Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider S. 958, the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, and H.R. 2880, the Five Nations Citizens Land Reform Act, to be followed immediately by a hearing to receive testimony on the President's appointment of Quanah Crossland Stamps to serve as Commissioner for the Administration for Native Americans, and the appointment of Phil Hogen to serve as Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Intra-tribal Leadership Disputes and Tribal Governance.'' Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on H.R. 2880, a bill to amend laws relating to the lands of the enrollees and lineal descendants of enrollees whose names appear on the final Indian rolls of the Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Nations, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, what I would like to propose is to convert this amendment into a bill and have it referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs to give time to the respective staffs, the staff of the committee and the staff of Senator Dodd, to work over this measure and come forth with a resolution of the matter. When that resolution is reached--and I gather it can be reached in 24 or 48 hours--we can once again bring up the new amendment and consider that. If I may, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, it is with some considerable reluctance that I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment proposed by my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut, that would prohibit the expenditure of funds for the operations of the Branch of Acknowledgment until the Secretary of the Interior has certified to the Congress that certain administrative procedures have been implemented with respect to the consideration of any petition submitted to the Secretary. The provisions of this amendment are drawn from an authorizing bill, S. 1392, that is now pending in the Committee on Indian Affairs. At Senator Dodd's request, in July of this year I agreed to schedule a hearing on S. 1392. That hearing is to be held on Tuesday, September 17. As chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I believe that Senator Dodd's request for a hearing in the authorizing committee reflects a position on which we can both agree that the appropriate venue for the consideration of reforms to the Branch of Acknowledgment process is in the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. In an effort to responsibly address the matter of whether there is some urgency associated with effecting reform in the Branch of Acknowledgment that cannot await action by the authorizing committee, particularly as such reform may affect the State of Connecticut, I authorized my staff to contact the Department of Interior's Branch of Acknowledgment officials for information on the petitions currently pending before the Branch. The committee is advised that there are two petitions of tribal groups located within the State of Connecticut that are currently pending in the branch. Both petitions are the subject of court-ordered negotiated agreements, and thus both petitions are subject to the ongoing jurisdiction of the Federal district courts. So for those members who believe that the Congress should forebear from injecting itself into pending litigation, the jurisdiction of the Federal district courts should be honored as well here and action should not be taken on an amendment which would interfere with the courts' jurisdiction. The court-ordered negotiated agreement for the Schaghticoke Tribe provides that the proposed finding whether positive or negative is due to be published on December 5, 2002. Thereafter there is a 6-month comment period, followed by a two-month response period, both of which may be extended at the request of the parties. If no extensions are requested or granted, then assuming a positive finding, the earliest time in which a positive finding would become effective for purposes of any appeals by the State of Connecticut or other parties, is August 5, 2003. For the Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe--under court order, the proposed finding whether positive or negative is due to be published on January 21, 2003. Thereafter there is a 6-month comment period, followed by a 2-month response period, both of which may be extended at the request of the parties. If no extensions are requested or granted, then assuming a positive finding, the earliest time in which a positive finding would become effective for purposes of any appeals by the State of Connecticut or other parties, is September 21, 2003. The other groups that will be affected by the amendment proposed by Senator Dodd are two petitioning groups of the Nipmuc Tribes of Massachusetts, the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts, the Snohomish Tribe of Washington State and the Burt Lake Band of Michigan. I firmly believe that Senator Dodd's authorizing legislation can be addressed through the hearing process and acted upon well within the time frame that is anticipated for action on the two pending petitions from Connecticut tribal groups, and thus, that it is not necessary for the authorizing provisions of this amendment to be considered within the context of the Interior appropriations bill. In addition, I am certain Senator Dodd would agree with me that reforms of the magnitude proposed by his amendment merit the full consideration of all those now involved or who may become involved in the Federal acknowledgment process--including the administration, and equally important, the Nations of Indian country, as well as other interested parties. There has been no hearing nor public record developed on the proposal advanced in Senator Dodd's amendment, and I think it is incumbent upon us to develop such a record and to receive testimony on this proposal before any action is taken precipitously. There are other proposals now pending in the Congress for the reform of the Federal acknowledgment process--Senator Campbell, the vice chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, has one such proposal. Clearly, the proponents of those measures would also wish to have their legislative initiatives given full consideration, and I believe we should afford a full and fair opportunity for all such measures to be considered rather than adopting one proposal that has not yet been the subject of hearings. Under current law, the Branch of Acknowledgment works with petitioning tribal groups in a cooperative process which is designed to assure that a petitioning group has submitted data sufficient to address each of the seven criteria that petitioners must meet. The regulations require the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs for the Department of the Interior to provide notice of the petition to the Governor and the Attorney General of the State in which the petitioning group is located. It has been represented that the proposed amendment does nothing more than codify the existing Branch of Acknowledgment regulation, but in fact, the proposed amendment proposes to replace most of the existing procedural rules governing the acknowledgment process with a contested hearing process. It would grant interested parties, and not petitioners, the power to control the timing of the contested case and would prevent the expenditure of any funds by the Branch of Acknowledgment if the Branch does not comply with the new procedural rules established by the amendment. The amendment requires the Secretary to consider ``all relevant evidence submitted by a petitioner or any other interested party, including neighboring municipalities.'' Upon the request of an interested party, the Secretary may conduct a formal hearing for interested parties to present evidence, call and cross examine witnesses, or rebut evidence even before a petition is complete. A transcript of the hearing is to be made part of the administrative record upon which a decision may be based. Nowhere in the existing administrative regulations is a contested case hearing, such as the one proposed by my colleague's amendment, authorized. Instead, the general spirit of the regulations is to enable a cooperative relationship between the petitioning group and the Branch of Acknowledgment, as reflected by the authorization for a technical review of each petition by the Branch of Acknowledgment and the opportunity to supplement or amend a petition before it is actively considered and to have information submitted by third parties who have legal, factual, or property interests in the recognition decision to be considered. The present administrative process allows for publication of a proposed finding, a 6-month comment period for all interested parties, and a 2-month response period for the petitioning group. A final determination is then made and time lines are established governing requests for reconsideration and when the decision becomes final. In contrast to the existing regulations, the proposed amendment creates a contested case process the timing of which is controlled not by the Branch of Acknowledgment in conjunction with the petitioning group, but by those municipalities, counties, State attorney generals, State Governors, and other tribes falling within the notice provisions of the amendment. Given the fact that the amendment proposes to include State, county and municipal governments from each area that the petitioning group was historically located--and that Federal policy forced not one but many relocations of most tribal groups from their traditional areas--the amendment contemplates the involvement of scores if not hundreds of small communities that no longer are in close proximity or have any geographic relationship with the petitioning group. With the exception of the continued application of the seven criteria in the existing regulations, almost every other aspect of the regulations would be changed under the amendment, including the burden of proof a petitioning group must satisfy to meet the criteria. In addition, a petitioning group would be required to defend its petition whenever an interested party requests and is granted a hearing, even though that request may be made at a time where a petitioning group has not yet perfected its petition. I am not suggesting that the proposals advanced in this amendment do not merit the consideration of the Congress. Indeed, as I have earlier indicated, the Committee on Indian Affairs has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday, September 17 for that very purpose. What I am suggesting, Mr. President, is that there is an appropriate venue for the consideration of substantive changes in Federal Indian law and policy, and that venue is in the authorizing committees of the Congress. I ask unanimous consent to print the following statement in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 12, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on successful strategies for Indian reservation development and the lessons that can be learned from developing country and other Indian tribal economies. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1392, a bill to establish procedures for the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior with respect to tribal recognition, and on S. 1393, a bill to provide grants to ensure full and fair participation in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I yield 4 minutes.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my chairman.

Mr. INOUYE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in a few moments, Senators will be called upon to cast their votes on the Defense appropriations bill. At this moment, I wish to express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska for his cooperation in moving this bill through the Senate. This is a massive spending bill totaling more than $355 billion. With the cooperation of Senator Stevens and his Republican colleagues, we were able to work through the issues of this bill with comity and a minimum of controversy. The defense of our Nation is too important to be a matter of partisan politics. My friend, Senator Stevens, knows that and follows that in all of his actions, and so I thank him and his staff for all their hard work: His chief assistant, Mr. Steve Cortese, and Ms. Sid Ashworth, Mr. Kraig Siracuse, Ms. Alycia Farrell, and Ms. Nicole Royal. Finally, Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the hard work of my staff. They put in very long hours year round but especially as we seek to act on the annual appropriations bill. I express my deep gratitude to them as well: Mr. Charles Houy, Mr. David Morrison, Ms. Susan Hogan, Ms. Mazie Mattson, Mr. Tom Hawkins, Ms. Lesley Kalen, Ms. Menda Fife, and Ms. Betsy Schmid. Mr. President, finally I say to all my colleagues, this is a very good bill, and I urge all Senators to vote for it. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Louisiana is correct. This program certainly seems to be in line with the types of projects funded under HBCU. I would encourage the Department of Defense to support the program the Senator from Louisiana has identified.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I share Senator Landrieu's concern about cyber-security, and agree that cooperative efforts like Picket Fence are an effective way for us to address the problem. I hope that we may find additional resources for this program at a later date.

Mr. INOUYE. While rations have improved significantly since my service in World War II, there is always room for improvement. Well nourished soldiers fight better. It is that simple. I believe that this research is valuable to ensuring the combat capability of our troops.

Mr. INOUYE. The FPU is a great improvement to our logistics capabilities and the money saving potential is quite promising. You are correct to note that the time in which we respond to threats is largely determined by the rate in which we can mobilize our troops and transport the materiel necessary for them to do their jobs. I do look forward to working with you in the future on this promising program.

Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that we must find efforts to expedite the return of our aircraft to service. We should not face delays in repairs because of logistical problems that could be solved rather easily using modern information technology. I will take an interest in this matter when the House and Senate conference on this bill.

Mr. INOUYE. I welcome a conversation with the junior Senator from Louisiana and the Chairwoman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate being made aware of both Senators' support of this program and will will do what we can to find funding of a minimum of at least $2.5 million in the conference negotiations. cmis

Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate hearing about both Senators support of this program. I will review your request and will work to include language in the conference report. center for southeastern tropical advanced remote sensing

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from California for her comments, and agree with her assessment. As she pointed out, with the Defense Department now in the process of designing its financial management architecture, it can use this time to move forward on various pilot projects, already funded, in order to modernize and test systems, identify potential challenges and problems, and incorporate solutions in the planning process.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished colleagues for sharing concerns about this program. I too support Army transformation and, most importantly, the protection of our soldiers. I would be happy to discuss the M113 issue further as we move toward conference. brilliant anti-armor submunition colloquy Mr. SHELBY: Mr. President I rise today with my good friend, Senator Mikulski, to discuss the Brilliant Anti--Armor Submunition BAT P\3\I. I want to express my disappointment with the $152 million cut taken by the committee from the President's budget request for the BAT program. Despite increased emphasis being placed on precision guided munitions, this cut will cripple a promising program that has shown progress in testing and is nearing the end of its development phase. Ms. MIKULSKI: I join my friend from Alabama in expressing my concern with this cut to the BAT program. The Department of Defense is currently creating a vision of precision munitions capabilities and transformation investments for our Armed forces and I believe BAT could play a significant role. The Army has already spent close to $1.9 billion developing this program and the President's fiscal year 2003 request is needed to complete development, testing and make this system production ready by 2005. That is well within the Army's schedule to support both the Army's Interim and Objective Transformational Forces. With adequate funding, BAT P\3\I is on track to be fielded 3 years sooner than any competing system. Mr. SHELBY: I note that BAT P\3\I is the Army's only precision strike munition that can operate in inclement weather and effectively hit moving and stationary targets, including SCUD launchers capable of carry weapons of mass destruction. It is equally worth noting that recent tests of BAT and its P\3\I variant have proven to be effective against targets that were employing countermeasures. I applaud the Army's efforts to expand the delivery platform for BAT P\3\I beyond the ATACMS missile to include examining the applicability of putting the BAT on rockets and unmanned air vehicles, such as Predator and Hunter UAVs. I encourage the Army and its colleague services to continue this kind of innovative thinking to take full advantage of the flexibility that this all weather, precision guided weapons can provide. Ms. MIKULSKI: I am informed of a positive trend, in that, the cost of the BAT submunition has decreased by approximately 10 percent each time a new order has been procured. I also understand the Army is working on an achievable cost reduction program for BAT P\3\I. Considering the points Senator Shelby and I have raised, it seems we should give more thought to this matter in conference. I ask both Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens if they might be willing to discuss this matter further as we move to conference on this bill. Mr. SHELBY: I join the distinguished Senator from Maryland in requesting the assistance of Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens. Mr. INOUYE: I thank the Senators from Maryland and Alabama for their steadfast support for this program. I would be happy to review the committee's action and discuss the BAT program with them. Mr. STEVENS: I join the chairman in thanking the distinguished Senators from Alabama and Maryland for their remarks. I would certainly be willing to discuss BAT program funding with my colleagues. chemical and biological defense initiatives

Mr. INOUYE. Yes, I am familiar with the success of the M113 Family of Vehicles and the role they play in today's Army.

Mr. INOUYE. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is correct. It is the understanding of the Defense Subcommittee that the Fiscal Year 2003 $90 million that the navy had requested for the USS Scranton, may now be available to the Navy to meet other critical submarine depot modernization requirements.