[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 133 (Wednesday, August 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11969-S11976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
       Pending:
       Domenici amendment No. 2296, to restore funding for 
     programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes of the 15 minutes that I have to the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the proposed cuts we are talking about 
will devastate Indian country. They strike at reservation services and 
reservation programs. They strike at Indian families and individual 
households. They strike at the practical ability of tribal governments 
to govern.
  Let me quote from a letter I received from the Quinault Indian Tribe 
in Washington State, regarding the proposed cuts in H.R. 1977:

       These provisions . . . will mark the beginning of a new era 
     of broken promises and hostility toward Indian nations which 
     is unbecoming to the Senate and to a great Nation like the 
     United States.

  I would like my colleagues to understand the practical effect on just 
three tribes of these cuts.
  The Pine Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, located in the 
poorest county in our country, a place 10,000 members of the Oglala 
Sioux Tribe call home. Nearly 67 percent of its residents live in 
poverty, compared to the national average of 13 percent. Nearly one-
third of the people living on the reservation are unemployed. The 
median income of households and families on the Pine Ridge Reservation 
is 

[[Page S11970]]
under $11,000, which is less than one-third the national average for 
American households and families.
  The Oglala Sioux Tribe had an $8,191,000 tribal priority allocation 
base of funding in fiscal year 1995. Under this cut, they would 
directly reduce the Oglala Sioux funding base to $5,996,000, a $2 
million cut.
  In the case of the Quileute Tribe in Washington, they would receive a 
cut from $547,000, to $393,000. I might mention that nearly 90 percent 
of the Quileute Tribe families with children under the age of 6 are 
living in poverty, and one out of three are unemployed.
  The San Carlos Apache Tribe would receive a cut of some $1.6 million 
out of a $6 million tribal priority. And this is what the United States 
meant when we promised the San Carlos Apache in a solemn treaty that we 
would legislate and act to secure their permanent prosperity.
  Mr. President, let me quote the respected jurist, U.S. Supreme Court 
Justice Hugo Black, who addressed this Nation's treatment of American 
Indians in his dissent in the case called F.P.C. versus Tuscarora:

       It may be hard for us to understand why these Indians cling 
     so tenaciously to their lands and traditional tribal way of 
     life . . . the lands of their reservation are [not] the most 
     fertile, [nor] the landscape the most beautiful, [nor are] 
     their homes the most splendid specimens of architecture. But 
     this is their home--their ancestral home. There, they, their 
     children, and their forebears were born. They, too, have 
     their memories and their loves. . . . There may be instances 
     in which Congress has broken faith with the Indians. . . . I 
     regret that [we will] . . . break faith with this dependent 
     people. Great nations, like great men, should keep their 
     word.

  Mr. President, we have broken our bond with these people. We have 
denied them the full benefits derived from their lands and resources. 
We have denied them authority over their own affairs. And under this 
bill, we would deny them the funds they desperately need to address the 
widespread poverty and hopelessness that are a part of everyday life on 
the reservation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Domenici.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Inouye.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have only a few observations to add to 
the other statements that have been made by the chairman of the Budget 
Committee and the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Last evening, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee informed the 
Members of this body that the policy which guided the subcommittee's 
action in distributing 45.6 percent of the reductions in the Interior 
Department's budget to the Bureau of Indian Affairs is one that is 
aimed at speeding up the process of Indian self-determination and self-
governance by sharply reducing funds that go directly to tribal 
governments for the provision of basic government services for 
reservation citizens--services such as fire protection, law 
enforcement, the assurance of health and safety, and the protection of 
the general welfare of tribal communities.
  Our colleagues will recognize that this initiative is not dissimilar 
from that which is being proposed in the area of welfare reform--which 
is the idea of moving responsibilities out of the Federal Government 
and placing those responsibilities closest to the people--empowering 
local communities to address the challenges which confront citizens at 
that level.
  But, Mr. President, I believe we must examine carefully what is being 
proposed under the auspices of self-governance and self-determination, 
because in the context of reform, we have not and are not asking other 
Americans to experience a 26-percent reduction in the programs upon 
which they have come to rely.
  Rather, we talk about cutting the budget for Federal programs by 5 to 
7 percent over the next 5 to 7 years.
  In stark contrast, we would tell the Indian people that the programs 
which support the very infrastructure of their governments must be 
reduced by 26 percent in just 1 year.
  In stark contrast to the reform measures that we have been debating 
in recent days, we would tell the Indian people that we are going to 
shore up and protect the Federal bureaucracy that absorbs 90 cents of 
every dollar we appropriate for Indian programs and instead, we are 
going to drastically reduce the ability of tribal governments to 
address the needs of their citizens at the local level.
  Mr. President, this is not a proposal that will empower tribal 
governments.
  This is a proposal that will devastate the ability of Indian 
governments to serve the most basic needs of their citizens.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand all too 
well the constraints and the competing demands that are placed on each 
of our subcommittees and I understand the challenges with which the 
chairman and former chairman of the Interior Subcommittee are faced. In 
the last few days, representatives of the Interior Department have 
spread horror stories around this body about the impact on each 
Member's State if funds are taken from any of the six accounts we 
propose to use as offsets.
  One Member is told that the Minerals Management Service office in 
Alaska will be closed. Another Member is told that the wildlife refuges 
in his State will be closed. There is a story for every Member--and it 
is always that all of the Interior programs in his or her particular 
State will be the programs that bear the brunt of our proposed 
reductions.
  Unfortunately, these are the kind of desperate and dishonest tactics 
that are employed when resources become scarce. But I would ask my 
colleagues, Mr. President, to examine the relative reductions to other 
programs in Interior, and to understand that a 26-percent cut in the 
programs that go directly to the Indian tribal governments is a 
reduction of a size and proportion that we have not asked any of the 
other Interior programs to bear. It is a matter of simple equity that 
brings us to this threshold today.
  Mr. President, we do have a responsibility to preserve and protect 
this Nation's resources, but we also have a responsibility that we, as 
a nation, undertook long ago--when we encouraged the Indian nations, by 
force and solemn commitments, to give us their lands. This 
responsibility--this trust responsibility--for Indian lands and 
resources, and to assure the survival of the Indian people--is no less 
sacred.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici and the 
distinguished vice-chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator 
Inouye, in a colloquy on their amendments to H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 
1996 Interior appropriations bill and the Earth Resources Observation 
System [EROS] Data Center.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Inouye and I would be happy to 
discuss the amendment with the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before discussing the EROS Data Center, I 
would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague on the 
Budget Committee and my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee for 
offering their amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I 
strongly support their efforts to restore $200 million to the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs tribal priority allocations account, nonrecurring 
programs, and other recurring programs.
  The existing level of funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] 
and tribal programs is extremely inadequate. The objective of the BIA 
is to encourage and assist Indian people to manage their own affairs 
under the trust relationship to the Federal Government. To carry out 
this objective, the BIA is responsible for assisting Indian tribes in 
the development and implementation of effective programs for their 
self-sufficiency and advancement.
  Historically, the BIA has never been funded at a level that meets the 
needs of Indian people. The reductions in the BIA tribal priority 
allocation account recommended by the Interior Appropriations Committee 
will have the potential to further decrease and eliminate many 
important programs such as tribal courts, law and order, social 
services, roads, and housing needs that are so important to tribal 
self-sufficiency.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind remarks 
and completely agree that the funding 

[[Page S11971]]
contained in the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill for the 
BIA and tribal programs is simply inadequate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my support for the BIA restoration 
amendment is based on an understanding that the offsets will not be 
taken from the EROS Data Center, which is funded from the U.S. 
Geological Survey's [USGS] national mapping, geography, and surveys 
account.
  The EROS Data Center is a data management, systems development, and 
research field center of the National Mapping Division of the USGS. 
Located near Sioux Falls, SD, EROS is a state-of-the-art facility that 
receives, processes, and distributes data from Landsat satellites. 
Today, the center holds the world's largest collection of images of the 
Earth, including more than 3 million images acquired from Landsat, 
meteorological and foreign satellites.
  As my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Interior know, the EROS Data Center works closely with USGS, the 
Interior Department, and other Federal agencies including the 
Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration [NASA]. The center, for instance, manages the National 
Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive and participates in NASA's 
Mission to Planet Earth Program. As a unique hub of high technology 
research, EROS is particularly important to South Dakota because it 
provides opportunities for scientists, educators, and students in our 
State and assures them a role in the rapidly changing area of 
supercomputing and on the information superhighway.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's strong 
support for the EROS Data Center and would like to assure him that it 
is our intent that the offsets for our amendment will not be taken from 
the national mapping, geography, and surveys account of USGS.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I concur with the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. The Senator from South Dakota is correct. It is my intent 
that the important work done by the EROS Data Center will not be 
affected by our amendment. It is my intent that the offsets from the 
U.S. Geological Survey will not come from the national mapping, 
geography, and surveys account to support the amendment that restores 
funds for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank my colleague from the Budget Committee 
and my colleague from the Committee on Indian Affairs for this 
clarification and assurance. I commend them for offering this important 
amendment.


                         transfer of hatcheries

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to ask the authors of the 
amendment about an offset item in the amendment. Regarding the 
reduction in funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is my 
understanding that, consistent with the committee report, the 11 fish 
hatcheries proposed by the administration for transfer to States and 
tribes will be operated during fiscal year 1996, and that the working 
group to be formed to plan the future of the hatcheries will carry out 
its mission. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. DORGAN. Before the Senators respond, I would also like to ask the 
authors of the amendment about the reduction in funding for the Natural 
Resources Science Agency. It is my understanding that, consistent with 
the committee report, it is the intent of Congress that the Northern 
Prairie Science Center at Jamestown, ND will be maintained at its 
present level of funding. Also, I understand that funding provided for 
the Water Resources Research Institutes and for National Cooperative 
Mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey will not be reduced by this 
amendment. Am I correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senators from North Dakota are correct. The 
amendment's reduction in funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
the Natural Resources Science Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey 
should not negatively impact the programs mentioned by the Senators.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is also my understanding that it is the intent of the 
amendment's sponsors that, of funds provided for other Bureau of Indian 
Affairs recurring programs, not less than $2.5 million will be provided 
to implement the Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act of 
1990.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the appropriations bill for the Department 
of the Interior cuts spending on Bureau of Indian Affairs programs by 
16 percent and strips it of major responsibilities for natural 
resources management. Even more damaging is the fact that tribes will 
be faced with a one-third cut in the funds that go directly to tribes 
so that they can provide people with critical education, human 
services, public safety, and economic development programs.
  Indian programs have traditionally been the first to see the budget 
ax and the last to see funding. This is wrong. It's asking some of our 
poorest communities and most vulnerable citizens to foot the bill for 
balancing the budget--while saying, ``We have plenty of money for tax 
cuts for the wealthy and for star wars.''
  The statistics on Indian poverty are staggering. About one out of 
every three Indians lives in poverty--and so do half of the children 
under age 6 who live on reservations. The average employment rate on 
reservations is about 45 percent, and the per capita income is 
approximately $4,500.
  Tribes are in desperate need of resources, for educating children, 
for protecting abused and neglected children, for combating alcoholism 
and drug abuse, for fighting crime, for building roads, homes, and 
water and sewer systems. And we--the Federal Government--have a special 
trust responsibility to provide those resources to tribes.
  This appropriations bill falls far short of meeting the fundamental 
obligation of the United States toward the Indian nations. In North 
Dakota, the funding cuts contained in this bill will mean tribal 
governments will be faced with cutting employees who run the courts, 
who prevent child abuse, who teach children. The cuts mean that, on 
reservations where there are waiting lists for housing, understaffed 
police departments, decrepit schools, and unpaved roads, there will be 
even fewer dollars to meet critical needs.
  One of these needs that will continue to go unmet under this 
appropriations bill is particularly troubling to me--and that is the 
need to fight and prevent child abuse on Indian reservations. Many of 
you have heard me speak on the floor about Tamara, a young woman from 
Fort Yates, ND, who at age 3 was placed in a foster home by a 
caseworker who was juggling 150 cases. She was placed in a foster home 
which had not been inspected. This was a home where the norm was heavy 
drinking and all-night parties. After one such party--if you can call 
it that--this 3-year old girl was so severely beaten that her hair was 
pulled out by its roots. Her arm and nose were broken.
  I wish every Member of this body could someday look into Tamara's 
eyes, so that he or she may see what happens when the Federal 
Government says, ``No, we don't have enough money to help tribes hire 
social workers.''
  The BIA requested $5 million to help prevent child abuse on Indian 
reservations. The Appropriations Committee killed all of this funding--
all of it. I hope that every Member of this body will think long and 
hard about the effect of passing legislation in which our priorities 
become so skewed, so wrong-headed, that we are willing to cut out 
funding that could very well save the life of a small child who is 
living in fear and in pain.
  I am pleased to offer my support for the amendment offered by 
Senators Domenici, McCain, and Inouye. This amendment will provide 
critical funding for Indian programs. I understand from the managers of 
the amendment that no less than $2.5 million of the restored funding 
would be set aside for child abuse and treatment programs under the 
Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention and Family Violence 
Prevention Act of 1990. I thank them for their efforts to protect 
Indian children, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this critical amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Members have on their desks a brief 
outline of what this bill does with respect to the agencies within the 
Department of the Interior and the other responsibilities of this 
subcommittee. The entire 

[[Page S11972]]
thrust of the argument for this bill has been aimed not at reductions 
in Indian programs, but at reductions of the appropriations for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, a Bureau, I may say, criticized by most of 
these same Members over the years as one of the least efficient and 
least responsive in the entire Federal Government.
  But the total reductions for the Bureau of Indian Affairs itself are 
16 percent. The total reduction for Indian programs are 8 percent. By 
comparison, the Forest Service is reduced 22 percent, the various 
endowments by 39 percent, the Fish and Wildlife Service by 11 percent, 
territorial affairs by 23 percent. It is just simply not the case that 
Indian programs have been singled out for disproportionate reductions.
  I stand here, as does my colleague from West Virginia, to share with 
Members that frustration at the fact that, because of what we have 
decided to do in order to balance the budget, under the leadership of 
the Senator from New Mexico, we have, overall, 11 percent fewer dollars 
for our responsibilities. I want to emphasize once again, we have 
reduced Indian programs by only 8 percent, and they are not the 
programs the Senator from Arizona was talking about. These are not the 
programs that provide for education, or for health, or for housing, or 
for the relief of poverty. These are the moneys that go through the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to give to Indian governments, which raise no 
money on their own--unlike every other form of local government in the 
United States.
  In order to see to it, at a time of starkly declining budgets for all 
of these agencies, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for all practical 
purposes, has no reduction, so that the total reduction for Indian 
programs is a mere 2 percent, this amendment would devastate 
responsibilities of the Government of the United States, which it 
literally cannot delegate to anyone else--the management of all of the 
lands owned and operated by the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau 
of Land Management, quite accurately, tells us that it has already 
taken a $50 million reduction from the President's budget request and 
that its outreach programs, its recreational programs will, of 
necessity, have to go if this additional huge reduction is imposed upon 
it because it cannot abandon the land itself.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service, which is reduced $41 million from the 
President's proposal by our budget, and for which this amendment asks 
another $30 million reduction would, of necessity, come out of its 
recreation, its people-oriented activities. I read a list last night, 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service sent to us through the Department of 
the Interior, of more than 50 wildlife refuges that will close, as far 
as public access is concerned, because all that will be left is what is 
necessary for the preservation of habitat. They cover most of the 
States of the United States--as many as four or five in States like 
North Carolina and Oregon and Texas, and at least one in almost every 
other State. Of course, that is going to happen. This is a lot of 
money.
  There has been a colloquy submitted between the distinguished 
Democratic leader and the chairman of the Budget Committee with respect 
to the National Geological Survey and the EROS Data Center in Sioux 
Falls, SD. I can tell you, Mr. President, that Sioux Falls, SD, EROS 
Data Center is No. 1 on the list for the National Geological Survey for 
closure if this amendment is agreed to. It does not do much good to say 
it is not the intention of the sponsors to close it. It will close if 
this amendment becomes law.
  We have been in the process of distributing reductions which were 
forced on us--not ones which we asked for--in a field in which the 
Federal Government is solely responsible. We have been able to have no 
reductions at all only in the operations of the National Park Service 
and the cultural institutions here in Washington, DC, like the 
Smithsonian and National Gallery of Art, for which we are solely 
responsible, and the Indian Health Service, which is actually 
increased,
 the only significant item in this bill which is increased. Yet, these 
sponsors put on blinders. They do not tell you about the $1.8 billion 
worth of programs for Indians in other appropriations bills. They do 
not talk about Indian education or the Indian Health Service. They 
speak only about the BIA, and within that only one program within the 
BIA.

  If they wish to refocus the amounts of money to the BIA within this 
appropriation, I am certain that the Senator from West Virginia and I 
would be more than accommodating. But this does not attack the welfare 
and income maintenance programs of the Indians at all. And this bill, I 
must repeat, reduces Indian programs considerably less than it reduces 
the average of all other programs in this bill. It is extremely 
unfortunate, but it is the only fair way in accomplishing a goal.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First of all, I ask unanimous consent to be included as an original 
cosponsor of the Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I told my colleague from New Mexico that I did not 
come to the floor last night to speak on this amendment because I 
wanted to get a clear understanding of the offsets which are contained 
in the amendment.
  Mr. President, frankly, some of the offsets are troubling to me. 
Especially those which pertain to the National Biological Service, the 
Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 
Minerals Management Service. As a strong environmentalist, I wish we 
did not have to make any tradeoffs in these areas at all because they 
are all important. But I think this is a matter of simple justice and 
equity. I believe the Domenici, McCain, and Inouye amendment is 
extremely important.
  Mr. President, as I look at the proposed cuts, I am troubled that 
most of these cuts really are not in Federal bureaucracy but instead go 
right down to the tribal programs at the reservation level.
  Mr. President, the statistics all translate into personal and human 
terms. It is unconscionable to have deep cuts in programs at the tribal 
level; be they education programs or health-care programs. It is one 
thing to talk about all these statistics in a cut and dried way. But 
when you travel in Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, or any number of 
other States, and you visit with people in the Indian nations, it is 
just staggering to observe the poverty, including the horrifying 
poverty of children.
  Mr. President, it strikes me that this amendment is about simple 
justice and fairness. This amendment deserves the support of all 
Senators. It is just that simple.
  Mr. President, we cannot turn our gaze away from a history that none 
of us can be proud of. We cannot turn away from the dire poverty that 
still is out there in Indian country. We cannot turn away, Mr. 
President, from the impact these cuts are going to have on the lives 
some of the poorest Americans.
  Therefore, I rise to strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the manager.
  Mr. President, we had debate on this amendment for an hour and a half 
last night. Senator Gorton and I have both spoken in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The amendment being voted on this morning proposes to reduce six 
different accounts within the Interior Department in order to increase 
funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The reductions proposed by 
this amendment would:
  Double the reduction already imposed on the operations of the Bureau 
of Land Management, which will affect the conduct of the grazing, 
mining, and timber programs;
  Increase the cut on Fish and Wildlife Service operations to more than 
$100 million below the fiscal year 1995 level, which will affect the 
delivery of services at national wildlife refuges--of which there are 
500--and fish hatcheries;

[[Page S11973]]

  Reduce the Geological Survey by $46.5 million, which will lead to 
additional job termination beyond the 400 positions being eliminated 
this year, and affect earthquake, volcano, and landslide monitoring as 
well as mapping and streamflow measurements;
  Cut $45 million from the Natural Resources Science Agency, which 
would eliminate existing natural resource evaluation, monitoring, and 
investigation; and
  Reduce the royalty management function whereby the Interior 
Department ensures that moneys owed the Federal Government due to 
mineral extraction are paid.
  Mr. President, the proponents of the amendment have contended that 
the recommendations contained in the pending bill disproportionately 
affect Indian programs. In fact, this is not the case. Senators should 
remember that this bill is reduced $1.1 billion below the fiscal year 
1995 enacted level. Cuts are real throughout the bill, not just in the 
Indian program.
  The potential consequences of the committee's recommendations are 
what most concern the sponsors of the amendment. Mr. President, 
consequences are what happen when we impose reductions on discretionary 
spending. And as I said last night, this is just the tip of the 
iceberg. Further reductions in discretionary spending are called for 
next year. The budget resolution has told us that programs have to be 
cut. Our task is to do so responsibly.
 It is not an easy chore. Rather, it is an unpleasant one. It is one 
that each Senator probably thinks he or she can do better than the next 
Senator. But each appropriations bill is a series of compromises and a 
balancing of authorities, and this Interior bill is no different.
  Mr. President, in recent days, this body has been debating an 
appropriate funding level for national defense. As was said during that 
debate, military spending is the only portion of the discretionary 
budget that will increase in fiscal year 1996. Mr. President, if the 
senate were willing, it could impose a reduction of less than 3 percent 
on the amount of growth in the Defense budget and fully achieve the 
objectives of the pending amendment.
  In closing, Mr. President, I cite the following facts:
  First, total funding in this bill is down 11 percent versus last 
year. Indian programs are down 8 percent, which is below the average 
for the bill.
 And, if the amendment is agreed to, the funding for Indian programs 
will be down to 2 percent below last year. It will drop from 8 percent 
to 2 percent below last year.
  Second, funding for the land management operations for nearly one-
third of the land base of this country is down 14 percent, a reduction 
75 percent greater than that applied to the Indian programs.
  Third, the committee recommendations protect the most fundamental of 
Indian programs--Indian health and elementary and secondary education 
for Indian children on reservations. Protecting these critical 
functions resulted in cuts in other Indian programs in this bill.
  Fourth, the House imposed less of a reduction on the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, but they did so by constraining programs of interest to 
numerous Senators, including land acquisition, low-income 
weatherization assistance, zero funding for the National Museum for the 
American Indian, and termination of the Bureau of Mines.
  Mr. President, this bill adds, I believe, $12 billion in spending 
authority and $3.5 billion of that $12 billion is allocated to Indian 
programs.
  I find it unpleasant to oppose the amendment that was offered by 
these three distinguished Senators and others. But I feel as manager 
that I must do so. I urge Senators to reject the amendment.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there is a chart on the desk of each 
Member which is the only chart and set of figures which covers this 
bill as a whole. It indicates that land management agencies are reduced 
14 percent, science agencies by 5 percent, cultural activities by 15 
percent, the Department of Energy by 10 percent, Indian activities by 8 
percent and other Department of the Interior functions by 14 percent, 
for a total of 11 percent.
  To concentrate on one aspect of one of those sections to the 
exclusion of all others is not to paint an appropriate picture for 
Members in dealing with a very difficult bill at a very difficult time. 
It is simply an error for the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator 
from Arizona to say that this preserves the bureaucracy in the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs. The largest account in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
to be cut is central office operations, considerably larger than these 
self-government functions.
  The bottom line is that this amendment by its own terms will be 
devastating to primary responsibilities of the Government of the United 
States. They will probably be modified adversely to affect the National 
Park Service. It would have to be in order to become law, ultimately. 
And, Mr. President, this does not affect the poverty-oriented programs 
for Indian tribes. It simply affects the bureaucracy of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and of the governments of the various Indian tribes 
themselves. Overall, however, these reductions for Indian programs in 
this bill are less than those for land management agencies, for 
cultural activities, for the Department of Energy, for territorial 
administration, or for the main office of the Department of the 
Interior itself. This is a fair bill that will be distorted unfairly, 
unwisely, and unsustainably by this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to make a few observations 
on the amendment offered by my colleagues on the Committee on Indian 
Affairs. I strongly support this amendment because it seeks to restore 
funds that go directly to tribal governments for basic, necessary 
governmental functions, such as public safety and law enforcement, 
education, human services, and community development each vital 
elements of any government, whether it is a State, local, or tribal 
government.
  I appreciate the work of the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee. I know they have tried to 
craft a spending bill that equitably distributes the reductions taken 
as a result of an overall reduction of nearly 11 percent from fiscal 
year 1995 levels.
  Howeer, I remain greatly concerned with the reductions reported by 
the committee for those programs administered through the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
  H.R. 1977, as reported by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, 
reduces spending for BIA administered programs by approximately $255 
million from fiscal year 1995 enacted levels, and $207 million below 
the level passed by the House earlier last month.
  While the committee report indicates that every effort was made to 
limit reductions for Indian-related programs, I would respectfully ask 
my colleagues to take a closer look at overall spending for each of the 
major spending categories for Indian programs. Depending on how one 
reads the numbers, one could come to the conclusion that Indian 
programs are reduced by a modest 8 percent.
  While this may be the case if you add in all Indian-related 
categories such as the Indian Health Service, Indian Education, and 
others, it is also true that programs administered through the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs will suffer a reduction of nearly 38 percent in 
fiscal year 1996.
  Further, and most importantly, Mr. President, is the fact that these 
reductions will immediately, and most definitely have hurtful impacts 
on many Indian people and Indian communities. Unlike the proposed 
reductions to the other Interior agencies such as: the National 
Endowment for the Arts, 33 percent; the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, 33 percent; and the Institute for Museum Services, 27 
percent.
  Cuts in these programs, I suspect, will not force people to go 
hungry, lose their homes, or reduce an already depressed standard of 
living.
  Mr. President, I need not remind my colleagues of the living 
conditions that exist on many Indian reservations and in many Indian 
communities, nor do I need to remind my colleagues of the history of 
Indian people on this continent and the unique relationship that has 
evolved between Indian tribes, the Congress, and the Federal 
Government.

[[Page S11974]]

  We, as Members of Congress, have a compelling trust responsibility to 
Indian people, the origins of which are grounded in the Constitution 
and through treaties, agreements, and Executive orders that were 
negotiated with individual Indian tribal nations.
  Because Congress and the executive branch have, for many years, 
endorsed the concept of tribal self-determination, and tribal self-
governance, efforts have been made so that tribal governments are 
empowered to administer a greater number of Federal programs with the 
flexibility to determine how best to serve their local communities. 
While the Federal Government speaks of ``self-determination'', our 
actions--such as these cuts--continue to force dependency.
  In keeping with the concept of empowering our local communities, the 
amendment before us today seeks to restore $200 million to the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs ``Tribal Priority Allocation'' line item. These funds 
go directly to Indian tribes for the operation of all tribal 
governmental programs and are not funds that are siphoned off by the 
operation and administration overhead costs of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  According to the committee report, ``Tribal Priority Allocations'' 
are proposed to be reduced by nearly $343 million from budget estimate 
levels. Again, what causes me great concern is that the proposed 
reductions are not to construction programs or economic development 
programs, but to funding that goes directly to local Indian 
communities.
  Like all Members of this body, I am well aware of our current 
budgetary constraints and the necessity for each of us to step up and 
make sacrifices, however, I believe we should do so in the framework of 
the budget resolution this Congress adopted earlier this year, Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 13. In that resolution the Senate directives in 
all spending categories that provide a direction of where we need to 
reduce spending in order to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. 
In function 300, the category for natural resources and environment, 
there were several recommendations that were made with respect to 
agencies of the Department of the Interior. One recommendation assumes 
a 10-percent reduction in the operating budgets of the Forest Service, 
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of 
Land Management.
  In addition, the committee recommendation assumes the devolution of 
the National Biological Survey. While that would also have negative 
impacts in my home State, that cut is preferable to forcing real people 
into even deeper poverty and deprivation.
  Further, the bill as passed out of the House recognizes the need to 
trim the Federal bureaucracy. That is reflected through reduced 
spending for the various land management agencies. I support those 
principles.
  I tend to believe that in order to maximize the taxpayer dollar, we 
should not continue to feed the Federal bureaucracy, but should promote 
funding that will go directly to local communities, in this instance, 
Indian communities.
  As debate continues on this amendment, I would ask my colleagues to 
give their strong support for this amendment. Supporting this proposal 
is to further empower local communities to maximize taxpayer dollars 
and to reduce spending on Federal bureaucracy.
  It is also the right and moral thing to do. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
the amendment being offered by Senators Dominici, Inouye, and McCain.
  The Interior appropriations bill as it is now written would single 
out native American programs for deep, deep budget cuts. While we must 
all do our fair share to bring down the budget deficit, these programs 
that are so important to our Indian people of my home State of Montana, 
are being singled out unfairly.
  For instance, as Senator Domenici pointed out last night, 47 percent 
of the savings in this bill come from the Indian programs. And, under 
the Senate bill in its present form, BIA programs would be slashed by 
about half a billion dollars--a reduction of over 30 percent from last 
year's appropriation.
  In a word, this is unfair.
  But it is also unwise. While the leadership of Montana's tribal 
nations have worked hard--and effectively--to improve conditions on our 
seven reservations, enormous needs remain.
  We need to do more to educate our Indian youth. But this legislation 
cuts Indian education.
  We have a trust responsibility to provide for the health and welfare 
of our Native Americans. But this legislation takes a meat axe to those 
programs.
  And, while we should be doing everything possible to encourage 
economic development on our Indian reservations--places with some of 
the highest unemployment in America--community development programs 
take a huge hit in this legislation.
  I believe our Indian people are willing to do their fair share to 
bring down the deficit. But it is wrong to single them out for such 
unfair treatment. For this reason, I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of 
Senators Domenici, Inouye, and McCain to restore funding to the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, but I am very concerned about the offsets for the 
amendment.
  Unfortunately, the managers of the bill, the distinguished chairman 
of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd, have made clear their 
belief that passage of the amendment in its current form would result 
in cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey that could force the closure of 
the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, a state-of-the-art facility 
that receives, processes, and distributes data from Landsat satellites. 
Today, the Center holds the world's largest collection of images of the 
Earth, including more than 3 million images acquired from Landsat, 
meteorological, and foreign satellites.
  While I strongly support the goal of the Domenici amendment--to 
restore BIA funding for key tribal programs--in light of the statements 
by the bill managers that the offsets in the amendment could eliminate 
EROS funding, I cannot support the amendment as currently drafted.
  The amendment represents the right thing to do, but the wrong way to 
do it. It is my hope we can go back to the drawing board and work out a 
compromise that restores this essential funding for Indian priorities 
without robbing EROS funding. I will be doing all I can to accomplish 
that goal.
  There should be no misunderstanding about the need for the 
restoration of BIA funding. The existing level of funding for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and tribal programs is extremely 
inadequate. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs received a slight 
increase in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request, the 
Republican-controlled Congress appears intent on drastic cuts. The 
House of Representatives cut the administration's request by $100 
million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee reduced it by $500 
million. At the same time, we are considering an Armed Services 
Committee-reported defense bill that proposes spending $7 billion more 
than the Pentagon has requested. This is yet another clear indication 
of misplaced priorities.
  The objective of the BIA is to encourage and help Indian people 
manage their own affairs under the Federal trust relationship. 
Historically, the BIA has never been funded at a level that meets the 
needs of Indian people. The reductions in the BIA tribal priority 
allocation account recommended by the Interior Appropriations Committee 
have the potential to further decrease and eliminate many important 
programs such as tribal courts, law and order, social services, roads, 
and housing needs that are so important to tribal self-sufficiency.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of Senators Domenici, Inouye, 
and McCain to address the problem associated with the offsets. Again, 
while I feel I cannot support the amendment as currently drafted, I 
hope that, before the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill becomes law, 
we can restore funding for Indian programs without forcing the closure 
of EROS.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Domenici. I am proud of the 
native American heritage which is so much a 

[[Page S11975]]
part of South Dakota's history. However, the Domenici amendment would 
inadvertently threaten the future of the EROS Data Center in Sioux 
Falls, SD, which will carry South Dakota into the 21st century and will 
bring new jobs to our state.
  South Dakota can trace its native ancestry back more than 9,000 
years. Today, South Dakota is home to nine Sioux or Lakota Indian 
tribes: the Cheyenne River Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, the Flandreau 
Santee Sioux, the Lower Brule Sioux, the Oglala Sioux, the Rosebud 
Sioux, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, the Standing Rock Sioux and the 
Yankton Sioux. South Dakota's Indian reservations are the very poorest 
areas in the Nation.
  Mr. President, I recognize the importance of Federal funds to the 
survival and growth of the Indian tribes. These funds also are part of 
the longstanding Federal policy of self-governance. During my 20 years 
in Congress--both in the House and the Senate--I have strongly 
supported legislation to authorize and fund programs for native 
Americans. In fact, I recently coauthored a proposal which would allow 
tribes to run their own welfare programs.
  Though, I support the intent and the goal of the Domenici amendment, 
I must object to the means used to fund the goal. The funding offsets 
could result in the elimination of the EROS Data Center--which in many 
ways, represents the future of technology in South Dakota.
  The Earth Resources Observation Center, commonly known as EROS, was 
established in Sioux Falls, SD in the early 1970's. South Dakotans are 
justifiably proud of the EROS Data Center. For 20 years, it has been 
the Nation's primary center for managing and distributing land remote 
sensing data. Its excellent track record for making this information 
available has made EROS famous among scientists throughout the world.
  The National Satellite Archive houses the world's largest collection 
of space- and aircraft-acquired imagery. It currently holds more than 8 
million aerial photos and over 2 million satellite images of the Earth.
  EROS facilities house the scientists, researchers, and technicians, 
as well as the high performance computer systems and advanced 
telecommunications networks, needed to process and distribute the data. 
Researchers use the data to better understand the Earth, determine the 
extent and distribution of natural resources, monitor land surface 
changes, and evaluate environmental conditions.
  What makes EROS unique is the availability of its information. The 
images collected at EROS provide very important information for 
agriculture, mining, urban planning, and other global change research. 
In fact, in South Dakota, many native Americans are utilizing Landsat 
data provided by EROS to manage land and resources on their 
reservations. EROS enjoys an internationally renowned reputation--a 
reputation that is well-deserved. The economic future of South Dakota 
depends upon the advanced technologies of facilities such as EROS.
  Balancing the budget requires that we make difficult choices. This 
certainly is one such choice. But a balanced budget is the key to 
growth for both the native American and scientific communities. Without 
balanced budgets, interest on the Federal debt will continue to 
skyrocket, squeezing out funds for legitimate programs, such as the 
tribal priority allocation.
  I would be pleased to work with my colleagues during the upcoming 
House-Senate conference to find a way to fund Indian programs without 
unnecessarily cutting other programs which are vital to South Dakota. 
It is my hope that we can work to this end.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 4 minutes, 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, for all Senators, let me 
suggest that the chart which Senator Gorton, my good friend, has just 
alluded to, in this Senator's opinion, does not state the case right.
  What we really should focus on here is Department of Interior 
funding, and not the entire bill. There are a lot of other things in 
this bill, some by accident, some by precedent and design, but the 
Department of Interior, of which the Bureau of Indian Affairs is 26.6 
percent in budget terms--I say to the Senator from Mississippi who is 
observing this chart, the fact is that within the Department of 
Interior--that is all of the Department of Interior--a 26-percent 
portion it is getting cut 45.6 percent.
  There are 550 Indian and Alaska Native governments in the United 
States; about 250 of them are villages in Alaska. This source of 
funding that we attempt to replenish has been cut $270 million. What 
this amounts to is economic termination of Indian self-determination 
and self-governance policies. If you take 27 percent away from the 
governments that we say should have self-determination, take it away 
from them, have we not made a de facto decision that Indian government 
cannot run, that it is going to be there with seriously reduced 
resources?
  Nothing else in the Department of Interior comes close to getting cut 
27 percent. As a matter of fact, many Senators do not even know because 
many States have no Indian people, but these are little, tiny villages 
in some instances and they may get $350,000 to run their government, to 
operate their own local welfare assistance program--not the American 
system, theirs. They get it for fire protection, for police protection. 
And we are saying to them, the United States of America is cutting its 
overall budget for all kinds of things; you little governments, the 
smallest governments in America and the poorest, you take a 27-percent 
hit. And we will go through all this kind of arithmetic and say it is 
only a reduction of 8 percent for Indians. But 8 percent for all the 
Indian programs has little to do with the Department of Interior 
funding which we believe has inappropriately taken 27 percent out of 
Indian governments.
  How are they going to operate? Self-determination is eloquently 
spoken to in the Chamber. How do you have self-determination when you 
just gut little Indian governments all over the place; you say you used 
to get $350,000 to run it. We are going to take 27 percent away, but be 
self-determined. Get on with running your own government, but do it 
with a third fewer resources.
  Really, it is not going to work. It amounts to deciding by 
appropriations that Indian government is going to have to retreat, 
perhaps disappear in some cases. Frankly, in the final analysis it will 
not work.
  Now, having said that, Mr. President, this bill does some good 
things, the overall bill does in fact help Indians--not the Interior 
Department allocation of funds which we are debating. The overall bill 
does some wonderful things except it takes too much out of the tiny 
Indian governments. The bill also has Indian health in it. That is not 
the Department of Interior. The only source of health protection on 
reservations is the Indian Health Service of the Department of Health 
and Human Services, but it is funded in this bill.
  So what we have done, what the chairman and ranking member said is 
``Let us keep Indian health solid.'' It is a $2 billion program for all 
the Indians of America. That has nothing to do with the program that 
funds tribal government operations--general assistance to the 
individual tribal governments that serve Indians under their tribal 
government. They provide small child welfare programs, services for 
Indian families within the rubric of a tribe, police protection, 
resource protection and other vital functions for maintaining tribal 
life.
  Mr. President, the chairman's chart is deceiving. I wish I had a 
simple one that just said, out of the Department of Interior programs 
for Indian tribal governments--known as the Tribal Priority Allocation 
Program--there is a 27-percent reduction. The small Indian governments 
are cut 27 percent. Overall, the BIA represents 26 percent of all 
Interior Department functions, yet the BIA cuts in this bill account 
for 45 percent of the Interior Department's reduction for the next 
fiscal year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GORTON. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 47 seconds 
remaining.

[[Page S11976]]

  Mr. GORTON. Indian programs even in the Department of the Interior 
are not cut 27 percent but 16 percent. But the point is from the 
perspective of the country as a whole, how much money is being reduced 
from Indian programs? In this bill, 8 percent; for everyone else, more 
than 12 percent. Indians are doing almost twice as well in this bill 
alone as are all of the other functions in this bill combined. Because 
of the budget resolution, there has to have been a reduction. These 
reductions are taken fairly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds to clarify a 
mistake that I made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. Indian tribal 
government funding is cut 27 percent. That is what we are attempting to 
replenish. I mistakenly said all Indian programs within the Bureau are 
cut 27 percent. But the tribal priority allocations are the program 
that helps them directly to govern, and this is the program that is cut 
27 percent.
  Thank you for giving me 30 seconds.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2296 to H.R. 1977. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and 
the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 374 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Burns
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Dole
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Grams
     Mack
  So the amendment (No. 2296) was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have now dealt with two of the most 
contentious amendments to this bill. We have now finished, I believe, 
debate on mining patents and on grazing, and the principal, but though 
not the only amendment on Indian programs. I have been prepared to go 
to a series of amendments on the endowments at this point. But the 
objection to the committee amendment on the endowments was lodged by 
Senator McCain, who is now chairing a markup in the Indian Affairs 
Committee.
  There is also an amendment on an African-American museum by Senator 
Simon, who has to attend that same committee session. I trust that it 
will be relatively short. We would be prepared to take another 
amendment on another subject.
  But, Mr. President, what I would like to announce is, of course, the 
majority leader and the managers of this bill would like to have a full 
debate but, at the same time, would like to finish the bill today. So I 
request that Members on my side try to get to me or to my staff within 
the course of the next hour and give us notice and, if they can, copies 
of the amendments they propose to lodge. I believe the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia will make the same request. We would like to 
be in a position, within an hour or so, to get a unanimous-consent 
agreement at least as to the amendments that are available for 
consideration, so that we can see how to manage our time for the rest 
of the day.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I share the viewpoint expressed by the 
distinguished manager of the bill. I hope that our floor staffs will do 
whatever they can to contact the Senators' offices and let them know 
that amendments should be called up.
  There is a desire and a need to complete action on this bill today. 
The sooner Senators will come to the floor and offer their amendments, 
the sooner we will be able to achieve that goal.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a brief statement on another 
matter. If it is the desire of the managers to consider an amendment I 
will withhold. But if there is not, I would like to proceed briefly on 
another matter.
  Mr. GORTON. That is perfectly satisfactory, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  

                          ____________________