"...with respect to S2087 (the Native American Omnibus Corrections Act of 2007) all of the sections of the bill are similar to sections which were previously approved by the committee or passed by the Senate in the 109th Congress. So it's my hope that the committee and the full Senate can speedily enact these provisions into law."
Well, if by "similar", you mean "completely opposite in content and intent", then I guess the above is an accurate description of Section 2 of S.2087. (Follow the link, select "bill number" and search on "S2087".) And I'm sure the bit about "hope" and "speedily enact" is accurate.
If you are interested but not up to speed on this issue, please check out my category archive page or (not quite perfectly updated) post links page. (The former link goes to complete posts but only goes back to 2005. The latter lists links to all the actual posts on both this and the old blog.. One of these I shall rationalize my archives. )
The issue, in a nutshell, is this: NAGPRA (the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) was enacted to make sure that Indian tribes could exercise control over ancestral remains and artifacts, and prevent and redress any abuses of that right. Problems arise when groups make claims to remains or artifacts to which they are unable to demonstrate the ancestral or cultural affiliation which would trigger NAGPRA's provisions and legally privilege their claims over those of other interested parties. The most famous of these disputed cases is that of the Kennewick Man, in which the courts (after years of appeals) ruled in favor of scientists and the general public interest against tribal claimants. The latter were unable to persuade the courts that Kennewick Man was their ancestor.
Immediately, parties that were unhappy with the Kennewick decision attempted to amend NAGPRA to ensure that any and all pre-1492 artifacts and remains would be legally defined as falling under the purview of that legislation, no matter what "absurd results" (as the Kennewick Man plaintiffs' lawyers explained) this definition might entail, and no matter what new evidence about the peopling of the New World comes to light. Essentially, S2087 Section 2, like its failed predecessors, will function to suppress new information, and enshrines the religious beliefs - about history and origins - of a select group of citizens into law, which is of course a direct violation of the First Amendment.
See Kate Riley's Seattle Times piece and a National Review editorial.
And, as always, keep up on these issues at Friends of America's Past.