[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16758-16762]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5093, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5093) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd amendment No. 4472, in the nature of a substitute.
       Byrd amendment No. 4480 (to amendment No. 4472), to provide 
     funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for 
     emergency wildfire suppression.
       Craig/Domenici amendment No. 4518 (to amendment No. 4480), 
     to reduce hazardous fuels on our national forests.
       Dodd amendment No. 4522 (to amendment No. 4472), to 
     prohibit the expenditure of funds to recognize Indian tribes 
     and tribal nations until the date of implementation of 
     certain administrative procedures.
       Byrd/Stevens amendment No. 4532 (to amendment No. 4472), to 
     provide for critical emergency supplemental appropriations.


                           amendment no. 4522

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  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?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DODD. On or in relation to the Dodd amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is 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.

[[Page 16759]]

  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

[[Page 16760]]

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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Connecticut 
withhold his suggestion of a quorum call?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I would defer to Senator Inouye, our 
chairman, if he wishes to speak first.
  Madam President, I support a motion to table the Dodd amendment. Let 
me say at the outset, though, that no one questions Senator Dodd's 
commitment to the Indian people of America. He has an exemplary voting 
record, and he has always been there when we needed help.
  My problem with his amendment is that there has been almost no input 
from tribes themselves, and in the past they have opposed any 
moratorium. We all know the problem that exists now with the 
recognition process. We all know it needs to be streamlined and needs 
to be changed. It is replete with problems. We have heard it over and 
over.
  We have had a couple hearings on this already in the Indian Affairs 
Committee, and we intend to take it up again. Whether we have run out 
of time this year has yet to be determined.
  But I was not aware there was going to be some discussion on a 
compromise amendment. And because the unanimous consent request was 
entered into yesterday, many of us, including me, have made 
reservations on planes that we can't change. So I hope I am going to be 
able to be here to speak to it, but knowing how these things sort of 
creep, I may not be able to do so.
  So from my own standpoint, if I do have to leave, I am going to defer 
to our chairman, Senator Inouye. The Indian Affairs staff is working 
with Senator Dodd's staff on an amendment that may be acceptable, but I 
will certainly defer to my chairman in his decision of whether to 
support that amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Hawaii.
  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

[[Page 16761]]

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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Interior--FY 2003 Interior Appropriations Bill Effect 
                  Statement to the Conference Managers

       Bureau/Office: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       Appropriations: Operation of Indian Program.
       Activity/Subactivity: Central Office Operations/Tribal 
     Government.
       Project/Budget Element: Tribal Government Services.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FY 2003
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
               Item                   FY 2002       Pres.                                  Compared to request
                                      enacted      request    House level     Senate   -------------------------
                                                    level                     level        House        Senate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branch of Acknowledgment and              1,050        1,100        1,600        1,100          500            0
 Research.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       House Action: House added $500,000 to the Bureau's Central 
     Office, Division of Tribal Government Services. Fund are 
     specifically for the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research 
     (BAR).
       House Report Statement: None.
       Reference: This amendment was reported and voted on by the 
     full Appropriations Committee.
       Effect of House Action: The House Action would enable the 
     BAR to hire additional staff to process requests from Indian 
     groups who are petitioning for Federal recognition.
       What would the funding be used for?: Currently the BAR has 
     three research teams. Each team is composed of a cultural 
     anthropologist, a genealogist, and a historian. FY 2003 
     funding for three teams and support staff for BAR is 
     $1,100,000. The additional funding would enable the BAR to 
     staff one additional research team and hire support staff who 
     would focus on administrative functions, such as FOIA 
     requests, preparation of administrative files for litigation, 
     and other time consuming responsibilities that are currently 
     handled by the professional research teams. Consequently, 
     this funding would allow four research teams to focus on 
     processing documented petitions.
       Feasibility/capability of the proposed funding level or 
     language this fiscal year?: On November 2, 2001, General 
     Accounting Office (GAO), released a report on the 
     acknowledgment process titled ``Improvements Needed in Tribal 
     Recognition Process.'' The two concerns raised by GAO were 
     the need to improve the speed and transparency of the 
     decision-making process. These additional funds will enable 
     the Department to address these two identified concerns.
       Is the program/project ranked on existing priority setting 
     system? This program was included within the total budget 
     priorities competing for increased funding. However, because 
     many other priorities, funding was not included within the 
     President's Budget Request.
       Senate Action: Proposed at the President's Budget request 
     level; however S. 2708 was introduced on the floor which 
     amends the Department of the Interior's appropriations bill.
       Senate Report Statement: None.
       Reference: S. 2708.
       Effect of Senate Action: S. 2708 is an amendment to the 
     Department of the Interior's appropriations bill. The purpose 
     of this bill is ``[T]o prohibit the expenditure of funds to 
     recognize Indian tribes and tribal nations until the date of 
     implementation of certain administrative procedures.''
       The Department should oppose this bill because it will 
     result in the Department being unable to comply with court 
     scheduling orders for issuing acknowledgment decisions and 
     because many of its provisions are ambiguous and appear to be 
     unworkable.
       Sections 1(c)(1)(A) and 1(c)(1)(B) require notice to each 
     state, county and local government in the area where the 
     petitioner is located and in the area historically occupied 
     by the petitioning group. The acknowledgment regulations 
     already provide for written notice to the state and local 
     government where a petition is currently located and provide 
     for notice of the petition in the Federal Register and in 
     local newspapers. Written notice to governments where the 
     petitioner was historically located within 30

[[Page 16762]]

     days of the receipt of a letter of intent is unrealistic. 
     There is insufficient evidence in a letter of intent to 
     identify these locations.
       Section 1(c)(1)(C) requires the Department within 30 days 
     to notify any Indian tribe and any other petitioner that, as 
     determined by the Secretary (i) has a relationship with the 
     petitioner (including a historical relationship); or (ii) may 
     otherwise be considered to have a potential interest in the 
     acknowledgment determination.
       As with the prior provision, the difficulty with the 
     notification provision with the 30-day deadline, is that it 
     may be that until a petition processing is begun, or at least 
     until the preliminary technical assistance review, that the 
     Department will not know all of the petitioners, tribes, 
     states, and others that could be involved. Notice beyond that 
     in the Federal Register to such entities within 30 days of 
     the receipt of a letter of intent is not feasible.
       Section 1(c)(2)(A) requires the Secretary to consider all 
     relevant evidence submitted by a petitioner or any other 
     interested party, including neighboring municipalities that 
     possess information bearing on the merits of a petition. The 
     Department already considers all evidence which is submitted 
     within prescribed time frames by petitioners and any other 
     interested party, including neighboring municipalities.
       Under section 1(c)(2)(B), the Secretary, on request by an 
     interested party, may conduct a formal hearing at which all 
     interested parties may present evidence, call witnesses, 
     cross-examine witnesses, or rebut evidence presented by other 
     parties during the hearing.
       The bill leaves unspecified who the hearing would be 
     before, when in the acknowledgment process this hearing would 
     take place, and the purpose of this hearing. Therefore, any 
     advantages of a hearing are unclear.
       Further under the existing regulations, The Department 
     provides for hearings before the IBIA, an independent 
     administrative review body. If an additional hearing is 
     intended, it would further delay decisions on the petitions.
       Under section 1(c)(3)(A), the Secretary shall ensure that 
     the evidence presented in consideration of a petition is 
     sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner meets each of 
     the 7 mandatory criteria for recognition contained in section 
     83.7 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect 
     on the date of enactment of this Act).
       This section appears to restate the existing standard used 
     by the Department.
       Under section 1(c)(3)(B), the Secretary shall consider a 
     criterion to be met if the Secretary determines that it is 
     more likely than not that evidence presented demonstrates the 
     satisfaction of the criterion.
       The meaning of the stated standard is unclear, particularly 
     as to whether it changes the regulatory standard which 
     provides that a criterion shall be considered met if the 
     available evidence establishes a ``reasonable likelihood of 
     the validity of the facts relating to that criterion.'' It is 
     unclear if this provision would change the existing standard.
       Under section 1(c)(4), the Secretary shall publish in the 
     Federal Register, and provide to each person to which notice 
     is provided under paragraph (1), a complete and detailed 
     explanation of the final decision of the Secretary regarding 
     a documented petition under this Act that includes express 
     findings of fact and law with respect to each of the criteria 
     described in paragraph (3).
       The regulations already require that notice of the final 
     determination be published in the Federal Register. It is 
     ambiguous if the complete final determination is to be 
     published in the Federal Register which would be an 
     extraordinary and unnecessary expense. Presently, the 
     decisions are publicly available and will be posted on the 
     Internet as soon as possible.
       Recommendation: The Department does not support this 
     amendment, and it opposes considering it as part of the 
     Interior Appropriations Bill.

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, last night I worked with Senators Inouye 
and Dodd until almost 11 o'clock. The arrangement made at that time was 
that we would have a vote at 10:15 on the Dodd amendment. The Senators 
have worked with their staffs and we are still going to have a vote at 
10:15 but not on the Dodd amendment. We are going to ask unanimous 
consent to set that aside and to see if Senators Dodd, Campbell, and 
Inouye can work out this problem that is now facing us. They do believe 
by early next week they can work something out.
  I know some Senators are going to be upset that we are only voting on 
a judge this morning, but there has been a lot of work going into 
having this amendment withdrawn. I think it is in the best interest of 
the Senate that we not charge forward on something if it can be 
resolved. There will be a vote at 10:15. We will vote on Arthur Schwab, 
of Pennsylvania, to be a judge. We expect to announce that in a moment 
or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  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. REID. I simply say to my friend that I think we have far too many 
votes here anyway that are not necessary. I think it shows the 
experience and wisdom of the people who have been working on this 
issue, along with you and Senator Campbell. There is no need to have a 
vote on this matter. We may never have to have one. If we do, we will 
vote on it. I think a lot of people say ``I want a recorded vote'' 
because it looks good--or whatever reason. We spend far too much time 
voting on matters that could be passed without a recorded vote. Even 
though there is no vote on this amendment, I think the Senators have 
saved us a lot of time.
  The next vote will occur at 5 o'clock Tuesday.

                          ____________________