegation when she became the first Asian-American woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. For 24 years, she was an integral part of the Hawaii Delegation. I appreciated her honesty, I respected her thoughts, and I admired her resolve. Throughout her public service, Patsy concerned herself with making our country a better place for all people. She will be remembered for her powerful and passionate voice as she championed causes for women, children, the elderly, and the needy. For those who were vulnerable or mistreated, she was their able and loyal defender. Born Patsy Takemoto in a plantation community in Paia, Maui, on December 6, 1927, Patsy had the intelligence and work ethic to succeed in any profession. However, medical school eluded her and the legal community did not embrace her after she received her law degree from the University of Chicago in 1951. The reason she was rejected by medical schools and legal circles? Her race and her gender. Rather than accept defeat, the strong-willed Patsy set out to eliminate the societal barriers of the day, and ran for office in the U.S. House of Representatives, which at that time was comprised of mostly white and mostly males members. She won the election and went on to pave the way for new generations of women to more fully enjoy their rights as citizens of a great nation. Patsy co-authored and spearheaded the difficult passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination in educational opportunities based on gender at institutions receiving federal funds. It opened academic opportunities for women, and revolutionized the world of sports. Since the passage of this landmark legislation, participation by girls in high school athletics nationwide has increased nearly tenfold, and college participation has grown almost five times. College scholarships awarded to women in 2002 were worth $180 million. Title IX serves as the foundation of the careers of today's top professional U.S. female athletes. The U.S. women soccer team's 1999 World Cup triumph, U.S. women's domination of Olympic sports, and the birth of the women's professional National Basketball Association are rooted in Title IX. To fully appreciate the significance of Title IX, compare women's sports in 1972 to today as reported by the Honolulu Advertiser. In 1972, the only woman with an athletic scholarship at the University of Hawaii was a drum majorette. Of UH's $1 million athletic budget, $5,000 was given to women's club sports. Today, UH spends $4 million annually on 11 women's teams. Patsy's reputation as a relentless and formidable lawmaker extends beyond the passage of Title IX. She advocated for civil rights, peace, education, health care, and the environment with equal eloquence and effectiveness. I last spoke with my friend, Patsy, in August at a fund-raising event in Hawaii. She mingled and talked with constituents with her trademark vim and vigor. Her deep love for her constituents and her nation was evident. She was focused on the future and continuing her service to the people of Hawaii. Patsy answered the call to public service to the end, and her work immeasurably improved America's landscape for the under-represented and down-trodden for whom she had so much compassion. As my colleagues and I continue our work, we will long be able to look to Mrs. Patsy Mink's life of service for inspiration and hope.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Strom Thurmond will go down in the history of our Nation as an extraordinary citizen and an extraordinary patriot. Few people can match his record of achievements: He was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army Reserve nearly 80 years ago. In 1959, he retired as a major general after serving 36 years in reserve and active duty. On D-day, June 6, 1944, Lieutenant Colonel Thurmond boarded an Army CG4A glider and flew behind enemy lines into Normandy. He served as Governor of South Carolina. Later, he was a candidate for President of the United States, receiving the third-largest independent electoral vote in U.S. History. In 1954, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate. Today, he is the oldest and longest serving Member of the Senate. I have been privileged to know and work with Senator Thurmond for nearly 40 years. I wish to thank him for his wealth of wisdom. I will always cherish his friendship. But Senator Thurmond is not only my colleague and friend, he is also my brother-in-arms. During World War II, anti-tank gunners from my regiment, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, assaulted southern France in 1944. Like Senator Thurmond, they went into battle aboard gliders without armor. Glider-borne assaults were extremely dangerous and risky; some would even say they were suicidal missions. However, they were a necessary component of the United States' invasion and liberation of Nazi-occupied France. Senator Thurmond demonstrated rare courage, patriotism, and leadership as gliderman of the 82nd Airborne Division. Most glider descents were ``controlled crashes,'' and that was the case when Senator Thurmond's glider landed in Normandy. Although he was injured, he managed to safely lead his men to the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters at daybreak. The 82nd went on to accomplish its difficult objective of seizing and securing key positions in enemy territory. I am pleased to report that Senator Thurmond's distinguished military service will be honored with the naming of a new section of the Airborne and Special Operations Museum in Fayetteville, NC. The Thurmond Wing will house an exhibit dedicated to the courageous combat gliderman of World War II. As a Senator, Strom Thurmond has often taken positions that were not universally supported. Yet one could always be certain that his decisions were honest. He is passionate in his beliefs, and his commitment to serving his constituents has been exemplary. At the end of our service in the Congress, we, his fellow Senate Members, can only hope that we will be able to say we have served our people with the diligence and devotion that Senator Thurmond has served his people. Indeed, Senator Thurmond can leave this Chamber and say, with confidence and without hesitation, that he has faithfully served the people of South Carolina.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, there are those who plan war, and there are those who engage in war. As we have always said in the subcommittee and in the Appropriations Committee, in order to avoid war, we should be prepared for war. We voted for a bill to spend over $356 billion. Does that suggest we are not concerned about the security of our people? And when we passed it unanimously--bipartisan, united--does that suggest we are not concerned about the security of this country? I am concerned about the security of this country. I am concerned about what history will say about this Nation 50 years from now. Did we brutalize people or did we carry on ourselves as a civilized people? As my leader from West Virginia stated, to attack a nation that has not attacked us will go down in history as something of which we should not be proud. Mr. President, I can assure you that this Democratically controlled Senate, and especially the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, will support the President of the United States because that man is my President also. Certainly, I did not vote for him, but he is my President, and it grieves me when my President makes statements that divide this Nation. I can assure you this is not a time for Democrats and Republicans to say I have more medals than you, and I have lost more limbs than you, and we have shed more blood than you. This is not the time for that. This is a time in which we should be working together, debating this issue. As the Senator from West Virginia said, it is American to question the President. It is American to debate the issues. I stand before you as a proud member of the Democratically controlled Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the gentleman who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the President of the United States of America, and although the Constitution does not specifically state it, his most important chore is to keep our people united, to keep our Nation united. Accordingly, this morning I am saddened by the reports of my leader, the majority leader, and my leader, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, because it appears that our administration and our President are making statements that only serve to divide our people. I have been honored to serve as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Four weeks ago, this subcommittee reported a bill unanimously. It is a Democratically controlled subcommittee, but it reported a measure unanimously. It went to the full committee, chaired by the Senator from West Virginia, and the committee reported that measure unanimously. It was reported to this floor, and by an almost unanimous vote--three Members had questions--it passed the Senate. That was 4 weeks ago. That was carried out by a Democratically controlled Senate. There are a few footnotes in history that I think we should recall. I listened to all the talk shows on Sunday. I am a good listener. I very seldom speak on the floor. One statement was made that some of us in the early 1990s questioned the war in the Persian Gulf. I was one of those. This spokesperson said: They questioned the war because they said a lot of body bags would be returning, and just a few returned. But we should recall that the war ended at the border of Iraq. If we had gone into Baghdad, we would have had many body bags, unless the United States had decided to do the most inhuman thing and wipe out Baghdad--men, women, and children. Some have now suggested: The war in Afghanistan has resulted in 100 casualties. That is not a war. There is another footnote in history that we should recall. In that ancient war we engaged in 60 years ago, World War II, in the U.S. Army, 95 percent of the men in uniform had no spouses; there were no children. Five percent had spouses and children. In my regiment, 4 percent had spouses and children; 96 percent were young men, 18, 19, 20. We were ready. We had no strings attached. Today, in the U.S. Army, over 77 percent of our men and women have spouses; they have children. We should be concerned about their sensitivities. It is not easy going into combat. No one enters battle planning to become a hero. You just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you stepped one foot to the right, the bullet would have missed you.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, first, may I say I am most grateful to my colleague from Connecticut for his gracious remarks. He knows very well it is a very difficult chore to be speaking against his amendment. When one thinks of the friendship that started since the time of his father, this is not easy, but I believe most respectfully that the amendment my colleague from Connecticut presents is not proper. He says he is for reform. We are all for reform. As my colleague from Connecticut pointed out, there are tribes that have been waiting not a year, not 5 years, but decades to even be recognized for consideration by the administration. This will further prolong it. Those of us who serve on the Indian Affairs Committee have had reason to pay special attention to the State of Connecticut for quite a few years now--in no small part because of the tensions that we read about in the media reports that appear to be arising out of the fact that the two Federally-recognized tribes in southeastern Connecticut--the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe--are conducting gaming activities on their lands under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act--as is their right to do under that Federal law. Because we have been monitoring the public dialogue in the State of Connecticut rather closely, and because the hearing the Committee on Indian Affairs held last week on Senator Dodd's authorization bill, from which the elements of his amendment to the Interior appropriations bill are drawn, I would like to take a few moments to acquaint my colleagues with the dynamics that are at play in the State of Connecticut as I understand them. Pursuant to the compacts each of those two tribes entered into with the State of Connecticut, in exchange for the exclusive authorization to operate certain forms of class III gaming, as defined in the Federal law, the two tribes have been making payments to the State of Connecticut from the revenues derived from the operation of slot machines. Those funds are intended, as I understand it, to defray the costs of any impacts that the tribes' conduct of gaming activities may have on the surrounding towns and communities. Unfortunately, despite the fact that together, over the past nine years, the two tribes have thus far paid the State of Connecticut $2.2 billion, the towns most directly affected by an increase in traffic and business, have not received funding from the State of Connecticut that they feel is adequate to address their needs. This is what one of the councilmen from one of the towns nearest the Mashantucket Pequot indicated in his testimony before the Committee on Indian Affairs last week. I have no doubt that his perceptions are sincerely-held, nor that they are shared by others in his town. It is not my place to question the decisions of the State of Connecticut in allocating the funds the State has received from the tribes, but it seems to me that we might well not be here today, were those towns in close proximity to the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun gaming facilities and hotels not experiencing impacts that were intended to be addressed by the substantial payments--and I think $2.2 billion is substantial by any measure--that both tribes have made to the State of Connecticut thus far. I raise these issues that are seemingly unrelated to the matter we address today, because the local Connecticut town officials have repeatedly suggested that there is a direct relationship between the process by which the United States Government recognizes the inherent sovereignty of tribal groups and the impacts of gaming activities from which they seek financial relief from the Federal Government. I have no doubt that the citizens of Connecticut would acknowledge that there are Indian tribes and Native people who are also citizens of Connecticut, because as early as the 1600's, long before this nation was formed, Connecticut established five reservations to serve as homelands for the Indian people of Connecticut. Thus, for over 400 years, Connecticut has, by its own action, recognized that there are Indian tribes who have historically and traditionally, made their homes in Connecticut--and indeed, that Indian tribes occupied the area that is now the State of Connecticut, long before Connecticut established Indian reservation. So the arguments that give rise to my friend's amendment cannot be that the State of Connecticut does not recognize the Indian tribes of Connecticut. No, the argument advanced by the non-Indian citizens of Connecticut and some officials of the State of Connecticut seems to be that the United States should not recognize the Indian tribes that have historically occupied the area that is now the State of Connecticut. And so, unusual activities are being initiated by State and local officials, to prevent the United States from recognizing these Connecticut tribes. These activities include litigation, of course, but they also include the hiring of genealogists and anthropologists and historians, and even former employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Branch of Acknowledgment, in an effort to develop information that could serve to prove that the Indian tribes that are recognized by the State of Connecticut either are not Indian tribes, or at least, that they are not Indian tribes which should be recognized by the United States. I don't suppose that I am the only one to whom this position appears fundamentally and inherently contradictory. In any event, it is clear that there are citizens and local governments in Connecticut and even the State of Connecticut who are expending substantial sums and considerable energy to oppose the Federal acknowledgment of Connecticut tribes, and that they believe the United States should subsidize their expenditures. Indeed, Senator Dodd has a bill pending in the Committee on Indian Affairs that would provide grants to State and local governments so that they could be better able to carry on their fight. That is one set of issues. Another set of issues has to do with the erroneous perception--and sadly I think perhaps this inaccurate portrait is drawn somewhat deliberately--that acknowledgment by the United States that a tribal group is an Indian tribe, leads directly and automatically to the conduct of gaming. In fact, the vast majority of Federally-recognized tribes in the United States are not engaged in the conduct of gaming activities under the authority of Federal law, and many, like the great Navajo Nation-- the largest land-based Indian tribe in the United States--have consistently rejected gaming as a means of economic development. The acknowledgment of an Indian tribe by the Secretary of the Interior does not even entail the establishment of a land base that could serve as the homeland for tribal members. No, instead, there is a separate process to determine whether land should be taken into trust for an Indian tribe--a process which provides for significant involvement of State Governors, as well as State legislatures and local governments. That process is not an easy one--there are tribes across the country who will verify that it takes years--as much as 10 to 20 years--to have land taken into trust. And that is only step one. Should a tribe want to pursue gaming as a means of economic development, there is a separate process with even higher burdens to meet--for the taking of land into trust for gaming purposes. In this process, for land that is to be taken into trust for purposes of gaming after October 17, 1988, there is not only a prohibition in Federal law that has only limited exceptions, but a far greater role for the Governor of each State in whether land is taken into trust for gaming. Some commentators have even suggested that this role that each Governor is afforded under Federal law constitutes an absolute veto power. So to conclude, it is abundantly clear to anyone who cares to conduct even the most superficial survey of Federal Indian law, that the acknowledgment of an Indian tribe by the United State is a process that is separate and decidedly distinct from the issue of gaming. Though some may see it as being to their advantage to lump these different processes together and make it appear that they are all one-- as one who has served on the Committee on Indian Affairs for 24 years now, I can assure my colleagues that it simply is not so. As the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Marc Racicot, recently was quoted as responding to the notion that people are mixing Federal recognition with Indian gaming, ``Is the question really about the Federal recognition process or is it about gambling? Frankly, I think people should address those questions honestly.'' As my colleagues know, Marc Racicot is the former Governor and former attorney general for many years of the State of Montana. In that same interview that was published ten days ago, Governor Racicot indicated that his experience with Federal recognition has not been mired in ``irregularities and improprieties'' as alleged by Connecticut officials. Instead, Governor Racicot stated ``the process is clear, plain and steeped in integrity''. If Governor Racicot's observations were the exception to a perception widely-held across the country, we might have a different set of circumstances to address. But the problems that are cited by the citizens of Connecticut are clearly different from those that have been identified by administration officials, both past and present, by petitioning groups, by the General Accounting Office, and by those who have testified before the Committee on Indian Affairs. Of course, like any new venture that bring more people, more traffic, and more revenues into a State, there have been concerns expressed about the impacts of gaming--in our history as a country we saw them first in New Jersey and Nevada. Today gaming, whether it is Government-sponsored or privately--owned gaming, whether it is tribally-operated or commercially-conducted--from State lotteries to horse tracks to river boats, gaming has given rise to controversy. As we consider the amendment of my friend from Connecticut, let those of us who know the difference, keep gaming issues separate, and focus on the Federal acknowledgment process. Cound the Federal acknowledgment process benefit from reform? I don't think there is any question that it could. The committees of Congress--the Indian Affairs Committee in the Senate--would not have held so many hearings over the years and would not have considered so many proposals to reform the process, were it not in need of refinement. The problem is that we do not have agreement on the nature of the problem and even less agreement on the appropriate resolution. If you asked tribal groups that have been through the acknowledgment process or that have petitions now pending before the Branch of Acknowledgment, I believe you would find unanimity in their view that the process takes too long. In testimony on Senator Dodd's authorizing bill that was presented to the Indian Affairs Committee last week, the chairperson of the Eastern Pequot Tribe--a tribe recognized by the State of Connecticut since the 1600's--testified that the tribe's petition has been pending in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, for 24 years. The BIA's records clearly document that the experience of the Eastern Pequot is not atypical. Each of the Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs within the Department of Interior over the past several Administrations--both Republican and Democrat--have stated their views that the process is too long, too cumbersome, and too expensive for the petitioning tribal groups. The last Assistant Secretary implemented reforms to streamline the process. The current Assistant Secretary is taking further steps to address the backlog in petitions, because by most calculations, it will take the Branch of Acknowledgment another 200 years to complete work on the petitions that are now pending before the Department. Senator Dodd's amendment does not address the seriously-problematic length of the acknowledgment process nor does it seek to reduce the burden on petitioning groups, and so Indian tribes across the country have contacted the Committee to indicate that they do not see this amendment as effecting the kind of reform that has long been seen as necessary. Unfortunately, Senator Dodd's amendment will lengthen the process for those tribal groups who are subject to the proposed moratorium by yet another year, at a minimum, given that we cannot know how much time will be entailed in the promulgation of the rules and regulations required by the amendment. Experience would instruct us that this moratorium will last for much longer than a year. The General Accounting Office examined the acknowledgment process in its November 2001 report to the Congress, and found that the seven mandatory criteria which each petitioning group must satisfy, were not being applied in a consistent manner. The conclusions of the GAO report corroborated another long-held view in Indian country. The amendment before us does not address this issue either. What the amendment does propose is something that, in the view of many of us who have struggled with these issues for years, requires a much more thorough vetting before it is made part of the permanent body of Federal law. That is the fundamental question of whether the acknowledgment of a tribal group by the United States should be an adversarial process in which other governments should participate. Although the current process provides for the involvement of ``interested parties'' in formal meetings and in the process of appeals, and State and local governments have made very effective use of the Freedom of Information Act requests to further bring the snail's pace of the acknowledgment process to a grinding halt, there has been no national discussion and no nationwide consultation within Indian country on this fundamental issue. Yet, the amendment before us proposes to inject a process of adversarial hearings--at the request of any and all interested parties--throughout the acknowledgment process, and it would appear, before a petition is even ready for consideration. Another change that the amendment imposes is a change in the burden of proof that a petitioner must meet in satisfying the seven mandatory criteria. The impact of such a change has not been assessed--it would effect a change in existing law--and there can be no doubt that tribal groups who have been through the process and have not succeeded will now come to the Government seeking reconsideration under the new standard. Even more likely is the prospect that interested parties will contest the Secretary's findings in favor of acknowledgment on the grounds that those groups that have been acknowledged may not have satisfied the new standard. Reopening every past action of acknowledgment by the Secretary to assess whether the new standard would have changed the outcome in each case is clearly going to require years and years of effort and litigation. I think we would all agree that generating new lawsuits against the government is not a direction that reform should take. Last but certainly not least problematic from the vantage point of Indian country, petitioning groups, from the administration, the authorizing committees of the Congress, and from the Indian Affairs Committee is the moratorium that Senator Dodd's amendment would impose on the acknowledgment process. This moratorium affects not only the groups that have been in the process for twenty years or more, and not only the groups whose petitions are the subject of Federal district court orders, but also groups that are already through the acknowledgment process and currently in the appeals phase. Particularly in the case of this last group, there has been no rationale advanced as to why a moratorium should be imposed on their petitions in order to reform a process of which they are no longer a part. Like many of us, I read the newspapers and media accounts from other States. Over the years, I have even spent a little work time in Connecticut trying to be of assistance to the citizens of Connecticut. So I think I have a sense of what pressures are brought to bear on the Members of Congress who serve that State. Working together, I think we can address the concerns that were expressed at the Indian Affairs Committee hearing last week, but I have to say, as chairman of the authorizing committee, that proposed changes in substantive law and regulations require and deserve careful consideration. If the provisions of Senator Dodd's authorizing measure are to become law, they should be considered in their entirety--not in piecemeal fashion in an appropriations bill--and they should be considered in the context of what reform is needed--as defined by a much larger base of our national citizenry than the citizens of one State. And so I call upon my colleague from Connecticut to work with us to effect comprehensive reform, and in the interim, to allow the administration to take the steps it has proposed to improve upon the current process with funds appropriated for that purpose. All of the tribal groups that would be immediately affected by the proposed moratorium filed their petitions well before the advent of Federally-authorized Indian gaming. They couldn't have been motivated by the prospects of something that did not exist when they filed their petitions and should not be penalized for what has since come to pass. Let us keep these matters separate, addressing the impact of gaming as they arise, and addressing reform of the Federal acknowledgment process with the deliberative discussion that it deserves. With these considerations in mind, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Dodd's amendment. I will share footnotes in history that we may have forgotten over the years. Our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the importance of Indian nations that in the Constitution of the United States they have set forth, in good language, that Indians should be recognized as sovereign countries and as sovereign nations. We have entered into 800 treaties with Indian countries, as we do with the British, the Germans, the French, the Japanese, and the Chinese. Indians are sovereign. I realize it is very difficult for fellow Americans to look upon the Indians as sovereign people, but they are. They were here before we arrived. This was their land. Sadly, I must report that the Senate--of the 800 treaties we have had signed by the President of the United States and by the ruling monarchy of the nation, 430 were ratified by our predecessors and 370 are still in the files. They are in the files because we found oil, gold, and precious material and suddenly we felt, no, we cannot give that away. Of the 430 we ratified, we violated provisions in every single one of them. That is our record. I am not proud of it. I think the Indians have waited a long time for justice, and I am sorry to say to my dearest friend of all that this does not bring justice to them. When the first European landed here, he found a sophisticated and organized group of people. They had elected leaders. They had a judiciary. In fact, if one reads the writings of Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, they will note reference to the Iroquois Confederacy, a confederacy made up of six tribes, six nations. Each tribe elected their representatives, the judiciary, their leader. They sent a delegation of representatives to the central office, and the clan mothers voted to select the supreme chief. In those days, long before we came on the scene, the women took part in the electoral process. They were a few years ahead of us. That was democracy as our forefathers conceived. Laws were passed to further strengthen the basis of sovereignty. At the time they were recognized as sovereign nations, these Indian nations had jurisdiction, authority, and control over 550 million acres of land. Since then we have had the Indian wars, and let us call it what it was, Indian extermination laws. We had what is known as an allotment. Let's open it up. From 550 million acres, today there are 50 million left. One of the provisions in this amendment speaks of lands where they historically resided. Most of the Indians of this land do not live in places where they historically resided. The Cherokees now live in Oklahoma. After the Indian wars, they were rounded up from the Carolinas, and before they landed in Oklahoma, the dumping ground, 80 percent were dead. So where is the historic place of residence? One can say that of just about every Indian tribe. This is what we are dealing with. In the State of Connecticut, there are two very successful Indian casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. In the last 9 years, they have provided income to the State of $2.2 billion because that is part of the agreement with the State of Connecticut. That is a lot of money. We cannot intrude ourselves into the affairs of the State and say you should give that money to the town next to Foxwood or next to Mohegan because the impact is greater. That is the State's decision. I would think the moneys these Indians have provided for the government of Connecticut should be sufficient, but that is not within our responsibility. Another footnote in history: One would get the impression after listening to this debate that most of these Indians who are seeking recognition and who are seeking land are seeking such land for gambling purposes. Far from the truth, sir. Most of them do not want gambling. In fact, the largest Indian tribe in our Nation is the Navajos. They will not permit gaming within their lands. No, they do not want any gambling in their lands. Of those treaties that were not ratified by the Congress--still in the files around here--there are several that affected the Indian nations of California. Because the treaties were not considered, in a sense they are men and women without nations, without land. We decided to put them in a little enclave and say: You live here or you live there because you look alike. My first chore as chairman of this committee was to break up a tribe because we had put in Pequots and Hoopa-Huroks, historic fighters. Just in case one gets the impression the Indians are ``give me, give me, give me, all the time,'' they have given more than any one of us can expect. As one who values the service of men and women in uniform, may I simply say that of all the ethnic groups in the United States, of all the racial groups in the United States, on the basis of per capita participation, the Indians have sent more sons and daughters in uniform to face harm's way than any other ethnic group--more than the Germans, the Irish, the British, or what have you. Indians have fought in every war in the last century, and every one now, in greater numbers. They have given their lives in greater numbers, per capita. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for what the Constitution calls for and what the laws of this land call for.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if the Senate should rule that the votes against the amendment prevail, may I assure my colleagues that the committee stands ready to consider any and all suggestions on how to reform this process. It is a scandal at this time. We realize that. It should be changed. I move to table the amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the ``Role of the Special Trustee'' within the Department of Interior. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs