[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9553-S9574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             New World Mine

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will speak briefly on a subject that is 
part of the bill that is before the Senate, part of the bill on 
Interior. It has to do with the New World Mine. It has to do with the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I rise to support the language that is in the Interior appropriations 
bill requiring that any expenditures out of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund to be used for the purchase of the New World Mine 
must be authorized by the authorizing committee. That is also true of 
the Headwaters Forest.
  There is some notion that there was an agreement during the debate on 
the budget with the administration that these funds would be available 
for authorization. I think it was clear the other day when the Senator 
from New Mexico came to the floor and spoke and indicated that there 
was no such agreement. I am here to congratulate the committee on that.
  First let me make a couple of points clear. One is, I oppose the 
development of the New World Mine. I was one of the first elected 
officials to oppose that. There are some places, in my view, that are 
inappropriate for mining. I think this is one of them. It is true they 
were in the middle of EIS when the agreement was made to stop the mine, 
but nevertheless I have opposed that long before the President signed 
the agreement and came to Yellowstone Park with great fanfare and 
stopped the development of the New World Mine. I had opposed that. So 
despite the rhetoric that is coming out of the White House and is 
coming out of the CEQ at the White House, there was not an agreement, 
there was not an agreement for the expenditure of this money.
  This is not an issue of whether you want to protect Yellowstone or 
whether you don't. We all want to do that. No one wants to preserve it 
certainly more than I. I grew up just outside of Yellowstone, 25 miles 
out of the east entrance. I spent my boyhood there. I understand the 
area. I am also chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and we 
worked very hard and will continue to have a plan to strengthen the 
park and to save parks. So that is not the issue. That is not the 
issue.
  We will have before this Senate, as a matter of fact, at the 
beginning of next year, a plan called Vision 20/20 which is

[[Page S9554]]

designed to increase the revenues that are available to parks, to do 
something about this $5 million in arrears in terms of facilities. So I 
am committed to the parks and I can guarantee you that we will have a 
program to do that.
  What this involves is a commitment on the part of the administration, 
a commitment on the part of the White House, a commitment on the part 
of Miss McGinty at CEQ who has become the political guru for White 
House natural resources to do what they indicated they would do.
  Let me read just a little bit from the agreement that was made in 
Yellowstone Park on the 12th day of August 1996, between Crown Butte 
Mines, Crown Butte Resources, Northwest Wyoming Resource Council, and a 
number of others and the United States of America.

       Objectives of the parties.
       As set forth in greater specificity below, the objectives 
     of the Parties in entering into this agreement are to: (a) 
     provide for the transfer by Crown Butte to the United States 
     of the District Property in exchange for property interests 
     owned by the United States having a value of $65 million; * * 
     *
       2. The United States will, as expeditiously as possible, 
     identify Exchange Property with a fair market value of $65 
     million that is available and appropriate for exchange for 
     the District Property.

  That is what it says in the agreement. That is what is agreed to. 
That is what everyone thought we were doing.
  The reversal now is the White House is saying well, there was an 
agreement that we will take cash out of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund for these items. That is not what the agreement was. There was not 
an agreement to do that. We are saying the White House should live up 
to the agreement that they signed back on August 12 of this year.
  They have claimed no property to be found. I can't believe that. I 
have talked to the owners of the mine and they are willing to accept 
most any property that they could sell and turn into cash. So that is 
what it is all about.
  I believe the current language in the appropriations bill is correct. 
There is $700 million authorized in the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund but the expenditure is not simply left to the discretion of the 
administration but, in fact, the committees of jurisdiction have an 
opportunity, indeed, have a responsibility for the authorization.
  I yield the floor.


                            CROWN BUTTE MINE

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague 
Senator Gorton for the position he has taken in this Interior 
appropriations bill on the proposed buy-out of the Crown Butte mine in 
my State of Montana. I am very supportive of the position and the 
language he has in this bill to address a very complicated and 
unfortunate issue.
  A little over a year ago, while on vacation in Yellowstone National 
Park, the President took an action that still has me shaking my head. 
Using an administrative decision, the President circumvented the 
process that Congress enacted to provide for the protection of our 
natural resources in this country. The National Environmental 
Protection Act [NEPA] was designed to provide an indepth analysis prior 
to any action taking place on public lands throughout the Nation. The 
effect of this analysis is to make sure that any project being 
contemplated is safe for the public and takes into account the welfare 
of the natural resources.
  This administrative action which the President took, provides for a 
cash buy-out of the Crown Butte mine and entirely circumvented the NEPA 
process. The State of Montana, the mining company, and others had spent 
unlimited amounts of time and a great deal of money to go through the 
NEPA process. However, this work was completely undone by the actions 
of the President and the Council on Environmental Quality. With the 
NEPA process eliminated, to this day we still do not know what the 
results of the environmental impact statement would have been. The 
administration, overrode good, sound, scientific processes for a policy 
based on a feel good mentality.
  During the past year, several attempts have been made to come up with 
either property or money to fulfill the commitment made by this 
administration to the mining company. The first of these attempts, the 
Montana initiative, a plan which the State of Montana developed with 
the approval of the White House and would have swapped property in 
Montana for the Crown Butte property also located in Montana. This 
attempt failed, which would have provided compensation to the State of 
Montana for lost revenue, when the administration failed to bring the 
parties to the table to complete the negotiations. Later in the year, 
the Council on Environmental Quality decided they could take funds from 
one of the most successful environmental programs, the Conservation 
Reserve Program, to pay off the company. This, of course, proved 
unacceptable to numerous Members of Congress, the farmers of this 
Nation and several conservation and wildlife organizations. The 
administration's attempts to complete this deal have shown little 
regard for the public and their involvement in the process.
  Finally, as congressional leadership and the administration 
negotiated the Balanced Budget Act, an outline for coming up with 
funding was completed. I reiterate here, that this was just an outline, 
not an agreement for specific projects. This agreement provided for 
$700 million to be placed into the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
[LWCF], for priority land acquisitions. No specific projects were 
detailed in this agreement. Senator Domenici, who assisted in the 
negotiations as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, came to the 
floor earlier this week to spell out what exactly was detailed in the 
agreement reached in the Balanced Budget Act. Senator Domenici read 
from the agreement which proves that no specific projects were included 
in the agreement.
  The Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee was then placed in a position of deciding exactly how 
those funds would be expended. I congratulate the Chairman for the work 
that he did to come up with a reasonable approach to this issue. In 
dealing with this expenditure of funds, the Chairman has placed 
Congress back into the loop where they belong. The language in this 
bill provides that the funds will be set aside until Congress has the 
opportunity to authorize the spending on particular projects. Congress 
has a responsibility to the public to review any and all expenditures 
of this magnitude. I have been elected to address the concerns of all 
the people including the citizens of Montana who have been ignored by 
this Presidential directive. In this particular arrangement, the 
administration seemed to have overlooked one very important and vital 
person in this whole scenario. Ms. Margaret Reeb, the owner of the 
property on which the mine itself would have been located.
  What the chairman has done with this language is provide Ms. Reeb, 
Park County, and the State of Montana a chance to voice their concerns 
with the administrative action he has taken. They are the biggest 
losers in the action proposed by the President. In the case of Ms. 
Reeb, the property owner, her private property rights have been 
violated, as well as has her devotion to the heritage from which she 
came. As for the State of Montana and Park County, well in an area 
where mining provides some of the best paying jobs in the State, income 
and economic development have been thwarted without even the slightest 
consideration provided for this loss.
  Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the work and the position 
he has taken on this issue. He has shown great insight and provided 
leadership in the development of a solution that will provide Margaret 
Reeb and others an opportunity to voice their say on this matter. I 
thank the chairman and appreciate his hard work.


                           Amendment No. 1221

     (Purpose: To provide for limitations on certain Indian gaming 
                              operations)

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Coats, Mr.

[[Page S9555]]

     Lugar, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1221.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN INDIAN GAMING OPERATIONS.

       (A) Definitions.--for purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Class III gaming--The term ``class III gaming'' has the 
     meaning provided that term in section 4(8) of the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(8)).
       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning provided that term in section 4(e) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450(e)).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of the Interior.
       (4) Tribal-state compact.--The term ``Tribal-State 
     compact'' means a Tribal-State compact referred to in section 
     11(d) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2710(d)).
       (b) Class iii Gaming Compacts.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Prohibition.--During fiscal year 1998, the Secretary 
     may not expend any funds made available under this Act to 
     review or approve any initial Tribal-State compact for class 
     III gaming entered into on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act except for a Tribal-State compact or form of compact 
     which has been approved by the State's Governor and State 
     Legislature.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph may be 
     construed to prohibit the review or approval by the Secretary 
     of a renewal or revision of, or amendment to a Tribal-State 
     compact that is not covered under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Tribal-state compacts.--During fiscal year 1998, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Tribal-State 
     compact for class III gaming shall be considered to have been 
     approved by the Secretary by reason of the failure of the 
     Secretary to approve or disapprove that compact. This 
     provision shall not apply to any Tribal-State compact or form 
     of compact which has been approved by the State's Governor 
     and State Legislature.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment to the bill 
that comes as a result of several years of involvement with the Indian 
gaming issue in Wyoming. I want to mention, you may have a copy of an 
early version of the amendment. I hope you have a copy of this more 
recent version.
  What we are trying to achieve with the bill is to be sure that the 
Secretary of Interior is not drafting any rules or regulations that 
would bypass the States in the process of dealing with Indian gambling.
  Now, that is what this amendment works to do, and I rise to join my 
distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, 
the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan, the Senators from Indiana, 
Senators Lugar and Coats, and the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, 
in offering an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill.
  This amendment would place a 1-year moratorium on the Secretary of 
Interior's ability to approve any new tribal-State gambling compact if 
the compact has not been approved by the Governor and the State 
legislature of the State in which the tribe is located. This 1-year 
moratorium will give Congress an opportunity to review the approval 
process of Indian gambling compacts as well as the effect of gambling 
on the society as a whole.
  Mr. President, last year Congress approved the formation of a 
National Gambling Impact Study Commission to conduct a 2-year study of 
gambling's political, social, and economic effects. By authorizing the 
study, Congress realized the potential dangers that the recent 
explosion in casino gambling poses to society at large. While this 
study has yet to get seriously underway, the expansion of casino 
gambling is continuing at an alarming rate.
  The desire for quick cash has had an effect on everyone, including 
native Americans, and them as much as any other segment of the 
population. A Congressional Research Service report issued this past 
June showed that since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 
1988, the Secretary of the Interior has approved over 180 tribal-State 
gambling compacts. As of June of this year, 24 States now have gambling 
on Indian reservations within their borders. Mr. President, 145 Indian 
tribes currently have one or more casinos on their lands. This 
proliferation of casino gambling on tribal lands and society at large 
has not been without its negative effects. John Kindt, a professor of 
commerce and legal policy at the University of Illinois, has concluded 
that for every $1 in tax revenue that gambling raises, it creates $3 in 
costs to handle such expenses as economic disruption, compulsive 
gambling, and crime. Gambling is an industry in which a precious few 
make a fortune, while the penniless thousands pay the price with their 
shattered lives, painful addictions, and widespread crime.
  In light of the detrimental effects of the proliferation of casino 
gambling, Congress should review the approval process of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act to determine what long-term changes need to be 
made to this act. While the regulation of gambling is generally 
reserved to the State governments, the power to regulate gambling on 
Indian tribal lands rests primarily with Congress.
  Let me explain precisely what this amendment would do. The amendment 
my colleagues and I are offering places a 1-year moratorium on the 
approval of any new tribal-State gambling compacts if the compacts have 
not been approved by the Governor and the State legislature in the 
State in which the tribal lands are located. This amendment does not 
prohibit the individual States and Indian tribes from negotiating class 
III gambling contracts. It simply requires if there is to be an 
expansion of the tribal-State gambling contracts within a State's 
borders, these compacts must first be approved by the State's popularly 
elected representatives and Governor. Again, this moratorium is only 
for a period of 1 year. A 1-year moratorium will allow Congress to 
reexamine the long-term approval process of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act to determine if the current process is in the best 
interests of the tribes, the States and the country as a whole.
  The rationale behind this amendment is simple: Society as a whole 
bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A State's law enforcement, 
a State's social services and communities are seriously impacted by the 
expansion of gambling, casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. 
Therefore, a decision of whether or not to allow casino gambling on 
tribal lands should be approved by the popularly-elected 
representatives. I believe a 1-year moratorium on the approval of new 
gambling compacts which do not receive approval from the Governor and 
the State legislature is a reasonable beginning to a very important 
debate on reexamining the long-term approval process under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort. Again, the 
amendment that we have presented would give a clear indication to the 
Secretary of the Interior that we do not want rules and regulations 
that will bypass State authority and put the State in a situation--
since the gaming doesn't affect just the lands, just people on the 
tribal lands, it affects those immediately surrounding it to a great 
degree. The further you are from the gambling, the less impact there 
might be. But there is an effect on a greater number of people than 
just the tribe. In our State of Wyoming, we had an initiative about 3 
years ago to allow local option decisions on gambling. When that 
initiative was first presented, according to polls, 70 percent of the 
people were in favor of allowing that local option. We took a look at 
the situations in the States surrounding us, what was happening, and 
when we had the vote, 70 percent of the people in Wyoming said, no, 
that isn't the way we want our State to go, that isn't the way we want 
our neighbors to inflict their decisions on us. So the State, as a 
whole, took an approach of not allowing class III gambling by 70 
percent. That was with a lot of money against it.

  So we have some concern in our State. My purpose with the amendment 
is to make sure the State's concerns would be represented in this, as 
well as everyone else's. I mention that, with the first version I put 
out, I got a call from the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. 
He had some concerns. He thought I was trying to eliminate a particular 
tribe in a particular place in New Mexico. That was not my intent. I 
took a look again at the wording and changed it to the wording that has 
gone to the desk because, again, we want to emphasize

[[Page S9556]]

that our purpose in this is to make sure that the States are involved 
in the decision as well.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Wyoming in 
his remarks. Last year, I served as attorney general for the State of 
Alabama and dealt with this precise issue. There is a considerable 
amount of litigation going on in the country resulting and culminating 
from the Seminole Indian case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme 
Court last year. The basic problem is that under Federal gambling law, 
there appears to be some confusion as to whether the Secretary of the 
Interior can intervene in the negotiating process between States and 
Indian tribes with regard to the kinds of gambling that would be 
allowed in the State.
  For example, in Alabama, we have one particular Indian tribe that has 
three distinct parcels of land, as I recall, in various parts of 
Alabama. If the Secretary of the Interior were to allow the tribe to 
have casino gambling at any one site, they would also be able to have a 
casino at the other two places within Alabama. That result has been 
resisted very steadfastly because three major gambling casinos would, 
in fact, let the wall down. Casino gambling would spread throughout the 
State, and it would not make any difference what the people of Alabama 
felt about gambling or casinos in general as the casinos would be built 
without ever having put the matter before the people of Alabama for 
consideration.
  This is a very important national issue. It is a very important issue 
for those who believe gambling should not be spread and for those who 
believe that the growth of gambling should only occur when the people 
have voted on it. Allowing the Secretary of the Interior to 
unilaterally sanction tribal gambling is a way to get around popular 
elections that would allow local people and local officials to decide 
whether to allow or disallow gambling. So it has a real serious effect. 
The gambling industry has suggested repeatedly that they think if a 
State does not go along with their desire to have casinos on the 
reservations, then they could approach the Secretary of the Interior 
and get his permission. In fact, they have said that in Alabama for 
some time.
  As attorney general, my office researched the law governing this 
issue, and I came to the conclusion that the Secretary of the Interior 
did not have the ability to sanction tribal gambling in this manner. In 
fact, I wrote him a letter in June of last year which explained the 
legal arguments which appear to preclude him from exerting such 
authority. But the possibility that the Secretary does retain such 
authority has remained a matter of discussion among those involved in 
the question of the spread of gambling in America, and there are 
progambling forces that have suggested that the Secretary of the 
Interior does have that power.

  This amendment, I think, would simply clarify the legislative intent 
Congress had when it passed the Gambling Act a number of years ago. 
This amendment would not allow the Secretary of the Interior to 
override the popular will of the people in the States where tribal 
gambling is at issue. I think it is very good policy.
  I salute the Senator from Wyoming. I think he is right on point. If 
the Secretary of the Interior were to be inclined to attempt to assert 
authority in this area, we need to stop it. And if he doesn't intend to 
intervene and if he does not intend to assert such power, he should not 
be offended by this legislation because I think it merely reflects the 
will of this Congress.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enzi 
amendment on the temporary moratorium on the expansion of gambling on 
tribal lands. I will just make a very brief and succinct point. In the 
last Congress, we passed Public Law 104-169, which established the 
National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission. It was for the purpose 
of studying the social and economic impact of gambling and reporting 
its findings to Congress. I supported that legislation. I thought it 
was important legislation, particularly since the gambling industry has 
expanded so much. The industry rakes in $40 billion a year annually in 
the United States. It operates in 23 States. The amount of money 
wagered annually in the United States today exceeds $500 billion --half 
a trillion dollars.
  There have been a number of questions regarding the industry overall. 
It just seems to me that what we should do is a logical progression 
here. We are saying there are a lot of questions regarding the impact 
of that amount of gambling taking place in the United States, that 
pervasive amount, that size of money. What we should do now is, let's 
pause for a moment and let's not expand this any further until we have 
this Commission reporting back on what the impact is to the United 
States.
  There have been lots of allegations of negative impacts of the 
gambling industry. It is widespread, it is expansive, and it is in 
many, many areas. Let's let this Commission meet, let's let them make a 
conclusion, let's let them report to Congress on these items before we 
expand any further than the $40 billion, 23-State industry that it is 
today.
  That is why I think the Senator from Wyoming is bringing up an 
excellent point in this. Now, I don't want my views to be construed as 
in opposition to the chance for economically deprived Indian nations to 
bring needed economic activities to their communities. That is not what 
this statement is about. I think it is a positive thing that tribes are 
striving to provide employment and health care and housing and other 
important services, in light of the position of where they are 
economically and the difficulty and the needs that they have. This 
amendment does not ban Indian gaming. It does not affect gaming 
compacts which are operational or already have been approved. It simply 
places a temporary prohibition on the Secretary of the Interior to 
approve any new tribal-State compacts.
  I think, in light of this, a national commission that has been 
established, and the questions regarding a societal impact on the 
overall United States, that this is an appropriate approach. I commend 
the Senator from Wyoming on this very reasonable approach.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before proceeding with my remarks, I wish 
to state for the Record that there are two States in this Union that 
prohibit gambling of any sort--the State of Utah and the State of 
Hawaii. In the State of Hawaii, it would be a crime to conduct bingo 
games. There are no poker games, no slot machines and no casinos in the 
State of Hawaii. The same thing presents itself in the State of Utah. 
Yet, I find myself rising to express my opposition to the amendment 
proposed by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
  Though I am personally against gaming, and I would oppose any attempt 
on the part of the State of Hawaii to institute gaming in our islands, 
I find that I support gaming for Indians because of two reasons. One, 
our Constitution states that Indian nations are sovereign and that we 
have carried this out by treaties and by laws and by Supreme Court 
decisions. Indian nations are sovereign.
  Second, there were 800 treaties, Mr. President, as we stated a few 
days ago, and of those 800 treaties, 430 are still lying idle in the 
archives of the U.S. Senate. These treaties have been lying there for 
over 100 years. And we have found that, though these treaties are in 
correct form and appropriate because of changes in circumstances, the 
Senate has decided not to consider them, debate them, have hearings on 
them, or pass upon them. And 370 were ratified by this body. But, Mr. 
President, sadly, I think we should note that of the 370 treaties that 
we ratified, we have violated provisions in every single one of them.
  These were solemn documents and many of them had language and phrases 
that were very eloquent, very dramatic. Imagine a treaty beginning

[[Page S9557]]

with words, such as, ``As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in 
the west, as long as the rivers flow from the mountains to the streams 
below, this land is yours.''
  Indians started off with 500 million acres of land. Over the years, 
because of our violation of provisions in our treaties, and because of 
our refusal to consider these treaties, Indians have 50 million acres 
left. This was their land. There were sovereign nations long before we 
came here. When they gave up this land, we promised them certain 
things, such as providing them shelter, education, and health 
facilities. And what do we find in their land? Unemployment averaging 
57 percent. We pride ourselves with our low unemployment rate in our 
Nation of 5.2--5.2 for the Nation and 57 percent for Indian country. 
Some unemployment rates are as high as 92 percent, Mr. President. The 
health conditions in Indian country are worse than in third world 
countries--the worst statistics on cancer and the worst statistics on 
respiratory diseases. And if you look at the social life in Indian 
country, it is a scandal. We as Americans should be embarrassed and 
ashamed of ourselves. The suicide rate among the young people in Indian 
country is eight times our national norm. Some 50 percent of the young 
ladies in Indian country have considered suicide.
  If this Nation had lived up to the promises that we made many decades 
ago, I would not be standing here speaking against the Senator from 
Wyoming, because I am against gaming. Hawaii is against gaming. But, 
today, I find that I must speak in opposition.
  Mr. President, regretfully, the chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs is not able to be with us at this moment because of a 
very important and very urgent matter that suddenly came to his 
attention. He has asked me to express his concerns, and he has said 
that this statement I am about to present meets with his approval, and 
so it is a joint statement of the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell, and myself.
  Mr. President, 2 months ago, Senator McCain, the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona, and I introduced a bill to amend the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act. A hearing on this bill has been scheduled for 
October 8. It was not scheduled today. This has been announced, and it 
was announced over a month ago, long before this measure was up for 
consideration.

  So I would like to suggest to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming 
that the proper forum to consider his proposal would be before that 
committee. I can assure my friend from Wyoming that his proposition 
will be considered with all seriousness.
  We have consistently opposed efforts to amend the Indian Gaming Act 
in a piecemeal fashion. And this is what it is. We do so again today.
  At a time when the Indian Affairs Committee, the authorizing 
committee, is making every effort to make adjustments in the act which 
will reflect contemporary realities, this amendment only serves to 
undermine our efforts to assure that any amendment to the act is 
consistent with over 200 years of Federal law and policy.
  For the benefit of our colleagues here who may not be familiar with 
the context in which this amendment is proposed, allow me to share with 
you a few relevant facts.
  Last year the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on one 
important aspect of the regulatory act. While the Court did not strike 
any provision of the act, its decision left a vacuum of remedies when a 
State and a tribal government come to an impasse in negotiations which 
would otherwise lead to a tribal-State compact. These compacts, 
pursuant to the law, govern the conduct of class 3 gaming in Indian 
lands.
  The Secretary of the Interior has stepped into the void created by 
the Court's ruling by inviting public comments on whether an 
alternative means of reaching a compact ought to be established through 
the regulatory process until the Congress has the opportunity to act. 
The Secretary has not had and does not have any intention to establish 
regulations on his own. He is assisting our committee. He is assisting 
the Congress of the United States by inviting comments from all 
interested parties--Indian country, gambling interests, government 
officials, Governors, attorneys general, and present them to us. The 
decision will be made here, not by the Secretary of the Interior.
  This amendment is designed to preclude the Secretary from proceeding 
in what many believe is a constructive effort to advance the public 
dialog. If anything, we should be encouraging the Secretary to invite 
comments so that it will help us to expedite our efforts. But this 
amendment does not just prevent the Secretary from proceeding--it would 
also effect a dramatic change in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by 
federally preempting the laws of each State.
  I hope that my colleagues realize that this amendment, which looks 
innocuous and reasonable, will have that effect of telling the several 
States of this Union that, notwithstanding their constitution or their 
laws, this is the way business is to be carried out.
  Under the current law, the regulatory act does not touch any State's 
law or constitution. Mr. President, we did this very deliberately--when 
we enacted the law.
  Instead, the act recognizes that each State's constitution, and State 
laws enacted in furtherance of the State constitution, may differ in 
many respects. There are 50 States, 50 different constitutions, and 50 
different sets of laws.
  Over the course of the last 9 years, as a function of litigation on 
this very point, we have learned a lot about the various States' laws. 
For example, some States and their constitutions provide that the 
Governor is authorized to enter into contracts, agreements, or compacts 
with another sovereign. The Governor is authorized to do that.
  Other State constitutions would require the ratification of the 
Governor's action by the State legislature. Some States don't require 
that. Still, other constitutions provide that only the State 
legislature can act for the State in terms of entering into binding 
legal agreements. And there are other State constitutions that are 
silent as to these responsibilities. In some States their laws 
determine when the Governor can act on behalf of the State and in what 
circumstances the legislature must act. And the supreme courts of the 
various States have issued many opinions on these matters at great 
length.
  This amendment we are considering at this moment will now require 
that no tribal-State compact can be approved by the Secretary unless 
both the Governor of the State and the legislature of the State have 
approved this compact.
  This amendment will, therefore, set aside the constitutions of the 
various States, the laws of the various States, and would impose new 
requirements on each State, notwithstanding what their constitutions or 
law may provide to the contrary.
  This is a very substantial change in Federal law effecting rights 
that States jealously guard.
  I know of no Governor who has expressed a desire to have the laws of 
his or her State preempted by Federal law.
  In 2 weeks' time the authorizing committee will carry this dialog 
forward and provide an opportunity for all affected parties to weigh in 
with their views. We are hoping at that time the distinguished Senator 
from Wyoming will present his views to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 
And this amendment, Mr. President, will preempt that very important 
public discussion.
  Mr. President, I want to make very clear that I do not question the 
wisdom of the proponents of this amendment. I just believe that there 
are others--State and tribal governments--upon whom the effect of this 
amendment will be directly visited and who ought to have the 
opportunity to have their views known.
  So, once again, Mr. President, I call upon the Senator from Wyoming 
to withdraw this amendment and allow the authorizing committee to 
proceed with our work where his concerns and the concerns of his 
colleagues will have the benefit of full public consideration.
  Mr. President, it is true that there are 171 compacts that have been 
approved. It is also true that there are about 120 gaming 
establishments presently on Indian reservations. But it should be 
pointed out that less than 10 are making money. I am certain all of us 
know, or should know, that reservation lands are trust lands. Actually 
the

[[Page S9558]]

titles to those lands lie in the hands of the Government of the United 
States. So, as a lawyer would say, they cannot be alienated. One cannot 
go to the bank and say, ``I want to borrow $1 million, and I will put 
up this parcel of land as collateral.'' You can't do that with 
reservation lands. So, in order to initiate or establish a gaming 
enterprise, these Indian governments have to go out to other sources 
for financing. When that happens, Mr. President, I am certain you 
realize that the rates that they would have to pay are much, much 
stiffer than what you and I would be required to pay to a bank. Yes, 
moneys are flowing in. But at this time Indians are not making that 
money. Operators are making that money.

  But those Indian tribes that are making a few dollars have applied 
those moneys to causes and to projects that we have failed to provide. 
They are building schools that we should have built. They are building 
hospitals that we should have built. They are building homes that we 
promised them.
  So, Mr. President, though I oppose gaming in any form, if this 
country is unable to or refuses to live up to the promises that we made 
by treaty, if this is the only way they can raise funds, so be it.
  Mr. President, I hope that this body will give their committee, the 
Committee on Indian affairs, an opportunity to conduct this hearing, 
receive the views of all of our colleagues, and act accordingly.
  So, with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I really appreciate the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from Hawaii. I know of his long-time 
involvement in the Indian issue and of his long-time involvement in the 
Senate. In fact, I think he is the only person in the Senate who has 
been in the Senate since his State became a State.
  There is a lot of tradition, a lot of history, and a lot of 
specialization and involvement in this particular issue. I have to 
admit that in the last few minutes I have learned a lot about the 
issue. From talking to him earlier in the morning, I learned a lot 
about the issue. I also got an opportunity to talk to Senator Campbell. 
Again, I learned a lot about the issue. I have been involved in it 
before. But there was a different level of involvement, and these are 
people with a tremendous tradition and history on the issue.
  Again, my intention with the amendment that I presented is to see 
that the Secretary of the Interior does not bypass our process, that he 
doesn't write his own rules with the opinion, or believe that that can 
bypass some of the States' involvement in the issue.
  I do think that for the friendship and cooperation that has been 
built up in some of the States over the years, that this is an issue 
that still has to have the States' involvement. That is the only way 
that people can live together and work together and make sure that the 
Indian interests and some of the Indian problems are solved along the 
way.
  I appreciate the Senator's comments about the fact that only about 10 
of the casinos are in a situation where they are making a lot of money. 
I have visited some of the reservations where the casinos are and have 
noted the disappointment by the tribal members over how poorly their 
casino was doing. I have seen that on nontribal casinos as well, 
because I followed the Colorado situation where the small businessmen 
in the small towns that were allowed to do the class 3 gaming looked 
forward to the time that they would be wealthy from gambling. They 
found out that it takes some different talents than they had as small 
businessmen to run a big casino. So, they didn't make the money that 
they had anticipated on it either, although there is a lot of money 
being made in a lot of places on gambling.
  My intent on this is to make sure that the States are a part of the 
process. The Senator mentioned the hearing that is coming up. I really 
appreciate the fact that he is going to hold a hearing and cover some 
of these important issues. My amendment would not undo the hearing. All 
of the issues can still be addressed in that hearing. If a bill comes 
out of that hearing and it covers the issue of State involvement, or at 
least this issue of whether the Secretary of the Interior can expend 
money to bypass the State process, if that is in there, I would work to 
be sure that the repealer of this amendment is in that bill. I would 
work for that passage. I don't think there would be any difficulty with 
it. I don't know of anybody who would oppose it if that were assured as 
a part of that hearing process.
  So, I commend him for his efforts already on this and his willingness 
to hold a hearing, which, of course, was already scheduled and planned 
well before I ever even thought of an amendment, but his willingness to 
be sure that that issue is addressed in there. That is what I got from 
his comments.
  We want to make sure that where the Court may have made some things 
unclear, they are clarified, and, again, that the State involvement in 
the issue is not left out. People live too close together these days to 
have the tribes separate from the States on the gaming issue.
  Lastly, I will address the comments about federally preempting State 
laws. That would never be my intent. Anybody who has looked at anything 
that I have done in the State legislature or since I have came to 
Washington would, I think, agree that everything that I have done has 
been to assure States' rights. It is not my intent with this. As I 
learn, I make changes.
  I guess I would ask the Senator from Hawaii, if I made a change to 
the amendment, one that would, instead of mentioning the Governor and 
the State legislature--which I understand now in some States one has 
the authority, and in some others the other has authority, and in some 
States it requires both to participate in order to do it--if we could 
change the wording so that if it was approved by a State in accordance 
with State law in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, if that would be a 
wording change that would then make this acceptable in both places 
where I mentioned the Governors and State legislatures--because I would 
like to make this so that I am not preempting State law. I don't intend 
to do that and would be willing to make that change if it would make a 
difference.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to commend my friend from Wyoming 
for his reasonable approach. But I must say that I would still have to 
oppose the whole amendment because this is a piecemeal handling of this 
very important proposition which we have before us.
  I would like to read for the Record a statement issued by the 
administration.
  It says:

       The Department--

  The Department of the Interior--

     strongly opposes denying any tribe the badly needed economic 
     opportunity envisioned and authored by IGRA.

  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

       Indian gaming has provided benefits to over 120 tribes and 
     their surrounding communities in over 20 States. As required 
     by law, revenues have been directed to programs and 
     facilities to improve the health, safety, educational 
     opportunity and quality of life for Indian people.
       The amendment--Of the Senator from Wyoming--

     would deny similar economic opportunities for additional 
     tribes and communities.

  Accordingly, I hope most respectfully that the Senator would 
seriously consider withdrawing the amendment, and I can assure him in 
behalf of the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee that we will 
accommodate him to every extent possible. He can tell us what witnesses 
he wishes to be heard. In fact, I am certain we will be able to 
accommodate him as to when the hearings are conducted. Our first day of 
hearings will be on October 8, but if he wants 3 days of hearings I can 
assure the Senator from Wyoming that he will have 3 days of hearings, 
or 4 days of hearings.
  I can also assure the Senator that we will very seriously consider 
every proposition that he makes. So I hope that his amendment would be 
withdrawn.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just 2 or 3 days ago, we had a not 
dissimilar discussion in this Chamber on proposals that would change 
present law with respect to Indian and non-Indian relationships. There 
were two provisions in

[[Page S9559]]

this bill, of which I was the author, about the immunity of Indian 
tribes from lawsuit brought by non-Indians and on the way in which 
money was distributed to Indian tribes through the tribal priority 
allocations.
  The Senator from Hawaii, with the same degree of eloquence that he 
has used here this afternoon, spoke strongly against those amendments, 
along with several of his colleagues, partly on the merits but with 
even more vehemence and eloquence perhaps from the perspective that 
these were new proposals reversing many years of history about which 
the Committee on Indian Affairs had had no opportunity for broad-based 
hearings, listening to both sides of the issue.
  As strongly as I felt and feel about the justice of those two 
proposals, I certainly had to agree on that procedural matter with the 
Senator from Hawaii. There was last year one rather desultory hearing 
on sovereign immunity, none on the distribution of money from the 
Congress to Indian tribes. Between now and the middle of next year 
these two questions will be very seriously considered by the committee 
itself, by the General Accounting Office, and I think with increasing 
awareness by Members of the Senate. That history is in striking 
contrast with the history of the policy that is the subject of the 
amendment proposed by my friend and colleague from Wyoming.
  I returned to the Senate after a hiatus in 1989 and joined that 
Indian Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the Senator from 
Hawaii. I cannot count the number of hearings the committee has had on 
this subject. Indian gaming is not something that has a long history. 
It was authored, if my memory serves me correctly, in 1988, and it has 
proliferated mightily ever since then with a graph with a steep upward 
curve.
  Objections and protests from Governors, from State attorneys general, 
and from communities have been constant from the time of a first 
compact. Pressure from the Department of the Interior on States to 
enter compacts even when States did not wish to do so has been a 
constant in this field. Attempts to overrule vetoes on the part of 
States has been a constant effort ever since. Year after year after 
year there are hearings on the subject in that committee and absolutely 
nothing happens.
  Not only has no bill on the subject reflecting the views of those in 
whose communities these casinos have been created or about to be 
created been reported, no bill on the subject at all has been reported 
and, to the best of my memory, none has ever come to markup so that 
members of the committee could vote on it.
  So I simply have to tell my friend from Wyoming a promise of hearings 
is a hollow promise, at least if history is any guide to this question 
whatsoever.
  I must say to you, Mr. President, that I do come to this debate with 
a relatively long history, not so much with respect to Indian gambling 
but with respect to organized gambling overall. It was the subject that 
came up the first year that I was attorney general of the State of 
Washington more than a quarter of a century ago. I have always been of 
the opinion that under most places and under most circumstances it is a 
socially highly dubious activity that has adverse social and cultural 
impacts, rivaling those of other kinds of activities that we either 
prohibit or keep strongly under control.
  At the same time, I recognize the desire under some circumstances to 
gamble is something that is a part of all of our human natures. 
Therefore, I have never been an absolute prohibitionist on the subject. 
Certainly, however, it seems to me that it is a subject important 
enough so that the views of the communities that are asked to take on 
challenges and forms of business that they have never historically been 
visited with ought to be given immense weight in making these 
decisions. And they simply are not under the law as it exists at the 
present time.
  I cannot say what the intention or the expectations were of Members 
who were here when the original bill was passed, but I do not think it 
was the intention that in State after State and community after 
community Indian tribes or their designees would purchase land off, in 
most cases far off, of the historic Indian reservations and 
immediately, with the compliance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, put 
it into trust status so that it stopped paying taxes to the community 
and then license gambling activities on it. And yet that is what has 
taken place in community after community across the country. In most of 
these States it is an activity in which only this small group of 
American citizens is permitted to engage. Very few States have taken 
the drastic step of saying, well, the Federal Government can foist 
Indian casinos on us. We might as well let anyone ask for a casino 
license.
  In most places, it is an activity that is available only for this 
group of people and only by the interference of the Federal Government. 
So States lack the ability to enforce rational land and business 
regulations within their boundaries even outside the historic 
boundaries of Indian reservations.
  By pure coincidence, Mr. President, in the group of clippings from 
our own State, which almost all of us get every day, I have today an 
editorial that was printed late last week in the Yakima, WA, Herald 
Republic which uses the State of the occupant of the chair as an 
example. I will share a little bit of it with you. It says:

       Developments in Lincoln City, Ore., could serve as a wakeup 
     call for this state to step back and take a long, hard look 
     at the long-range implications of the proliferation of 
     gambling now underway.
       Officials in Lincoln City, a picturesque family resort area 
     on the Oregon coast, have noticed some changes in the 
     landscape of the community since the advent of the Chinook 
     Winds Casino and Convention Center. A local tavern started 
     featuring exotic dancers while three new quasi-pawn shops and 
     a check-cashing business opened.
       Longtime residents say they've noticed other changes in the 
     community and Lincoln City Mayor Foster Aschenbrenner said 
     the real effects of the casino on the community will take at 
     least two more years to fully realize.
       ``People used to come here for the natural beauty of the 
     beaches and for swimming,'' said Merilynn Webb, who has lived 
     in Lincoln City since 1930. ``Now they come to gamble, and 
     that's a whole different mentality.''

  I doubt that the people of Lincoln City voted on this change. I doubt 
that the Oregon Legislature did. Perhaps the occupant of the chair will 
be able to enlighten us on that. I doubt that there is a huge Indian 
reservation inside the boundaries of Lincoln City. Yet, this change has 
taken place in that community without the kind of thoughtful, long-
range consideration that a community should be permitted to engage in 
before such activities are permitted.
  Last year, this body and the House and the President agreed that the 
proliferation of organized and legal gambling in the United States did 
present a number of very real social problems to the country. We 
created a commission on gambling to study those impacts and to make 
recommendations to us with respect to them. The net effect of the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Wyoming would be at least for a 
time--I wish the moratorium were for a longer period of time, but for a 
period of time to allow that commission to hold its hearings, to work 
on its recommendations and perhaps give it the opportunity to make 
recommendations to us in this connection while those recommendations 
still may have some meaning rather than to wait until after it is all 
over. The offer of the Senator, the meaning of his amendment, is simply 
to say, ``look, why should this simply be a decision made by the Indian 
tribes themselves and the Department of the Interior without an 
effective right of veto, or an effective right to have these requests 
meet the requirements of the general laws of each of the States 
concerned?"
  I cannot think of a more reasonable request. I certainly can't 
believe that it is unreasonable to say that we should have a pause in 
the creation of enclaves outside of reservations, in communities in 
which the Secretary of the Interior can authorize gambling, when we are 
way beyond reservation boundaries themselves.
  In fact, I don't think--I don't know the answer to this question--
that many of these new casinos are going up in areas that are on the 
reservation. I know one current request to the State of Washington is 
for a location 50, 60, 100 miles from the reservation that promotes it, 
right at the front gate of an Air Force base. There is no promise by 
the Indian tribe that any significant share, any significant number of 
the

[[Page S9560]]

members of the tribe will be employed in that casino. Almost certainly 
it will be run by an outside contractor and the tribe will get a 
certain percentage of the take. It is not going to provide real job 
opportunities there, but it will have the same effect that every other 
casino has. The money that is spent there is not being spent in small 
businesses in the community, or in other communities. There will be a 
certain addition to the number of addicted gamblers and broken 
families. And we don't have the opportunity to consider all of these 
impacts.
  The proposal by the Senator from Wyoming gives us an opportunity, for 
1 year, to pause to determine whether, whatever the positive impacts of 
this law are, they are not outweighed by the negative impacts. It is 
not permanent in nature. It will not outlast the effectiveness of this 
1-year appropriations bill. But it will cause us to be able to consider 
these impacts.
  I don't believe that in all these years since 1989 we have ever 
debated this issue on the floor of the Senate. Certainly we have not 
done so because of any bill reported by the Indian Affairs Committee. 
In fact, it would seem to me that the goals of the vice chairman of the 
committee, the Senator from Hawaii, would be better served if we passed 
this moratorium. I am certain that, if we pass the moratorium, the 
Indian Affairs Committee will consider the matter urgently, and I 
strongly suspect we will see a bill of some sort reported by it. But, 
if history is any guide, withdrawing the amendment in exchange for 
hearings will cause us to be back here 1 year from today talking about 
the same issue under the same set of circumstances that we are talking 
about it today but with a dozen or more additional Indian casinos 
across the country creating problems in each and every community in 
which they exist.
  So I must say that I strongly support the effort being made by the 
Senator from Wyoming. I think it is the right answer. I think it is a 
thoughtful answer to a real national challenge that involves far more 
than the question of whether or not particular Indian tribes are making 
particular degrees of profits from these activities, or not. This is a 
question that goes far, far beyond that and I think can only be 
addressed thoughtfully and objectively, considering all of its impacts, 
if we have the kind of pause for which the amendment calls.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
pendency of this legislation, Tony Danna, a congressional fellow in my 
office, be granted the privilege of the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I very sadly find I must rise and respond 
to the statement just made by my friend from Washington. First, he 
stated that a promise of a hearing is a hollow one. I find this rather 
sad, because I have always considered any promise that I have made for 
hearings as a very serious one. In fact, the hearings that the Senator 
alluded to were held by the Indian Affairs Committee in an extra large 
committee hearing room, and we accommodated every witness that was 
submitted to us by the Senator from Washington. We invited every person 
that was on his list.
  Furthermore, we made it known to the attorneys general and the 
Governors of the several States. None wished to be heard. Every Indian 
country spoke up against the Senator's proposition. I don't think that 
was a hearing that was taken lightly.
  As to the hearings that will commence on October 8, I would like to 
point out, respectfully, that the bill that we will be considering is a 
result of over a year of consultation with attorneys general, with 
Indian leaders, with Governors. Before that, for 2 years Senator McCain 
and I traveled to the several States meeting personally, eyeball to 
eyeball, with attorneys general, with Governors. We spent hours, we 
spent days, weeks, months, meeting with these officials to discuss the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. We did not take our responsibilities 
lightly. We take it very seriously, especially in my case when I am 
opposed to gaming. I don't want to see people running gaming 
operations, people that I would not invite into my home. We take it 
very seriously.
  There was another matter that was brought up by my friend from 
Washington. He stated that Indian nations were purchasing parcels of 
land and having them placed into trusts by the Interior Department, and 
then establishing gaming operations. This is the law that was passed 8 
years ago:

       Gaming regulated by this act shall not be conducted on 
     lands acquired by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of 
     an Indian tribe after the date of the enactment of this act, 
     unless the Governor of the State in which the gaming activity 
     is to be conducted concurs in the Secretary's determination.

  May I make this flatout statement, that the Interior Department has 
not approved any gaming activity on any land acquired and placed in 
trust if such gaming activity did not meet the concurrence of the 
Governor. That is the law of the land. One would gather from the 
discussions of the Senator from Washington that Indians are, helter 
skelter, buying properties all over this Nation, placing them in trust 
and then, in turn, establishing gaming enterprises.
  Yes, it is true that Indians are purchasing lands. They are trying to 
get back lands that belonged to them that were part of their 
reservations and taken away in violation of treaties and then placed in 
trust. But then they need the approval of the Governor, and, if the 
Governor has not granted this approval, there has been no gaming 
activity. That is a fact, sir.
  I can assure my colleagues that the promise we make of a hearing is 
not a hollow one. We will accommodate every witness that they submit to 
us. We will give them ample time to testify. If it means meeting a week 
or 2 weeks, we will do so, because the matter before us is an important 
one.
  Yes, there are tribes that are making money on this. There are tribes 
that are flourishing as a result of gaming activities. But there are 
only 8 tribes out of 121 casinos that are making money. The Nation at 
this moment is spending about $40 billion in gaming. Of that amount, $3 
billion is being spent in Indian country, but the profits of less than 
10 percent go to the Indians at this time.
  So, we have treated the Indians badly. Let's not exacerbate that.
  Mr. President, this is from the Secretary of the Interior:

       I respectfully request that you oppose this type of 
     amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I have 
     recommended to the President that he veto similar legislative 
     amendments placed in previous appropriations bills.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                                       Washington.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: I understand that Senator Enzi intends 
     to offer an amendment to the FY 1998 Interior Appropriations 
     bill which would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     (IGRA). The Department strongly objects to the proposed 
     amendment for several reasons.
       IGRA was enacted to allow Indian tribes the opportunity to 
     pursue gaming for economic development on Indian lands. Since 
     1988, Indian gaming, regulated under IGRA, has provided 
     benefits to over 120 tribes and to their surrounding 
     communities in over 20 states. As required by law, revenues 
     have been directed to programs and facilities to improve the 
     health, safety, educational opportunities and quality of life 
     for Indian people.
       The Department also objects to substantive policy 
     amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act without 
     hearings involving Indian tribes, state officials and the 
     regulated community. We have consistently supported efforts 
     to build a consensus between tribes and states for amendments 
     to IGRA that would improve the compacting process and 
     increase regulatory capacity. The Senate Committee on Indian 
     Affairs has scheduled a hearing on October 8, 1997 which will 
     focus on S. 1077, a bill to amend the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act. This orderly process allows all parties 
     involved in Indian gaming to contribute testimony on how or 
     whether IGRA should be amended. Significantly amending IGRA 
     through the appropriations process circumvents the legitimate 
     expectation of tribal governments that their views will be 
     heard and considered.
       The Secretary's trust responsibility to the tribes 
     coincides with Congress' requirement

[[Page S9561]]

     of only disapproving gaming compacts if they violate IGRA or 
     other Federal law. The proposed amendment would require both 
     state gubernational and legislative approvals, which would in 
     most cases present yet another barrier to a tribe's 
     successfully negotiating the long and complex procedure 
     necessary for entering into tribal gaming. Moreover, the 
     amendment requiring two state-level approval of a tribal-
     state compact raises serious issues of Constitutional law 
     because it infringes on the State's Constitutional rights of 
     self government.
       I respectfully request that you oppose this type of 
     amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. I have 
     recommended to the President that he veto similar legislative 
     amendments placed in previous appropriations bills.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I listened to the debate, discussion, the 
colloquy that has occurred between the Senator from Hawaii and the 
Senator from Wyoming, who is the sponsor of this amendment. I read the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Wyoming, and I believe that it 
does not in any way interfere with the operation of existing tribal-
State compacts. It has no operative effect on those agreements, and I 
do not understand that the Senator from Wyoming intends to have any 
operating effects.
  Further, it is my understanding from reading the amendment that the 
Senator's intent is designed to prevent the Secretary of the Interior 
from unilaterally approving a compact and bypassing the State process 
that has been established. He attempts to accomplish this by imposing a 
1-year moratorium.
  No. 1, it does not in any way have an operative effect on existing 
tribal-State compacts.
  No. 2, I think it is fair to say that the purpose of it is to prevent 
the Secretary of the Interior, in effect, from bypassing the process, 
the State compact negotiating process, to unilaterally approve such.
  I support what the Senator from Wyoming is trying to accomplish.
  I have had conversations with the Secretary of the Interior in the 
past, and I know he believes that he has the ability to do that 
unilaterally.
  Having said that, the point that is made by the Senator from Hawaii 
is absolutely accurate. That is, as this language is cast in its 
present form, it would preempt the State process by requiring both the 
Governor and the State legislature to concur with any compact that has 
been negotiated with the tribal government. The Senator from Hawaii is 
absolutely correct in the statement that he makes.
  I believe that the Senator from Wyoming, responding to that concern, 
has offered language that addresses that issue when he proposes to 
change or modify his amendment by striking line 7 and interlineating in 
its place instead ``in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
and State law,'' and at the bottom of page 2, striking all after the 
word ``approved'' on line 17 and inserting similar language. I believe 
that he accomplishes the objective that I support and responds to the 
very legitimate point that the Senator from Hawaii makes.


                    Amendment No. 1221, As Modified

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified in the manner in which the Senator from Wyoming proposed.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I certainly agree to that change. I had not 
proposed that change. I will be happy to do it. The intent was never to 
infringe on any of the State procedures, but to accommodate the States 
in the way they have operated in the past. I ask for that change. In 
the meantime we have gotten it typed up, and I send this provision to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN INDIAN GAMING OPERATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--for purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Class iii gaming.--The term ``class III gaming'' has 
     the meaning provided that term in section 4(b) of the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(8)).
       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning provided that term in section 4(e) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450(e)).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of Interior.
       (4) Tribal-state compact.--The term ``Tribal-State 
     compact'' means a Tribal-State compact referred to in section 
     11(d) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2710(d)).
       (b) Class III Gaming Compacts.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Prohibition.--During fiscal year 1998, the Secretary 
     may not expend any funds made available under this Act to 
     review or approve any initial Tribal-State compact for class 
     III gaming entered into the or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act. This provision shall not apply to any Tribal-State 
     compact which has been approved by a State in accordance with 
     State law and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph may be 
     construed to prohibit the review or approval by the Secretary 
     of a renewal or revision of, or amendment to a Tribal-State 
     compact that is not covered under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Tribal-state compacts.--During fiscal year 1998, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Tribal-State 
     compact for class III gaming shall be considered to have been 
     approved by the Secretary by reason of the failure of the 
     Secretary to approve or disapprove that compact. This 
     provision shall not apply to any Tribal-State compact which 
     has been approved by a State in accordance with State law and 
     the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. So that I understand the parliamentary 
situation, the amendment is modified in the manner in which the Senator 
from Wyoming originally proposed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Hawaii for 
his thoughtful comments, because he is absolutely correct that the 
language that was originally selected would, indeed, preempt State law. 
I do not want to be a party to that. He, obviously, does not want to be 
a party to that as well.


         Amendment No. 1222 to Amendment No. 1221, As Modified

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning enforcement of 
                   the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree 
amendment, on behalf of Senator Reid and myself, and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself and Mr. 
     Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1222 to amendment No. 
     1221.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING INDIAN GAMING.

       ``It is the Sense of the Senate that the United States 
     Department of Justice should vigorously enforce the 
     provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requiring an 
     approved tribal/state gaming compact prior to the initiation 
     of Class III gaming on Indian lands.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to explain the purpose of my 
amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. When the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted in 1988, the year before I joined 
this body, a central concept was that class III gambling, such as 
casino and parimutuel gambling, could be conducted on Indian lands with 
a tribal-State compact approved by the Governors and tribes and then by 
the Secretary of the Interior.
  Today, there are hundreds of Indian gaming establishments across the 
Nation offering class III gambling. I might just add parenthetically 
that our experience in Nevada is that we currently have five such 
tribal agreements in which five tribes have entered into agreements 
with Nevada's Governor pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, and those compacts have been approved.
  I want to make it very clear that I support the intent of the act, 
and I support the right of Indian tribal governments to enter into 
compacts with States and to pursue gaming activity at a class III 
level.
  Most of the tribal governments that have entered into these 
agreements are operating under the approval of these tribal-State 
compacts, as contemplated by the original law. However, almost

[[Page S9562]]

from the beginning, there have been some tribes who have chosen to 
operate illegal class III gambling without an approved tribal-State 
compact. Over time, some of these gaming operations have become legal 
by negotiating compacts with the States in which they are located. Some 
gambling operators, including some who take in millions of dollars each 
year, have chosen to disregard, indeed, to flout the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act by blatantly continuing to operate illegal class III 
games without an approved compact, as contemplated by the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act.
  Many of the Nation's Governors have appealed to Congress and to 
Justice to stop this; simply stated, to enforce the law. In the 
meantime, these tribes continue to operate illegal gambling, believing 
that the Justice Department would not move to shut them down.
  To date, they have largely been right. The Department of Justice and 
U.S. attorneys across the country have done an abysmal job of enforcing 
Indian gambling laws. During the year since enactment of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act, I have had several discussions with Justice 
about this problem, both the previous administration and the current 
administration. None of these conversations have been very 
satisfactory.
  It is time that illegal gambling is stopped. The Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act is an important law, and it should be enforced. There is 
simply no excuse for Justice not to do that. There are widespread 
concerns about the lack of regulation in Indian-run gaming. Today, we 
should and must make it clear to Justice that this Congress expects its 
laws to be enforced. If Justice moved tomorrow to enforce the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act, those who conduct legal Indian gaming under the 
provisions of the law would benefit.
  I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this sense-of-
the-Senate provision. It is very simple, very straightforward. It does 
nothing to impede legal Indian gambling.
  I repeat that I support legal Indian gambling. We have such in 
Nevada. By this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, we are simply telling 
Justice that they should enforce existing Federal laws against illegal 
gambling. Simply: Do your job, enforce the law.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have no other speakers on this side on 
this amendment.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I think this is a nice addition to the 
amendment that we have, and I do support it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a result of the Supreme Court 
decision in Seminole of Florida v. State of Florida, we are in a 
situation that could result in tribal gambling compacts being approved 
by the Secretary of the Interior without the benefit of State approval. 
I support the Senator's interest in protecting States rights to help 
determine the degree of gambling that could occur on Indian 
reservations.
  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act [IGRA] was carefully constructed to 
protect both tribal and States rights in negotiating compacts that 
would make casino style gambling legal. When the Supreme Court decided 
the Seminole case, it held that the provisions in IGRA that allowed a 
tribe to sue a State for failure to negotiate were unconstitutional. 
States are protected from suit by the 11th amendment to the 
Constitution.
  We now have a void that some fear could be filled with a Secretarial 
determination to establish an alternate procedure that completely 
avoids State participation in the compacting process. IGRA requires a 
tribal-state compact before casino type gambling is allowed to operate 
on Indian reservations. This compact is intended to reflect State 
gambling law and hence varies from State to State.
  Under IGRA, a refusal by the State to negotiate with a tribe triggers 
a mediation process. If the mediation process does not result in an 
agreement, the Secretary is given authority to issue a compact based on 
the mediators recommendation.
  Senator Enzi is proposing language that would prohibit the Secretary 
of the Interior from approving compacts that do not have State 
approval. His amendment does not affect existing casinos that might be 
negotiating with States for renewal of their compacts, but it does 
prohibit the Secretary from issuing compacts to legalize gambling if 
those compacts are without State concurrence.
  Mr. President, the first version I saw of Senator Enzi's amendment 
raised a strong concern in New Mexico that the Senator from Wyoming was 
attempting to cancel the compacts in New Mexico that were recently 
approved because the Secretary of the Interior chose not to approve or 
disapprove. According to the provisions of IGRA, the Secretary is 
allowed 45 days to act. If he does not act, the compacts are deemed 
valid.
  New Mexico is the only State affected by the original language of the 
Enzi amendment. New Mexico was the only State to get compact approval 
of its compacts in 1997 because the Secretary did not approve or 
disapprove the compacts. I immediately discussed this situation with 
Senator Enzi and he assured me that he did not intend to target the New 
Mexico compacts because they are the product of years of tribal and 
State negotiations, law suits, court decisions, and legislative action.
  Senator Enzi has changed his amendment to protect States like New 
Mexico that have State concurrence in the gambling compacting process. 
With this change, I am able to support his amendment to prohibit the 
Secretary of the Interior from unilaterally creating compacts for 
Indian gambling without State concurrence in the process. I believe his 
amendment is important to protect the spirit of IGRA that recognizes 
the competing interests of tribal and State sovereignty in determining 
precise Indian gambling agreements.
  I recognize the new difficulty faced by tribes that do not yet have 
tribal-State compacts in light of the Seminole decision. I believe a 1-
year moratorium on Secretarial authority is appropriate as insurance 
against new compacts that avoid State participation. I am also 
supportive of legislative action that would clarify the process for 
tribes in States that refuse to negotiate, but I want to avoid a 
restructuring of the tribal-State balances we have struck in IGRA.
  There remain questions about the conditions and extent to which the 
Secretary and the tribe could initiate mediation and Secretarial 
compacts. We need to address these questions, but I do not believe we 
should leave the solution solely to the Secretary of the Interior. I am 
pleased that Senator Enzi has changed his amendment to recognize the 
New Mexico compacts and other compacts with State concurrence. They are 
clearly valid compacts under IGRA and we should not tamper with them in 
an appropriations bill.
  I am now in agreement with Senator Enzi's effort to prohibit new 
compacts from becoming legally binding if those compacts do not have 
State approval. New Mexico tribes and State government have gone 
through a long and hard process to reach agreement under IGRA. New 
Mexico voters have been well represented and tribal rights have been 
recognized. I believe each State should be allowed to participate as 
fully as New Mexico has in determining the extent of legal gambling on 
Indian reservations within its borders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1222) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, now that we have added the second-degree 
amendment to my amendment, I would like to conclude my remarks so we 
can move on with the other discussion that is so important to this 
appropriations bill.
  I do have to respond to some comments that were made earlier. I am 
not trying to do a piecemeal approach that will destroy what the Indian 
Affairs

[[Page S9563]]

Committee is doing. I commend them for any activities they take. This 
is just a very small part of the appropriations, and it is to prevent 
the expenditure of any moneys by the Secretary of the Interior that 
would bypass the State's right to an involvement in this process.
  I really appreciate the offer for the hearings, the offer to bring 
witnesses, even so generous as to suggest that we could use 3 days. We 
have been on this for almost an hour and a half, and that is really all 
I need, and I have used only a small portion of that. I think we have 
talked about this issue to the extent that we can, because I have 
modified it to put it in a situation where I am maintaining business as 
usual. We are assuring that there is a State's right to involvement in 
the Indian gaming issue. That is the way it is at the moment, and this 
amendment doesn't make any change in that.
  There is some talk about the words ``1-year moratorium'' in this. 
There is a 1-year moratorium because this is an appropriation, and the 
appropriation deals with 1 year's worth of expenditures, but it is not 
a 1-year moratorium against the tribes being able to do anything. It is 
a 1-year moratorium against the Secretary of the Interior being able to 
impose himself on the process. The Secretary of the Interior cannot 
make Federal law. We do that right here in conjunction with the House 
folks. I am trying to make sure that we can keep that same process. So 
we are not really asking for a 1-year moratorium on Indian gambling.
  I heard the letter that was read, and I assume that letter was 
written before the changes were made here that I have allowed in this 
amendment. If that letter was written and still intends to be a part of 
this discussion, I have to say that I am offended. I am offended that 
the Secretary of the Interior wants to impose his will and a threat of 
a Presidential veto over business as usual that has already been passed 
by the Senate.
  That is not a role that the Secretary of the Interior can have. We 
cannot give him that right. That is our right. That is our 
responsibility. That is what we were elected to this great body to do: 
to make the law. He can suggest guidelines, and we already have a law 
that suggests how this process works. The amendment, as it is now 
written, assures that all States have their rights in this process and 
that the law continues the way it is now. I have sent the change to the 
desk.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama, Senator 
Sessions, and the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, be made 
cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the body for their time and ask for their support 
on this important amendment.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it may very well be this amendment can be 
dealt with by voice vote, but there also may be one more speaker who 
wishes to speak on it. We are checking that out, and so for the moment, 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate to put the 
question on the Enzi amendment, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1221, as modified, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1221), as modified as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 1223

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for law enforcement activities 
        of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to reduce gang violence)

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I do not 
know whether it is at the desk yet, but I think it is not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the committee amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. 
     Campbell, and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 1223.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 1  . In addition to the amounts made available to 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs under this title, $4,840,000 
     shall be made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be 
     used for Bureau of Indian Affairs special law enforcement 
     efforts to reduce gang violence.''
       On page 96, line 9, strike ``$5,840,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,000,000''.

  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. As my colleagues can see from the reading of the amendment, 
it is a very short, very simple amendment, that simply takes $4,800,000 
from one project and provides it to another for dealing with the 
problem of gang violence on our Indian reservations. I ask for my 
colleagues' support.
  The amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished chairman of the 
Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell, and the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch.
  This amendment, as read, would provide the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
law enforcement with $4.84 million for antigang activities, equipment, 
and personnel. The offset would be from the Woodrow Wilson 
International Center for Scholars fund.
  The Senate Judiciary and Indian Affairs Committees held a joint 
hearing yesterday, Mr. President, which examined the growing problem of 
gang violence in Indian country. Therefore, I think it propitious that 
we are able to offer the amendment today to help alleviate the problem 
that was identified in that hearing.
  We heard from representatives of several Indian tribes, as well as 
the Justice Department, about the problem of gang violence on our 
reservations.
  Here are some of what we found.
  According to the Justice Department, violent crime nationwide has 
declined significantly between 1992 and 1996. The overall violent crime 
rate has dropped about 17 percent, and homicides are down 22 percent. 
That is the good news.
  Here is the bad news. In the same period of time, homicides in Indian 
country rose an astonishing 87 percent, Mr. President. The Indian 
Health Service tells us that the homicide rate among Indians is the 
highest among any ethnic group in the country--2\1/2\ times the rate 
among white Americans. Numerous tribes, including the Navajo Nation in 
my State of Arizona, record homicide rates that exceed those of 
notoriously violent urban areas in our country.
  The FBI reports a dramatic increase in violent crime attributable to 
gangs in Indian country, nearly doubling between 1994 and 1997. The 
BIA's law enforcement division identified 181 active gangs on or near 
Indian reservations in 1994. By 1997, that estimate had risen to 375 
gangs with approximately 4,650 gang members. The Navajo Nation alone 
reports at least 75 active gangs. Think about that for a moment, Mr. 
President. Just one Indian tribe in the State of Arizona has 75 active 
gangs.
  There is a small reservation just east of the Phoenix area that has 
19 active gangs on it. These are among Indian kids.
  On the Menominee reservation in Wisconsin, there was a 293 percent 
increase in the number of juveniles arrested between 1990 and 1994. And 
between 1995 and 1997, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of 
New Mexico has noted an evolution in juvenile killings from reckless 
manslaughters to vicious, intentional killings.
  The crimes can be heinous. On May 15, 1994, a 20-year-old Subway 
sandwich shop clerk was gunned down while on the job on the Salt River 
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona. That is the reservation I 
just alluded to a moment ago. Shot six times, including once in the 
face, young Pat Lindsay later died. His attackers stole sandwiches, 
chips, and $100 from the sandwich shop.

[[Page S9564]]

  On South Dakota's Lower Brule Reservation in 1996, four gang members 
broke into a police officer's car and threw in a Molotov cocktail.
  Mr. President, why is it that Indian country is particularly 
susceptible to gang violence? Part of the answer lies in demographics. 
The American Indian population is fast growing and increasingly 
youthful. Based on the 1990 census, 33 percent of the Indian population 
was younger than 15-years-old versus 22 percent of the general 
population.
  On the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona, about half of the 
reservation's population is expected to be under the age of 18 by the 
year 2000.
  Another reason for the growing problem is socioeconomic. American 
Indians lag in comparison to the general population, experiencing 
cultural disruption, poverty, chronic unemployment, and 
disproportionate rates of alcoholism and substance abuse. These create 
an environment in which gangs can flourish.
  Insufficient law enforcement and detention capability also contribute 
to the problem. Juveniles may be arrested, but tribes often lack the 
detention facilities, the probation officers, adequate social services, 
including substance abuse programs, creating a revolving door for these 
young people.
  So, Mr. President, the needs for this funding are apparent and 
urgent.
  I realize of course the need to offset the additional funding 
proposed in this amendment, this $4.8 million. The offset we are 
proposing comes from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for 
Scholars. Funding for the center would be set at the level recommended 
in the House-passed version of the Interior appropriations bill--$1 
million. The reduction, I said, amounts to $4.8 million.
  The Wilson Center was the subject of a Washington Post article in 
July. And I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that it be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1997]

         House Cut Would Kill Woodrow Wilson's Living Memorial

                           (By Stephen Barr)

       More than 30 years ago, when Congress decided to honor 
     Woodrow Wilson, it adopted a suggestion by Wilson's grandson 
     and created a ``living institution'' instead of erecting a 
     more traditional marble and stone monument to the nation's 
     28th president.
       Today, that living memorial--the Woodrow Wilson 
     International Center for Scholars--operates with public and 
     private money in antiquated offices at the Smithsonian 
     Castle. The center is not a think tank and does not take 
     positions on issues, but sees itself as a house where 
     scholars in a variety of disciplines can gather.
       But the Wilson Center appears to be at a crossroads. A 
     review by the National Academy for Public Administration 
     (NAPA) portrays the center as a splintered operation, 
     suffering from ``damaged morale'' and ineffective leadership. 
     The House, which ordered the review, voted Tuesday to give 
     the center $1 million for fiscal year 1998, essentially 
     enough money to disband.
       The House decision means the center's future will be in 
     doubt until later this year, since the Senate seems likely to 
     continue its funding. A Senate Appropriations subcommittee is 
     scheduled to meet today, and a spokeswoman for Sen. Slade 
     Gorton (R-Wash.) said he would propose that the center get 
     the same amount it currently receives, about $5.8 million.
       The dispute over the center has been overshadowed by the 
     clash over funding for the National Endowment for the Arts 
     (NEA), which receives its funding from the same 
     appropriations bill. Like the NEA, the Wilson Center is 
     caught up in the debate over how much the government should 
     subsidize cultural and intellectual activities.
       Center supporters stress that it is neither partisan nor 
     ideological. ``I can't understand why the conservatives 
     should be voting against the center,'' said Gertrude 
     Himmelfarb, a neoconservative and professor emeritus at the 
     City University of New York. ``It is the least trendy of all 
     the institutions in the United States. Of all institutions, 
     this is one they should be supporting.''
       But the center also faces a harsher kind of criticism: that 
     its existence no longer seems to make any difference, 
     particularly in public policy debates.
       ``I want them to be relevant,'' said Rep. Ralph Regula (R-
     Ohio), who heads the House subcommittee that placed the 
     center in jeopardy. ``Are they relevant as far as agencies of 
     government in town? I'm not sure they are. Are they relevant 
     to the public? Maybe a little bit.'' Regula added, ``They 
     don't seem to have a sense of mission; they're just kind of 
     drifting.''
       The NAPA report argues that the Wilson center's operations 
     need to be pulled together so that visiting scholars not only 
     pursue their research but also contribute to the center's 
     specialized geographic programs. The principal purpose of the 
     center, the NAPA report said, is ``the bridging of the worlds 
     of learning and public affairs.''
       Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), who led an effort in the 
     House to defend the center, said many of the center's 
     research efforts have ``a strong public policy connection'' 
     and said the NAPA report did not address the center's 
     relevance to such issues ``one way or another.''
       Charles Blitzer, 69, a target of the NAPA report, has 
     presided over the center as its director for the last eight 
     years. During an interview at his office, where he chain-
     smoked as the air conditioner struggled against the searing 
     heat outside, Blitzer noted that the NAPA report concluded 
     the center ``merits continued support.''
       He dismissed much of the report's criticism, saying that 
     ``we are stuck on a semantic problem'' about how to define 
     the center's ``mission'' in Washington. For the most part 
     Blitzer said, he believes that scholars at the center 
     should be left free to pursue their studies.
       According to the NAPA report, the center's only requirement 
     on fellows, in addition to fulfilling their study objectives, 
     is a five-minute presentation on their project to colleagues 
     and staff.
       The center annually selects about 35 fellows, who receive 
     an average stipend of $43,000 and spend their time studying 
     and writing. Previous and current fellows include Raul 
     Alfonsin, the former president of Argentina; Anatoly 
     Dobrynin, the former Soviet ambassador to the United States; 
     Washington Post reporter Thomas B. Edsall; author Betty 
     Freidan; New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman; 
     novelist Carlos Fuentes; Harvard University professor Samuel 
     P. Huntington; and Itamar Rabinovich, the former Israeli 
     ambassador here.
       More than 100 other scholars annually pass through the 
     doors of the center's geographic-based programs. They include 
     the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies and 
     programs devoted to Latin American, Asian, East and West 
     European, and U.S. studies. The center also operates the Cold 
     War International History Project and the Environmental 
     Change and Security Project, exploring such issues as global 
     population trends and how they fit into U.S. foreign policy.
       Some of Blitzer's colleagues agree that an artificial 
     division separates Wilson fellows from the various programs 
     and needs to be addressed. ``Scholars working on their own 
     research can enrich programmatic activities and vice versa.'' 
     said Kennan Institute director Blair Ruble.
       The NAPA report also heightened tensions over Blitzer's 
     management of the center, which was criticized in the NAPA 
     report. Blitzer rejected the criticism, saying he has worked 
     to improve the center's endowments, operations and 
     scholarship.
       When he arrived, Blitzer said, the center had an endowment 
     of $4 million and $2 million in debts. Now, he said, the 
     center's endowment is valued at $24 million, and $3 million 
     has been raised to furnish new quarters in the Ronald Reagan 
     building at the Federal Triangle, where the center has a 30-
     year, rent-free arrangement.
       Regula has expressed concerns about the Wilson Center's 
     role since the early 1980s and at one point opposed Blitzer's 
     plans to move the center into the Reagan building. Now, 
     Regula's funding cut and the NAPA study have plunged center 
     officials into internal meetings on how to address what Latin 
     American program director Joseph S. Tulchin called a 
     ``constructive kick in the pants.''
       Regula said he has ``no qualms'' about abolishing Wilson's 
     memorial if Congress concludes the tax dollars being spent do 
     not advance public policy or prove useful to society.
       But, he added, ``I'm a fan of Woodrow Wilson. For his time, 
     he was a great president, and I like the living memorial. To 
     me, it beats bricks and mortar.''

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as reported in this Post article, the Wilson 
Center selects about 35 fellows each year who receive an average 
stipend of $43,000 to spend their time studying and writing. The only 
requirement of the fellows is that in addition to fulfilling their 
study objectives, they provide a 5-minute presentation on their project 
to their colleagues and staff.
  A review of the center's operations by the National Academy for 
Public Administration earlier this year portrays the center as a 
splintered operation, ineffective, and drifting. The House 
Appropriations Committee's report on the Interior bill notes that the 
only accomplishment the academy could cite for the center was obtaining 
new office space on Pennsylvania Avenue.
  The House committee concluded:

       [T]he Center has operated so long without a clear mission 
     that it may be impossible to reestablish one within an 
     organization that has no relevance to real world public 
     policy issues.

  It seems to me that we could put this $4.8 million currently 
allocated to an operation that has been widely recognized as drifting 
and ineffective toward the real and growing problem of gang violence in 
Indian country. That is what this amendment is all about, Mr. 
President.

[[Page S9565]]

  I express my appreciation to Chairman Campbell and to Chairman Hatch 
for joining me in this amendment and for their leadership on this issue 
generally. I hope this amendment will be accepted and that we will 
begin putting the resources we need into fighting the growing problem 
of gang violence in Indian country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I rise in the firmest opposition to this proposal.
  Might I first state that I have not the least difficulty with the 
thought of the distinguished Senators that there might be more funds 
made available to deal with gang violence among Indian populations. 
That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I do not claim any specific 
knowledge in my awareness of anything notable in that way of difficulty 
in the State of New York.
  But, sir, I am appalled that this reasonable, modest proposal should 
be advanced at the expense and the effect of destroying the national 
memorial to President Woodrow Wilson. I have to tell you I was 
aggrieved to hear the gratuitous comments about the Woodrow Wilson 
Center that have just been made here on the floor.
  There is a history, Mr. President, and I will not go into it in any 
great detail, but I am prepared to spend the rest of the day and 
tomorrow, if need be. But let me see if I cannot be brief about this so 
that the Senate can get on with its work.
  In 1961, the Congress, by joint resolution, called upon President 
Kennedy to appoint a bipartisan commission for the purpose of proposing 
an appropriate memorial to Woodrow Wilson in the Nation's Capital. We 
have just seen the opening of the superbly designed memorial to 
President Roosevelt. In a time sequence, it is not inappropriate that a 
memorial to President Wilson would take place a quarter century 
earlier.
  In 1968, after a bipartisan commission had deliberated the matter, it 
was proposed that there be a living memorial to President Wilson--not a 
statue and not a fountain. And in all truth, he was never known to be 
seated on a horse.
  The idea arose from the same proposition put forth by the American 
Historical Association that said that, for all the fine universities, 
there was not a center for advanced studies here in the Nation's 
Capital where persons from around the world, and principally from the 
United States, could come and work in our archives, work on our various 
subjects, land that wouldn't it be a fine thing that there should be 
such, and why not have it as a memorial to President Wilson, who was a 
university professor, university president, a great teacher.

  In 1968, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act was passed. The act's 
preamble stipulates that this memorial is not to be a statue or a 
building bearing Wilson's name but rather a living institution 
expressing ``his accomplishments as the 28th President of the United 
States: A distinguished scholar, an outstanding university president 
and a brilliant advocate of international understanding.''
  There is a nice bit of history here which I will not ask anybody to 
elucidate further, but the measure provides that the chairman of the 
board of trustees be from the private sector and there be a mix of 
public and private individuals, all appointed by the President.
  On his last day in office, President Johnson appointed Vice President 
Hubert Humphrey to be the first chairman of the first board of 
trustees. It was something Hubert Humphrey, beloved Senator that we all 
know and remember so well, that is what he wished to leave in public 
life, as he assumed he would be doing, and go forward with.
  It happened at that time I had been appointed assistant to President 
Nixon. In my own work I have done some writing about Woodrow Wilson. 
President Nixon asked if I would be the first vice chairman. Now, there 
is a little bit of a problem here because if Lyndon B. Johnson was 
President, then Hubert H. Humphrey would be Vice President--not exactly 
a person in the private sector--but President Nixon was not going to 
make an issue of that.
  This is something everybody knew about at the time and was excited 
about at the time, and so we went forward. We have been at this now for 
30 years. The International Center has established an international 
reputation. The world over, there are persons in universities, in 
governments, who have been fellows here and retained a tie to the 
institution that is important. One does not wish to overstate, but it 
is an important fact of international life, particularly in the area of 
diplomacy.
  I might make the point that our present Secretary of State, most 
luminous and indefatigable Madeleine Albright, was a fellow at the 
Woodrow Wilson Center, and on the occasion of the 25th anniversary, 
President Bush arranged a dinner in the State Department. There were a 
series of lectures. At one of these, Madeleine Albright had this sort 
of happy remark, in a lecture. She said, ``Let me begin by wishing a 
happy 25th birthday to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for 
Scholars. I will never forget my own time at the center as a Wilson 
fellow. Where else can one do truly independent research, meet scholars 
from all over the world and get paid for working in a castle? I have 
always felt in a town full of monuments, the center is unique because 
it is a living monument. It memorializes not only Wilson, but Wilson's 
lifelong effort as an educator and President, to map a trail for a 
future that would elude the traps of the past.''
  She was referring, of course, to the Smithsonian Institution.
  At the time the center began, small amounts of money were made 
available from the Congress--about $5 million a year; now less. A 
fundraising effort has been made by the trustees to raise private 
funds. They now are a larger part of the budget than what the Federal 
Government provides. But there was no place to locate. Such was the 
expectation and understanding that the then Secretary of the 
Smithsonian, the Honorable S. Dillon Ripley, turned over that great 
Renwick Building, the Smithsonian Institution on the Mall, to the 
center. It's called among the family of Smithsonian workers the castle, 
and indeed it is a castle of sorts. It has been there ever since until 
just this moment. We have completed, on Pennsylvania Avenue, as the 
statute requires and dictates, a building for the center as part of the 
Ronald Reagan Building, which will be dedicated next spring.
  Let me take the liberty, Mr. President, of citing comments of a few 
Presidents of the United States. First of all, Lyndon Johnson, who 
signed the legislation, said ``The dream of a great scholarly center in 
the Nation's Capital is as old as the Republic itself * * * This Center 
could serve as an institution of learning that the 22nd century will 
regard as having influenced the 21st.''

  There was a certain serendipity that its first 30 years should be 
located in the Smithsonian building. The Smithsonian building was 
created there for the advance and diffusion of knowledge--primarily in 
the sciences but also in other areas. Here was the incubator for this 
new center, ``an institution of learning that the 22nd century will 
regard as having influenced the 21st.''
  Later in my remarks I will note that there is ample evidence that it 
has already influenced the 20th century.
  Jimmy Carter: ``The Wilson Center is a nucleus of intellectual 
curiosity and collaboration on issues of critical importance to our 
national well-being.''
  George Bush, who, as I say, hosted a dinner at the State Department 
on one of the anniversaries, said, ``In this alliance of scholars now 
world-renowned for exploring some of the most vital issues that 
confront mankind, Woodrow Wilson's ideals find their highest and most 
effective expression.''
  Ronald Reagan, in whose building the center will be part: ``The work 
of this organization symbolizes the yearning by Americans to understand 
the past and bring the lessons of history to bear upon the present.''
  Richard M. Nixon: ``One of the most significant additions to 
Pennsylvania Avenue will be an international center for scholars, to be 
a living memorial to Woodrow Wilson. There could hardly be a more 
appropriate memorial to a President who combined a devotion to 
scholarship with a passion for peace. The District has long sought, and 
long needed, a center for both men of letters and men of affairs.''
  And now to our own President at this moment, William Jefferson 
Clinton,

[[Page S9566]]

and this was just recently: ``Three years ago I had the pleasure of 
signing legislation designating the great public space that will lead 
from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for 
Scholars as 'Woodrow Wilson Plaza.' Now that the Woodrow Wilson Center 
is preparing to move into its own home, fronting on the plaza, I salute 
its world-renowned contributions to scholarship, international 
understanding, and public service over the last 30 years. The Wilson 
Center will be a true living memorial to one of our great Presidents.''
  I might add, just as a matter of serendipity, that the center will be 
part of that building construction, the Ronald Reagan Building, which 
will finally complete, after 70 years, the Federal Triangle, which was 
begun by Herbert Hoover, under Hoover's Presidency. Hoover was a great 
admirer of Wilson and was himself an author of one of the finest books 
ever written on President Wilson.
  This 30th anniversary, this impending move and the decision here in 
the Congress to see that the building will finally go up--no hurry, 30 
years. It will be furnished out of private donations. Just this spring 
there was a large dinner in New York where our most distinguished 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Alan Greenspan, gave an 
extraordinary address at which we raised--it is a public matter--almost 
$1 million with a matching pledge for the furnishings, the books, the 
desks, tables, and such.
  On September 8 of this year the New York Times had an editorial on 
the center saying, ``The center has been a tone of civility during 
political and cultural wars and a refuge for those persecuted 
elsewhere.''
  A center for civility. You would be surprised how often a comment 
returns to that quality in the Senate.
  The Times goes on, ``The Center's House,'' referring to the House of 
Representatives, ``critics fault for lacking a public policy function 
by overemphasizing scholarly pursuits. This seems perversely to miss 
the point. Washington is amply stocked with policy think tanks, and the 
Center was never meant to churn out position papers. The hope, instead, 
was to provide a forum where politicians and officials might encounter 
those more alien muses of history, philosophy and literature.'' Could 
you dispute that the center has stimulated prize-winning books, 
animated innumerable public workshops and published a lively quarterly? 
Every Federal dollar appropriated for the center is matched by a 
private donor.''

  It goes on in that spirit.
  The New York Times is generally thought to be a paper disposed to 
liberal views--its editorial page. The Weekly Standard, newly and 
happily arrived in Washington, is nothing of the sort. Its editor, 
William Kristol, is an avowed and energetic, hugely influential 
conservative. The Weekly Standard ran an editorial a little while ago 
when this dispute was coming out in the House, and it said, ``Save the 
Wilson Quarterly!'' That is a published journal, scholarly, lively, 
published once a quarter, and it said this: ``Having somehow resisted 
the p.c.''--political correctness--``trendiness that has contaminated 
the academy, the Wilson Center, under the auspices of the Smith1sonian 
Institution, remains one of the few havens for disinterested 
scholarship * * *.''
  I suppose, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am 
a regent of the Smithsonian, and I believe at this point I am the 
senior regent appointed from the Senate, as well as the House.
  But it says, ``Having somehow resisted the p.c. trendiness that has 
contaminated the academy, the Wilson Center, under the auspices of the 
Smithsonian Institution, remains one of the few havens for 
disinterested scholarship in the country.''
  I began by quoting the New York Times editorial page, a page of 
liberal opinion. I went on to quote an editorial from the Weekly 
Standard, a journal of assertively conservative opinion.
  Let me now quote George F. Will, one of the most learned, thoughtful, 
entertaining, and rewarding observers of the Washington scene we have 
had in a long time. When he is not writing about baseball, he tends to 
write about politics. Occasionally, he enters the world of such as we 
are now talking about. He refers to an essay published in the Wilson 
Quarterly: ``The invaluable quarterly of the irreplaceable Woodrow 
Wilson International Center for Scholars.''
  See, we have here a living memorial to a great President, well 
established, known worldwide, read worldwide. There is a web site, 
there is a radio program called ``Dialog.'' There is no end. There are 
200,000 listeners each week. We don't want to put this center at 
jeopardy.
  I am not in the least at a disinclination to provide funds for 
juvenile delinquency programs in Indian tribes or populations. But at 
the cost, we can find those funds somewhere. To destroy this 
irreplaceable institution. We will start again. And, sir, it takes 30 
years to take root.
  We have had a wonderful fortune in the persons who have led the 
Center. James Billington, the present Librarian of Congress, himself a 
great historian, particularly of the Russian Empire, and then the 
Soviet Empire that succeeded it. James H. Billington is a trustee now, 
but he was a great director for the longest while.
  Then it was the fortune of the center to have for a long period 
another distinguished scholar, a great administrator, great person, 
Charles Blitzer, who has just announced, at age 70, his retirement, but 
after a distinguished career. He had been Assistant Secretary of the 
Smithsonian when the castle was opened up to welcome the new 
institution. He went from here to be director of the National Center 
for the Humanities in North Carolina, and then he was summoned back to 
the Wilson Center, and now having reached the age of retirement, has 
announced he will retire at the time a successor is chosen. It might 
give you a sense, sir, of the importance attached by Americans of every 
disposition to the Center to know what the search committee is for the 
new director.
  First, James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State and trustee of 
the Wilson Center. Next, James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress. 
Mary Brown Bullock, a former fellow, former director of the Wilson 
Center Asia Program, and now president of Agnes Scott College. William 
T. Coleman, Jr., a Wilson council member, former Secretary of 
Transportation, and a distinguished attorney here in Washington. I. 
Michael Heyman, a trustee and the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution. Gertrude Himmelfarb, one of the great scholars of our age, 
a person who has transcended understanding of Victorian Britain. The 
British learn about their history from Gertrude Himmelfarb today. She 
was formerly a fellow at the Center, professor emeritus at City 
University of New York, and a former trustee. Chris Kennan, former 
Wilson council member. Elizabeth McCormack, Associate, Rockefeller 
Family & Associates, and former President of Manhattanville College. 
Finally, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., Wilson council member and managing 
partner of Capricorn Management.

  You see, sir, an extraordinary array of support, every President 
since Lyndon Johnson who lined the legislation has attested--in this 
case, to his hopes and now to the realization of those hopes for this 
center. Scholars from the world over. Our own Secretary of State--a 
great quarterly, an extraordinary audience in the world at a minimal 
cost to our budget and great advantage to our Nation.
  Mr. President, I cannot imagine that we would do this act of 
desecration. I would happily pledge my support to any effort to provide 
funds for a juvenile delinquency program. But for now, I trust this 
amendment will be withdrawn and, if not, it will be defeated. I hope it 
would not have to have a vote. I cannot imagine the U.S. Senate, which 
created this institution, having to vote on destroying it for another 
purpose altogether, unrelated and as regards this issue of a profoundly 
different order of importance.
  Mr. President, I thank you. Seeing my friend from Colorado on the 
floor, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to support my friend and 
colleague from Arizona in his efforts to address the needs of law 
enforcement in Indian country. Tribal governments are in desperate need 
of these funds, which will help them to combat the cancer of

[[Page S9567]]

gang activity growing throughout the country.
  I listened very carefully to my friend and colleague, Senator 
Moynihan from New York, and I have to say that we are not trying to 
kill the Woodrow Wilson Center; we are just trying to prevent some 
young Americans from being killed. We are not trying to destroy it. We 
are trying to prevent a culture from being destroyed. I know, as all of 
my colleagues know, that we have to make some very tough choices if we 
are truly going to get our deficit under control and balance the 
budget. I don't know much about the Woodrow Wilson Center, but I 
suppose it is very important from a scholarly standpoint. The lives of 
people that are affected on Indian reservations with our youngsters 
going into gang activity, I think, is equally as important. I don't 
think we can put a price tag on their lives.
  The Senator talked about the memorial being a living memorial. I 
simply believe that Senator Kyl is on the right track when he wants to 
keep more youngsters on the Indian reservations also in that State--an 
alive State. They tell me that the scholars at the Wilson Center get 
about $43,000 a year to study different projects. I was looking at some 
of the projects. Very frankly, they may be very important, but some of 
them I don't quite understand.
  Let me read into the Record a few of the projects that have been 
done. Here is one: popular mystical sectarianism and models of 
rationality in prerevolutionary Russia; family and society in greater 
Syria; making China perfectly equal; creating language for 
westernization in early Meiji, Japan. I went to Meiji University in 
Japan and I don't remember that one. The rise and fall of childrearing 
experts in 20th century America. I would like to see somebody do a 
little more study on the rise and fall of children in America and where 
we have to go to prevent them from getting more involved in gangs. One 
that I almost can't pronounce is the malediction of malpractice 
medicine and misfortune in post-colonial Zimbabwe.

  That may be very important. I am not going to disagree with the 
Senator from New York. Maybe it is. I think that we have to recognize, 
though, that writing about starvation and starving are two different 
things. Doing studies about youngsters at risk who may be dying from 
gang violence and then talking to their families who have watched their 
youngsters die in gang violence are two different things.
  I wanted to reaffirm to the Senator from New York that we are not 
trying to destroy the Woodrow Wilson Center. I am sure it is very 
important. We just know that there are some things that we face that 
demand immediate attention, and we think this is one of the ways we can 
do it.
  As my colleague noted, over the past 5 years, homicide rates across 
America decreased by 22 percent. But on Indian reservations, it went up 
by 87 percent during the same 5 years.
  Yesterday, we had a joint hearing of the Indian Affairs and the 
Judiciary Committees. Testimony in that hearing revealed that gang 
violence poses a very special threat to America's Indian tribes that 
they are simply not equipped to deal with. Those tribes, we noted with 
interest through the testimony, that have a closer proximity to 
metropolitan areas, like Phoenix and Detroit, or any large metropolitan 
areas, that adds more and more pressure on inner-city gangs, like the 
Crips or Bloods, whatever, and they tend to migrate out and go to a 
path of least resistance--in this case, the Indian reservations.
  Studies conducted by Federal agencies, universities, and tribal 
governments reveal that gang activity within Indian country has 
steadily increased over the past decade. A study in 1997, as an 
example, of 132 tribes conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Law 
Enforcement Division estimated there were 375 active gangs with 
approximately 4,600 members. In Arizona alone, as Senator Kyl stated, a 
recent FBI study identified 177 gangs on 14 different reservations.
  Juvenile gang activities poses a unique threat to all jurisdictions. 
And, since there are multiple jurisdictions on Indian reservations, 
there are often people who should be prosecuted that simply fall 
through the cracks because of the time consumed in defining who is in 
charge, who has the jurisdiction for the person. In Indian country, the 
potential growth is even greater in this jurisdictional maze than it is 
from any downtown community that faces gang activities.
  These limitations on tribal courts and law enforcement authority are 
imposed by the Federal Government. We can't continue to tie the hands 
of the tribal justice systems, refuse to adequately fund their law 
enforcement, and then expect them to do an adequate job in protecting 
their citizens against gangs.
  The Office of Tribal Justice within the Department of the Interior 
recently stated that ``* * * it is twice as likely that a reported 
crime will be violent''--on the reservation--``as compared with the 
rest of the United States, yet there are only half as many law 
enforcement officers on Indian lands per capita.''
  It is absolutely a problem that is just virtually out of control.
  The complexity and severity of youth violence and criminal gang 
activity within Indian country demands immediate attention. These funds 
will enable tribal governments to protect their citizens, and they will 
go far in fulfilling our obligation to protect and preserve the health 
and welfare of our Indian communities--and the people who are non-
Indian who happen to live in those Indian communities.
  I know that the Woodrow Wilson Center is important. They get a great 
deal of private money from well-meaning and good-hearted Americans who 
contribute regularly to that center--unlike Indian reservations. You 
rarely have people who are going to donate money to the Indian people 
who are trying to reduce gang violence. They depend almost totally on 
Federal money to do this.
  With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl 
amendment, and I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator allow me just 2 minutes?
  Mr. GORTON. I certainly yield to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his generous 
remarks about the center. But I also say that it is so easy to make fun 
of studies of ancient times and obscure subjects. But a great deal 
comes with them.
  In that New York Times editorial I spoke of, it says at one point:

       That such a forum is needed was suggested by a Senator's 
     inept award several decades ago of a ``golden fleece'' to a 
     Wilson scholar for writing a paper on how Russia's czars 
     persecuted nomadic minorities centuries ago. This scene was 
     not remote or irrelevant to the author, Bronislaw Geremek, 
     the Polish medievalist who was to play a pivotal role in the 
     Solidarity movement.

``who was to play a pivotal role in the Solidarity movement.''


       In the humanities, as in natural sciences, ideas often 
     spring from improbable intersections.

  I make a point again about a certain ``improbable'' intersection.
  It was a study by a Polish medievalist of the way in which a central 
Russian empire persecuted nomadic tribes.
  It was thought ridiculous here, but was part of the creation of a 
career which led to the independence of Poland.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Washington for his generosity.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, two points rather briefly in opposing, 
with regret, the amendment proposed by my two friends and colleagues:
  The first is in no way to deprecate or understate the problem of gang 
violence on Indian reservations, or, for that matter, in any other 
place, but simply to point out that this bill includes greater 
increases for Indian programs taken as a whole than it does for any 
other set of programs.
  At the request of the President and of the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Domenici, tribal priority allocations are increased by some $76 
million, the distribution of which is to be determined primarily by 
Indian organizations themselves, any portion of which can be dedicated 
to this purpose.

[[Page S9568]]

  Second, the appropriations bill managed by my friend from Colorado, 
the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, the appropriations bill 
for Treasury-Postal increases the so-called grant program to $13 
million with specific reference to criminal gang activity on Indian 
reservations and a direction to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms to help curtail that gang violence. This $13 million in that 
bill can be used in whole or in part for the goal that the two Senators 
aim at. When one totals up all of the public safety and justice 
programs in the bill before us, the Interior bill, that is an 
additional $116 million-plus.

  Obviously, not all of that, not even a large percentage of it, is 
going to be used to combat gang violence.
  The point is that in this bill, and in the Treasury-Postal bill, 
there is a true recognition of the seriousness of the problem and 
significant resources that can be devoted to dealing with that problem.
  As a consequence, my attitude toward this amendment would change 180 
degrees if this amendment were an earmark of some of those tribal 
priority allocations specifically to gang-related violence. Personally, 
I think an earmark would probably be unnecessary.
  I accept the seriousness of the problem, as described by my two 
colleagues, and suspect that those who determine where those tribal 
priority allocations will go will share those views.
  The point is that if this amendment had come out of Indian 
activities, it would not need to be discussed here at any length. We 
simply would have accepted it. Instead, Mr. President, it comes out of 
the destruction of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial.
  Last Thursday, when we began this debate, I presented this chart in 
this large form here on the floor, but with a small one to every Member 
of the body, showing the relative division of moneys within the 
Department of the Interior budget--the green on the left being the 
management of all of our public land, the various blues, almost $4 
billion in this bill, for Indian activities. Then we have to come all 
the way over here to this very short line for all of the cultural 
activities supported by this bill. In this short line, one-fifth of the 
amount that goes for Indian programs in total is included in the 
Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the Holocaust 
Museum, the two endowments that we debated some 4 days on the floor 
here, and in a line that would be too small to see on a chart of this 
size, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
  Mr. President, we should not slow up opportunities for scholarly 
research in the United States. We should not abandon an institution 
that admittedly authorizes studies in a number of esoteric scholarly 
pursuits. That simply isn't the way in which we ought to treat our own 
history, or our own culture. A place outside of the rest of the world 
for longer or shorter periods of reflection and writing on the part of 
scholars is not, Mr. President, I am convinced a waste of the 
taxpayers' money.
  I believe the House of Representatives was wrong to follow the course 
of action that it did in this respect. But by reflecting the views of 
the House of Representatives, we are saying, fine, there will be $1 
million to close down this memorial. It may not be exactly analogous to 
closing down the Lincoln Memorial, though it is a memorial to a famous 
President of the United States. But we aren't considering closing down 
the Lincoln Memorial because it doesn't make money or produce an 
immediate income.
  Woodrow Wilson was himself a scholar, a president of a university, 
and Congress deemed the best memorial to him would be a place at which 
scholarly pursuits could be followed.
  But this amendment would destroy that institution forever in order to 
fund an activity for a single year for which there is already an ample 
source of funds.
  So, I must say that I believe it to be an ill-advised amendment--once 
again, not so much because there can be criticism of the goal that it 
pursues, but because the goal is already adequately pursued in this and 
other bills and should not be the excuse to destroy one of the smallest 
elements of this bill directed at the preservation of American culture, 
the addition to our fund of knowledge about our own history and about 
the world around us.
  We can vote on this amendment. I hope, if we do, that it is defeated. 
We could modify the amendment so that it becomes an earmark out of the 
already large and justified appropriations for Indian activities, one 
that has a greater increase this year than any other. We should not 
vote for it in its present form.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes 
perhaps to close the debate. I think perhaps most of the things have 
been said.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Of course.
  Mr. GORTON. Senator Stevens is on his way to the floor. He wishes to 
speak on it. So we will save time for him.
  Mr. KYL. That is fine. I will speak for a few minutes. I know Senator 
Bumpers is anxious to present another amendment, and I don't intend to 
take a lot more time.
  But I would like, Mr. President, to get to the essence of what we are 
trying to accomplish here because the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee has made some constructive suggestions in the end, 
however, which do not capture the spirit of this amendment.
  The whole point of this amendment is to prioritize among scarce 
resources.
  It is true that we have funded Indian programs this year to the 
extent that we thought was possible, and that represents an increase 
over last year, and it represents an increase more than the other 
programs within this budget were increased.
  But, Mr. President, that is not to say much, because the needs of our 
Indian communities are so significantly greater than the amount of 
money that we can provide that this is a scant comfort, I think, to 
those in our Indian communities.
  I detailed, and my colleague Senator Campbell from Colorado detailed, 
some of the things which we learned in the hearings yesterday jointly 
held which discussed the dire situation on our Indian reservations 
today regarding gang violence and the need to, obviously, do much, much 
more in a concerted way to alleviate that problem now.
  So, while it is true that we could take money from some other Indian 
program and apply it to this program, I don't see that as a solution 
given all of the other needs that exist on our Indian reservations.
  While it is also true that we have allocated $13 million toward a 
very specific program--not to the BIA but the money goes to the BATF, a 
totally different program for training--while it is true that that 
money is in this budget, that is not an adequate substitute for what we 
are trying to provide for in terms of very special operations 
requirements to deal with the problems of gang violence.
  Just to reiterate a couple of things--I will not take long--but there 
are half as many law enforcement officers per capita in Indian country 
as there are in the small communities outside Indian country.
  We are not just talking about training people. We are talking about 
hiring people to be on the job and doing their job. In terms of the 
detention facilities and all of the other personnel that are required, 
in every category it is far less than needed in Indian country, and 
that is one of the reasons, as I pointed out from the testimony, that 
you have this difficult problem of gang violence.
  So when the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee says, well, 
one thing we could do is simply take money from another part of the 
Indian budget and put it into here, that is true, but that is really in 
a sense robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  What we are suggesting, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee 
and myself, is to prioritize in a larger sense from the entire budget 
that we have under consideration here, this Interior appropriations 
budget.
  What we are asking, Mr. President, is this question: As between the 
funding that is being provided by the Federal Government, the Federal 
component to the Woodrow Wilson Program and this particular need, which 
one is more important in today's America? Which one does the Senate 
justify better to the taxpayers of America? Both Senator Campbell and I 
have been very clear that we are not attempting to kill the Woodrow 
Wilson Center. As a matter of

[[Page S9569]]

fact, it receives more in private funding than it does in Government 
funding. We are simply reducing the amount of Federal Government 
funding to the level recommended by the House of Representatives.
  Last year, its budget was something like $12.5 million, and, as I 
said, more than half of that was from the private sector rather than 
from this Interior appropriation. So this is not an effort to kill that 
center. But I do think that because of the criticisms leveled at the 
center, among others, from the National Academy of Public 
Administration, I think a study of significance and objectivity, 
because of some of those criticisms I think it is wise for us to ask 
whether or not a priority of spending taxpayer dollars should put those 
moneys into this program as opposed to the one which everyone here has 
said deserves support, our attempt to deal with Indian gang violence.
  The distinguished Senator from New York talked about some of the 
leaders of the Woodrow Wilson Center, including the current director 
who is about to step down. But one of the conclusions of this important 
study about the center is as follows:

       The director's performance is deficient in a number of 
     areas. For example, he has not effectively articulated what 
     the Center does.

  Mr. President, if the director of the center cannot articulate what 
the center does, I wonder just how good a memorial to President Wilson 
this really is. And since my colleague from Washington State compared 
this to the Washington Monument, for example, I will do a little 
comparing myself. It is true that the Washington Monument does not pay 
a scholar $43,000 a year to write an esoteric paper, but I think it 
inspires 250 million Americans every year in ways that probably can't 
be measured but help us to appreciate what our country stands for and 
to remember the great Presidents of this country. I would rather that 
the Woodrow Wilson Center do a better job, frankly, of inspiring 
Americans and reaching out to all 250 million Americans instead of its 
very narrow focus on the somewhat esoteric papers that are written 
there.
  Our colleague from New York talked about the fact that one of the 
scholars noted: Where else can you work among intellectuals and get 
paid for working in a castle? It is a nice way of saying that it is a 
very nice thing to be a recipient of this funding. I am sure for those 
who get it, it is. Undoubtedly, some of the papers presented are very 
worthy.
  One of the other criticisms that was leveled at the center from this 
review of the organization by the National Academy of Public 
Administration noted the fact that some of the employees of the program 
and program staff and fellows could benefit from more cooperative 
activities and that they be urged to make some interactions obligatory 
rather than voluntary. They said that the center ``does not fully 
motivate fellows toward cooperation and gives them the option to work 
in isolation from others. Some are called `phantom fellows' because 
they seldom appear at the Center let alone interact with staff 
members.''

  So apparently not all of the fellows who receive this stipend are 
participating in the activities described by the Senator from New York.
  I am not here to criticize the Woodrow Wilson Center, but what I am 
saying is that it is a troubled program. That cannot be denied. Now, 
advocates of it, proponents of it will say it is going to be improved 
and it has performed a mission in the past. After all, we would not 
want to do anything to suggest we do not honor Woodrow Wilson. 
Obviously, none of us are suggesting that. But when on the one hand you 
have a program that has been troubled and a program which can be 
sustained by private funding as opposed to support for Indian gang 
activities, which, as the Senator from Colorado noted, is probably not 
going to be supported by private giving--it relies exclusively on the 
Senate and House of Representatives to provide the funding for those 
programs in Indian country--I think in setting the priorities, we can 
say that this $4.8 million is better spent on saving lives on the 
Indian reservations, as my colleague from Colorado put it, rather than 
continuing to fund that degree of support to the Woodrow Wilson Center.
  Mr. President, again, I compliment the Senator from New York for his 
vigorous advocacy of the center. It is not our intention to kill it. I 
compliment the distinguished subcommittee chairman for noting that 
there are ways in which other Indian programs could have their funding 
reduced in order to support these important gang activity programs.
  Again, I do not think that is a good option. We need more money than 
we can possibly appropriate to Indian activities rather than simply 
taking it from one Indian activity and putting it against this 
particular problem. I think at the end of the day the answer here is 
take this $4.8 million from the Government-sponsored portion of the 
Woodrow Wilson Center and apply it to dealing with the problem of gang 
activity as part of the BIA budget.
  I appreciate again the support of the distinguished chairman of the 
Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell from Colorado.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the distinguished manager, the Senator from 
Washington, allow me just one word?
  Mr. GORTON. I certainly will, and I think the Senator from Utah wants 
to speak briefly on the amendment as well.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I say in response to my friend from Arizona, first 
of all, that the remark about being paid to work in a castle was just a 
friendly joke by Madeleine Albright, now our Secretary of State. She 
was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the 1980's.
  As far as I know, no fellow makes $43,000 a year. No one is above 
that. Some come for short periods, others for longer periods. Some come 
to the center and spend much of their time in the archives of the 
Library of Congress. It is a center for scholars, and they are 
different one from another. They have different views. And they have to 
be let do their work as they will.
  Remember how Madeleine Albright finished her remarks. She said of the 
center:

       It memorializes not only Wilson but Wilson's lifelong 
     effort as an educator and President to map a trail for the 
     future that will elude the traps of the past.

  The cost of this is so small. Some stipends are moderate, are barely 
up to the living levels, a third of what an executive in one of our 
executive departments makes, but no one is in that life for the salary 
and no one is at the center for this purpose. The world is proud of 
what we have done. I hope, sir, the Senate would do the same.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point, if I may, to 
introduce a letter sent by the distinguished Librarian of Congress 
James Billington to the second director after Mr. Baroody of the 
Center, Joseph Flom, who is chairman of the board of trustees, setting 
forth the principal point that a center for scholars is not a think 
tank. It does not produce policy papers or policymakers. It can produce 
policymakers. It produced Madeleine Albright, just for an example 
today, but it has a different purpose, one declared by Congress when 
Congress enacted this legislation in 1989.
  I yield the floor and I thank the Chair.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    The Librarian of Congress,

                                                    June 30, 1997.
     Joseph H. Flom, Esq.
     Chairman, Board of Trustees, Woodrow Wilson International 
         Center for Scholars, New York, NY.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing as a statutory member of 
     the Board of Trustees to express my deep concern at both the 
     recommendation of a shut-down and the accompanying language 
     that has just been reported out on the Wilson Center from the 
     Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the House of 
     Representatives. As a former director of the Center, I may be 
     able to help provide some perspective on the central 
     institutional question that has been raised.
       The main substantive charges against the Center as an 
     institution seem to be that it does not have a ``public 
     policy function,'' currently emphasizes ``scholarly pursuits 
     over its public policy objectives,'' and has lost effectively 
     ``the original goal of the Center to link these two worlds 
     [scholarly and public policy].''
       I do not believe that the Center has ever formally had a 
     ``public policy function'' as that term is generally 
     understood in Washington; and I am troubled by the seeming 
     implication that a deep emphasis on scholarship is somehow a 
     distraction from (rather

[[Page S9570]]

     than a prerequisite for) making a distinctive contribution to 
     the overall public policy dialogue in Washington.
       The Board, after the Center's initial shakedown period, 
     produced a major study by Dillon Ripley and William Baroody, 
     Sr., some time in 1972-73, basically suggesting that, in a 
     city with many public policy think tanks and a constant 
     preoccupation with immediate public policy concerns, the most 
     fundamental unmet need was to bring into Washington precisely 
     the kind of broad-ranging, high scholarly talent that did not 
     normally come here: to assemble each year a critical mass of 
     first-rate thinkers performing major projects--and then to 
     bring them into creative contact with the world of affairs 
     represented by almost all the rest of Washington. After 
     nearly a decade of commissions and discussions with Congress 
     about how to memorialize Woodrow Wilson (and a brief start-up 
     period that was largely focussed on public policy research), 
     the Board decided that the Wilson Center should not be 
     another version of the public policy think tanks that were 
     then well represented in Washington by organizations like AEI 
     or the Brookings Institution. The distinctive market niche of 
     the Wilson Center was to provide something which neither the 
     think tanks nor the universities of Washington were able to 
     provide: temporary opportunities for a sufficient number of 
     the highest quality thinkers, largely out of academia, to 
     pursue major projects in a place and atmosphere in which they 
     would also be brought in contact with the world of affairs. I 
     was hired in 1973 in response to this study; and, so far as I 
     know, the Board did not then foresee--and has not since 
     foreseen--a public policy mission or agenda as such for the 
     Woodrow Wilson Center.
       The distinctive role of bringing top intellect to 
     Washington from all over the country and the world seems to 
     me even more needed now than it was nearly a quarter of a 
     century ago when I came to Washington to run the Center. 
     There has been since that time a great growth of public 
     policy think tanks in the Washington area, but almost no 
     expansion of the possibilities for world-class intellect to 
     be brought here for the kind of long-term, ranging and 
     reflective scholarship that the Wilson Center has 
     consistently sought out. Therefore, for the core mission of 
     ``strengthening and symbolizing'' the link between the worlds 
     of ideas and affairs, this type of Center may well have an 
     even more important and distinctive role to play now than it 
     did then.
       I believe that the growth of public policy think tanks in 
     Washington has been a constructive development for our open 
     democratic society, but most of them are inclined (quite 
     properly) to develop advocacy as well as research roles; and 
     I think everyone agrees that this would be inappropriate (and 
     probably unsustainable) in a federally-supported institution. 
     No one, as far as I know, has accused the Center of having 
     been co-opted by the ideological or methodological biases 
     that often plague entrenched faculties and academic guilds. 
     Indeed, a great strength of the Center is its meticulous and, 
     I have felt over the years, remarkably unbiased process of 
     selecting fellows. As a member of the Fellowship Committee, I 
     have been impressed not just with the high quality and 
     variety of the selectees but also with the fairness and 
     objectivity of the selection process.
       It seems to me that the Center has consistently had and 
     sustained a basic, twofold mission of competitively bringing 
     high-quality, first-class minds to do research on important 
     questions in Washington and of interacting them with the 
     broader world of affairs in this city. Such a broad mission, 
     of course, leaves many important and legitimate questions 
     unanswered: should more fellows be brought into the Center 
     with public policy projects? How much and what kind of 
     dialogue should be conducted within the Center and with the 
     world of affairs outside? To what extent should the Center be 
     internally organized by themes, disciplines, or regions as a 
     way of energizing the fellows? Should more practitioners be 
     included in the mix?
       All these are recurring questions for which there is no 
     absolute right or wrong answer. Either the Congress or the 
     Board or both together may well want to undertake or to 
     commission some kind of overall assessment of the Center or 
     of the whole memorial idea--or may wish to produce a great 
     deal more in the way of explicit mission, strategy, or policy 
     statements.
       I believe, however, that there would be very serious and 
     predictably negative consequences to any studies or 
     commissions undertaken with the presumption that the Center 
     should have some new and explicitly mandated public policy 
     mission or function. The Center would, first of all, become 
     political--not so much, probably, in the sense of acquiring a 
     distinct overall advocacy coloration, but in the sense of 
     becoming an inviting and exposed arena for the continuing 
     play of political pressures and advocacy agendas that would 
     increasingly influence the choice both of the issues to be 
     studied and of the fellows to study them. Center officials 
     would spend their time debating how to slice and distribute 
     pork--rather than how to bring new types of food to the 
     Washington table and find new ways to serve it better to more 
     people.
       To be sure, a small Center retooled with a public policy 
     agenda could probably add a small amount to public policy 
     research and dialogue on current questions in this city. But 
     there is already so much of this kind of research in 
     Washington that the Center's contribution to public policy 
     would almost certainly be marginal at best and redundant at 
     worst. What would almost certainly be irreplaceably lost in 
     the process, however, would be the two benefits to society 
     that the Center has implicitly promised to provide for 
     nearly a quarter of a century: (1) the highest quality 
     standards for studies produced at taxpayer expense; and 
     (2) a shaping effect over the log term on the world of 
     affairs.
       (1) An important, all-permeating weakness of the NAPA study 
     (justifiable perhaps in a ``review of Organization and 
     Management'') is its seeming failure to recognize that the 
     major ``product'' of this small Presidential memorial is 
     quite properly the quality of its intellectual activity. 
     Whatever one might justifiably add or subtract from the 
     programs, activities, and analyses of the Center, one should 
     not, it seems to me, embark on any serious comprehensive 
     reviews under the delusion that it will be possible to 
     sustain the high quality of the scholarship that has been and 
     is being maintained if there is any blurring at the Center of 
     its well established focus on the quality and promise of 
     individual fellow's projects.
       The present director helped shape and support that core 
     commitment in the earliest days of the Center; and he and his 
     staff are to be praised for continuing to insist that 
     scholarly quality and long-term promise provide the 
     indispensable platform on which any serious and lasting 
     accomplishments have to be based.
       (2) One of the key founding Board members said early in the 
     history of the Center that its mission was to be a place 
     which the 22d century would recognize as having helped shape 
     the 21st. Lasting, long-term impact was the desired pay-off; 
     basic scholarship on important questions was the armature; 
     the matchless scholarly resources of Washington provided 
     unique ammunition; and federal funds were to be provided 
     basically for venture capital with long-term prospects rather 
     than for short-term investment in the ever-shifting public 
     policy debates of this present-minded city.
           Sincerely,
                                              James H. Billington,
                                            Librarian of Congress.

  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I just wanted to respond to Senator Moynihan, to the 
Senator's comment about the $43,000 stipends. According to the article 
in the Washington Post, which I submitted for the Record a moment ago, 
by Stephen Barr writing about the Woodrow Wilson Living Memorial--and I 
quote now:

       The Center annually selects about 35 fellows who receive an 
     average stipend of $43,000 and spend their time studying and 
     writing.

  Also if one does math of the $12,500,000 budget, roughly, of the 
program, I believe about $1.7 million of that is allocated for the 
stipend. And if you divide that number it averages out to something 
over $40,000 a year. So that is where I got my information that the 
average stipend is about $43,000.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I must apologize to my friend. He 
accurately describes this passage from Mr. Barr's article on the 
Federal Page and the average stipend. But if I could just take a moment 
to go on to say what this same article says:

       Previous and current fellows include Raul Alfonsin, the 
     former President of Argentina; Anatoliy Dobrynin, the former 
     Soviet Ambassador to the United States; Washington Post 
     reporter Thomas B. Edsal; New York Times columnist Thomas L. 
     Friedman; novelist Carlos Fuentes; Harvard University 
     Professor Samuel P. Huntington, and Itamar Rabinovich, the 
     former Israeli Ambassador here.

  This is a great institution, been a great success. Can we not leave 
it to its great desserts, as it was intended?
  I do want to tell my colleague I was in error, and I do apologize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I find this debate very illuminating, and 
I congratulate the Senator from Arizona in bringing an issue to the 
attention of the Senate that I for one was not aware of. I do not treat 
lightly the conclusions of the Association for Public Administration 
who have made their examination of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial. I think 
it deserves airing.
  I think the deficiencies that are identified in that report should be 
discussed, and at some point I may find myself convinced to follow the 
Senator from Arizona down this particular road if in fact there is not 
a significant change that would allow at least some objective observers 
to come to the conclusion that the Memorial was more fittingly 
fulfilling its mission than apparently it is now.
  Having said that, I find that I will vote with my subcommittee 
chairman

[[Page S9571]]

on this issue for the following reason, based on my own experience in 
terminating longstanding organizations.
  When the Republicans took control of the Senate, I found myself on 
the subcommittee for the legislative branch, chaired by the Senator 
from Florida, [Mr. Mack], and the two of us as a team began to look 
around the legislative branch to see what there was that we might 
either cut back or eliminate because it was not performing properly. We 
focused in on the Office of Technology Assistance, OTA, and, as we 
spent time looking at OTA, we found that it did a number of very good 
things. We also found that it was duplicative of a number of very good 
things that had been done other places in the Government.

  I was lobbied about as hard on that issue as any issue I can think of 
by Members, not only of this body, including the Senator who is now the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but also Members of the other 
body who came at me and said, ``we must hang on to the OTA for all of 
these good reasons.''
  Senator Mack and I agonized over this decision for a long period of 
time. We examined the record of the OTA. We had the leadership of the 
OTA come before the subcommittee and we held open hearings, we 
presented to them our concerns and we gave them every opportunity to 
respond. Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that the OTA was, 
indeed, duplicative of that which was being done in the Library of 
Congress, particularly the Congressional Reference Service, and however 
good its performance was, we decided that it was redundant and we 
voted, ultimately, to shut it down.
  When you take something that has been part of America as long as the 
Woodrow Wilson Memorial has been, I think you owe it the same kind of 
opportunity to defend itself through hearings and examinations if, 
indeed, you are determined to kill it. As a member of the subcommittee 
before which such hearings would be held, I do not recall that the 
subject has ever come up prior to the introduction of this matter on 
the floor.
  Much as I sympathize with and react to the need for more money in the 
Indian gang program, and if we can find more money I am more than 
sympathetic to finding an offset to make it happen, I am reluctant on 
the basis of a debate on the floor--without a hearing, without an 
opportunity for these people to come defend themselves, to lay out 
exactly what they are doing in a full hearing circumstance where they 
are notified sufficiently in advance and are able to marshal their 
arguments and their activities--to react to the debate on the floor 
saying, ``All right, this sounds more logical as a priority than that 
and so I will vote to eliminate an agency that has been around for, 
what, 30 years?''
  So, for all of my sympathy with my friend from Arizona, and I am 
reluctant to oppose him because he is usually right and he is very 
thoughtful and he does not give knee-jerk reactions to these things, I 
find that I will be with my subcommittee chairman in saying that this 
is not the kind of thing to do at this late hour in this bill with an 
amendment on the floor.
  I would say to my friend from Arizona, if in the next appropriations 
cycle, which will be upon us so rapidly we will not be able to remember 
how short the time was, he wants to raise this in the subcommittee, I 
would support the actions of the subcommittee in having a hearing on 
this and letting the people from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial come in 
and respond to the charges that have been made against them by the 
responsible organization that has examined them. And I will keep an 
open mind in that circumstance. But I reluctantly part company with my 
friend from Arizona in this circumstance and at this time, because I do 
not think it is fair to the people who are involved in the Woodrow 
Wilson Memorial for the Senate to make this kind of a decision in this 
rapid circumstance.
  So, I intend to be with my subcommittee chairman and intend to vote 
to keep the bill as it is in this regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I need make no more remarks on the subject 
myself. I am asked, with great urgency, by the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who is in intense 
negotiations over the defense budget at the present time and is unable 
to be on the floor, to state that he is adamantly opposed to this 
amendment and supports the Woodrow Wilson Memorial and hopes the 
amendment will be defeated. That is all I have.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I just wanted to make one comment and then 
close the debate and ask for the yeas and nays. I want to reassure my 
colleague from Utah that our amendment does not eliminate the Woodrow 
Wilson Center. It is not our intention to eliminate the Woodrow Wilson 
Center. And nothing in it does eliminate the Woodrow Wilson Center. The 
majority of its funds come from the private sector. One could argue 
that removing this $4.8 million would have a significant impact upon 
the Woodrow Wilson Center, but several times in the presentation you 
talked about eliminating it. I just want the record to be clear that 
our amendment does not do that.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just to clarify what was not meant to be 
misleading, to leave the center with a million dollars would be with 
the understanding that it would close, and I think this is something we 
would regret for a very long time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the Kyl amendment, No. 1223. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is absent 
due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The results was announced, yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Wyden

                                NAYS--64

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Wellstone
       
  The amendment (No. 1223) was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield to the Senator form Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague from Washington.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 245 I was erroneously 
recorded as voting ``aye'' when in fact I voted

[[Page S9572]]

``no,'' as verified by the C-SPAN tape. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that the official Record be corrected to accurately reflect my 
vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at 
this point I know of only one other amendment on which a rollcall vote 
will be required. That does not mean to say there are not others that 
we will not be able to settle that might possibly require a vote. But I 
only know of one more, and it will be proposed by the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], but in a couple of minutes.
  Right now I have two or three unanimous-consent requests on 
amendments that have been agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. I will.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
laid aside and the Senate proceed to the committee amendment beginning 
on page 123, line 9.
  Mr. GORTON. No. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GORTON. We have three or four unanimous-consent requests for 
amendments we have agreed to that we would like to do first.


                           Amendment No. 1225

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the engineering and design of a road 
                 in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Bennett and Hatch and ask for its immediate consideration.
  It provides funding for a design of a road associated with the 2002 
Winter Olympics, offset by a reduction in land acquisition in Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Bennett 
     and Mr. Hatch, proposes amendment numbered 1225.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 5, line 17, strike ``$9,400,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,600,000'' and on page 65, line 18, strike 
     ``$160,269,000,'' and insert ``$161,069,000,'' and on page 
     65, line 23, after ``205'' insert ``, of which $800,000 shall 
     be available for the design and engineering of the Trappers 
     Loop Connector Road in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the 
Chairman to include language regarding the design and engineering of 
the Trappers Loop Connector Road in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 
I want to clarify the intent of this amendment which has been accepted 
by the Managers of the bill.
  The language I have included provides $800,000 to the Forest Service 
to undertake the preliminary design and engineering of a road 
connecting the Trappers Loop (SR 167) and Snowbasin, the site of the 
2002 Winter Olympics Downhill and Super ``G'' ski racing events. This 
road is identified in their Master Plan as a Phase I project referenced 
in Public Law 104-333, Section 304. Is it the Chairman's understanding 
that this language is consistent with the provisions set forth in 
Public Law 104-333, Section 304?
  Mr. GORTON. This is correct. The Senator from Utah rightly points out 
that Section 304 of Public Law 104-333 recognizes Phase One facility 
construction and operation activities as set forth in the Snowbasin Ski 
Area Master Development Plan dated October 1995. This statute 
specifically states that ``. . . `Phase I' facilities referred to in 
the Master Plan . . . are limited in size and scope, and are reasonable 
and necessary to accommodate the 2002 Olympics, and in some cases are 
required to provide for the safety for skiing competitors and 
spectators.'' Clearly, this project falls within the parameters of 
Public Law 104-333, Section 304 and is vital to the successful 
execution of the Downhill event.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my colleague for the clarification. Is it the 
Committee's intent that the Forest Service proceed quickly on the 
design of this project?
  Mr. GORTON. I understand that there is a very short time frame in 
which this project must be completed. Therefore, once funds are made 
available by the enactment of this Act, the Committee fully expects the 
Forest Service to proceed quickly with the design and engineering of 
this road. However, the Committee is concerned that the Forest Service 
is not left with the full responsibility of funding this project. I ask 
the Senator from Utah if the Olympic Committee and the State of Utah 
are pursuing other funding options for the construction of the road?
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator raises a good point. The Olympic Committee, 
working in conjunction with the Utah Department of Transportation has 
been pursuing a number of funding options for this project. It is my 
intent to work closely with the Olympic Committee and the Utah 
Department of Transportation in these efforts. I thank the Chairman for 
his assistance in this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1225) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1226

(Purpose: To require the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the 
 Arts to give priority to funding projects, productions, workshops, or 
              programs that serve underserved populations)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator DeWine and ask for its immediate consideration.
  This amendment requires the National Endowment for the Arts to give 
priority in grantmaking to underserved communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. DeWine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1226.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals who have historically been outside the purview 
     of arts and humanities programs due to factors such as a high 
     incidence of income below the poverty line or to geographic 
     isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1226) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1227

       (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to submit 
     to Congress a report identifying at least 20 sites on Federal 
     land that are potentially suitable for Youth Environmental 
     Service program activities)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Graham of Florida directing the Secretary of Interior to 
prepare a report on Youth Environmental Service programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.

[[Page S9573]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1227.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC.   . YOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE PROGRAM.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General, shall--
       (1) submit to Congress a report identifying at least 20 
     sites on Federal land that are potentially suitable and 
     promising for activities of the Youth Environmental Service 
     program to be administered in accordance with the Memorandum 
     of Understanding signed by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Attorney General in February 1994; and
       (2) provide a copy of the report to the appropriate State 
     and local law enforcement agencies in the States and 
     localities in which the 20 prospective sites are located.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1227) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold.


                           Amendment No. 1228

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators Reid and Bryan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 1228.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       No funds provided in this or any other Act may be expended 
     to develop a rulemaking process relevant to amending the 
     National Indian Gaming Commission's definition regulations 
     located at 25 CFR 502.7 and 502.8.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my amendment to the bill is straightforward 
and simple.
  It will prohibit the use of appropriated dollars to begin a 
rulemaking process by the National Indian Gaming Commission that runs 
contrary to congressional intent.
  Nine years ago, the Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
to regulate what was even then a rapid spread of gaming activity in 
Indian Country.
  The act established a three-member Commission to promulgate 
regulations to control and oversee tribal gaming activities.
  These regulations were intended to ensure the integrity of the games 
and to give States an assurance that gaming activities that were not 
available to non-Indians similarly did not occur on tribal lands.
  These regulations were four years in the making and have sustained 
legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.
  In essence, the regulations serve to classify and define the 
different types of games allowed under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act.
  Games such as blackjack, craps, and roulette fall under the category 
of class III, basically casino gambling.
  Games such as slot machines and video poker machines--the largest 
revenue generators of gaming--also fall under the class III category.
  Games such as bingo and traditional tribal gambling games fall under 
class II and class I respectively.
  For years these regulations have worked well. Electronic devices that 
clearly are class III, or slot-machine-type devices, have been 
regulated under class III gaming.
  This is significant because class III, or casino-type gaming requires 
States and tribals to enter into a compact and to regulate it.
  Needless to say, unregulated casino gaming would be bad for 
consumers, bad for States and bad for tribes.
  Even so, for years, some tribes and manufacturers of gaming devices 
have sought class II designation for devices that clearly are slot 
machines or video poker-like devices from the National Indian Gaming 
Commission.
  These efforts have failed because of the strict convention of the 
existing regulations.
  But now, this Commission has initiated an open-ended rulesmaking 
process that would seek to redefine what constitutes an electronic 
gaming device.
  The lawyers at the Commission who initiated this process will tell 
you that they simply want to clarify the definition of electronic or 
mechanical devices that are not games of chance but are vague under the 
existing regulations.
  They will tell you that they are simply clearing up confusion.
  If that is the case, then why is their advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking so broad in nature? The solicitation in this notice, 
published in the Federal Register, states that the Commission is 
seeking public comment--quote--``in its evaluation of the decision to 
amend its current definition regulations'' end quote.
  I would like to know how this decision was made. Who made this 
decision to amend the definitions? How was it accomplished?
  It certainly was done without any notification to a number of us who 
are familiar with this issue and interested in it.
  Perhaps most importantly, Mr. President, I would remind the Senate 
that the very same Commission that is now seeking to embark on an 
extensive rulemaking process is the one that only two months ago was 
beseeching the Appropriations Committee to change current law so it 
could collect more fees from tribes.
  Why? Because this same Commission said it didn't have enough money to 
fulfill its legal mandate to regulate gaming.
  Interestingly enough, less than half the tribes conducting gaming 
across this country are in compliance with the existing regulations.
  Mr. President, this Commission has been wracked with controversy. Its 
previous chairman left under a cloud of alleged mismanagement.
  This Commission needs to get its act together before it embarks on 
any rulemaking process, let alone one that undermines existing and good 
regulations and violates congressional intent.
  We need, at least, Mr. President, some time for the committees of 
jurisdiction of this Congress to have hearings on such a significant 
change that could occur with the rewriting of these regulations.
  This amendment will allow Congress time to be informed by this 
Commission about such a significant action.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like my colleagues and my 
constituents to understand why I support the amendment of Mr. Reid 
regarding the classification of gambling devices by the National Indian 
Gaming Commission. As we have experienced in New Mexico, the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act [IGRA] was difficult to apply in our state, but 
it does draw some important lines and legal distinctions that are now 
understood by New Mexico tribes and the state government. IGRA now 
serves as the basis for the compacts that allow Indian gambling casinos 
to be legal in New Mexico and in our nation.
  If we do not adopt the Reid amendment, I believe we will be 
implicitly supporting an effort that has the clear potential of 
unraveling IGRA as we now understand it, without the benefit of 
congressional oversight. The National Indian Gaming Commission has 
issued new regulations and started a public comment process that could 
result in the removal of slot machines from the strict regulation we 
envisioned for them under the system of tribal-state compacts we 
designed in IGRA.
  Removing slot machines from this process and placing them under the 
control of the National Indian Gaming Commission could ignite a renewed 
debate about IGRA and result in undermining the delicate balance we 
have struck between tribal and states' rights in regulating gambling 
casinos on Indian reservations. We need to

[[Page S9574]]

avoid even the perception that the National Indian Gaming Commission 
proposed regulations and changes in critical definitions could create 
this scenario. Hence, we must take action to ensure continuation of the 
current distinctions between those gambling activities that are now 
regulated by tribal-state compacts and those that can be regulated by 
the National Indian Gaming Commission. These distinctions are essential 
to maintain if we expect continuing public and Congressional support 
for IGRA.
  Please allow me to explain further. Perhaps the most significant 
definition in IGRA is the definition of ``class III gaming.'' Class III 
games are commonly understood to be casino style gaming such as poker, 
blackjack, roulette, and slot machines, with some variations depending 
on state laws. Class II games are understood to be the original bingo 
games and pull tabs that are allowed without the necessity of reaching 
a compact agreement with state governments, but they are games that are 
regulated by the National Indian Gaming Commission.
  The distinctions between class II and class III games are made in 
IGRA and are more precisely defined by regulations promulgated by the 
National Indian Gaming Commission and published in the Code of Federal 
Regulations at 502.7 and 502.8. The final rules were published on April 
9, 1992 (57 FR 12392).
  The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) has the statutory 
authority to regulate class II games and to distinguish between class 
II and class III gaming under statutory guidance. The definitions it 
has published have served to determine which games fall into class III 
and hence into the realm of compacts between tribes and states. Without 
these compacts, casino gaming (class III) would be illegal under IGRA.
  New Mexico tribes are well aware of these distinctions as they have 
gone through an arduous process of negotiating with the Governor and 
the State legislature. They have finally resolved this issue after two 
New Mexico Supreme Court decisions and Federal district and circuit 
court decisions which eventually led to the state legislative solution. 
The scope of class III casino gaming that is legal in New Mexico is now 
defined under the compacts which relied on current definitions of class 
II and class III gaming. Not once during this long and difficult 
process did the tribes or the state question the type of gambling that 
would be negotiated in the compacts. They relied on the NIGC 
definitions when they negotiated the compacts.
  Now comes a disturbing new scenario. In the guise of up-dating the 
current definitions of class II and class III gaming to take into 
account technological changes and computer advancements of the past few 
years, the National Indian Gaming Commission is now reopening the 
question of gambling devices to be placed into these two critical 
categories.
  What is disturbing is the distinct and likely possibility that this 
reopened process could result, after tribal consultation and public 
comment, in the placing of slot machines into class II rather than 
class III gaming, thus removing slot machines from the more strict 
regulation and control of the tribal-state compacts.
  There is a distinct and negative outcome if the new rule-making by 
the National Indian Gaming Commission results in removing slot machines 
or any other highly profitable gambling device from the legal 
protections of the required compacts and places them under the control 
of the National Indian Gaming Commission, and hence subject only to 
tribal ordinances. This result would be a clear set-back for public 
support of the current law and could rapidly lead to the deterioration 
of the carefully balanced system we now have.
  I am not accusing the National Indian Gaming Commission or the tribes 
of intending to reach this outcome. I am alerting both to the 
perception by many Senators that re-opening the definition process in 
the latest proposed rule-making is clearly aimed at the section of 
national law defining gambling devices and hence invites such tampering 
possibilities. I believe we have enough difficulty reaching gambling 
agreement, as we have seen for several years in New Mexico, under 
current law and regulations. Adding the new possibility of removing the 
most profitable gambling device from close legal scrutiny in the 
compacting process is a dangerous move. Once this potential is 
understood by the public, I believe opposition to Indian gambling will 
justifiably multiply. The relatively stable situation we now have under 
current law and regulation will become volatile.
  Thus, I cannot agree with the seemingly innocent claim that the 
National Indian Gaming Commission is simply doing its job by up-dating 
these critical definitions. The technical changes we all see in 
computer technology are being used as an excuse to re-open the most 
critical line drawn by the Congress in IGRA--the line between gambling 
that can be simply regulated by the National Indian Gaming Commission 
(headed by three commissioners appointed by the President) and gambling 
that must come under the close scrutiny of state law and local voters.
  Mr. President, I opt for the close scrutiny and local control by the 
states through our current compacting process. I would also like to 
remind my colleagues and my Indian friends in New Mexico that slot 
machines were understood to be part of the compacting negotiations, and 
agreements have been reached which allow the legal operation of slot 
machines in Indian casinos in New Mexico. While I understand that there 
are problems with the compacts from both the State and the tribal 
viewpoints, at least the ground rules were understood, and agreements 
are now in place.
  If we now raise the specter of allowing these most profitable 
gambling devices being removed from the purview of these compacts by 
redefining them to class II gaming, I predict we will have even more 
turmoil in the Indian gaming debate than we have had to date.
  I sincerely hope my New Mexico Indian friends and leaders are not in 
support of the new rule making by the National Indian Gaming Commission 
because of the possibilities this rule-making process holds for 
removing key elements of casino gambling from the compacts. I hope they 
would oppose even the perception that this was their motive. I frankly 
doubt that New Mexico Indian leaders have even discussed this 
possibility, but as their Senator and friend, I want to avoid a 
controversy we do not need in Indian gambling law and regulation.
  I support Senator Reid's efforts to avoid this new firestorm in 
Indian gambling. By adopting his amendment and withholding the funds 
from the regulatory process changes I have just described, we can avoid 
the clear potential this rule-making process has for unraveling rather 
than stabilizing Indian gambling in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1228) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for 3 or 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________