[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S10564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
conference report accompanying those appropriations bills which, 
because of our pending adjournment, have been included as an omnibus 
package.
  I intend to vote for this omnibus bill knowing full well that, like 
all bills, it is not perfect in every Senator's eyes.
  I want to thank Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Senator Byrd as 
well as the chairman and ranking members of the Subcommittees for 
including my requests which are vital to Colorado. As America's third 
fastest growing State, our burgeoning population has placed great 
stress on our schools, hospitals, universities and transportation. 
Federal monies, which I have sought to earmark as an appropriation for 
Colorado, are extremely important.
  In this omnibus conference report over $175 million will be flowing 
into Colorado.
  Having said this, there is one section in the bill that concerns me. 
Partially because it affects my State, but more so because it was never 
considered in the committee of jurisdiction. Neither was it discussed 
in the conference committee on Wednesday, November 19 as we worked out 
the final House and Senate disagreements.
  I did not know of the language as the bill came to the floor just 
before we adjourned for the year. In fact, in a multi-hundred page bill 
I was not aware of it until after it passed. But, as I understand it, 
this language is in keeping with a long standing practice of satisfying 
Native American land claims.
  Let me give some historical perspective to this issue as I understand 
it. In 1971, the U.S. Congress passed a bill which was signed into law 
called the ``Native American Claims Settlement Act''. This was an 
effort to bring a degree of fairness to native tribes of America's 
newest State--Alaska--who had lost much of the use of their aboriginal 
land through the encroachment and settlement of non-natives.
  As part of the settlement, the native peoples were given use of 44 
million acres and a percentage of the royalties from oil and gas 
production thereon. They shared these royalties with State government 
and for the purposes of administering their tribal governments and 
revenues. Alaska natives and tribes became shareholders of Native 
Alaskan corporations. They also retained the same rights that tribes in 
the lower 48 States and as they pertained to the ``trust 
responsibility'' of the Federal Government.
  As I understand the 1971 act, however, these tribal corporations 
around the city of Anchorage were not considered land based tribes and 
were treated differently in terms of rights and benefits they would 
have accrued had they been in control of aboriginal land. These native 
groups (corporations) were allowed to use their portion of the 
accumulated revenue, in the form of ``bidding credits'', to purchase 
either Federal or private land in Alaska or other States. I only know 
of four States where land was actually purchased. Alaska, California, 
Hawaii and Colorado are the four I am aware of, although there may have 
been others. I have never been able to find a comprehensive list of 
land purchased, if it even exists.
  The Native Alaskan corporations were authorized in the 1971 act to 
``partner'' with tribes in the lower 48 on business ventures. So, in 
effect, the lower 48 tribes became recipients of badly needed 
investment capital provided by the Native Alaskan corporations while 
their ``partner'' could petition the Federal Government to put the land 
into trust status.
  One such purchase was in downtown Denver. It had been a piece of 
Federal land, adjacent to the Federal courthouse and was being used as 
a parking lot for court employees. That lot was not put into trust, but 
was owned by the Native Alaskan Corporation.
  There were, at the time, some preliminary discussions between one of 
the Colorado land based Ute Indian tribes and one Native Alaskan 
corporation on how best to use this ``native'' land for economic 
development purposes.
  These purposes were limited by a variety of other laws such as the 
1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which did not allow tribes to have 
casino gaming unless they reached a negotiated agreement called a 
``gaming compact'' with the State in which they were located. In turn, 
court decisions further complicated the picture. An example of this was 
in the Seminole vs. the State of Florida case. In 1996, the Supreme 
Court ruled that States cannot be ``forced'' to negotiate a compact 
with tribes as required by the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  At the time, I voided the discussions concerning the downtown piece 
of property about which I have spoken by implementing a suggestion from 
the Federal courts to submit a line item request to appropriate funds 
to purchase that parking lot back from the Native Alaska corporation. I 
did so and through subsequent appropriations secured the money to build 
a new Byron White Federal Court complex on that site.
  Since I was not in the U.S. Senate in 1971, I can only give you my 
view of how that act affected this language in question. I don't know 
if it violates any existing statute, if my constituency would support 
or oppose it or if it is in keeping with the Native American Claims 
Settlement Act. This probably could have been flushed out through the 
hearing process had we seen it in bill form.
  So, in closing Mr. President, because I was not aware of the language 
of this final conference report until about 2 hours ago and do not know 
the effect it would have on Colorado, I do not support that section. 
Since it is, however, included in a non-amendable conference report 
and, recognizing the importance of the money in this report to the 
State of Colorado, I will vote for the final report.

                          ____________________