[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10354-S10378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3591

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 10 
minutes equally divided with respect to the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, both caucuses are still in session. I ask 
unanimous consent that the beginning of the debate, 10 minutes equally 
divided, begin at 2:20 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, there is now 10 minutes to be equally 
divided with respect to the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
the start of the debate be extended to the hour of 2:25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
the 10-minute debate previously ordered commence as of now, and I yield 
2 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Arkansas to add just a moment of my thoughts to the tremendous argument 
he has made to strike this language from the Interior appropriations 
bill and to try to move us on in a path of real reform on this issue, 
reform that is so long overdue. Since 1971, attempt after attempt after 
attempt has been made, either to pass laws to reform the 1872 statute--
attempts that have failed because there is not enough support--or we 
have tried to take some steps through regulations. Yet delay after 
delay after delay has taken place.
  I want to submit for the Record, to date $71 billion in damages have 
occurred at taxpayer expense from hard rock mining--$71 billion. Mr. 
President, we have 557,000 abandoned hard rock mining sites in the 
United States alone that have to be dealt with, 300,000 acres of 
Federal land left unreclaimed, 2,000 sites in national parks in need of 
reclamation, as well as 59 Superfund mining sites on the National 
Priorities List and 12,000 miles of polluted rivers.
  When will the taxpayers get some relief from this law that is so far 
outdated and has long since met its original intent? Besides the giving 
away of the land for pennies, the taxpayers are then held to pick up 
the tab for the damage that is caused. There are some reasonable 
solutions that do not devastate the industry but they do begin to clean 
up our environment.
  I support the Honorable Senator from Arkansas and ask all of our 
colleagues to join with him in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is time to be 
charged against both parties when there is nobody speaking?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just say to what few colleagues 
may be listening, in 1976, the Secretary of the Interior was charged 
with the responsibility of making sure that people who mine on Federal 
lands belonging to the taxpayers of America, not cause undue 
degradation of the land.
  In 1981, the Secretary promulgated regulations to determine how 
mining would take place. It was obvious after that that the gold mining 
companies were using cyanide--cyanide--to mine gold. We have had three 
unmitigated disasters since 1981. We have cyanide running in the rivers 
and streams and our underground water supplies of this country.
  In 1991, Secretary Lujan tried to change the rules so we could take 
care of that, as well as other things that needed to be taken care of.
  In 1993, everybody said, ``No, let's wait; we're going to get a new 
bill.'' Nothing happened.
  In 1997, Secretary Babbitt started to promulgate rules to try to take 
care of underground leeching of cyanide poisoning, as well as a whole 
host of other things. Senator Reid got an amendment put on last year 
that said every Governor in the West would have to sign off on that. We 
finally compromised by saying the Secretary would have to consult with 
Governors of the West, which he did and which they certified that he 
did.
  This year, they come in and say, ``No, let's don't do it yet; let's 
have the National Academy of Sciences study it.''
  It takes 27 months, 27 more months under this amendment to get these 
rules promulgated, carefully orchestrated to go past the year 2000 and, 
hopefully, to get a Secretary of the Interior to their liking so we can 
continue to pollute the rivers and streams of underground aquifers of 
this country with cyanide poisoning.
  People of this country have a right to expect something better than 
that, and all I am doing is striking this so that the Secretary can go 
ahead and issue the rules on November 17. If the Congress doesn't like 
them, let them change them. But for God's sake, let's keep faith with 
the American people and say we are going to do something about 
Summitville, CO, 1992. The bond was insufficient. They took bankruptcy. 
Zortman-Landusky, MT, 1998; Gilt Edge, SD, 1998.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I plead with my colleagues and simply say let the 
Secretary do the job we hired him to do and promulgate the rules we 
told him in 1976 he ought to promulgate.

[[Page S10355]]

  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I use the time delegated to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. President, my friend from Arkansas and my friend from Louisiana 
are in some kind of a dream world. The fact of the matter is that the 
statistics they talk about, for example, 300,000 acres damaged--the 
State of Nevada alone has 75 million acres. The Western United States 
is a vast area that still has areas in need of development. The mining 
industry has the best blue-collar jobs in America. The price of gold is 
at a 19-year low. Companies are filing bankruptcy. People are being 
laid off.
  The mining industry creates a favorable balance of trade for gold. 
The problems that they talk about are all problems that went on decades 
and decades ago. What we are talking about here is there are some 
regulations that the Secretary of the Interior who can't legislate--
they have tried, they can't legislate anything--so he said, ``We're 
going to get to you anyway, Mr. and Mrs. Mining Company; we're going to 
do this through regulations. We're going to show you if we can't 
legislate, we will regulate.''
  What we are saying is, Mr. Secretary of the Interior, if you want to 
regulate, let's have the National Academy of Sciences, an impartial, 
unbiased, very recognized, sound scientific body look at these 
regulations to see if they need to be changed. We are willing to abide 
by what they come up with. This is not some antienvironmental rider 
that is going to turn present regulations upside down. This is simply 
saying let's take the regulations and have the scientists look at them, 
not Secretary Babbitt who has been so unfair to mining.
  Mr. President, they are looking for a solution to a problem that 
doesn't exist. The Western Governors' Association said:

       States already have effective environmental and reclamation 
     programs in place and operating. These programs ensure that 
     national criteria, where they exist in current law, are met 
     and allow state and site-specific flexibility for the 
     remaining issues.

  That is all we want, is fairness. The Interior bill is a good bill. 
This provision which calls for a study by the National Academy of 
Sciences is the right way to go. This amendment should be defeated 
overwhelmingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time under the control of the opposition 
to the Bumpers amendment remains at 2 minutes even.
  Mr. REID. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. REID. On this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Thank you. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I stand in strong opposition to Senator 
Bumpers' amendment to strike the National Academy of Sciences study.
  Before they cast their vote, I want my colleagues to consider these 
points:
  We put the National Academy of Sciences study language into the 
appropriations bill because the Interior Department has decided that 
they can no longer wait for Congress to act on mining law. Apparently 
these unelected officials know what's better for this country than the 
United States Congress.
  We are doing it because the Department of the Interior has decided 
that they are not interested in the opinions or concerns of the public 
land Governors and the constituents they represent.
  Let me quote the Western Governors Association letter from February 
of this year:

       States already have effective environmental and reclamation 
     programs in place and operating. These programs ensure that 
     national criteria, where they exist in current law, are met 
     and allow state and site-specific flexibility for the 
     remaining issues.

  We put the Academy study into the appropriations bill at the specific 
request of the Governors of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, 
Wyoming, and Utah.
  They all echo Nevada Governor Miller's concerns when he said:

       Interior is moving the responsibility for environmental 
     oversight of mining operations in my State and other States 
     to here in Washington, DC. This attempt at seizure and 
     control by Interior is particularly perplexing in view of the 
     fact that many States, expecially Nevada [and my state--
     Alaska] have moved aggressively to address the environmental 
     concerns of mining operations. To date, there has been no 
     real justification offered by the department regarding the 
     need to make changes. * * *

  He goes on to say that in his opinion the Department of the Interior 
has a solution looking for a problem.
  A solution looking for a problem.
  It is simply unacceptable for an agency to launch off on a major 
rulemaking effort that affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
entire environmental foundation of mining in the United States.
  Let me close by quoting one of the modern environmental leaders, 
former Secretary of the Interior Andrus:

       In 20 years, I admit, the 3809 regulations have stood the 
     test of time * * * those regulations revolutionized mining on 
     the public lands. Bruce Babbitt--who should know better--is 
     trying to fix things that are not broken, and I suspect 
     accomplish some mining law reform through the back door.

  Secretary Babbitt is trying to fix things that are not broken.
  I couldn't have said it better if I tried.
  The amendment that Senator Bumpers proposes to strike is as simple--
it does ``nothing'' more than direct the National Academy of Sciences 
to review existing State and Federal environmental regulations dealing 
with hardrock mining to determine the adequacy of these laws and 
regulations to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation and how to 
better coordinate Federal and State regulatory programs to ensure 
environmental protection.
  The Department of the Interior has so completely lost its objectivity 
and has become so biased against this industry that they appear 
completely incapable of making sound decisions in this arena.
  The citizens of this country are entitled to a Department of the 
Interior that determines need before it acts, that doesn't waste money 
that is sorely needed in other places; a Department that doesn't 
``unnecessarily'' disrupt a system of State and Federal regulations 
laboriously constructed over decades to complement and enhance 
environmental protection at the lowest cost possible.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in a vote to table Senator 
Bumpers' amendment, and in doing so, we will be sending a clear message 
to the administration that ``good'' Government is still important, that 
States play a critical role in environmental protection and that their 
partnerships and input are still important.
  Mr. President, as you know, we have before us a vote, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be requested--Mr. President, I 
am told that I should make that request after time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Alaska that 
the time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my intent to table the proposed Bumpers 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 3591. The yeas and nays were ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley

[[Page S10356]]


     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--40

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Coats
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hollings
     Mikulski
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3591) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we now are on the Interior appropriations 
bill. I hope we will not have quorum calls. I hope we will be able to 
move through amendments briskly, with appropriate debate. I count about 
10 or a dozen amendments on this bill which are likely to require 
rollcall votes.
  As usual, we are having a difficult time this afternoon getting 
people to come to the floor with their amendments. I would like to go 
from Republican side to Democratic side and back to the Republican 
side.
  I ask that the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, be recognized next. If 
there are Democrats who will bring up their amendments this afternoon, 
I would like to hear from them. They would go next.
  We will have more amendments this afternoon that will require 
rollcall votes.


                           Amendment No. 3592

 (Purpose: To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating 
   certain regulations relating to Indian gaming and to prohibit the 
   Secretary from approving class III gaming without State approval)

  Mr. ENZI. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr. 
     Sessions, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Grams, 
     Mr. Coats, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bryan and Mr. Reid, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3592.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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:

     SEC.  . PROHIBITION.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, prior to 
     October 1, 1999, Secretary of the Interior shall not--
       (1) promulgate as final regulations, or in any way 
     implement, the proposed regulations published on January 22, 
     1998, at 63 Fed. Reg. 3289; or
       (2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for, or 
     promulgate, or in any way implement, any similar regulations 
     to provide for procedures for gaming activities under the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), in any 
     case in which a State asserts a defense of sovereign immunity 
     to a lawsuit brought by an Indian tribe in a Federal court 
     under section 11(d)(7) of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)) to 
     compel the State to participate in compact negotiations for 
     class III gaming (as that term is defined in section 4(8) of 
     that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(8))).
       (b) Class III Gaming Compacts.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Prohibition on approving compacts.--Prior to October 1, 
     1999, the Secretary may not expend any funds made available 
     under this Act, or any other Act hereinafter enacted, to 
     prescribe procedures for class III gaming, or approve class 
     III gaming on Indian lands by any means other than a Tribal-
     State compact entered into between a state and a tribe, on or 
     after the enactment of this 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) No automatic approval.--Prior to October 1, 1999, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Tribal-State 
     compact for class III gaming, other than one entered into 
     between a state and a tribe, shall be considered to have been 
     approved by the Secretary by reason of the failure of the 
     Secretary to approve or disapprove that compact.
       (c) Definitions.--The terms ``class III gaming'', 
     ``Secretary'', ``Indian lands'', and ``Tribal-State compact'' 
     shall have the same meaning for the purposes of this section 
     as those terms have under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent two members of my staff, Andrew 
Emrich and Chad Calvert, be granted floor privileges during the 
duration of the debate on the Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I rise to introduce this amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill with my colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Sessions. This amendment has one very important purpose: 
to ensure that the rights of this Congress and all 50 States are not 
trampled on by an unelected Cabinet official.

  The amendment is simple and straightforward. It would prohibit the 
Secretary of the Interior from approving any tribal-State gambling 
agreement which has not first been approved by the tribe and the State 
in question. It would also prohibit the Secretary from finalizing the 
rules that were published this past January 22. If these rules are 
finalized, the Secretary of the Interior would have the ability to 
bypass all 50 State governments in approving casino gambling on Indian 
tribal lands.
  Mr. President, this is the third time in 2 years the Senate has had 
to deal with this issue of Indian gambling. I regret that an amendment 
is, once again, necessary on this year's Interior appropriations bill. 
However, until we understand the need for legislative action and effect 
hearings by the Indian Affairs Committee to resolve differences and 
reach a reasonable compromise in the Indian gambling process, this 
amendment is essential.
  Last year, I offered an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill 
that prohibited Secretary Babbitt from approving any new tribal-State 
gambling compacts which had not first been approved by the State in 
accordance with State law. Although that amendment provided for only a 
1-year moratorium, the intent of that amendment was clear. Congress 
does not believe it is appropriate for the Secretary of the Interior to 
bypass Congress and the States on an issue as important as to whether 
or not casino gambling would be allowed within State borders.
  Unfortunately, the Secretary did not think Congress was serious when 
we passed the amendment last year. On January 22 of this year, the 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, published 
proposed regulations which would allow the Secretary of the Interior to 
bypass the States in the compacting process. In effect, these proposed 
regulations would allow Secretary Babbitt to approve casino gambling 
agreements with the Indian tribes without the consent or approval of 
the States. This action by the Secretary is a very big stick that 
encourages the tribes enough that they are not interested in any 
compromise. That is precisely why Congress was willing to place the 
amendment in last year's appropriations bill. Evidently, Secretary 
Babbitt did not think Congress was serious.
  We also debated the issue of blocking the Secretary's proposed rules 
in February, and we had an amendment accepted to the supplemental 
appropriations bill by a voice vote. When speaking with House conferees 
who attended the conference to the supplemental, several lobbyists 
painted our amendment as a Las Vegas protection bill. There are some 
lobbying groups that are trying that same tactic again this year. I 
want everyone to be perfectly clear on this point. This amendment is 
designed primarily for those States that do not allow gambling--
particularly those that do not allow electronic gambling and especially 
those States that do not allow slot machines. The interest in this 
amendment from gambling States stems simply from their sincere desire 
to have the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, enforced. This 
amendment does not in any way minimize the serious need for proper 
enforcement of existing law.

[[Page S10357]]

  In February, in an attempt to kill our amendment, which was only a 
continuation of the status quo, the Indian Affairs Committee sent out a 
notice that the amendment should be defeated because hearings had been 
scheduled. What happened to those hearings? By passing this amendment, 
we will ensure that the promises about the future won't change the 
current law. We will make sure that the unelected Secretary of the 
Interior, Bruce Babbitt, won't single-handedly change current law. This 
amendment will ensure that any change in IGRA is done in the right 
way--legislatively.

  Mr. President, this amendment will ensure that the proper procedures 
are followed in the tribal-State compacting process. Some people have 
argued that changes need to be made in the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act. I don't necessarily disagree with my colleagues on that point. In 
fact, I would welcome an opportunity to review a number of provisions 
in IGRA in the proper context. However, if any changes are to be made 
to IGRA, those changes must come from Congress, not from the 
administration. By even proposing these regulations, the Secretary of 
the Interior has shown an amazing disregard for the constitutional role 
of Congress and the statutory prerogatives of all 50 States.
  Actually, Mr. President, the timing of Secretary Babbitt's actions is 
rather ironic. In March, just 6 months ago, Attorney General Janet Reno 
requested an independent counsel to investigate Secretary Babbitt's 
involvement in denying a tribal-State gambling license to an Indian 
tribe in Wisconsin. Although we will have to wait for independent 
counsel Carol Elder Bruce to complete her investigation before any 
final conclusions can be drawn, it is evident that serious questions 
have been raised about Secretary Babbitt's judgment and objectivity in 
approving Indian gambling compacts.
  The very fact that Attorney General Janet Reno believed there was 
specific and credible evidence to warrant an investigation should be 
sufficient to make this Congress hesitant to allow Secretary Babbitt to 
grant himself new trust powers that are designed to bypass the States 
in the area of tribal-State gambling compacts. Moreover, this 
investigation should have taught us an important lesson: We in Congress 
should not allow Secretary Babbitt, or any other Secretary of the 
Interior, to usurp the rightful role of Congress and the States in 
addressing the difficult question of casino gambling on Indian tribal 
lands.
  As this controversial issue has developed, we have been promised 
hearings in the Indian Affairs Committee. A year ago, I was given the 
offer to even invite some of the witnesses. From my perspective, if the 
promise of those proposed hearings had caused us to back off this 
amendment, the effect would have been that Secretary Babbitt would have 
had his way today. This sentiment has been confirmed by lobbyists from 
the various tribes which have made it abundantly clear that Secretary 
Babbitt fully intends to finalize his proposed rules. Our only way to 
stop this effort is to attach another amendment to this year's Interior 
appropriations bill. Let me assure you, if Secretary Babbitt has his 
way, there will be no need for the tribes to resolve problems at all 
involving gambling and IGRA in and with their States.
  I do believe that this issue could be resolved with hearings and a 
bill--actual legislation from us, from Congress. But those hearings 
won't happen as long as the tribes anticipate the clout of the 
Secretary's rule that bypasses the process, bypasses the States. Yes, 
the courts have ruled that the current law--which was passed by 
Congress, not an appointed Secretary--gives an edge in the bargaining 
process to the States. But that process has worked. If there is a need 
to change that process, it should be changed only by a bill passed by 
Congress--not by rule and regulation.
  I must stress that if we do not maintain the status quo, there will 
never be an essential involvement by the States in the final decision 
of whether to allow casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. There will 
be no compromise reached. The Secretary will be given the right to 
bypass us, the Congress of the United States, and to run roughshod over 
the States.
  Again, I want to stress that this amendment does not amend the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act, but holds the status quo for another year so 
Congress can review the situation.
  Two years ago, Congress voted to establish a national commission to 
study the social and economic impacts of legalized gambling in the 
United States. One of the aspects the commission is analyzing is the 
impact of gambling on tribal communities. As my colleagues know, this 
commission just began its work last year and most likely will not 
complete its study for another year.
  It is significant that this commission--the very commission that was 
created by Congress for the purpose of studying gambling--has now sent 
a letter to Secretary Babbitt asking him not to go forward with his 
proposed rules. I would like to read this letter for the benefit of my 
colleagues.

       Dear Secretary Babbitt: As you are aware, the 104th 
     Congress created the National Gambling Impact Study 
     Commission to study the social and economic impacts of 
     legalized gambling in the United States. Part of our study 
     concerns the policies and practices of tribal governments and 
     the social and economic impacts of gambling on tribal 
     communities.
       During our July 30 meeting in Tempe, Arizona the Commission 
     discussed the Department's ``by-pass'' provision for tribes 
     who allege that a state had not negotiated for a gaming 
     compact in good faith. The Commission voted to formally 
     request the Secretary of the Interior to stay the issuance of 
     a final rule on Indian compacting pending completion of our 
     final report. On behalf of the Commission, I formally request 
     such a stay, and trust you will honor this request until you 
     have had an opportunity to review the report which we intend 
     to release on June 20, 1999. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Kay C. James,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. President, I think it would be wise for this body to follow the 
advice of the very commission that we created to study the issue of 
legalized gambling.
  I want to emphasize again that we are the body that asked for this 
commission. We created the commission to look at all gambling. The 
American taxpayers are already paying for the study. The commission is 
already doing its work. We need to let them finish. They have asked 
that neither we, nor Secretary Babbitt, make any changes while they do 
their work. My amendment would give them that time.
  The judicial branch has already preserved the integrity of current 
law. This amendment supports that. The President approved my amendment 
last year by signing the 1998 Interior appropriations bill. I'm asking 
my colleagues to take the same ``non-action'' once again. The Committee 
on Indian Affairs must play a very important role here. They need to 
hold hearings and write legislation which specifically addresses this 
issue and then put it through the process. They will have time to do 
that if this amendment is agreed to. This amendment would support 
giving the Indian Affairs Committee and Congress, as a whole, time to 
develop an appropriate policy.
  Mr. President, the Enzi-Sessions amendment is strongly endorsed by 
the National Governor's Association. I would like to read a letter 
written on behalf of the Governors and which is signed by the entire 
executive committee. Listen to this very bipartisan appeal.
  Here is the letter:

       As members of the Executive Committee of the National 
     Governors' Association, we urge you on behalf of all 
     governors to adopt the Indian gaming-relating amendment to 
     the Interior Department Appropriations bill sponsored by Sen. 
     Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). 
     This amendment would extend the current moratorium preventing 
     the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior from 
     using federal funds to approve tribal-state compacts that 
     have not first been approved by the state, as required by 
     law. The amendment would also prohibit the secretary from 
     promulgating a regulation or implementing a procedure that 
     could result in tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a 
     tribal-state compact or from going forward with any proposed 
     rule on this matter in fiscal 1999.
       The U.S. Secretary of the Interior has published a proposed 
     rule in which he asserts authority to establish such 
     procedures, and he has indicated his intent to issue a final 
     rule. The nation's Governors strongly believe that no statute 
     or court decision provides the secretary of the U.S. 
     Department of the Interior with authority to intervene in 
     disputes over compacts between Indian tribes and states about 
     casino gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute 
     an attempt by the secretary to preempt states' authority 
     under existing laws and recent court decisions and

[[Page S10358]]

     would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating 
     gambling compacts with states. The secretary's inherent 
     authority includes a responsibility to protect the interests 
     of Indian tribes, making it impossible for the secretary to 
     avoid a conflict of interest or exercise objective judgment 
     in disputes between states and tribes. Governors have 
     submitted comments to the department outlining these and 
     other objections to the proposed rule.
       The Governors have agreed to enter negotiations with Indian 
     tribes and the U.S. Departments of Interior and Justice to 
     achieve consensus regarding amendments to the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act of 1988. Preliminary staff discussions will 
     take place in August or September in preparation for a 
     meeting of principals in November.
       To avoid protracted litigation, provide Congress with time 
     to determine the proper scope of the secretary's authority in 
     this area, and permit the negotiations among tribes, states, 
     and the federal government to progress, the nation's 
     Governors respectfully urge Congress to adopt the Enzi/
     Sessions amendment to extend the current moratorium through 
     the end of fiscal 1999 and prohibit the secretary from 
     issuing a final rule.
       Thank you for your support of the Enzi/Sessions amendment. 
     The nation's Governors look forward to working with you.

  It is signed by Governor George Voinovich, the chairman; Tom Carper 
of Delaware, the vice chairman; Governor Romer of Colorado; Governor 
Lawton Chiles of Florida; Governor Bob Miller of Nevada; Governor David 
Beasley of South Carolina; Governor Howard Dean of Vermont; and 
Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin. It is definitely a bipartisan 
list.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this amendment is also supported by the 
National Association of Attorneys General. I would like to read from 
the attorneys general letter of support. This is an excerpt.

       The Attorneys General believe that the Secretary lacks any 
     statutory authority for the proposed procedures. Twenty-five 
     state Attorneys General led by Attorney General Bob 
     Butterworth filed a letter with the Secretary setting out our 
     views at length. We believe the Secretary must seek statutory 
     amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to achieve the 
     authority he asserts and have encouraged him to engage in a 
     dialogue with states and tribes to work toward that goal.

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

                                           National Association of


                                            Attorneys General,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1998.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Enzi and Sessions: We write in support and in 
     appreciation of your proposed amendment to S. 2237, the 
     Interior Appropriations legislation. Last year's Interior 
     Appropriations bill contained a provision establishing a 
     moratorium on implementation of procedures by the Secretary 
     of the Interior to permit tribal gaming where a state and a 
     tribe stall in negotiations and the state asserts sovereign 
     immunity in court proceedings.
       The Attorneys General believe that the Secretary lacks any 
     statutory authority for the proposed procedures. Twenty-five 
     state Attorneys General led by Attorney General Bob 
     Butterworth filed a letter with the Secretary setting out our 
     views at length. We believe the Secretary must seek statutory 
     amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of achieve the 
     authority he asserts and have encouraged him to engage in a 
     dialogue with states and tribes to work toward that goal.
       While the short time frame before this year's Interior 
     Appropriations is marked up prevents us from conducting a 
     formal survey of the Attorneys General, we can assure you 
     that there is an informal consensus to urge that the 
     moratorium remain in place during the coming fiscal year. 
     Continuation of the moratorium will avert the need for costly 
     and prolonged litigation over the Secretary's administrative 
     authority and encourage a meaningful dialogue about 
     amendments to the IGRA which would benefit the Secretary, the 
     tribes and the states.
           Sincerely,
     Nelson Kempsky,
       Executive Director, Conference of Western Attorneys 
     General.
     Christine Milliken,
       Executive Director & General Counsel, National Association 
     of Attorneys General.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have also received a number of letters 
from individual Attorneys General from a number of states, and my 
colleague from Alabama, who himself was a distinguished State Attorney 
General before coming to the United States Senate, will discuss these 
at more length. This letter is also supported by the National League of 
Cities. I would like to quote from this letter of endorsement.
  This is from the National League of Cities representing the cities 
and towns across our Nation.

       While further legislation is required to remove the power 
     of the Interior Secretary to administratively create enclaves 
     exempt from state and local regulatory authority, passage of 
     this amendment would be a first step in this process.
       Because passage of the Enzi/Sessions amendment would slow 
     the creation of new trust land in one narrow set of 
     circumstances, NLC urges support of this amendment as a first 
     step. The concept of allowing an appointed federal official 
     to overrule and ignore state and local land use and taxation 
     laws through the creation of trust lands flies in the face of 
     federalism and intergovernmental comity.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Supreme Court has ruled that provisions of the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (IGRA) violate 
     certain constitutional principles that establish the 
     obligations, immunities and privileges of the states. The 
     Interior Department appears to be determined to implement the 
     remaining provisions of IGRA despite the fact that the 
     Supreme Court decision really requires a congressional re-
     examination of the IGRA statute and the more general topic of 
     trust land designation. For these reasons, the NLC strongly 
     urges Congress to extend the current moratorium, as proposed 
     in the Enzi/Sessions amendment, through fiscal year 1999.

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

                                    National League of Cities,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1998.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gorton and Senator Byrd: I am writing to you 
     on behalf of the National League of Cities (NLC) to urge you 
     to support the Enzi/Sessions amendment to the FY '99 Interior 
     Appropriations Bill which seeks to continue the moratorium on 
     implementation of procedures by the U.S. Secretary of the 
     Interior for fiscal year 1999. The NLC urges support of the 
     Enzi/Sessions amendment in order to slow the creation of new 
     trust land. While further legislation is required to remove 
     the power of the Interior Secretary to administratively 
     create enclaves exempt from state and local regulatory 
     authority, passage of this amendment would be a first step in 
     this process.
       Because passage of the Enzi/Sessions amendment would slow 
     the creation of new trust land in one narrow set of 
     circumstances, NLC urges support of this amendment as a first 
     step. The concept of allowing an appointed federal official 
     to overrule and ignore state and local land use and taxation 
     laws through the creation of trust lands flies in the face of 
     federalism and intergovernmental comity.
       The membership of the NLC has adopted policy which declares 
     that: ``lands acquired by Native-American tribes and 
     individuals shall be given corporate, not federal trust, 
     property status.'' This policy is advocated ``in order that 
     all lands may be uniformly regulated and taxed under 
     municipal laws.''
       The Supreme Court has ruled that provisions of the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (IGRA) violate 
     certain constitutional principles that establish the 
     obligations, immunities and privileges of the states. The 
     Interior Department appears to be determined to implement the 
     remaining provisions of IGRA despite the fact that the 
     Supreme Court decision really requires a congressional re-
     examination of the IGRA statute and the more general topic of 
     trust land designation. For these reasons, the NLC strongly 
     urges Congress to extend the current moratorium, as proposed 
     in the Enzi/Sessions amendment, through fiscal year 1999.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brian J. O'Neill,
                                         President and Councilman.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is a growing number of groups, 
including the Christian Coalition which is very concerned about the 
explosion of unregulated gaming in America. I have a letter from the 
Christian Coalition. I share with you a paragraph from that.

       Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, every State has the 
     right to be directly involved in tribal-state compacts 
     without Federal interference. Every state also has the right, 
     as upheld by the Supreme Court in the Seminole Tribe of 
     Florida v. Florida decision, to raise its 11th Amendment 
     defense of southern immunity if a tribe tries to sue the 
     state for not approving a casino compact. However, in the 
     wake of the Seminole decision, the Department of Interior has 
     created new rules whereby a tribe can negotiate directly with 
     the Secretary of Interior on casino gambling compacts and 
     bypass a state's

[[Page S10359]]

     rights to be involved. These new rules are a gross violation 
     of states' rights. An unelected cabinet member should not be 
     given sole authority to direct the internal activities of a 
     state, especially with regards to casino gambling contracts.
       Christian Coalition is also very concerned with the severe 
     social consequences of casino gambling. There is much 
     evidence that the rise of casino gambling leads to a rise in 
     family breakdown, crime, drug addiction, and alcoholism. With 
     such staggering repercussions, it is vital that tribal-state 
     gambling contracts remain within each individual state and 
     not be commandeered by an unelected Federal official.

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

                                          Christian Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1998.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the FY '99 Interior 
     appropriations bill, an amendment sponsored by Senator Enzi 
     (WY) and Senator Sessions (AL) is expected to be offered. 
     This amendment would protect states' rights in negotiating 
     tribal-state compacts, especially when negotiating casino 
     gambling.
       Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, every state has the 
     right to be directly involved in tribal-state compacts, 
     without federal interference. Every state also has the right, 
     as upheld by the Supreme Court in the Seminole Tribe of 
     Florida v. Florida decision, to raise its 11th Amendment 
     defense of sovereign immunity if a tribe tries to sue the 
     state for not approving a casino compact. However, in the 
     wake of the Seminole decision, the Department of Interior has 
     created new rules whereby a tribe can negotiate directly with 
     the Secretary of Interior on casino gambling compacts and 
     bypass a state's right to be involved. These new rules are a 
     gross violation of states' rights. An unelected cabinet 
     member should not be given sole authority to direct the 
     internal activities of a state, especially with regards to 
     casino gambling contracts.
       Christian Coalition is also very concerned with the severe 
     social consequences of casino gambling. There is much 
     evidence that the rise of casino gambling leads to a rise in 
     family breakdown, crime, drug addiction and alcoholism. With 
     such staggering repercussions, it is vital that Tribal-State 
     gambling compacts remain within each individual State and not 
     be commandeered by an unelected federal official.
       The Enzi/Sessions amendment would prohibit the Secretary of 
     Interior, during fiscal year 1999, from establishing or 
     implementing any new rules that allow the Secretary to 
     circumvent a state in negotiating a tribal-state compact when 
     that state raises its 11th amendment defense of sovereign 
     immunity. It also prohibits the Secretary from approving any 
     tribal-state compact which has not first been approved by the 
     state.
       Christian Coalition urges you to protect states' rights and 
     vote for the Enzi/Sessions amendment to the FY '98 Interior 
     appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey K. Taylor,
                          Acting Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. ENZI. I want to point out that this amendment does not affect any 
existing tribal-State compact. It does not in any way prevent States 
and tribes from entering into compacts where both parties are willing 
to disagree on class 3 gambling on tribal lands within a State's 
borders. The amendment does ensure that all stakeholders must be 
involved in the process--Congress, tribes, States, the administration.
  Mr. President, a few short years ago, the big casinos thought Wyoming 
would be a good place to gamble. The casinos gambled on it. They spent 
a lot of money. They even got an initiative on the ballot. They spent a 
lot more money trying to get the initiative passed. I became the 
spokesman for the opposition.
  When we first got our meager organization together, the polls showed 
over 60 percent of the people were in favor of gambling. When the 
election was held, the casino gambling lost by over 62 percent, and it 
lost in every single county of our State. The 40-point swing in public 
opinion happened as people came to understand the issue and the 
implications of casino gambling in Wyoming.
  That is a pretty solid message. We do not want casino gambling in 
Wyoming. The people who vote in my State have debated it and made their 
choice. Any Federal bureaucracy that tries to force casino gambling on 
us will obviously inject animosity.
  Why did we have that decisive a vote? We used a couple of our 
neighboring States to review the effects of limited casino gambling. We 
found that a few people--a few people--make an awful lot of money at 
the expense of everyone else. When casino gambling comes into a State, 
communities are changed forever and everyone agrees there are costs to 
the State. There are material costs, with a need for new law 
enforcement and public services. Worse yet, there are social costs. And 
not only is gambling addictive to some folks, but once it is 
instituted, the revenues can be addictive, too.
  But I am not here to debate the pros and cons of gambling. I am just 
trying to maintain the status quo so we can develop a legislative 
solution rather than a bureaucratic mandate.
  Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Society 
as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A State's law 
enforcement, social services, communities, and families are seriously 
impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. 
Therefore, a State's popularly elected representatives should have a 
say in the decision about whether or not to allow casino gambling on 
Indian lands. This decision should not be made unilaterally by an 
unelected Cabinet official. Passing the Enzi-Sessions amendment will 
keep all the interested parties at the bargaining table. By keeping all 
the parties at the table, the Indian Affairs Committee will have the 
time it needs to hear all the sides and work on the legislation to fix 
any problems that exist in the current system.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the constitutional role of 
Congress and for the rights of all 50 States by supporting this 
amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi 
amendment on Indian gaming. I think it is patently unfair because it 
will result in preventing Indian tribes from engaging in business 
activities that are now enjoyed by non-Indian neighbors. If we are 
going to talk about the merits of gambling--and I noticed my friend 
from Wyoming spoke eloquently about the down side of gambling--maybe we 
ought to shut down Reno and Las Vegas so millions, hundreds of millions 
of Americans cannot go there because it is bad for their health or 
sight or something.

  We are not here, by the way, Mr. President, to defend the actions of 
the Secretary of Interior, and I hope we will not confuse that. His 
mismanagement is one thing, but the letter of the law is something 
else. And I firmly believe you can't fix an otherwise good bill, this 
Interior appropriations bill, with a bad amendment. This simply makes a 
good bill bad.
  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 was a compromise to give 
State governments a voice in what kind of gaming would occur on Indian 
reservations within a State's borders. This was an unusual break from 
Federal Indian policy because States have no constitutional role in 
negotiating with Indian tribes, as you know.
  I was here in 1988, in fact, and helped write that original 
authorizing legislation, IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. There 
was no intent at the time to usurp State laws, but as with many laws we 
have passed, there have been unintended consequences. The way it was 
written, a State can prevent a tribe from operating gaming facilities 
on its reservation simply by refusing to negotiate with the tribe. And 
that, of course, was upheld in the Seminole decision. My friend from 
Wyoming has spoken to that.
  But in 1988, it didn't occur to us, when we were writing the bill, 
that States might simply refuse to negotiate in good faith. Since 
tribes are limited to those types of gaming allowed under State law, we 
have tribes prohibited from being in the same business as their non-
Indian neighbors. I think that is discriminatory in the least. It is 
wrong to do that, and I think it violates the treaties. I should also 
point out to my colleagues that in many cases non-Indian gaming is 
promoted and even operated by State governments. They certainly don't 
want the competition.
  Since Congress' intent under IGRA was that States should not have the 
ability to unilaterally veto gaming on Indian land, the Department of 
Interior has proposed regulations to address this situation. Although 
the proposal may need refinement, we do not believe the Secretary 
should be precluded from at least developing and proposing alternative 
approaches to State-tribal impasses in the gaming negotiations. In 
fact, in a letter issued on September 9, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
has stated

[[Page S10360]]

the Enzi amendment could be very harmful in their ongoing negotiations.
  Coming from a Western State, I am as supportive as anybody of States 
rights, but those who say this new procedure overrides the States are 
simply wrong. Under the draft proposal, if a State objected to a 
decision made by the Interior Secretary, that State could challenge 
that decision in Federal court. For those who claim the Interior 
Department is acting without legislative oversight, I would point out 
that Congress will have the authority to review any proposed 
regulations before they take effect. As those proposed regulations come 
before the authorizing committees, any new gaming regulations will get 
a careful review, and if, after input from the rest of the Senate, 
those regulations are found to be unacceptable, they simply will not 
pass. We will legislate a new approach if they do not pass.
  I understand that there are Members in the Chamber who are simply 
against gaming. That is not what this debate is about. Under Federal 
law, tribes are limited to the types of gaming allowed under the laws 
of the State in which they reside. In my own State of Colorado as an 
example, there are two tribes, the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain 
Ute. They are limited to slot machines and low-stakes table games, just 
as the other gaming towns in Colorado. In Utah, State law prohibits all 
gaming. Therefore, no tribes can do any kind of gaming whatsoever, and 
the tribes in other States cannot do gaming if a State law prevents 
that.
  Contrary to the statement already made that there have been no 
hearings, we have done hearings. We simply have not gotten to the 
important part of the legislation, which is a markup, but we will. This 
debate is about whether a Governor of a State can limit a type of 
business activity to certain ethnic groups. That is unfair and un-
American. Let's not jeopardize a good bill with a bad amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the Enzi amendment and allow the 
regulatory and legislative process to work.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I support the Enzi amendment. I think a 
statement may be helpful to my colleagues who have not followed this 
issue as closely as the Senators who have joined us on the floor for 
purposes of discussing this amendment, the statement of Justice Oliver 
Wendell Holmes that a page of history may be more instructive than a 
volume of logic. This issue dates back to the time of a court decision 
involving the Cabazon Indian Tribe. As a result of that decision, the 
Congress, in 1988, passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which has 
been referred to in the course of this debate as IGRA.
  I think the philosophical underpinnings of that legislation continue 
to be valid. Let me make it clear, because sometimes my view is 
misconstrued, I support the right of Indian tribes to enjoy 
entrepreneurial gaming activities to the same extent that State law, as 
a matter of public policy, permits those entrepreneurial activities to 
be available to all. So this debate is not whether you agree with 
Indian gaming or disagree with Indian gaming. I believe the tribes, 
subject to the qualification I have just stated, have a right to 
participate in gaming to the extent that, as a matter of State policy, 
a State chooses to permit gaming entrepreneurial opportunities.
  We have marked contrasts in the West. The State of Utah, as a matter 
of State law--as the distinguished Senator from Colorado just pointed 
out--as a matter of State policy, permits no form of gaming. It is, in 
my judgment, clear and properly so under IGRA that no tribe within the 
State of Utah would have a right to participate in any form of Indian 
gaming.
  The contrast to my own State is quite marked. In Nevada, as a matter 
of public policy since 1931, a full range of gaming entrepreneurial 
activities are available to the citizens of Nevada, and it is clear 
that the tribes in Nevada have the same opportunity. And, indeed, there 
have been five compacts negotiated with the tribes in the State of 
Nevada to permit that.
  Under IGRA, gaming is divided into three different categories 
referred to as class I, class II, and class III. Class I and class II 
are not a part of this discussion. Class I deals with traditional 
Indian games; class II deals with bingo, and class III deals with 
casino types of gaming, including slot machines.
  Again, to repeat, the premise of IGRA is that a Governor of a State 
is obligated to negotiate with a tribe to provide the same 
opportunities to tribes in his or her State to the extent the States, 
as a matter of law, permit gaming in general in that State.
  Here is what brings us to the floor again this year, as my 
distinguished colleague from Wyoming points out. Under IGRA, what is 
contemplated in those States that permit any form of gaming is a 
compacting process under State law, where the Governors--and, indeed, 
in the law of some States it is the Governors and the State 
legislators--are required to negotiate with the Indian tribes within 
that State to provide those tribes with an equal opportunity to 
participate in the entrepreneurial aspects of gaming. There is no 
quarrel by this Senator with respect to that approach.
  Here is what gives us cause for great concern. Some tribes have 
asserted that if the Governors of a respective State refuse to grant 
them everything they want by way of gaming, even though what they want 
is beyond what is permitted as a matter of State law, that that 
constitutes bad faith in the negotiating process. They want to be able 
to bypass that process; namely, the negotiation with the Governors, and 
in some States the negotiations with the Governors that must be 
approved by the State legislature.
  The Enzi amendment does two things. No. 1, it prevents the Secretary 
of the Interior from moving forward to promulgate the final regulation 
that would, in effect, seek by regulation to bypass or change the 
procedure that currently exists. The second thing the amendment does is 
to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from, in effect, bypassing the 
compacting process and authorizing a compact that is not in compliance 
with State law.
  My colleague from Wyoming has pointed out that this is an issue that 
is bipartisan in nature; this is not something that divides us on a 
partisan basis. It does not divide us regionally. It does not divide us 
philosophically. Some of my colleagues who have spoken oppose gaming in 
all forms. I respect that. This Senator does not take that position. 
But the National Governors' Association, the National Association of 
Attorneys General--both organizations of which I have been privileged 
to be a member in the past when serving as attorney general and 
Governor of my State--have gone on record as supporting the Enzi 
amendment. The reason why they are supporting this amendment so 
strongly is they want to preserve the right of State governments to 
determine, as a matter of policy, what, if any, form of gaming activity 
is permitted.
  So, for those who find some type of invidious discrimination in this 
process, I must say this Senator does not. To the extent that a State 
permits gaming, it is clear that Governors are obligated to negotiate 
that same right to Indian tribes within the State. To the extent that a 
State, such as Utah or Hawaii, permits no form of gaming, the Governors 
of those two States are not required to enter into any kind of compact 
because those States, as a matter of public policy, have the right to 
determine what that policy is, and they have said, as a matter of 
public policy, they oppose gaming, do not want any form to exist within 
the State.

  I must say, I thought we had hopefully put this issue to rest a year 
ago when we offered a similar amendment to the appropriations bill. I 
thought we had sent a clear message that the Congress of the United 
States does not want the Secretary of the Interior to bypass a process 
provided by law; namely, for Indian tribes to negotiate with the 
Governors as to what kind of gaming activity is to be permitted in that 
State consistent with that State's public policy. No sooner had this 
issue been approved by this body, the other body, and it became part of 
the Interior appropriations bill last year, than the Secretary of the 
Interior began a rulemaking process that, in my judgment, is violative 
of the spirit and contrary to the law in terms of what is his 
authority.

[[Page S10361]]

  It is that disagreement that brings Governors from all regions of the 
country, Democrat and Republican, in support of the Enzi amendment. It 
is that same concern that brings the Nation's attorneys general 
together in a similar bipartisan way to strongly support the Enzi 
amendment. They do so as a matter of preserving and protecting the 
ability of each State to determine how much, if any, or how little, 
gaming is to be permitted within that State.
  So, this is not, my colleagues, an issue of whether one favors Indian 
gaming or opposes Indian gaming. It is not an issue of whether you 
support gaming or oppose gaming. This amendment is designed to preserve 
the existing law which gives to each State Governor and the legislature 
the ability in that State to determine whether gaming is to be 
permitted and, if so, what form of gaming.
  This is an extraordinarily significant piece of legislation. I must 
say, I am not familiar with any circumstances currently in the country 
where the tribes have not been able to negotiate a compact with those 
States that permit some form of gaming. At last count, there were 150 
compacts negotiated in 20 States, pursuant to the law that was enacted 
by Congress in 1988. I am not suggesting that IGRA is perfect. I am not 
suggesting that some modification or change may not be needed with 
respect to some aspect. But that is a decision for the Congress of the 
United States, not a decision for the Secretary of the Interior. So I 
implore my colleagues to support the Enzi amendment in a bipartisan 
fashion, because what it seeks to accomplish is to reserve to the 
respective States the ability to determine what public policy will be 
with respect to gaming activities conducted within that State.
  As I have observed throughout my comments, to the extent that a State 
as a matter of public policy has determined that they will permit some 
form of gaming, it is clear in IGRA that State Governors are obligated 
to negotiate those same entrepreneurial opportunities, and I have no 
quarrel with that. That is the law. But what we are really talking 
about here is an attempt to make an end run around IGRA. To the extent 
that the Secretary of the Interior, by regulation or by determining 
that an impasse exists, is able to bypass the State compacting process, 
no longer is it the State determining what the public policy with 
respect to gaming in that State may be. It is the Secretary of 
Interior. I have great respect for the Secretary of Interior but, with 
great respect, that is not an authority that he, or any Secretary of 
Interior, ought to have.
  That is an authority that ought to be reserved to the State and the 
State legislature. We would do real violence to the very carefully 
crafted balance that was accomplished in IGRA when that was adopted a 
decade ago.
  For that reason, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Enzi amendment when this comes for a vote. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
junior Senator from Wyoming. I have heretofore on other occasions 
accepted and supported his various concerns in this area, but I want to 
share with him and the Senate a situation that perhaps deserves some 
special consideration for New Mexico, even if it is for a time certain. 
Let me, as best I can, explain this.
  First of all, there is a case called the Seminole case, very much 
understood in Indian country. It pertains to gaming in this manner. The 
Federal courts have ruled under the Seminole case that the States are 
immune from suit and that means they can't be sued by an Indian tribe. 
So we start with that premise.
  In the State of New Mexico, we have 14 Pueblos and two Apache tribes 
that have gaming houses and have compacts. But the compacts are very 
different than anyone else's in the country, for a couple of reasons.
  First of all, in order to make the compacts valid, the Supreme Court 
of the State of New Mexico ruled that the legislature had to be 
involved in getting this done, not just the Governor. The State of New 
Mexico, through its legislature, I say to my friend Senator Enzi, came 
along and imposed, not by way of compact agreement, but just imposed as 
part of the authority for the Governor to enter into a compact, that 
each casino owned by the various Indian groups be charged 16 percent on 
gross slot machine revenues.
  Obviously, that has not been negotiated, and my friend from Nevada is 
talking about compacts that are negotiated and that he doesn't know of 
any situation where they were not negotiated. I am suggesting one where 
they were not negotiated, but pursuant to a mandate from the 
legislature that charged them 16 percent gross tax on slot machines. 
They either took it or left it. The Secretary, I say to the Senator 
from Wyoming, said, ``I'm not going to sign the pacts, because if I 
sign them, I am at least implicitly agreeing that the legislature can 
tax Indian casinos.''
  He let the pacts go in under a provision that says if he doesn't sign 
it within a certain amount of time, it goes into effect anyway.
  We have compacts with our Indian tribes being assessed 16 percent, 
and I am not here to ask the U.S. Senate for relief from that, for I 
don't even know if 16 percent is right or not. All I know is it is a 
very big piece of money for very small casinos, but we have nothing yet 
in New Mexico that rivals the smallest, most minute casino in the State 
of the distinguished Senator from Nevada who just argued in favor of 
the Enzi amendment. They are very small casinos, with one exception, 
and even that is not a rival to anything the Senator has in a State 
that has legalized gaming.
  Our Indian people would like to contest the 16 percent. Isn't it 
interesting, the Seminole case, which I just recited, prevents them 
from going to court, so they can get no relief from what they want to 
argue is an illegal imposition of this license fee, or at least 
arbitrary and unreasonable based upon what they are making. There they 
sit.
  The point of it is there is at least a hope and an avenue for 
potentially getting this issue into the courts if you leave the section 
in the law that Senator Enzi chooses to remove from the law, because it 
provides for a remediation section and a Secretarial procedure which is 
being removed, so we will leave them in the status quo with no way to 
challenge.
  Frankly, I repeat, I don't know whether their challenge is going to 
be valid or not, but it seems a little bit unfair that there is no way 
to challenge it even when a Secretary of the Interior is suggesting 
that the States didn't have the authority to impose that tax or that 
much. The Secretary can't do anything about it either, because all he 
does is sign the pacts or let them go into effect based on the 
expiration of time. In either case, you will have left the 16 percent 
license fee, gross fee, in place with no way to challenge it in any 
court because of the Seminole case.
  I say to the Senator from Wyoming, he is probably going to win today. 
I haven't had a chance to explore how we might effect some justice and 
fairness here, but I do suggest that it is at least right for me to 
come down here and object, and I believe there might be a way that you 
can ameliorate New Mexico's problem by exempting them, by leaving the 
statute that we are concerned with in place for the New Mexico licensed 
casinos.
  If you say you don't want it anywhere else, you want to wipe it out 
because it may have an opportunity to get around the need for compacts, 
you could at least leave it in effect somehow or another for those in 
New Mexico who are suffering under the situation which I have just 
described.
  Having said that, because of this, obviously I can't vote aye on the 
amendment. You don't need to worry because I haven't been out lobbying 
Senators because this is a particular problem, very peculiar and 
particular to New Mexico. The Indian people think they have a case for 
just fairness, that they ought to be able to challenge this, and they 
will never have a chance to challenge it if your amendment wipes out 
the statute which gives the Secretary some additional power.
  The Pueblo of Laguna in New Mexico has done a great deal of research 
on this. I ask unanimous consent that their analysis be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S10362]]



 Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider Must be Rejected--Congress Should Not Alter 
    Federal Policy and Statutory Protections Over Indian Affairs by 
            Attaching Riders to Annual Appropriations Bills


  A. Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider is a means of improperly circumventing 
             Federal Law Which Protected Tribal Governments

       Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider is an unfair, by-pass of the 
     legislative process.
       Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider unfairly subordinates tribal 
     authority to pursue reservation economic development in 
     violation of the federal trust responsibility to protect 
     Indian tribes and to promote tribal economic self-
     determination.
       Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider would effectively give states what 
     amounts to a unilateral `'veto'' over Indian gaming, which is 
     inconsistent with federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
     Act of 1988 (``IGRA'').
       Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider is a drastic means to amend IGRA, 
     and it would alter a change in federal-tribal relations. Such 
     a drastic change should not be done through the mechanism of 
     a budget rider attached to a spending bill, with no hearings, 
     findings, tribal consultation of input.
       Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider will deny Indian tribes notice and 
     an opportunity for hearing which is tantamount to a denial of 
     the ``due process'' guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.


 B. The Gaming tribes in new Mexico will have no remedy to address the 
  injustices that occurred over the state's failure to negotiate over 
                   gaming activities on tribal lands

       In New Mexico, IGRA's Secretarial procedures provisions are 
     necessary to provide a remedy to the tribal governments who 
     have been unsuccessful in obtaining negotiated tribal/state 
     Class III compacts, a negotiated process that the states 
     clamored to obtain when IGRA was enacted. There are 14 
     compacts in New Mexico, known as the ``HB 399 Compacts'' 
     which are the product of a state legislative process, and 
     which were not negotiated by any of the gaming tribes.
       The gaming tribes in New Mexico were forced to (1) to 
     accept the compacts that they had no voice in drafting and 
     which were contrary to the federal law which authorized the 
     compact, or (2) to reject HB 399 and risk closure and 
     criminal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney. No state in this 
     country would tolerate such unfair and coerced treatment by 
     another government.
       Some gaming tribes in New Mexico have challenged certain 
     provisions of the New Mexico HB 399 compacts as being 
     contrary to IGRA, and therefore, a violation of federal law. 
     HB 399 calls for a 16 percent `'revenue-sharing'' with the 
     state and hefty flat regulatory fees, even through IGRA 
     prohibits the state from assessing fees, taxes, and other 
     levies on tribal gaming and requires that regulatory costs 
     bear relation to the actual costs of regulating gaming 
     activists.
       In addition, opponents of New Mexico Indian gaming have 
     challenged the validity of HB 399 compacts. If this action 
     succeeds, the gaming tribes will be prevented from getting 
     the state to the negotiating table, due to the state's 11th 
     Amendment immunity from suit. Again, the unfair and unjust 
     result will be that gaming tribes in New Mexico will have no 
     remedy to address these federal law violations.
       The Pueblos and Indian tribes in New Mexico who may seek to 
     conduct lawful gaming activities on their tribal lands will 
     have no avenue to bring the state to the negotiating table. 
     This is an unfair and unjust result that will leave these 
     tribes with no remedy.

   Pueblo of Laguna Position on ``Enzi-Reid-Sessions'' Indian Gaming 
           Restrictions FY 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill

       The Pueblo of Laguna strongly opposes the budget riders to 
     the FY 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill, which would place 
     restrictions on Indian gaming activities that are otherwise 
     recognized and authorized pursuant to the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act of 1988 (``IGRA''). Enzi-Reid-Sessions 
     amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill (``Enzi-Reid-
     Sessions Rider'') would prohibit the Secretary of the 
     Interior from promulgating alternate compacting procedures 
     where an impasse occurs in tribal-state negotiations, and it 
     would prevent the Secretary from approving Class III gaming 
     compacts that have not been the product of the tribal-state 
     negotiation and agreement Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider would 
     constitute an unfair circumvention of IGRA's provisions which 
     were designed to protect tribal governments. Enzi-Reid-
     Sessions Rider will constitute an denial constitutional due 
     process because gaming tribes in New Mexico will be left 
     without a remedy to address injustices that over occurred 
     over gaming.
       The Pueblo of Laguna protests these budget riders on 
     substantive and procedural grounds. First, the budget riders 
     unfairly subordinate an area of inherent tribal governmental 
     authority, on reservation economic development, to state 
     government authority in violation of the Federal trust 
     responsibility to protect Indian tribes from the often 
     hostile state governments. Second, since the formation of the 
     Union, the United States has dealt with Indian tribes on a 
     bilateral government-to-government basis because Indian 
     peoples have a natural, human right to self-government that 
     predates the formation of the United States. The proposed 
     budget riders amount to nothing less than legislative 
     ``fiats,'' which disregard our government-to-government 
     relationship and tread on our inherent, human right to self-
     government on our traditional homelands.
       Before the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
     1988 (``IGRA''), states had no authority to regulate Indian 
     gaming. The regulation of Indian gaming was the subject of 
     inherent tribal government authority. The states, however, 
     clamored for the passage of the IGRA to provide them a 
     ``voice'' in the development of Indian gaming regulatory 
     systems. Hence, IGRA was enacted to build strong tribal 
     governments, spark economic opportunities on depressed tribal 
     lands and economies, and it was a compromise that provided 
     states an opportunity to negotiate in ``good faith'' for a 
     role in regulating gaming on Indian lands. As initially 
     enacted, IGRA gave states a ``voice'' in regard to Indian 
     gaming, not a ``veto.'' IGRA's ``good faith negotiation'' 
     provision mandated states to negotiate in good faith for 
     Class III compacts with Indian tribes for gaming activities 
     that are permitted to be played in the state by any person or 
     entity. Tribes do not have to blindly accept state regulatory 
     laws because we have our own laws. IGRA intends tribes and 
     states to enter the negotiation and true sovereign-to-
     sovereign accommodation. If states decline to negotiate in 
     good faith, IGRA provides tribes with a remedy; IGRA 
     authorized tribes to sue states in federal court for failure 
     to conduct good faith negotiations.
       In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court disrupted this careful 
     compromise between tribal and state interests by striking 
     down the authorization to tribes to sue states for failure to 
     negotiate in good faith on the grounds that the states' 11th 
     Amendment immunity from suit bars such an action in federal 
     court (even though the states had originally asked Congress 
     for the opportunity to negotiate compacts with tribes). 
     However, the Court left intact IGRA's provision which allow 
     the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate alternate 
     regulations for the Class III gaming where an impasse 
     develops in state-tribal gaming negotiations. That is 
     because, under the Federal trust responsibility to protect 
     Indian tribes, Congress never intended to leave tribes 
     completely at the mercy of the states in regard to Indian 
     gaming. Congress intended to authorize only ``good faith'' 
     sovereign-to-sovereign negotiation. Yet is important to 
     recognize that state gaming laws and policy are adhered to 
     under the Secretarial procedures avenue. Therefore, the 
     Secretarial procedures do not provide a ``by-pass'' of state 
     law, as alleged by the proponents of the Enzi-Reid Sessions 
     Rider.
       The Pueblo of Laguna strongly opposes the Enzi-Reid-
     Sessions Indian gaming restrictions budget rider to the FY 
     1999 Interior Appropriations Bill.


   a. the enzi-reid-sessions rider undermines federal law and policy 
 regarding tribal self-government and the federal/tribal government to 
                        government relationship

       1. Self-Government is a Natural Right of Indian Peoples. 
     Tribal governments predate the formation of the United 
     States, and as Indian peoples, we retain our original, 
     natural right to govern ourselves on our own lands. Under the 
     Federal trust responsibility to protect Indian tribes, 
     Congress should develop Indian affairs legislation based on 
     consultation and consensus with Indian tribes. Anything less 
     deprives Indian tribes of our inherent human rights to self-
     government. The Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider would constitute an 
     extreme altering of the comprehensive IGRA legislation, which 
     strikes a careful balance between federal, tribal, and state 
     interests. It is inappropriate and disrespectful to pursue 
     such important substantive tribal legislation as budget 
     riders to annual appropriations measures. The attempt to 
     alter the face of such legislation would signal a change in 
     federal-tribal relations. Clearly, this should not be done 
     through the mechanism of a budget rider attached to a 
     spending bill, with no hearings, findings, tribal 
     consultation or input.
       2. Government-to-Government Relations. The Enzi-Reid-
     Sessions Rider would undermine the government-to-government 
     relationship between the United States and the Indian 
     nations, which is grounded in the United States Constitution 
     and reflects inherent tribal rights of self-government. 
     Congress has long recognized its trust responsibility to 
     protect and promote tribal self-government. At the very 
     least, members of Congress should have the opportunity to 
     fully examine what impact the Enzi-Reid-Session Rider will 
     have upon tribal governments and to hear from the tribal 
     governments that will be impacted by the legislation. 
     Clearly, adoption of the Enzi-Reid-Sessions Rider will 
     undermine this government-to-government relationship. 
     Moreover, denying Indian tribes notice and an opportunity for 
     hearing is tantamount to a denial of the ``due process'' 
     guaranteed by the United States Constitution.


     B. new mexico gaming tribes need IGRA's alternate secretarial 
          procedures to provide adequate safeguards and relief

       1. Without IGRA's Secretarial procedures, tribes in New 
     Mexico will have no remedy. In New Mexico, the IGRA's 
     alternate procedures are necessary to provide a remedy to the 
     tribal governments who have been unsuccessful in obtaining 
     negotiated tribal/state Class III Gaming compacts. Currently, 
     there are 14 compacts in effect in New Mexico since 1997. 
     They were never negotiated and they contain provisions which 
     are detrimental to tribal governments and which may be

[[Page S10363]]

     in violation of federal policy. These compacts are referred 
     to as ``HB 399 Compacts'' because they are the product of a 
     state legislative process which has no room for tribal 
     governments at the negotiating tables. (HB 399 refers to the 
     House Bill enacted by the New Mexico Legislature). The gaming 
     tribes in New Mexico were faced with the unconscionable 
     choice: (1) to accept the compacts that they had no voice in 
     drafting and which appeared to violate the federal law which 
     authorized the compact, or (2) to reject HB 399 and risk 
     closure and criminal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney. No 
     state in this country would tolerate such unfair and coerced 
     treatment by another government.
       2. The HB 399 Compacts impose an impermissible 16 percent 
     gross receipts ``tax'' on the Indian tribes of New Mexico, 
     which the tribes must pay to the state before they earn one 
     penny for themselves from their own establishments. As a 
     result, some of New Mexico's tribes are no longer able to 
     profitably operate gaming establishments. Two of the Pueblos 
     have filed a federal court action against the Secretary of 
     the Interior relating to his failure to review and remove HB 
     399's sixteen percent of slot machine revenue sharing 
     requirement, and the hefty flat regulatory fees that must be 
     paid to the sate pursuant to HB 299, as both being violative 
     of federal law. IGRA prohibits the state from assessing fees, 
     taxes and other levies on tribal gaming, and it requires that 
     regulatory costs must bear relation to the actual costs of 
     regulating Indian gaming. The United States has filed a 
     motion to dismiss based on the legal argument that the case 
     cannot go forward without the state of New Mexico, because 
     the state is an indispensable party that cannot be jointed 
     due to its 11th Amendment immunity from suit. Therefore, the 
     alternate Secretarial procedures authorized by IGRA are 
     necessary to provide the New Mexico gaming tribes a remedy in 
     the event that the Pueblos are judicially prevented from 
     obtaining relief. Preferably, the New Mexico gaming tribes 
     would prefer to seek a negotiated resolution with the state 
     to resolve these types of issues; but, pursuant to the 
     states' 11th Amendment immunity, the state cannot be 
     compelled to negotiate with tribal governments over these 
     matters.
       3. HB 399 also contains a binding arbitration provision 
     which is designed to provide a mechanism to address and 
     resolve any breaches of the compact of failure to comply 
     therewith. Accordingly, other tribes in New Mexico are 
     engaged with the state in binding arbitration over the 
     sixteen percent revenue sharing and the regulatory fees. 
     However, in this context there is a real question of whether 
     the arbitrator can address the constitutional preemption 
     question of whether the IGRA preempts HB 399's flat 
     assessment of a set revenue sharing and regulatory fees. 
     Assuming that the New Mexico gaming tribes are prevented form 
     going forward with their federal court action and assuming 
     that the HB 399's arbitration process lacks the requisite 
     authority to decide federal preemption questions, the tribes 
     will be left without any remedy to address these important 
     issues.
       4. In addition to the above-stated obstacles, other 
     opponents of Indian gaming in New Mexico have filed an action 
     challenging the validity of HB 399. If this action is 
     successful, the tribes will be without a remedy in any forum.
       Clearly, New Mexico and other states should not be given 
     what amounts to a ``veto'' over Indian gaming by the Enzi-
     Reid-Sessions Rider. New Mexico Indian gaming is a good, 
     productive local industry, which we respectfully submit 
     should be protected by our New Mexico delegation from anti-
     Indian gaming legislation offered by delegations from other 
     states.
                                  ____


The Need for Secretarial Procedures: State Law Invalidation of Approved 
                                Compacts

       Under the decisions in State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson and 
     Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, a tribal-state class III gaming 
     compact that has been approved by the Secretary and has 
     ``taken effect'' under IGRA can nevertheless be declared 
     invalid on the basis of a state-court determination that the 
     compact was never validly entered into by the state. Such a 
     decision, based strictly on principles of state statutory or 
     constitutional law, would be unreviewable by any federal 
     court.
       The case of State ex rel. Coll v. Montoya, currently 
     pending in state district court in Santa Fe (on temporary 
     remand from the state Supreme Court), is a broad attack on 
     the validity of House Bill 399, as enacted by the 1997 New 
     Mexico legislature, the bill that authorized the governor to 
     sign compacts and revenue-sharing agreements with the tribes. 
     Just as in Clark, the tribes are not parties to the case, and 
     so far the courts have turned a deaf ear to the argument that 
     inasmuch as the case seeks to invalidate the compacts, it 
     should not be allowed to proceed in the absence of the tribes 
     as parties. (In federal court, that point would conclusively 
     lead to dismissal of the case.)
       If the Supreme Court were ultimately to rule for the 
     plaintiffs in Coll, and hold that HB 399 is invalid, that 
     could mean that Gov. Johnson never had valid authority from 
     the legislature to sign the compacts, and that the compacts 
     are ``void ab initio'' (invalid from their inception), as the 
     court said in Clark.
       In short, even if a state legislature agrees to a compact, 
     and the compact is approved and takes effect under IGRA, the 
     decisions in Clark and Santa Ana mean that state courts are 
     still free to invalidate the compact on state law grounds, 
     even without the tribes being able to be heard. Tribes 
     attempting to operate in good faith under approved compacts 
     thus have no legal protection whatever, and their rights can 
     be cut off at the whim of a state Supreme Court.
       Allowing the regulations authorizing the Secretary to issue 
     ``procedures'' under which a tribe could conduct class III 
     gaming even if the state refuses to enter into a compact 
     provides tribes with some leverage against recalcitrant 
     states, and against parties who would seek to invalidate 
     approved compacts as described above. By giving the tribes an 
     alternative, assuring them that (as Congress intended) they 
     would be able to conduct class III gaming that is permitted 
     in the state even if they cannot achieve valid, approved 
     compacts, the regulations change the strategic balance as 
     between tribes and the state. The state will be forced to act 
     reasonably, and anti-gaming zealots will be forced to 
     recognize that by going to court to attack approved compacts 
     they may cause a situation in which tribes will be able to 
     engage in class III gaming (under secretarial procedures) 
     with the state cut out of the process (and the revenues) 
     entirely. This restores the balance that Congress attempted 
     to create in IGRA, and gives the tribes a fair opportunity to 
     enjoy this important economic development opportunity.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would first like to congratulate the Senator from Wyoming, Senator 
Enzi for his amendment and his work on this issue. In his comments he 
has laid out a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the problem and 
has stated plainly and with integrity and insight exactly how it is we 
ought to deal with it.
  Let me try to briefly share some thoughts I have on this matter. I 
was attorney general of the State of Alabama. In this capacity I was 
one of 25 attorneys general who signed, just over two years ago, a 
letter to the Secretary of the Interior indicating to him our firm 
conviction and legal opinion that he did not have the authority to 
enter into compacts with Indian tribes in the manner detailed in the 
proposed regulations he drafted. Let me tell you why that is very 
important.
  Alabama has one recognized Indian tribe, the Poarch Band of Creek 
Indians, a very fine group. Chairman Tullis of that tribe is a friend, 
and I have known him for many years. We had occasions, when I served as 
Federal U.S. attorney, to work on a number of issues, and I have always 
admired his commitment and work.
  He has at that Indian tribe a large bingo parlor. They make a 
considerable amount of money on it. Under Alabama law the tribe has the 
ability to build a horse racetrack or a dog racetrack. But under the 
law the tribe does not and has not been given the authority by the 
Governor of the State of Alabama to build a casino. Alabama has debated 
this repeatedly, and the casino advocates have failed.

  Let me provide some further background on this Alabama example. In 
Alabama, the Poarch Creek tribe has about 2000 members, and it owns 
about 600 acres of property. It has been recognized for less than 30 
years, and it is a small tribe. But they own property, near both 
Mobile, AL, where their primary location is, and also near Wetumpka, 
Alabama. The city of Wetumpka is near Montgomery, AL, and is roughly 
180 miles away from Mobile. The tribe would like to build casinos 
outside of Mobile and outside of Montgomery and Birmingham, AL, in the 
little town of Wetumpka where they have property.
  Do you see the significance of this? If the Secretary of the Interior 
can override the opinion of the people of the State of Alabama and give 
this Indian tribe the right to build casinos on their land, then they 
could build at least two, maybe three casinos in Alabama and would, in 
fact, abrogate the considered will of the people of the State who have 
consistently rejected casino gambling.
  It is just that simple. This is not an insignificant matter. We are 
talking about giving the Secretary of the Interior, who is now under 
investigation by a special prosecutor for campaign contributions 
arising out of his approval of one Indian tribe's activities with 
regard to gambling, the unilateral authority to override the considered 
opinion of States all over this country. If

[[Page S10364]]

this amendment doesn't pass we are talking about the Secretary of the 
Interior having the ability to enrich selected tribes by millions or 
hundreds of millions of dollars overnight by the stroke of a pen.
  That is a powerful thing. You can raise a lot of campaign money with 
that ability to do such a thing. I do not think it is healthy. The 
attorneys general association, the National Association of Attorneys 
General, steadfastly opposes the regulations promulgated by the 
Secretary of Interior that would give him this ability, and strongly 
supports the Enzi-Sessions amendment. Allowing the Secretary to have 
this kind of power is wrong. He does not have the constitutional power 
to do it, first, in my opinion, yet he persists in suggesting that he 
does and is moving forward with regulations that appear to suggest that 
in fact he will.
  So what is the first thing that is going to happen if the Secretary's 
regulations are enacted? Lawsuits are going to spring up all over the 
country attacking his authority to do this and cost all kinds of money. 
And we are going to continue with litigation involving it. I think 
ultimately he is going to lose. But what we are saying is, let us not 
go down that road; let us not do that.
  Let me show you what the midsized city of Wetumpka feels about this 
issue. Wetumpka is a wonderful town. I have a number of friends there. 
This is what the mayor, Jo Glenn, wrote me. She writes this:

       Our infrastructure and police and fire departments could 
     not cope with the burdens this type of activity would bring. 
     [That is a casino.] The demand for greater social services 
     that comes to the area around gambling facilities could not 
     be adequately funded. Please once again convey to Secretary 
     Babbitt our city's strong adamant opposition to gaming 
     facilities.

  The City of Wetumpka support this amendment. Additionally, the 
Montgomery Advertiser states in an editorial written opposing the 
Secretaries proposed regulations that:

       Direct Federal negotiations with tribes without State 
     involvement would be an unjustifiably heavy-handed imposition 
     of authority on Alabama. The decision whether to allow 
     gambling here is too significant a decision economically, 
     politically, socially to be made in the absence of extensive 
     State involvement. A casino in Wetumpka--not to mention the 
     others undoubtedly that would follow in other parts of the 
     State--has implications far too great to allow the critical 
     decision to be reached in Washington. Alabama has to have a 
     hand in this high-stakes game.

  Let me note that others have expressed similar objections to the 
Secretary's proposed regulations. Attorney General Robert Butterworth 
of Florida and Attorney General Gale Norton of Colorado have written 
expressing support for this amendment. My successor as Attorney General 
of Alabama, Bill Pryor, who is a brilliant lawyer, Tulane graduate, 
editor-in-chief of the Tulane Law Review, and a fine legal scholar--
says:

       Again, I strongly support the proposed amendment [Enzi-
     Sessions]. I have no confidence that the Secretary listens 
     when the states tell him that he lacks the power to override 
     their Eleventh Amendment immunity and that he operates under 
     an incurable conflict of interest when he proposes to act 
     [himself] as a mediator. The proposed amendment is necessary 
     to stop further action on the Secretary's part.

  His opinion is shared, as I mentioned, by the National Association of 
Attorneys General. A number of other attorneys general have written me 
to express that same position as well.
  Mr. President, I say again, this is not a matter of theoretical 
debate now. We are beyond that. It is a matter of real public policy. 
And if you allow every Indian reservation in America to overnight, or 
step by step, tribe by tribe, after having to wine and dine the 
Secretary of the Interior and sweet-talk the Secretary of the Interior 
and the President and maybe making campaign contributions, to induce 
him to approve gambling, then we are going to have one of the most 
massive erosions of the public's ability to set social policy within 
their State we have ever seen. This is really a major event.
  Senator Enzi's proposal is reasonable. I am proud to be a cosponsor 
with him on it. It simply delays this thing so we can make sure we are 
doing the right thing.
  As to Senator Domenici's problem, I think that will need to be dealt 
with specifically and not as part of this amendment. But I believe we 
cannot allow this amendment to fail. The Governors, the attorneys 
general, groups like the Christian Coalition, and others, support this 
amendment, because they recognize the negative consequences that arise 
from allowing the Secretary of Interior to exert this sort of power.
  I again thank Senator Enzi for his leadership.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have in prior years, to 
oppose the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Senator from 
Wyoming, Senator Enzi.
  Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee 
on Indian Affairs for over 20 years. And I believe that in order to 
fully appreciate and understand the matter before us, a brief review of 
the history of our relationship with Indian country might help, because 
over the course of those 20 years, I have learned a bit about the state 
of Indian country and the pervasive poverty which is both the remnant 
and result of too many years of failed Federal policies.
  Mr. President, there was a time in our history when the native people 
of this land thrived. They lived in a state of optimum health. They 
took from the land and the water only those resources that were 
necessary to sustain their well-being. They were the first stewards of 
the environment. And those who came later found this continent in 
pristine condition because of their wise stewardship.
  Even after the advent of European contact, most tribal groups 
continued their subsistence way of life. Their culture and their 
religions sustained them. And, Mr. President, they had very 
sophisticated forms of government, so sophisticated and so clearly 
efficient and effective over many centuries that our Founding Fathers 
could find no other better form of government upon which to structure 
the government of a new nation, the United States of America.
  So our Founding Fathers--Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson--adopted 
the framework of the Iroquois Confederacy, a true democracy, and it is 
upon that foundation that we have built this great Nation. But, 
unfortunately, there came a time in our history when those in power 
decided that the native people were an obstacle, an obstruction to the 
new American way of life and later to the westward expansion of the 
United States.
  So our Nation embarked upon a course of terminating the Indians by 
exterminating them through war and the distribution of blankets 
infected with smallpox. We nearly succeeded in wiping them out. 
Anthropologists and historians estimate that there were anywhere from 
10 million to 50 million indigenous people occupying this continent at 
the time of the European contact. By 1849, when the United States 
finally declared an end to the era known as the Indian wars, we had 
managed to so efficiently decimate the Indian population that there 
were a mere 250,000 native people remaining in the lower 48.

  Having failed in that undertaking, we next proceeded to round up 
those who survived, forcibly marched them away from their traditional 
lands, and across the country. Not surprisingly, these forced marches--
and there were many of these trails of tears--further reduced the 
Indian population because many died along the way.
  Later, we found the most inhospitable areas in the country on which 
to relocate the native people and expected them to scratch out a living 
there. Of course, we made some promises along the way; that in exchange 
for tribal lands in the millions of acres we would provide them with 
education--at least we promised them education--health care and 
shelter.
  We told them, often in solemn treaties, that these new lands would be 
theirs in perpetuity. There are many wonderful treaties in our 
archives, some that begin with phrases:

       As long as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, 
     and waters flow from the mountain tops to the sea, this land 
     is yours.

  We promised them that their traditional way of life would be 
protected from encroachment by non-Indians and that we would recognize 
their inherent right as sovereigns to retain all powers of government 
not relinquished. Their rights to hunt, fish, gather food, to use

[[Page S10365]]

the waters that were necessary to sustain life, were also recognized as 
preserved in perpetuity for their use.
  But over the years, these promises and others were broken by our 
National Government, and our vacillations in policies, of which there 
were many, left most reservation communities in economic ruin.
  It grieves me to repeat this, but there were 800 treaties solemnly 
entered into by the Government of the United States and the leaders of 
Indian country--800. It was the responsibility of this body, the U.S. 
Senate, to ratify these treaties. Mr. President, 430 of them were 
ignored. They lie in our files at this moment; 370 were ratified by the 
U.S. Senate. And of the 370, we proceeded to violate every single one 
of them.
  The cumulative effects of our treatment of the native people of this 
land have proven to be nearly fatal to them. Poverty in Indian country 
is unequal anywhere else in the United States. The desperation and 
despair that inevitably accompanies the economic devastation that is 
found today in Indian country accounts for the astronomically high 
rates of suicide and mortality from diseases. For Indian youth between 
the ages of 18 and 25, the rate of suicide is 14 times the national 
norm of the United States.
  Within this context, along came an opportunity for some tribal 
governments to explore the economic potential of gaming. It didn't 
prove to be a panacea, but it began to bring in revenues that tribal 
communities didn't have before. Then the State of California entered 
this picture by bringing a legal action against the Cabazon Band of 
Mission Indians, a case that ultimately made its way to the Supreme 
Court.
  Consistent with 150 years of Federal law and constitutional 
principles, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of California could 
not exercise its jurisdiction on Indian lands to regulate gaming 
activities.
  This was in May of 1987. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 
ruling, we got into the act, the Congress of the United States. During 
the 100th session of the Congress, I found myself serving as the 
primary sponsor of what is now known as the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act of 1988. There were many, many hearings and many, many drafts 
leading up to the formulation of the bill that was ultimately signed 
into law.
  Initially, our inclination was to follow the well-established and 
time-honored model of Federal Indian law which was to provide for an 
exclusively Federal presence in the regulation of gaming activities on 
Indian lands. The Constitution and the laws of our land say the 
relationship will be between the Federal Government and the Indian 
government. Such a framework would have been consistent with 
constitutional principles, with the majority of our Federal statutes 
addressing Indian country, and would have reflected the fact that as a 
general proposition, it is Federal law, along with tribal law, that 
governs most all of what may transpire in Indian country.
  But State government officials--Governors, attorneys general--came to 
the Congress, demanding that a role in the regulation of Indian gaming 
be shared with them. Ultimately, we acquiesced to those demands. After 
much thought, many hearings, much debate, the Congress of the United 
States selected a mechanism that has become customary in dealings 
amongst sovereign governments.
  This mechanism, a compact between a State government and a tribal 
government, would be recognized by the Federal Government as the 
agreement between two sovereigns as to how the conduct of gaming on 
Indian lands would proceed.
  The Federal participation in the agreement would be accomplished when 
the Secretary of the Interior approved the tribal-State compact as part 
of the law. In an effort to ensure that the parties would come to the 
table and negotiate a compact in good faith, and in order to provide 
for the possibility that the parties might not reach agreement, we also 
provided a means by which the parties could seek the involvement of the 
Federal district court, and if ordered by the court, could avail 
themselves of a mediation process. It is not for the Indian leaders to 
determine whether the process is being carried out in good or bad 
faith.
  The court will decide that, and the court is not an Indian court. It 
is the district court of the United States of America. That judicial 
remedy and the potential for mediated solution when the parties find 
themselves at an impasse has subsequently been frustrated by the ruling 
of the Supreme Court upholding the 11th amendment, the amendment that 
provides immunity to the several States of the Union.
  Thus, while there are some who have consistently maintained that 
sovereign immunity is an anachronism in contemporary times, in this 
area at least, the States still jealously guard their sovereign 
immunity to suit in the courts of another sovereign.
  In so doing, the States have presented us with a clear conflict, 
which we have been trying to resolve for several years.
  Although 24 of the 28 States that have Indian reservations within 
their boundaries have now entered into 159 tribal-state compacts with 
148 tribal governments, there are a few States in which tribal-state 
compacts have not been reached.
  And the conflict we are challenged with resolving is how to 
accommodate the desire of these States to be involved in the regulation 
of Indian gaming and their equally strong desire to avoid any process 
which might enable the parties to overcome an impasse in their 
negotiations.
  The Secretary of the Interior is to be commended in his efforts to 
achieve what the Congress has been unable to accomplish in the past few 
years.
  Following the Supreme Court's 11th amendment ruling, the Secretary 
took a reasonable course of action.
  He published a notice of proposed rulemaking, inviting comments on 
his authority to promulgate regulations for an alternative process to 
the tribal-state compacting process established in the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act.
  Thereafter, he followed the next appropriate steps under the 
Administrative Procedures Act, inviting the input of all interested 
parties in the promulgation of regulations.
  When the Senate acted to prohibit him from proceeding in this time-
honored fashion, he brought together representatives of the National 
Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, 
and the Tribal Governments, to explore whether a consensus could be 
reached on these and other matters.
  In fact, a working group of those interests will be meeting this week 
in Denver to pursue the Secretary's initiative.
  In the meantime, my colleagues propose an amendment that would not 
only prohibit the Secretary from proceeding with the regulatory 
process, but which would prevent those State and tribal governments 
that desire to enter into a compact from securing the necessary Federal 
approval.
  By the latter formulation, my colleagues would federally pre-empt 
what is otherwise the prerogatives of sovereign governments--namely the 
State and tribal governments--to pursue that which is their right under 
Federal law and their right as sovereigns.
  Once again, there have been no hearings on this proposal--no public 
consideration of this formulation--no input from the governments 
involved and directly affected by this proposal.
  Last year, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior made clear 
his intention to recommend a veto of the Interior appropriations bill 
should this provision be adopted by the Senate, and approved in House-
Senate Conference.
  I would suggest that it is unlikely that the Secretary's position has 
changed in any material respect--particularly in light of all that he 
has undertaken to accomplish, including frank discussion amongst the 
State and tribal governments.
  As one who initiated a similar discussion process several years ago, 
I am more than a little familiar with the issues that require 
resolution.
  However, in the intervening years, court rulings have clarified and 
put to rest many of the issues that were in contention in that earlier 
process.
  I have continued to talk to Governors and attorneys general and 
tribal government leaders on a weekly if not daily basis, and I 
believe, as the Secretary does, that the potential is there for the 
State and tribal governments to come to some mutually-acceptable 
resolution of the matters that remain outstanding between them.

[[Page S10366]]

  I believe the Secretary's process should be allowed to proceed.
  I also believe that pre-empting that process through an amendment to 
this bill could well serve as the death knell for what is ultimately 
the only viable way to accomplish a final resolution.
  The alternative is to proceed in this piecemeal fashion each year--an 
amendment each year to prohibit the Secretary from taking any action 
that would bridge the gap in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that was 
created by the Court's ruling and which will inevitably discourage the 
State and tribal governments from fashioning solutions.
  This is not the way to do the business of the people.
  There are those in this body who are opposed to gaming.
  As many of my colleagues know, I count myself in their numbers. I am 
opposed to gaming.
  Hawaii and Utah are the only two States in our union that criminally 
prohibit all forms of gaming, and I support that prohibition in my 
State. We don't have bingo or poker.
  Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I have walked many miles 
in Indian country, and I have seen the poverty, and the desperation and 
despair in the eyes of many Indian parents and their children.
  I have looked into the eyes of the elders--eyes that express great 
sadness.
  I have met young Indian people who are now dead because they saw no 
hope for the future.
  I have seen what gaming has enabled tribal governments to do, for the 
first time--to build hospitals and clinics, to repair and construct 
safe schools, to provide jobs for the adults and educational 
opportunities for the youth--and perhaps most importantly, to engender 
a real optimism that there can be and will be--the prospects for a 
brighter future.
  It is for these reasons, and because of their rights as sovereigns to 
pursue activities that hold the potential for making their tribal 
economies become both viable and stable over the long term, that I 
support Indian gaming.
  If our country--this great Nation--had followed the provisions in our 
treaties and abided with our promises, then there would be no need for 
me to be supporting Indian gaming.
  Mr. President, it is for these reasons, that I must, again this year, 
strongly oppose the efforts of my colleagues to take from Indian 
country, what unfortunately has become the single ray of hope for the 
future that native people have had for a very long time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Enzi amendment 
which restricts the Secretary of Interior's ability to move forward 
with a rule that would supplant a state's ability to decide what types 
of gaming activities would be permissible on Indian lands.
  The proposed rule, announced by the Secretary in January, circumvents 
Congress' role in deciding the framework for regulating Indian gaming.
  Congress is the best body to lay out the process for establishing the 
balanced framework for tribal state negotiations over Indian gaming.
  The proposed rule would upset the necessary balance and invest in the 
Secretary an exceptional amount of authority in deciding the outcome of 
these negotiations. Its effect would be the expansion of Indian Gaming 
notwithstanding the objections of a state.
  This Enzi amendment is simple and fair. It simply restricts the 
Interior Secretary from promulgating as final regulations a rule that 
would allow him to decide whether a state is negotiating with a tribe 
in good faith; and which types of gaming activities a state must accept 
on tribal lands.
  There is a long history to this issue and it is something that the 
Governors feel quite strongly about.
  In fact, on July 23, the National Governor's Association wrote 
Senators Lott and Daschle encouraging the Senate to support passage of 
the Enzi amendment.
  As the letter states:

       The nation's governors strongly believe that no statute or 
     court decision provides the Secretary . . . with authority to 
     intervene in disputes over compacts between Indian tribes and 
     states about casino gambling on Indian lands. Such action 
     would constitute an attempt by the Secretary to preempt 
     states' authority under existing laws and recent court 
     decisions and would create a incentive for tribes to avoid 
     negotiating gambling compacts with states.

  What this issue is about is states rights and whether this Congress 
is going to give the Secretary of Interior--who has fiduciary and trust 
responsibilities to the tribes--the authority to dictate to states 
which gaming activities they must accept.
  I do not believe we are prepared for the unfettered proliferation of 
Indian gaming.
  The Supreme Court, in the Seminole decision, did great harm to what 
we sought to do when we enacted IGRA.
  The courts have made a mess of the compacting process we put in place 
in 1986.
  The result is that we are now faced with the dilemma of (1) who must 
decide whether or not a state is negotiating in good faith; and (2), 
what types of gaming activities is a state required to negotiate over.
  As the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs said in his April 1st 
testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee: ``Any attempts [to 
decide] this issue administratively is certain to draw court challenges 
and for that reason, we would prefer legislation.
  Secretary Gover is right, a decision of this import should not be 
left entirely in the hands of a federal official who is statutorily 
biased against a state.
  The Department of Interior is responsible for administering IGRA--not 
reauthorizing it.
  Last year's Interior Appropriation's bill--which the President 
signed--included a similar provision that prevented the Secretary from 
approving class III (casino styled) compacts.
  The Secretary's decision in January evidenced the Department's intent 
to disregard the clear congressional intent of last year's bill.
  This issue should be resolved legislatively and the Enzi amendment 
will ensure that solution. It will do so in a manner that is respectful 
of state's rights.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enzi 
amendment. It is quite simple, but I would like to briefly restate the 
effect of the amendment in order to frame my remarks. The amendment 
would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating new 
regulations empowering the Secretary to approve class III gambling 
activities without State approval.
  Mr. President, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 
Seminole of Florida versus the State of Florida, and subsequent 
activities by the Secretary of the Interior, we are confronted with a 
situation where an unelected federal official, using the rulemaking 
process, is seeking to empower himself with the ability to supersede 
the authority of the popularly elected State government, and to impose 
Indian gambling activity on an unwilling State.
  Mr. President, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act attempted to 
construct a delicate balance, the intent of which was to provide a 
definitive role for the States in determining whether to allow the 
introduction of new gambling activities. The Court's ruling has upset 
this balance.
  During debate over the fiscal year 1998 funding measure, a similar 
measure to the one we are debating today was adopted. It was adopted 
with the understanding that congressional action was needed in order to 
address this concern, as well as others, with IGRA. However, no action 
has yet been taken. And thus, we have the need to extend this 
moratorium.
  Now, what does all of this mean to the individual States? The 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming has already placed into the Record 
the various letters of support from the nation's governors, and states 
attorneys general. I will let that support speak for itself. I would 
like to relate the experience of the State of Indiana.
  I have here an article from the Indianapolis Star. The article 
documents the latest development in a struggle that has been on-going 
in Northern Indiana for several years now. The article begins: 
``Potawatomi tribe buys land near Indiana town; A reservation would be 
OK, resident says, but many fear a casino would eventually follow.''
  The article goes on to describe that; ``The Pokagon Band of the 
Potawatomi Indians acquired land in Indiana, the first step toward 
establishing a reservation and casino in the State.'' A spokesperson 
for the tribe points out in this article that they intend to do

[[Page S10367]]

many important things with the land they have purchased; provide 
housing, schools, and a health clinic. However, she goes on to point 
out that a land-based casino in Indiana is among the tribe's eventual 
goals.
  The Pokagons have been attempting for several years now to purchase 
land in the area. However, they have met with significant resistance 
from local landowners and community leaders for fear that casinos would 
follow any land sale. In fact, over the past 2 years, the town counsel 
of North Liberty, the town adjacent to the land purchase, has 
unanimously passed two resolutions in opposition to casino gambling. 
Further, the Governor of Indiana has announced his opposition to Indian 
gambling amid public outcries against the proposition.
  Yet, Mr. President, under the rules proposed by the Secretary, the 
will of the people of North Liberty, of the elected representatives of 
the State of Indiana, would be laid to waste by an unelected federal 
official. By any interpretation of IGRA, this was not the intention of 
Congress in passing the law.
  The gambling industry is booming. In 1988, only two states (Nevada 
and New Jersey) permitted casino gambling. By 1994, 23 states had 
legalized gambling. During this time, casino gambling revenue nearly 
doubled. In 1993, $400 billion was spent on all forms of legal gambling 
in America Between 1992 and 1994, the gambling industry enjoyed an 
incredible 15 percent annual growth in revenues.
  Many of my colleagues would look at this performance and say ``good 
for them.'' Many would cite the gambling industry as an American 
success story. I am not so enthusiastic. There are many unanswered 
questions regarding the hidden costs of rolling out the welcome mat for 
the gambling industry. Many of the promises made by the gambling 
industry--of jobs, economic growth, and increased tax revenues--are 
dubious at best. The statistics on the devastating impact on our 
families are beginning to roll in. Concern about teenage gambling 
addiction is growing as more and more teens are lured by the promise of 
easy money. Crime and suicide numbers are sky-rocketing in communities 
where gambling has taken root.
  The National Gambling Impact Study Commission is currently studying 
this issue. By passing this resolution, we will create the necessary 
time to modify IGRA to ensure the law is clear in protecting the rights 
of the individual states. It will allow the states to determine how and 
when gambling operations will begin or expand within their borders, and 
to look to the report to the Gambling Commission for help in making 
those decisions.
  I commend the efforts of the Senators from Wyoming and Alabama in 
bringing this issue before the Senate, and urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Indianapolis Star 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Indianapolis Star Sept. 2, 1998]

 Potawatomi Tribe Buys Land Near Indiana Town; a Reservation Would be 
   OK. Resident Says, But Many Fear a Casino Would Eventually Follow

                             (By Don Ward)

       North Liberty, Ind.--The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians 
     has acquired land in Indiana, the first step toward 
     establishing a reservation and casino in the state.
       The 2,600-member tribe, which is based in Michigan, 
     acknowledged this week that it has bought 135 acres along 
     Ind. 4 near North Liberty.
       ``This is a significant first step, but not necessarily 
     toward getting a casino,'' Pokagon spokeswoman Maureen 
     Shagonaby said Tuesday.
       ``Our overall goal is, an always has been, to establish a 
     land base to provide housing, schools and a health clinic for 
     our members. But unfortunately, everyone thinks all we're 
     interested in is a casino.'' Shagonaby confirmed the tribe 
     also is considering the purchase of 900 acres adjacent to the 
     135-acre tract.
       The site is about 15 miles south of South Bend and Elkhart, 
     where the Pokagon faced fierce opposition as tribal officials 
     scouted for land.
       But the tribe also has faced opposition here.
       North Liberty, whose downtown extends only about a half-
     mile and has a population of 1,360, was targeted by the 
     Pokagons as a possible reservation site as early as 1996.
       Since then, the Town Council has unanimously passed two 
     resolutions against casinos.
       ``We're not against the Pokagons coming into the area to 
     live and raise children, but it they want to bring in a 
     casino, I'm not for that type of industry,'' said beauty 
     salon owner Kelly Prentkowski, 32. ``Our town is not about 
     profit and gain.''
       Shagonaby conceded that a land-based casino in Indiana is 
     among the tribe's eventual goals but said, ``There's no time 
     line for it. That's a decision the tribal council will 
     make.''
       Last year, during the town's bitter debate over casinos, 
     groups gathered signatures on petitions both for and against 
     the gambling facilities. But City Clerk Paul Williams said he 
     couldn't remember which group brought in more signatures. 
     Many names were duplicates, he said.
       Many residents thought the issue was dead until this week, 
     when they learned of the tribe's deal to buy the tract, 
     located near a golf course and the Kankakee River just 
     northwest of town.
       A casino supporter, Greg Shortt, 33, quickly organized a 
     news conference and invited Pokagon representatives to 
     discuss their plans.
       Shortt, who lives in Plymouth but runs a package liquor 
     store on North Liberty's main street, is president of the 2-
     year-old citizen group ``Pro Casino.'' ``North Liberty is 
     already a tourist town because we've got Pokagon State Park, 
     and a casino would be added value for our town,'' he said.
       Casino opponents say they fear increased traffic would 
     negatively affect the rural town and that a casino would do 
     nothing for local businesses.
       ``We don't need 10,000 people and tour buses driving in and 
     out of town every day,'' said Marian Spitzke, 51. ``They're 
     not going to stop and shop or eat here. They'll just go right 
     to the casino and then leave.''
       Ted Stepanek, 70, owner of the town barber shop, said, 
     ``I'm not against gambling--I just don't want it here.''

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Enzi-
Sessions amendment which ensures that the Secretary of Interior does 
not circumvent Congress and the States in gaming on Indian lands. It 
would also extend the moratorium on expansion of gambling on tribal 
lands.
  The growth of the gambling industry in this country in recent years 
has been explosive. Twenty years ago, only two States allowed casino 
gambling. Today, the industry reins in $40 billion each year in 23 
States and generates revenues that are six times the revenue from all 
American spectator sports combined. The amount of money wagered 
annually in the United States exceeds $500 billion.
  It concerns me that this explosive growth in the gambling industry 
has taken place during the same time period that so many other aspects 
of our culture have declined. Two years ago, Congress enacted PL-104-
169, which established the National Gambling Impact and Policy 
Commission for the purpose of studying the social and economic impact 
of gambling and reporting its findings to Congress. I supported that 
legislation. In fact, not one member in either the House nor the Senate 
rose in opposition to that legislation. This I believe, illustrates the 
need Congress has to gather more information on the implications of the 
extraordinary growth of the gaming industry. Until the findings of the 
Commission are available to guide the actions of Congress, I simply 
believe that it is reasonable for Congress to not take any action that 
may proliferate a problem in our society until the ramifications are 
better understood.
  The problems correlated with gambling are serious. Increased family 
violence, child abuse, suicide, white collar crime, alcohol abuse, 
prostitution, drug activities, and organized crime have all been linked 
to gambling. Furthermore, I am concerned about the destructive societal 
impact of compulsive gamblers. Compulsive gamblers will bet their 
entire savings and anything of value that can be sold or borrowed 
against while neglecting family responsibilities to pursue the short-
lived thrill of betting. They are more likely to abuse their spouses 
and their children, and most have contemplated suicide. Compounding 
these problems, there is speculation that the gambling industry 
actually targets these vulnerable individuals as well as another 
faction of vulnerable individuals--the poor.
  And, the economic benefits promised to communities which open their 
doors to gambling are often exaggerated. On the contrary, some 
municipalities have found that casinos flourished at the expense of 
existing businesses, and that the incidences of theft and larceny 
increased.

[[Page S10368]]

  In fact, I would like to submit for the record an article which was 
printed in the Topeka Capitol-Journal on April 28, 1998. The article 
chronicles the difficulties that two Northeast Kansas counties are 
facing as a result of two Indian casinos recently established within 
the counties. This year, the local State Representative appealed to the 
State legislature to provide a special financial grant to deal with 
rising law enforcement and social service costs. Since one casino 
opened, the number of arrests in that county for driving under the 
influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of 
marijuana has increased sharply. The sheriff says there has been an 
``explosion'' in criminal cases of forgery, narcotics abuse, possession 
of stolen property, and worthless checks. Even more troubling is that 
when the counties asked the owners of the casinos to help reimburse the 
counties for the increased law enforcement costs, the tribes refused. 
This is an example of how the economic development brought about by the 
tribes has been a drain, not a boon, to the local government and 
economy.
  Yet, while I have qualms about the possible destructive effects of 
gambling, I recognize that many will maintain that these claims are 
speculative and dispute that there is a conclusive link between 
gambling and increased crime. This is why I think we need to receive 
the Commission's report before allowing any new facilities to be 
established. The National Gaming Impact Study Commission itself agrees, 
as does the National Governor's Association and the Christian 
Coalition.
  Mr. President, I do not want my views to be construed as opposition 
to the chance for economically deprived Indian nations to bring needed 
economic activity to their communities. On the contrary, I commend the 
efforts to generate income and become more self-sufficient in view of 
decreasing Federal aid. I think that it is a positive thing that tribes 
are striving to provide employment, health care, housing, and other 
important services without Federal assistance.
  However, even the benefits of gaming to the tribes themselves is a 
question. Typical problems are a direct result of disorganized, 
fractionalized, and historically poor communities and their lack of 
experience in managing large sums of money. Unfortunately, the lack of 
understanding of what the management of gaming facilities entails has 
spelled disaster for a large number of tribes. Furthermore, signs of 
increased crime are seen on the tribal lands, too. Economic development 
that invites destructive behavior is not sustainable and is not a 
healthy way to provide for social services to a community.
  This amendment takes a moderate approach. it does not ban Indian 
gaming and does not affect gaming compacts which already are 
operational or already have been approved. It simply places prohibits 
the Secretary from approving any new Tribal-State compacts. It also 
prohibits the Secretary from promulgating rules that are designed to 
circumvent Congress and all 50 States until Congress better understands 
the societal ramifications of the Federal Government's actions to 
approve gambling, and I believe this is a reasonable approach to take.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to briefly make a few comments in 
strong support of the amendment. I do so not because it will assist my 
State of Minnesota, which already has an established gaming compact 
with Minnesota Indian tribes, but because this is an issue of 
fundamental fairness for States and localities.
  I find it difficult to understand how anybody can argue that the 
Secretary of the Interior should be given the authority to approve a 
class III gaming compact, absent the consent of the State in which the 
gaming is to occur. States must, I believe, have the authority to 
negotiate and object to gaming compacts. If you remove their right to 
object to a gaming compact, then you remove their right to negotiate a 
gaming compact as well.
  Similar to what now happens in trust applications, the tribal 
authority will have little incentive for negotiating in good faith, 
knowing that the Secretary of the Interior can come in and improve 
their compact and bypass the State anyway.
  Our States and localities are much too often becoming irrelevant in 
the decisionmaking process of the Department of the Interior when 
considering tribal-related situations.
  The amendment we are addressing here today prevents a Secretary of 
the Interior from ignoring the impact of gaming operations on States 
and localities and from circumventing their authority and making 
unilateral decisions.
  Mr. President, States must have the right to negotiate gaming 
compacts without undue interference from the Federal Government and 
without the heavy hand of an overactive Secretary of the Interior 
waiting to usurp that authority.
  Again, the Enzi-Sessions amendment has the support of the National 
Governors' Association, the National Organization of Attorneys General, 
and the Christian Coalition.
  The amendment extends the current moratorium placed on the Secretary 
of the Interior from using Federal funds to approve tribal-State 
compacts, again, without the consent of the States. It doesn't only 
prevent Secretary Babbitt from moving forward on new regulations but in 
fact gives him authority to bypass State approval.
  So I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of our States by 
supporting the Enzi-Sessions amendment.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank everybody involved for all of the 
great discussion this afternoon.
  I feel compelled to answer some of the questions that were raised 
during the course of the debate.
  I would like to particularly thank Senator Sessions and all of the 
other cosponsors who are on the bill cosponsoring the amendment with 
me.
  I would also like to thank Senator Sessions for the comments on 
behalf of attorneys general, since he is a former attorney general from 
Alabama.
  He gave me copies of letters. One is from my own attorney general, 
William Hill of Wyoming; another is from Mark Barnett of South Dakota; 
another is from Bill Pryor of Alabama; another individual letter is 
from Mr. Gale Norton, attorney general of Colorado; another is from the 
Honorable Carla Stovall, Topeka, KS; another letter is from Robert 
Butterworth of the State of Florida; another is from Don Stenberg of 
the State of Nebraska; another is from Frank Kelley of the State of 
Michigan.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                      Cheyenne, WY, July 28, 1998.
     Re Enzi/Sessions Amendment to Interior Appropriations Bill.
     Chairman Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Ranking Member Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senators Gorton and Byrd: This office is writing in 
     support of and urges the adoption of the Indian gaming 
     amendment to the Interior Department Appropriations Bill 
     sponsored by Senator Michael B. Enzi and Senator Jeff 
     Sessions. Last year's Interior Appropriations Bill contained 
     a provision establishing a moratorium on implementation of 
     proposed procedures by the Secretary of the Interior to 
     permit tribal gaming where a state and a tribe reach an 
     impasse in negotiations and no tribal/state compact is 
     entered into. The Enzi/Sessions amendment would extend that 
     moratorium.
       This office believes that the Secretary of the Interior 
     lacks statutory authority to use the proposed procedures and 
     must seek amendment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for 
     this authority. To this end, numerous state attorneys general 
     and governors have initiated negotiations with the Secretary 
     and the Indian tribes in an effort to reach agreement on 
     amendments to the Act. Preliminary discussions are currently 
     taking place in preparation for a meeting at which all 
     interests will be represented, probably sometime between now 
     and November, 1998.
       Continuation of the moratorium will avert the need for 
     costly and prolonged litigation over the Secretary's 
     authority and will allow for meaningful discussions 
     concerning amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     which will benefit the Secretary, the tribes and the states.

[[Page S10369]]

       Thank you for your support of the Enzi/Sessions Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  William U. Hill,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____



                                   Office of Attorney General,

                                        Pierre, SD, July 23, 1998.
     Re Proposed amendment to S. 2237 regarding a moratorium on 
         implementation of gaming procedures.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senators: I am writing this letter in support of the 
     amendment of Senators Enzi and Sessions to S. 2237, the 
     Interior appropriations bill. This amendment would continue a 
     provision included in last year's Interior appropriations act 
     which established a moratorium on implementation of 
     procedures by the Secretary of the Interior to permit tribal 
     gaming when a state and tribe stall in negotiations and the 
     state asserts sovereign immunity in court proceedings.
       It is my view that the Secretary plainly lacks statutory 
     authority for the proposed procedures. A detailed letter to 
     the Secretary of the Interior has set out the views of 
     twenty-five attorneys general that the Secretary lacks such 
     authority. I believe, as do the other attorneys general, that 
     the Secretary must seek statutory amendments to the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act to achieve the authority he asserts and 
     I join with the other attorneys general in encouraging the 
     Secretary to engage in a dialogue with the states and the 
     tribes on this matter.
       I appreciate your consideration of the moratorium amendment 
     to Senate Bill 2237.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Mark Barnett,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____



                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                    Montgomery, AL, July 23, 1998.
     Re Proposed Enzi-Sessions Amendment to Interior 
         Appropriations Bill.
     Senator Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Senator Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Gentlemen: I write to register my strong support for an 
     amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations 
     bill proposed by your colleagues, Senators Enzi, Sessions, 
     Lugar, Brownback, Ashcroft, and Grams. That amendment would 
     continue the moratorium imposed in last year's bill on the 
     Secretary's implementation of procedures that would empower 
     the Secretary to allow tribal gaming when a tribe and a state 
     stall in negotiations and the state asserts its Eleventh 
     Amendment immunity in court proceedings.
       I believe that the Secretary lacks the statutory authority 
     to propose procedures that would have the effects of 
     abrogating the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity and 
     compelling the states to negotiate with Indian tribes 
     regarding the permissible scope of Class III gaming. Several 
     state Attorneys General provided comments to this effect in 
     1996 when the Secretary published his Advance Notice of 
     Proposed Rulemaking. The Attorneys General repeated their 
     objections to the Secretary's proposed course of action in 
     June 1998 when they submitted comments on Interior's Proposed 
     Regulations. Notwithstanding the presence of a moratorium, 
     the Secretary continues to propose expanding his authority in 
     this area. The amendment that your colleagues have proposed 
     would make clear the limits on the Secretary's authority to 
     abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.
       Again, I strongly support the proposed amendment. I have no 
     confidence that the Secretary listens when the states tell 
     him that he lacks the power to override their Eleventh 
     Amendment immunity and that he operates under an incurable 
     conflict of interest when he proposes to act as a mediator. 
     The proposed amendment is necessary to stop further action on 
     the Secretary's part. Continuing the moratorium on action by 
     the Secretary will allow negotiations between the attorneys 
     general and the tribes to continue and will preclude a 
     lawsuit by one or more states against the Secretary. Such an 
     expensive and protracted lawsuit is almost certain in the 
     event the Secretary continues on his present course.
           Very truly yours,
                                                       Bill Pryor,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

         State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the 
           Attorney General,
                                        Denver, CO, July 24, 1998.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Enzi and Sessions: I write in support of your 
     proposed amendment to S. 2237, the Interior Appropriations 
     legislation.
       I believe that the moratorium concerning the Secretary's 
     regulations regarding Indian gaming should remain in place 
     during the coming fiscal year. Continuation of the moratorium 
     will avoid the need for costly and prolonged litigation over 
     the Secretary's administrative authority and encourage a 
     meaningful dialogue about amendments to the IGRA which would 
     benefit the Secretary, the tribes and the states.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gale A. Norton,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____



                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                        Topeka, KS, July 24, 1998.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Chairman, Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

       Dear Senators Gorton and Byrd: I am writing in support of 
     the Enzi-Sessions proposed amendment to the Interior 
     Appropriations Bill.
       On behalf of the State of Kansas, I joined several other 
     Attorneys General in opposing the Department of Interior's 
     proposed regulations establishing an administrative means by 
     which Indian Tribes may bypass the compacting process set 
     forth in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 2701 et seq. In the IGRA, Congress has provided 
     that States should have a specific role in that process. I 
     and other Attorneys General believe that the Secretary has no 
     legal authority to rewrite the IGRA as has been proposed in 
     those regulations. Such a task is obviously the province of 
     Congress.
       Whiel I am confident that the courts would agree with my 
     position regarding the Secretary/Department's lack of 
     authority to promulgate these regulations, the Enzi-Sessions 
     amendment would avoid the need to litigate the issue before 
     Congress has the opportunity to consider whether IGRA should 
     be so amended. I therefore support the Enzi-Sessions 
     amendment.
       As a matter of background, the State of Kansas has entered 
     into Compacts for Class III, i.e., casino gaming with the 
     four resident Tribes. The existing compacting process in the 
     IGRA worked for us. The State and the Tribes negotiated in 
     good faith, believing that these were the only four Tribes 
     with Indian lands within the State that could be used for 
     Indian gaming purposes.
       Since completing our compacting process with the four known 
     Kansas Tribes, the State has been approached by numerous 
     other Tribes interested in gaming revenues; these Tribes 
     assert various ``claims'' to land in the State, thus 
     evidencing a very real need to ensure that the compacting 
     process remains neutral so the State is not arbitrarily 
     forced by the Secretary acting as a sponsor to Indian Tribes 
     into additional gaming that was never envisioned by the IGRA.
       Moreover, the Secretary's proposed regulations not only 
     adversely affect the interest of States, but also pit Indian 
     Tribes against each other. For example, the four resident 
     Tribes in Kansas have a strong interest in ensuring that they 
     recover on their significant investment in developing gaming 
     within the State, an interest which is adversely affected by 
     the gaming ambitions of new, non-resident Tribes.
       I am willing to meet with the Department, Tribal, and State 
     representatives to seek agreement on amendments to the IGRA 
     that will address the concerns of Tribes with regard to the 
     compacting process, but I am opposed to any unilateral effort 
     on the part of the Department to usurp the authority of 
     Congress as the proposed regulations have done.
       Thank you for your favorable consideration of this 
     amendment.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Carla J. Stovall,
     Attorney General of Kansas.
                                  ____



                                   Office of Attorney General,

                                  State of Florida, July 24, 1998.
     Re amendment to Interior appropriations bill sponsored by 
         Sens. Enzi, Sessions, Lugar, Brownback, and Grams.

     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, D.C.

       Dear Senators Gorton and Byrd: I am writing this letter to 
     voice my support for the Interior Appropriations amendment 
     sponsored by Senators Enzi, Sessions, Lugar, Brownback, and 
     Grams. The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit 
     specifically the final adoption of rules by the Department of 
     the Interior regarding Indian gambling.
       These proposed rules are an outgrowth of the Seminole Tribe 
     decision of the Supreme Court and represents an attempt to 
     legislate a remedy for Indian Tribes in the absence of 
     statutory authority. My views, and those of twenty four other 
     Attorneys General, are set forth in detail in our letter of 
     June 19 to Secretary Babbitt commenting on the proposed 
     regulations. In short, we feel that there is no statutory 
     authority for the Department to adopt such rules and that the 
     rules are fundamentally flawed because, in those rules, the 
     Secretary arrogates to himself the authority to determine 
     whether the State has negotiated in good faith and what the 
     proper scope of gambling on Indian reservations should be 
     based on his interpretation of State law.

[[Page S10370]]

       In conclusion, I wholly support the efforts of the sponsors 
     of the subject amendment. We are currently attempting to 
     negotiate a consensus amendment to the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act that will obviate the perceived need for such 
     regulations and I believe that the proposed Appropriations 
     amendment will help those negotiations along by lessening by 
     the pressure on the parties and avoiding litigation over the 
     validity of the regulations.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
       Sincerely,
                                            Robert A. Butterworth,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____



                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                       Lincoln, NE, July 24, 1998.
     U.S. Senator Michael Enzi,
     U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Enzi and Sessions: I write in support of your 
     proposed amendments to S. 2237, the interior appropriations 
     legislation. The Secretary of the Interior should not be 
     allowed to authorize types of gambling on Indian reservations 
     when that gambling would be illegal if conducted anywhere 
     else within the state.
       It is my opinion that the Secretary of the Interior lacks 
     any statutory authority to permit tribal gaming where a state 
     and a tribe stall in negotiations and the state asserts 
     sovereign immunity in court proceedings. Your proposed 
     legislation will support this position.
           Yours truly,
                                                     Don Stenberg,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                                State of Michigan,


                               Department of Attorney General,

                                       Lansing, MI, July 31, 1998.
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: Currently there are tribal-state 
     compacts between the State of Michigan and seven Indian 
     tribes, each of which received federal recognition prior to 
     the effective date of IGRA. Since conclusion of these seven 
     compacts, federal recognition has been extended to four 
     additional Indian tribes. Litigation initiated in federal 
     court against the State of Michigan under IGRA by one of 
     these newly recognized tribes was successfully defended on 
     Eleventh Amendment grounds resulting in entry of an August 
     23, 1996 order of dismissal in Little River Band of Ottawa 
     Indians, et al v. State of Michigan, U.S. District Court, 
     Western District, No. 5:96-CV-119.
       Without question, the 1996 decision in Seminole Tribe of 
     Florida v. State of Florida, 517 US 44; 134 L Ed 2d 252; 116 
     S Ct 1114 (1996), has precipitated a need for thorough review 
     of federal policy regarding tribal gaming operation. However, 
     pending completion of that task, I share the position held by 
     most state Attorneys General that the Secretary of Interior 
     lacks authority to unilaterally promulgate rules for the 
     operation of activities defined as class III gaming under 
     IGRA. As the state official with the responsibility under 
     Michigan law to defend all lawsuits against the state, it is 
     my firm conviction that a decision to advance a valid defense 
     should not be influenced by a threat that a particular 
     defense will precipitate an unauthorized response by a 
     federal agency.
       In light of the foregoing, I wish to voice my support for 
     your effort to adopt a narrowly focused amendment to the 
     Department of Interior appropriations legislation which will 
     preclude steps to authorize class III gaming without specific 
     authorization by an impacted state.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Frank J. Kelley,
                                                 Attorney General.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also thank the other Senators who have 
addressed this along with me, and I want to make some comments on the 
things that were said.
  I would particularly like to thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
his comments. More particularly, I would like to thank him for all the 
education he gave me a year ago when we debated this amendment. That 
was one of the first amendments that I worked on, and I have to say it 
needed a lot of work. With his cooperation, and with the Senator from 
Hawaii, we came up with an amendment that protected the status quo. It 
was an amendment that we thought would keep things from moving forward 
and supplanting the States' ability to negotiate it. I found out later 
that there are even some more careful wordings that have to be done on 
bills that we work on around here. Had I done it more particularly 
about finalizing the rule itself, perhaps we would have avoided the 
need to bring it up again. I didn't. So we need to talk about it some 
more.
  I mentioned that what we are really trying to do with this amendment 
is to preclude the finalization of rules and regulations that would 
supplant the States. I will be one of the first to admit that at the 
present time the States have the bigger stick. Until the rules get 
approved and the bigger stick switches hands, and the tribes have the 
bigger stick and the control of that stick forever--if we leave the 
stick in the hands of the States, there is an easy way to change that 
in the interim and to make the kinds of exemptions that the Senator 
from New Mexico talked about. The way to do that is to have hearings by 
the Indian Affairs Committee--hearings that are balanced, hearings that 
take into account how difficult it is to properly negotiate between the 
States and the tribes.
  We can come up with a compromise piece of legislation. That piece of 
legislation would eliminate this amendment on an appropriations bill 
and this amendment in any future years. But we have to have that 
discussion. We have to see what the arguments are between the States 
and the tribes and get those resolved. I know there is common ground. 
We have hit around the edges of it today. But there have been 
statements on both sides that take it a little bit further each way 
than probably it ought to be. But I can tell you that we are not going 
to get it resolved and we will just give the whole stick to the tribes 
unless we put this amendment on the bill.
  I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the care and concern with which 
he has spoken in every instance that we have debated this issue. This 
is the third time. I appreciate today particularly the 20 years of 
experience that he has on this and the tremendous knowledge that he has 
about the history of the tribes in the United States.
  I grew up in Sheridan, WY, 60 miles from the Crow Reservation, which 
is in Montana. But I have had the opportunity to work with them and the 
tribes in Wyoming before. This is not an attempt to take away from the 
Indian tribes. This is an attempt to get that fair playing field 
through hearings, through legislation--not through something by an 
unelected Secretary of the Federal Government to put it in the hands of 
Congress. We are the ones who ought to be making these kinds of 
decisions. If there are decisions left undone, we ought to go back and 
redo them so that they take care of all the problems. We need to have 
all of the interested parties. We need to have hearings on it.
  The comment was raised that on my amendment there haven't been 
hearings. I kind of have to contest that a little bit, because this is 
the third time we have debated it, which is a form of hearing among the 
Members. It is not my fault that there have been no hearings on this. 
The Indian Affairs Committee has not held hearings on this in spite of 
the requests last year, in spite of that being the primary way that we 
can bring everybody together to focus on the issue and to come up with 
a solution that will work for everybody.
  I don't think this is a death knell for the talks between people. 
Instead, it is the beginning of a process that can work with the Indian 
Affairs Committee to see that we have some hearings, reach a solution, 
and bring it to conclusion. It is in the hands of the Indian Affairs 
Committee. But there is only a need for them to meet on it, if we pass 
my amendment.
  I ask that you pass the amendment. I will briefly summarize some of 
the points.
  It maintains the status quo of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for 
one more year. It preserves the right of Congress to pass laws. It 
continues the incentive for tribes and States to pursue legislative 
changes to IGRA. It gives the Indian Affairs Committee time to hold the 
hearing and recommend the IGRA changes. It prevents Secretary Babbitt 
from bypassing Congress. It protects States rights without harming the 
Indian tribes. And it honors the advice of the National Gambling Impact 
Study Commission so that they can finish their work, as they requested.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I know of no one else desiring to speak on 
this Enzi proposal. It seems to me that it is a relatively simple one. 
It simply enjoins for one additional year the right of the Secretary of 
the Interior to avoid the requirements of both the 11th amendment and 
of present law by making it a determination that a State has

[[Page S10371]]

not engaged in good faith in negotiating a class III gambling compact 
and that it has stated its sovereign immunity in an action by an Indian 
tribe or another kind against it.
  In light of the fact that the report of a long-term commission on the 
effect of gambling in the United States has not yet been made, it seems 
to me that this is a reasonable amendment. I know of no request for a 
rollcall vote on the amendment.
  Mr. President, I believe we are ready to vote on the Enzi amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3592) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ENZI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, 
is here and will be ready in just a few moments to present an amendment 
respecting the National Endowment for the Arts. We will debate that 
until debate is completed. I rather suspect that amendment will require 
a rollcall vote. But this is to notify Members who are interested in 
the National Endowment for the Arts that this will be their opportunity 
to speak on that subject. It was the subject of some controversy and a 
number of speeches last year, and I suspect there may very well be 
Members on both sides who would like to make their views on the subject 
known, and they are invited to come to the floor.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand now that Members on both 
sides have agreed to a 1-hour--I will withhold that request at this 
point.
  Is the Senator ready?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am prepared to go ahead.
  Mr. GORTON. Then, Mr. President, I will yield the floor and I will 
ask the Senator's indulgence, if we have cleared a time agreement, to 
get that time agreement. We would like to have a vote on the amendment 
before the lecture by Senator Byrd at 6 o'clock this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 3593

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts 
and to transfer available funds for the operation of the National Park 
                                System)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I come for the second straight year to offer an amendment to the 
Interior appropriations bill, and I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3593.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 109, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through line 18 on page 110 and insert the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amount available under the heading `National Park Service, 
     Operation of the National Park Service' under title I shall 
     be $1,325,903,000.''.

  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the second 
straight year to offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations 
bill. This amendment, while dealing with a relatively small amount of 
money--and I wince a little bit when I call the amount of money small, 
but in comparison to the multibillion-dollar funding bill it does 
address a small percentage of that bill--addresses a profound and 
fundamental issue that is before this body. Should the Federal 
Government be in the business of judging and funding art? Should the 
Federal Government be telling the rest of the country this is good art, 
or this is not good enough for the Federal Government, signaling to the 
rest of the country this art is superior or this art is worthy of your 
support while other art is not?
  While my efforts last year to eliminate funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts were unsuccessful, I am compelled to continue to 
raise this issue, hoping to persuade my colleagues that the Federal 
Government should resign from its role as a national art critic. It 
seems to me that to have the Federal Government as an art critic which 
determines what type or types of art are superior to other types of art 
is not something that a free nation would want to encourage. Government 
should not be in the business of subsidizing free speech or putting its 
so-called ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'' on certain pieces of 
so-called art. My amendment simply eliminates the $100 million 
appropriated by the bill to the National Endowment for the Arts, and it 
takes the available funds and puts them toward the renovation and 
preservation of our national park system.
  Since the last time we debated this issue, two relevant events have 
occurred regarding the National Endowment for the Arts. First, news 
about the play, and I quote the title here, ``Corpus Christi,'' which 
the NEA had agreed to fund, has become available; and, secondly, the 
Supreme Court of the United States has rendered a decision in the case 
of National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley.
  I would like to discuss each of these developments as well as other 
arguments and show how they support elimination of funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  The play ``Corpus Christi'' is merely the latest example of why we 
should defund the National Endowment for the Arts.
  In the last few months, we have heard a great deal about the play 
planned to be staged by the Manhattan Theatre Club in New York City. 
This play, entitled ``Corpus Christi,'' has generated a lot of 
controversy because of its content and because the National Endowment 
for the Arts approved a $31,000 grant to the theater to fund production 
of this play.
  Let me give a brief chronology of the involvement of the National 
Endowment for the Arts with ``Corpus Christi.'' The Manhattan Theatre 
Club first applied to the National Endowment for the Arts in October of 
1995 to request funding for ``Corpus Christi.'' The theater's summary 
of the project activity stated as follows:

       MTC is requesting support from the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the world premiere of Terrence McNally's new 
     play, CORPUS CHRISTI. The production is scheduled for fall, 
     1996 on Stage 1.

  I continue to quote:

       Mr. McNally will develop the rehearsal draft of the script 
     in house at Manhattan Theatre Club during the next year. 
     CORPUS CHRISTI is a play for 13 actors. Requested and 
     matching funds will be spent on development, preproduction, 
     rehearsal and the subscription run of the play at the 
     Manhattan Theatre Club.
  That was the summation of the project activity included in the 
request for funding as submitted by the Manhattan Theatre Club. The NEA 
application asked the applicant to ``give a detailed description of the 
proposed project,'' including, among other things, ``the degree of 
development of the project.'' The Manhattan Theatre Club supplied the 
NEA with the following description:

       Spirituality has been one of the major themes in Terrence 
     McNally's most recent plays at MTC. His next play, Corpus 
     Christi, will be an examination of good and evil. He will use 
     certain miracles in the life of Christ as the inspiration for 
     the story, which will have a contemporary setting.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Corpus Christi is an extremely ambitious new work for Mr. 
     McNally. MTC is proud to serve as the artistic home for this 
     eminent American playwright. Our relationship with him is one 
     of the most important and far-reaching models in our 
     commitment to writers. We are confident that this project 
     will break new ground for Mr. McNally as an artist, and that 
     it will continue our tradition of providing innovative, 
     important new plays to audiences in our community and beyond.

  That was from the Manhattan Theatre Club grant application of October 
2, 1995.

[[Page S10372]]

  The NEA approved the grant to fund Corpus Christi. On June 14, 1996, 
the NEA informed the Manhattan Theatre Club that it had been awarded a 
$31,000 grant ``to support expenses for the development and world 
premiere of the new play, `Corpus Christi,' by Terrence McNally, as 
outlined in your application cited above and the enclosed project 
budget.''
  On December 17, 1996, however, the Manhattan Theatre Club wrote the 
NEA requesting a scope change amendment to its grant so that it could 
receive Endowment funding for the New York premiere of Donald 
Margulies' ``Collected Stories,'' instead of for ``Corpus Christi.'' 
The Theatre Club gave this sparse description of the new project:

       ``Collected Stories'' follows the relationship between an 
     esteemed writer, Ruth Steiner, and her promising student, 
     Lisa Morrison. As Lisa gradually transforms from protege to 
     peer, so does her relationship with Ruth. MTC has produced 
     [Margulies'] `The Loman Family Picnic,' the Obie winning 
     `Sight Unseen' and `What's Wrong With This Picture.' This 
     continues a very important artistic relationship between 
     [Margulies] and MTC.

  The National Endowment approved the scope change request. It switched 
the funding from Corpus Christi to the Collected Stories application. 
Based on that single paragraph, the NEA approved the scope change 
requested in January, 1997.
  It was after that time that we began to understand something about 
Corpus Christi. We had heard very little about either the Manhattan 
Theatre Club or Corpus Christi until the last few months. Recently we 
have begun to see the truth about Corpus Christi and the reason for 
switching from one pocket to the other the grant application. We have 
learned more about the play for which the National Endowment for the 
Arts awarded a grant--but did not fund--because the Manhattan Theatre 
Club, not the NEA, requested a scope change in its grant.
  On May 29 of this year, the New York Times reported that it had 
obtained a draft of the script for Corpus Christi, and stated that this 
draft, quoting from the New York Times:

       * * * suggests that rather than having specific phrases or 
     scenes likely to cause controversy, it is the overall tenor, 
     focus and point of the work that could be most at issue.''

  While the Manhattan Theatre Club had described the play in its fall 
schedule as telling the story of ``a young gay man named Joshua on his 
spiritual journey'' and providing Mr. McNally's own unique view of the 
``greatest story ever told,'' the New York Times columnist found a very 
different kind of story.
  From beginning to end, says the columnist, the script:

       * * * retells the Biblical story of a Jesus-like figure 
     from his birth in a Texas flea-bag hotel * * * to his 
     crucifixion as ``king of the queers'' in a manner with the 
     potential to offend many people. Joshua has a long-running 
     affair with Judas and sexual relations with the other 
     apostles. The draft ends with the frank admission: ``If we 
     have offended, so be it. He belongs to us as well as you.''

  A writer for a London newspaper, The Guardian, gave even more 
descriptive details of the play Corpus Christi, which initially had 
been funded directly by the National Endowment and then, at the 
suggestion of the Manhattan Theatre Club, had its NEA funding switched 
to another project of the theater to avoid the direct funding of Corpus 
Christi. Most of the details given in The Guardian cannot be discussed 
on the Senate floor. However, the columnist concludes that, ``the 
play's wit rests on its deliberately offensive, knowing re-
interpretation of the scripture.''
  Once the truth about Corpus Christi became public, the NEA quickly 
disavowed any involvement with the play. On June 10, the NEA sent a 
letter to Members of Congress stating emphatically that ``the NEA is 
not in any way supporting development or production of Corpus 
Christi.'' Yet it can't be denied that the NEA approved funding for the 
play, regardless of the vague description given it at the time of the 
grant request.
  The NEA fully intended to use taxpayers' money to subsidize Corpus 
Christi. As a matter of fact, I believe that with the switching of the 
grant from the one pocket to the other of the Manhattan Theatre Club, 
the subsidy has the same impact. It was only at the later request of 
the Manhattan Theatre Club, not the NEA, that the money was diverted 
from Corpus Christi to the alternate project.
  I am glad that no Federal funding directly went to pay for Corpus 
Christi. But it is because the Manhattan Theatre Club, not the NEA, 
made the change or sought the change. And nevertheless, when you have a 
composite of activities of an organization like Manhattan Theatre Club, 
some of which are subsidized locally or paid for locally, others of 
which are subsidized federally, the capacity to maintain that 
particular play as part of the offering of the club is assisted and 
simply made possible by the continuing support of the National 
Endowment for the Arts. Despite all the past controversy, despite all 
the improvements to the NEA statutes, there is still something 
fundamentally wrong with public funding of the arts.
  This matter involving the NEA, the Manhattan Theatre Club, and Corpus 
Christi, demonstrates a number of problems we have when the Federal 
Government tries to fund art.
  First, the NEA does not exercise proper oversight in awarding grants. 
It seems incredible that the NEA would approve such a significant 
change in a grant request--from one project to a completely different 
one--based on a single paragraph description in a letter from the 
grantee. Is this an appropriate exercise of oversight?
  This action demonstrates how little the NEA knows about the projects 
it funds. It is supposed to judge based upon ``artistic excellence''--
but how, based upon the Manhattan Theatre Club's first description of 
Corpus Christi--or based upon the sparse description of ``Collected 
Stories''--can any person or review panel make an informed decision 
regarding artistic excellence?
  Second, the NEA's ease in allowing the Manhattan Theatre Club's scope 
change demonstrates that the agency chose to fund the project based 
upon the Theatre's reputation, rather than upon the merits of a 
particular project. Such an action seems to be allowing de facto 
``seasonal support,'' which even the NEA admits is forbidden by law.
  Seasonal support was the concept of saying we would just simply, as 
the Government, give a particular organization, an art organization, an 
amount of money in which to conduct a season's activities. It would not 
be with reference to specific activities of the organization. ``We are 
going to fund their 1998 season, or their 1996 season, or subsidize the 
season.''
  The Congress, because it wanted more supervision on the part of the 
NEA--it wanted assessments of the quality and nature of those items 
being subsidized--outlawed or otherwise made improper, season support. 
It is forbidden in the law. Yet, when the NEA allows organizations 
simply to switch grants back and forth, it obviously provides a basis 
for the same kind of problems to arise as would arise when you just 
simply turned over the money to the organization to support a season, 
without regard to the specific matters being subsidized.
  This situation also demonstrates the underlying problem with 
government funding of art. Government is not in a good position to 
determine what is art. When government funds art, it is put in a Catch-
22 situation.
  Many Americans, including myself, feel strongly that the Government 
has no business funding any theater that is going to openly and proudly 
denigrate the religious faith of a large segment of Americans.
  However, if one takes this view, he will be accused of censoring or 
making unconstitutional value judgments. My view is that the 
subsidization of art is wrong in the first place, but certainly not to 
provide funding is not to censor, but that is the kind of charge that 
is made.
  On the other hand, if you can't make value judgments based on the 
content of art, you will end up funding offensive and indecent 
materials.
  When the Government funds art, it will always have to make value 
judgments on what is art and what is not, which is not an appropriate 
function of Government. The only way to solve this problem is to get 
the Government out of the business of funding art.
  For those who say this is an issue of free speech, I ask you, How 
free is speech when the Government pays? Not very.

[[Page S10373]]

  The events surrounding the National Endowment for the Arts' funding 
of the Manhattan Theatre Club in Corpus Christi underscore the need for 
the Federal Government to get out of the business of funding art, which 
is a form of speech. Speech is not free if the Government funds it. If 
the Government says that some speech is better than other speech and 
prefers it by providing a subsidy, the Government is impairing the 
right of every citizen to speak and to express himself freely.
  Let me now turn to the second significant event that occurred since 
the last time we debated this issue on an appropriations measure, and 
that is the Supreme Court's recent decision in National Endowment for 
the Arts v. Finley.
  In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, the Supreme Court 
upheld the Federal statute directing the NEA to take into consideration 
``general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and 
values of the American public'' in making grants.
  In the case of the National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, I 
repeat, the Supreme Court upheld the will of the Congress expressed in 
the statute, signed by the President, directing the National Endowment 
for the Arts to take into consideration ``general standards of decency 
and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public'' 
in making grants.
  While some have said this ruling will appropriately address concerns 
over the offensive attacks on religious groups and otherwise offensive 
material that has been funded by the NEA, this is simply not the case.
  In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that the NEA has implemented 
the law ``merely by ensuring the representation of various backgrounds 
and points of view on the advisory panels that analyze grant 
applications.''
  It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court upheld the Federal 
statute directing the NEA to take into consideration certain standards, 
and to see how the NEA had attempted to comply with the statute: by 
appointing individuals who might or might not represent those 
standards--``merely by ensuring the representation of various 
backgrounds and points of view on the advisory panels. . . .'' That was 
the response of the NEA.
  The Court also said that the decency and respect provision does not 
preclude awards to projects that might be indecent or disrespectful. 
And, in fact, the Court cautioned against any future use of the decency 
and respect standard to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
  Moreover, in response to the Finley decision, Chairman Ivey said that 
the ruling was a ``reaffirmation of the agency's discretion in funding 
the highest quality art in America'' and that it would not affect his 
agency's day-to-day operations.
  What you have is the Supreme Court affirming the Congress' effort to 
shape the decisions of the NEA for subsidizing art and to move those 
decisions away from the affronts to the religious traditions of 
Americans. But then you have the chairman of the NEA saying that the 
ruling of the Court was a ``reaffirmation of the agency's discretion in 
funding the highest quality art in America'' and that it would not 
affect his agency's day-to-day operations.
  Obviously, if the Congress' effort to provide a guideline for decency 
does nothing to affect the agency's day-to-day operations, we are going 
to have problems similar to the problems that came up surrounding the 
Corpus Christi funding.
  Hence, the Finley case does nothing to solve the underlying problem 
confronting us and, in fact, demonstrates that Government simply should 
not be in a position to determine what is art and what is not.
  There are a number of other reasons why we should stop funding the 
NEA. I question whether it is a proper role of the Federal Government 
to subsidize free speech as we do through the NEA. Government 
subsidies, even with the best of intentions, are dangerous because they 
skew the market toward whatever the Government grantmakers prefer. The 
National Endowment for the Arts grants place the stamp of U.S. 
Government approval on funded art. This gives the endowment enormous 
power to dictate what is regarded as art and what is not.
  A number of art critics and even artists themselves have observed 
this. Jan Breslauer, Los Angeles Times art critic, puts it this way. 
She says that the NEA's subsidization of certain viewpoints poses great 
problems--and I quote Jan Breslauer:

       [T]he endowment has quietly pursued policies rooted in 
     identity politics--a kind of separatism that emphasizes 
     racial, sexual and cultural differences above all else. The 
     art world's version of affirmative action, these policies . . 
     . have had a profoundly corrosive effect on the American 
     arts--pigeonholing artists and pressuring them to produce 
     work that satisfies a politically correct agenda rather than 
     their best creative instincts.

  Jan Breslauer is basically saying that a subsidy which encourages art 
that the market would not otherwise respect or encourage corrupts the 
arts and entices people into producing a kind of art that they would 
not otherwise pursue for its artistically rewarding aspects. Rather, 
such a subsidy pressures them to produce work that satisfies a 
politically correct agenda.
  In my judgment, this is not only an inappropriate disposition of 
taxpayers' dollars. When we find out that the Government purchase of 
art corrupts the arts by pressuring artists to work in politically 
correct areas instead of in areas that best reflect their creative 
instincts, we have gone beyond damage to the taxpayer: we have begun to 
damage the artistic community itself.
  Joseph Parisi, editor of Poetry magazine, the Nation's oldest and 
most prestigious poetry magazine, I might add, said that disconnecting 
``artificial support systems'' for the arts, such as cuts in NEA 
funding, has had some positive effects.
  Parisi has said that cuts in Federal spending for the arts are 
causing ``a shake-out of the superficial.'' What he is basically saying 
is when we cut subsidies for the arts, we knock out superficial art 
that is not of value.
  He goes on to say:

       The market demands a wider range, an appeal to a broader 
     base. Arts and writers are forced to get back to markets. 
     What will people buy? If you are tenured, if the Government 
     buys, there is no response to irrelevance.

  Here is an artist who simply says, in effect, that a subsidy to the 
arts not only wastes taxpayers' money but it corrupts the artists 
themselves.
  In short, the Government should not pick and choose among different 
points of view and value systems and continue politicizing the arts. 
Garth Brooks fans pay their own way, while the NEA canvases the Nation 
for politically correct art that needs a transfusion from the Treasury. 
It is bad public policy to subsidize free expression.
  I would also like to point out that Congress has no constitutional 
authority to create or fund the NEA. It is true that funding for the 
NEA is relatively small, although it is hard to say that $100 million 
is small. It is small in comparison to the overall budget. Regardless 
of the amount of money involved here, elimination of this agency would 
send the right message that Congress is taking seriously its obligation 
to restrict the Federal Government's actions to the limited role 
envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Nowhere does the 
Constitution grant any authority that could reasonably be construed to 
include the promotion of the arts.

  During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, as a matter of 
fact, in 1787, Delegate Charles Pinckney introduced a motion calling 
for the Federal Government to subsidize the arts in the United States. 
Although the Founding Fathers were cultured individuals who knew 
firsthand of various European systems for public arts patronage, they 
overwhelmingly rejected Pinckney's suggestion because of their belief 
in limited constitutional government.
  Accordingly, nowhere in its list of powers enumerated and delegated 
to the Federal Government does the Constitution specify a power to 
subsidize the arts. And that was in the face of a specific proposal to 
do so at the convention, but was overwhelmingly rejected.
  There are a number of other reasons why we should eliminate funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts, but time does not allow me to 
enumerate them. Suffice it to say, it is time to end the Federal 
Government's role of paying for and thereby politicizing art.
  Former New York Times art critic Hilton Kramer observed this 
phenomenon back in the early 1980s and spoke

[[Page S10374]]

almost prophetically about how NEA funding could in fact harm the arts. 
He put it this way:

       The imperatives now governing much of the commentary 
     devoted to art tend not to have anything to do with the real 
     artistic issues, much less with the problem of artistic 
     quality. They tend to be political. This, too, was probably 
     inevitable given the role that [our] government now plays in 
     our cultural life.

  I continue quoting:

       So quickly has this role acquired the status of something 
     external and irreversible that there now exists an entire 
     generation of artists, critics, curators and bureaucrats who 
     have come of age believing that the life of art is 
     inconceivable without it. One sometimes wonders what they 
     think the life of art in this country was like before 1965. 
     It may come as news to them to learn that American art did 
     not begin with the formation of the National Endowment for 
     the Arts, and that there were great art museums flourishing 
     in this country long before there were agencies in Washington 
     monitoring, directing and subsidizing their activities. Of 
     all the changes that have occurred on the American art scene 
     since 1965, this one may well prove to be the most fateful of 
     all, for it already shows signs of making the politicization 
     of art, and of our thinking about art, a permanent feature of 
     our cultural life. And this, I think, is not good news for 
     the future of American art--or indeed, for the future of 
     American society.

  Thoughtful individuals understand the pollution that politics and 
government bring when they seek to subsidize art and favor some art 
over other art. We need to heed Mr. Kramer's warning and get the 
Federal Government out of the business of being a national art critic.
  My amendment would do this by eliminating funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and by putting available funds toward a more 
legitimate cause--preserving and maintaining our national parks. Our 
national park system, comprising 376 units and about 83 million acres, 
is America's most educational playground, teaching more than 270 
million visitors per year about our Nation's history, about our 
culture, about our traditions, and our natural landscapes.
  Our national parks are often the choice for family vacations, school 
field trips, researchers, and foreign tourists. They represent an 
appropriate devotion of the resource which would otherwise go to 
subsidize art in a way which is counterproductive to the quality of art 
in our culture and many times is an affront to the understanding, 
beliefs, and closely cherished religious traditions of the American 
people.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important amendment, 
this amendment which would zero out funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts and make the remaining available funds available to the 
national park system for renovation and restoration and maintenance of 
the parks.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, by reason of the Byrd lecture this 
evening, I now ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5:30 
p.m. be divided, with 17 minutes for the opponents of the amendment and 
8 minutes for the proponents of the amendment, and that at 5:30 the 
manager of the bill or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to 
table, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the 
tabling vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I am going to use very little of this time and will 
allow him to speak on it.
  Mr. President, the eloquent and thoughtful Senator from Missouri has 
raised two specific criticisms of the continuation of funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts. One relates to a notorious anti-
Christian play called ``Corpus Christi'' about to be produced in New 
York City, the sponsor of which originally received the tentative NEA 
award on the basis of an application described by the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Personally, I think the NEA should probably have turned down that 
application at the time at which it was granted on the ground that it 
sounded as though the play was on no subject other than a very standard 
and Orthodox Christian theme which is perhaps inappropriate for funding 
by government.
  In any event, the National Endowment for the Arts has not funded the 
production of that play, might well have decided that it did not wish 
to subsidize anything else that the theater was doing, but certainly 
has not breached any of the requirements which Congress has laid down 
for the National Endowment for the Arts itself. Had it gone ahead 
knowing what the play was about, we might be having quite a much longer 
debate here today and one in which the future of the National Endowment 
for the Arts might be very seriously under threat, including, from 
among others, this Senator.
  Secondly, the Senator from Missouri quite accurately describes the 
decision of the Supreme Court on the decency standards included in 
former and current versions of the funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts. I say, joining myself with the Senator from Missouri as a 
former State attorney general, that I was somewhat disappointed in that 
Supreme Court decision which largely ducked the fundamental issues that 
were involved in the limitations Congress has placed on the way in 
which the National Endowment for the Arts can make its grants.
  The Supreme Court at least nominally upheld those decency provisions 
but raised some very serious questions about their future applicability 
under future challenges. The bottom line was, however, that the 
National Endowment for the Arts, that had refused to fund certain 
activities by Ms. Finley, among others, was upheld in that refusal.
  As long as the courts continue to uphold the National Endowment when 
it engages in that kind of rejection, I think we will be in good shape. 
If at some time in the future the Supreme Court should say that this 
Congress does not have the ability to provide limitations on the use of 
this money to enforce commonly held decency standards in the United 
States, we will be debating a different issue. But at the present time 
we are debating the issue of the continuation of the National Endowment 
for the Arts under the rules under which it has operated for the last 
couple of years, during which it has not funded grants that outraged a 
significant majority or even a very large minority of the American 
people.
  The great bulk of the grants--or rather most of the money that the 
National Endowment for the Arts uses--goes to State art agencies. Most 
of the rest goes to institutional kinds of activities--symphony 
orchestras, art museums and the like. The restrictions on the NEA 
funding of individual projects are very, very significant and have 
prevented the kind of controversies that took place 5 or 6 years ago.
  In other words, Mr. President, it is my view that the reforms that 
have been imposed on the National Endowment for the Arts by the 
Congress of the United States have, in fact, worked, and the grants 
made by the National Endowment for the Arts help the arts scene all 
across the country, which are far more decentralized than they were 
before, in far more underserved areas, in far more deserving entities 
in small towns and small cities around the United States.
  On balance, it seems to me highly appropriate to continue the modest 
support that Congress gives for the NEA imprimatur. And almost all of 
our constituents involved in the arts tell us that even a tiny grant 
from the National Endowment provides for the arts and entities that get 
the great bulk of their money from charitable contributions, from 
generous-minded people in their own communities. I attended an opening 
of a new concert hall in Seattle on Sunday in which perhaps $100 
million or more was spent for the Seattle Symphony Orchestra, an 
occasional minor recipient of grants from the NEA. That fund drive was 
greatly strengthened by the kind of support that the NEA gives. It is 
almost solely financed by State government, county government, local 
government contributions, and even larger contributions from the 
private sector itself.
  The NEA, for better or worse, is a catalyst for arts support, private 
and public, all across the United States, and the endowment should be 
continued.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

[[Page S10375]]

  Mr. COATS. How much time remains of the Senator from Washington?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes 29 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GORTON. Is the Senator not an opponent of the amendment?
  Mr. COATS. Of the proponents' side of the issue, how much time 
remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Ashcroft has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield such time as the Senator from Indiana may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Ashcroft's amendment. I have thought long and hard about this issue. We 
have debated it a number of times in committee and on the floor. I have 
come to the conclusion that the Senator's amendment is a correct 
amendment. It is correct because in so many ways this agency, the 
National Endowment for the Arts, has shown itself as not responsive to 
the Congress and not responsive to the American people. This is, in 
many ways, a difficult position for me to take because I have long been 
a supporter of the central mission of the NEA. A number of beneficial 
grants have been given to institutions in Indiana, and projects have 
been promoted that I do believe serve a public interest.
  I don't dispute the fact that knowledge and beauty are among some of 
the highest calls of any culture. But sadly, that has not been the 
debate of the last few years. We are not discussing the role of the 
arts in our society. There will always be a prominent role for art and 
culture in our society. What we are discussing here is the role of 
public subsidy of that art, and the question of whether or not we 
should appropriate tax dollars from our constituents to fund these 
types of projects, particularly when it seems that year after year that 
funding raises questions and controversy.
  Whenever we seem to revisit this matter, we return to one central 
question: Do we in Congress have the right to take money from citizens 
and allow it to be used in ways that, for many, go against some of 
their most deeply held religious and moral beliefs?
  Over the last several years, several Members have been trying to 
ensure that Federal dollars are not used in ways that offend a majority 
of Americans. The Senator from North Carolina has tried to stop support 
for the most offensive projects by restricting the ability of the 
National Endowment for the Arts to fund projects which defile or offend 
people's religious beliefs, and projects which depict the body in 
degrading and offensive ways. This effort to limit objectionable 
projects by holding all grants to a decency standard was a fiscally 
and, I believe, morally responsible position, one that was supported, 
happily, by a majority of the Senate. I was pleased to see that the 
decency standard was upheld by the Supreme Court this past June by a 
very substantial vote of 8-1.
  Mr. President, the Senate should not have a role as art critic, and 
certainly not a role as censor. But it does have, as its primary and 
defining purpose, the role of determining if public funds are spent in 
the public interest.

  I started out these comments by expressing my support for the central 
mission of the promotion of the arts and my appreciation for the grants 
that have been made to different projects in Indiana--worthy grants. 
However, in spite of this, I remain convinced that, during the last 
three decades in particular, the National Endowment for the Arts has 
failed in its mission to enhance cultural life in the United States. It 
has brought controversy to the whole area. Despite numerous attempts to 
reform it, the NEA attempts to support what I think are often 
politically correct but patently offensive projects. I don't think we 
can ignore this.
  I think the central question is whether or not this is the best use 
of the taxpayers' dollars. There are alternatives. I have supported and 
voted for efforts to privatize this whole function. I have supported 
and voted for efforts to block grant these funds to State councils, 
which I think are much more responsive and responsible in terms of how 
they are distributed. I have looked for alternative ways of providing 
incentives to support some of these very valuable contributions that 
are made through various projects that exist in our States. But I have 
been discouraged time after time in terms of our ability here to rein 
in what I think is often an inappropriate use of these taxpayers' 
dollars. For that reason, I support the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from Missouri and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield half of our remaining time to the 
Senator from Massachusetts and half to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when 4\1/2\ 
minutes have passed.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the National Endowment for 
the Arts and full funding for the agency as provided in the 
Appropriations Committee bill.
  I commend the committee for its continuing strong support for this 
important agency. I commend Senator Gorton, Senator Byrd, and many 
other members of the committee who have demonstrated impressive 
leadership on this issue, and essential funds are being provided to 
support Endowment programs in vital areas such as music, dance, visual 
arts, theater, opera and arts education.
  For nearly a decade, Congress has debated the proper role of the 
Federal Government on the arts. Each year, a small group of Endowment 
bashers have led a charge against the agency--and each year the charge 
has effectively been turned back.
  The funds provided in the current bill are the same amount approved 
by the Senate last year after lengthy debate and deliberation. The bill 
also includes the priorities and limitations on these funds from last 
year to ensure the effect of distribution of funds to neighborhoods and 
communities across the country.
  The arts have a central and indispensable role in the life of 
America. The Arts Endowment contributes immensely to that life. It 
encourages the growth and development of the arts in communities 
throughout the nation, giving new emphasis and vitality to American 
creativity and scholarship and to the cultural achievements that are 
among America's greatest strengths.
  Compelling research underscores the role of the arts in student 
performance in other academic subjects as well. A recent study by the 
College Board demonstrated a direct correlation between study of the 
arts and achievement on SAT scores. Students who had four or more years 
of arts courses scored 59 points higher on the verbal part of the SAT 
test and 44 points higher on the math part--compared to students with 
no equivalent courses in the arts.
  If you were to, on the Senate floor, give us one indicator that can 
make a difference in enhancing the academic achievement and 
accomplishment of the young people in this country, the arts and the 
study of the arts has a record which is really second to none, let 
alone the value that it has in terms of enriching our culture and our 
history and the history of this Nation.
  The arts are also an important part of the economic base of 
communities across the country. A study by the New England Foundation 
for the Arts emphasizes the economic impact. In 1995, cultural 
organizations in the region had a total economic impact of nearly $4 
billion. During that time, over 99,000,000 people attended events and 
performances sponsored by cultural organizations. That number is nearly 
8 times the entire population of New England. Clearly, programs in 
theater, music and art are significant community assets for both 
residents and tourists.
  That benefit is one of the reasons why the United States Conference 
of Mayors strongly supports adequate funding for the arts and 
humanities. At their meeting last June in Reno, NV, the Conference 
adopted a resolution reaffirming its support of the Arts and Humanities 
Endowments and calling upon Congress to fund the agencies at the level 
of the President's fiscal year 1999 request. Although the bill we are 
debating today does not reach that amount, the level of funding is 
reasonable in light of the many other pressures in the budget, and I 
hope we can join in a bipartisan effort to enact it.
  Bill Ivey, the new chairman of the Arts Endowment has pledged to 
comply

[[Page S10376]]

fully with the new regulations on oversight and outreach established by 
Congress last year. In an effort to reach out to new communities, the 
Endowment has developed a new pilot project, ArtsREACH, to help states 
that have received five or fewer grants during the previous two years. 
This new effort is a productive way to bring the Endowment's programs 
to new audiences in small neighborhoods across the country, and I 
commend Chairman Ivey for his leadership.
  Mr. President, I remember the wonderful lines of President Kennedy 
when he talked about the age of Phidias also being the age of Pericles, 
and the age of de Medici is also the age of Leonardo da Vinci, and the 
age of Elizabeth is the age of Shakespeare. The point is that at the 
time when we have had the greatest intellectual achievement and the 
most creative aspects of civilization, going back to the time of the 
Greek civilization, we have also had ennobling periods in terms of the 
values of our own society and our own history and our own forms of 
government.
  Mr. President, this is a modest proposal. It used to be that we 
allocated the equivalent of two stamps for every American, in terms of 
the arts. Now the reduction is down to one stamp. In this great Nation 
of ours, it seems to me that we can allocate those resources in ways 
that will help and assist, preserve, support, and further the arts in 
our society. I hope the amendment of the Senator is not accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have two observations to make. We have 
had this debate virtually every year since I have been in the Senate. I 
don't want to repeat myself, although I have discovered since being 
here that there is no such thing as repetition in the Senate. We always 
pretend as if we have never said it before.
  Two things. One, a historic comment by John Adams, writing to his 
wife Abigail. He said:

       I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty 
     to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study 
     mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval 
     architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order 
     to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, 
     music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

  One of the dearest dreams of our Founding Fathers was that we, as a 
nation, would turn our attention to the arts and have our children and 
grandchildren do the same. The second point is that we have heard a 
great deal of various aspects of grants from the NEA, where they have 
gone and what tremendous harm they are doing.
  I would simply like to share with the Senate where the funds from the 
NEA go in my home State. I don't usually list projects in my home 
State. But I think in this case it would make a good anecdote to some 
of the things we have heard.
  In Utah, NEA funds have been used for children's theater with 
educational outreach in Coalville, Kamas, Duchesne, Roosevelt, Castle 
Dale, Salina, Beaver, and Price.
  To those Senators who say they have never heard of those towns, I say 
that most people in Utah have never heard of them either. They are 
among some of our smallest communities. Without the NEA money, they 
would not have this educational outreach.
  NEA funds have helped fund community arts' councils around the State, 
including those in Springdale, Vernal, Richfield, Riverton, Cedar City, 
and Bluffdale, again in rural Utah.
  NEA funding in Utah includes the Festival of the American West, the 
Children's Museum of Utah, the Northern Utah Choral Society, the 
Chamber Music Society of Logan, the Payson Community Theater, the Utah 
Shakespearean Festival, the Dixie Art Alliance, the Sundance Children's 
Theater, Ballet West, Repertory Dance Theatre, Quarterly West, Ririe-
Woodbury Dance Foundation, the Utah Symphony, and recently the central 
Utah Highlanders Pipe Band.
  The projects that I have listed are Utah projects organized by 
Utahns. The vast majority of the money spent on them is raised in Utah 
by Utahns. But here comes a bit of national recognition that brings 
pride and satisfaction to the local folks all across my State that says 
what you are doing is important, what you are doing deserves national 
recognition, and what you are doing deserves Federal support.
  I find as I walk around Utah spontaneously people coming up to me, 
saying, ``Senator, for all the things you do, the one thing we most 
appreciate is your defense of the arts.'' I would be unfaithful to 
those who asked me to continue that defense if I did not rise again, as 
I have on every occasion when this issue has come up, and make it clear 
that I support these appropriations.
  I support the chairman of the subcommittee in the way he has handled 
these appropriations. It is a legitimate expenditure of public funds. I 
hope it continues.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Interior, Senator Gorton for his work, and the work 
of his staff in providing an increase in appropriations for the 
National Endowment for the Arts. I believe that the Committee 
recommendation reflects a sound understanding about what this public 
agency does. In recommending an increase in funding for NEA, the 
Committee has acknowledged the positive impact that the NEA has made to 
our nation, especially in the areas of education and exchange of 
cultural programs across the country.
  As I just mentioned, one area that deserves particular attention is 
education. Broad based activities involving the arts make a significant 
and positive difference in the lives of millions of children each year.
  It is in the national interest to provide support for programs which 
make the arts part of the education of our young people and NEA has 
funded extraordinary programs that do just that. By exciting students 
about learning--by making music, visual arts and song part of their 
lives--in school, afterschool or on weekends, we are strengthening 
their education. By strengthening their education, we are strengthening 
our nation.
  A recent study has shown that students of the arts are more 
successful on the SAT. In 1995, College Board figures showed that 
students who had studied the arts four or more years scored 59 points 
higher in the verbal and 44 points higher in the math portions of the 
SAT compared with students who had no course work or experience in the 
arts. Increasing our nation's young people's exposure to the arts has 
measurable good results.
  The NEA has also made a significant difference in extending the 
availability of the arts in communities throughout the country. There 
are programs supported by the NEA which are of immeasurable benefit to 
folks all across this nation--in every one of our States. Recently, the 
NEA has implemented the ArtsREACH program which is designed to increase 
the direct NEA grant assistance to underserved areas. ArtsREACH holds 
great promise in providing more American communities with the financial 
assistance that is necessary to strengthen their own locally-based arts 
endeavors.
  While federal funding for the arts is but a small part of overall 
funding for the arts, the federal funds distributed by the NEA make a 
BIG difference in spreading the cultural and artistic wealth of our 
nation to small towns and communities everywhere. This commitment to 
promoting outreach, accessibility and participation in the arts, in my 
view, is the most important mission of the NEA. And it is something 
that the NEA has done quite well since its creation in 1965.
  The NEA's commitment to excellence in and access to the arts is 
evident in the types of grants it made to Vermont. Vermonters--and 
others visiting the state--will now have an opportunity to learn more 
about the pottery produced in Bennington from the late 18th century 
thanks to a grant made to the Bennington Museum; they will have an 
opportunity to hear the Vermont Symphony Orchestra perform in rural 
communities as part of the statewide ``Made for Vermont'' tour; they 
will hear radio broadcasts on traditional storytelling as part of the 
``New England Touchstones'' series produced by the Vermont Folklife 
Center. Another NEA grant will allow Vermont to export and share some 
of its talent with other states. NEA has provided support to the 
Manchester Music Festival so that the Music Festival Orchestra can play 
in schools in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts.

[[Page S10377]]

  It is examples like the ones I mentioned from Vermont, which 
underscore the value of the federal government's role in fostering our 
cultural heritage.
  There is great value in ensuring that all individuals have an 
opportunity to experience the beauty of dance, the magic of theater, 
the enchantment of reading, and the wondrous way that visiting a museum 
can take you to another place. Our federal investment in the arts 
yields returns of immeasurable value.
  For those who have been skeptical of providing funds to the NEA in 
the past, I would hope that they would take note of the significant 
changes that have been made by Congress and the Agency itself to 
improve operations and make the NEA more responsive to the needs of the 
American people. Bill Ivey has recently taken over as Chairman of the 
NEA and I believe we should give him an opportunity to succeed. As I 
mentioned, the ArtsREACH program will go a long way in ``spreading the 
wealth'' of the NEA more widely. This program represents a step in the 
right direction taken by the agency. There are now members of Congress 
sitting on the National Council on the Arts who are able to participate 
``first-hand'' in the grant making decisions of the Agency. Caps on 
funds available to any one State are in effect assuring a more fair 
distribution of funds to all States. These improvements thoughtfully 
and directly address criticisms that have been made in the past.
  Art is important to the people of this nation and the NEA helps make 
the arts a part of more peoples lives. Just two weeks ago, over 2,600 
people waited in line for over six hours outside the National Gallery 
of Art to secure a ticket to the upcoming exhibition of works of art 
painted by Vincent Van Gogh. The temperature was 97 degrees! yet people 
braved the heat for hours just to have the opportunity to admire the 
works of this great master painter. This exhibition would not be 
possible without the support that the NEA provides though indemnity and 
clearly, this type of sponsorship is just the kind of thing the people 
of our nation want us to invest in--the numbers make that clear!
  Society, since the beginning of time, has left behind a chronicle of 
the past through its art. We will be remembered and understood by the 
architecture, monuments, arts and writing we pass on to the next 
generation. What we do today will have an enormous impact in the future 
and how we as a nation are perceived in the future. We must not be 
shortsighted and we should recognize that nurturing and preserving the 
heart and the soul of our country today will preserve the greatness of 
the nation for all time.
  It is my hope that the Senate will stand firm in and support the 
recommendation made by the Interior Appropriations Committee and 
support this modest increase in funding for the NEA.
  The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and the Institute for Museum and Library Services are 
agencies with small budgets that provide extraordinary service to the 
people of this nation. I encourage my colleagues to support each of 
these agencies.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator Gorton for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would the Senator from Arkansas like the 
last 2 minutes that is available?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would. I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, since I have been in the Senate, I have 
come to the floor--and I would not want to miss my last opportunity 
before I leave the Senate--to express my strong, strong support of the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  We talk a lot in this country about how uncivil we have become; how 
uncivil our children have become. During the same time--I am not making 
the correlation--the National Endowment for the Arts' funding has gone 
down about 50 percent. I think it was close to $200 million when I came 
here.
  I can tell you an experience I had when I was overseas waiting to 
come home after the war, and was bored to death. I have told this story 
before. But it is worth repeating. I saw a sign up on the bulletin 
board one day: ``Would you like to learn about Shakespeare? Come to 
such and such a room tonight.'' So about six people just like me, bored 
stiff, waiting to get home, went over. It turned out that a Harvard 
dramatist--a drama coach from Harvard--had put up the sign.
  He began to tell us about Shakespeare. He began to tell us about 
Hamlet. He had a tape recorder. In those days I had never seen a tape 
recorder. I remember. He said, ``Listen to this.'' He spoke into his 
tape recorder and he proceeded to deliver Hamlet's speech to the 
players. It was a magnificent thing. It was the most mellifluous voice 
I had ever experienced. He played it back on his tape recorder. I was 
just stunned. It was just so beautiful. He handed us the tape recorder, 
and he said, ``We are going to have each one of you do the same 
thing.'' I remember. I was about the second one. He handed us the 
script. I cannot tell you how embarrassed I was. I went ahead, and read 
``Speak the speech, I pray.'' I read the whole speech. I still remember 
it. I will not repeat it here. Then he turned the tape recorder on, and 
it came back. It was pure ``Arkansas redneck.''
  I made up my mind right then that I did not want to sound like that 
the rest of my life. To be brutally frank with you, if it had not been 
for the experience I had with that drama coach for all of those 
nights--about six nights--I daresay I might not be standing on the 
floor of the Senate today. It was just a happenstance, just an 
opportunity.
  Every time we give a child that kind of an opportunity, we are always 
a stronger, better, more civilized nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized, and 
has 3 minutes 26 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the National Endowment 
for the Arts--not because I am against art, but because I favor art; 
not because I want to corrupt art, but because I want it to remain 
uncorrupted.
  Let me address some of the issues that have been raised. It was just 
said that we lack civility; so we need Government funding for the arts. 
We have seen that Government funding has frequently meant pornography, 
obscenity, attacks on religious faith, Mapplethorpe--I don't have to go 
further.
  We have had great art. We have had great civility in this country. 
But we have not had an increase of civility, as we have had the 
National Endowment for the Arts, since the 1960s. I challenge whether 
that is the case.
  Secondly, it was said that those who study art get better grades in 
school. Well, undoubtedly they do. But since the 1960s, when we started 
the National Endowment for the Arts, we have not seen an increase in 
the Scholastic Aptitude Tests, we have seen a decrease in them. Art is 
one thing. Federally subsidized art is another.
  It has been alleged that people are grateful for art welfare, that 
they come and they say, ``Thank you for the art money you give us.'' 
Well, I don't know of a single time when the Government hands out money 
that people don't gratefully come by and say, ``Thank you for the money 
you give us in our community.''
  It has been alleged that the Founding Fathers such as John Adams 
liked art. Of course they liked art. They had better art to like in 
many circumstances than we do. It wasn't art corrupted by the Federal 
Government or a subsidy that demanded that the art be politically 
correct or that it be on the cutting edge of some social theory.
  The suggestion is that our founders wanted us to have great art. Yes, 
they did, but they didn't want it in the Constitution, and they 
specifically rejected authority in the Constitution to fund art.
  Let's just make it clear that the Federal Government does not need to 
be signaling to the art community or Americans what art is good art or 
what art is bad art. As a matter of fact, it even corrupts our 
foundations. About a year ago, the Orange County Register carried an 
editorial which said that so many foundations don't bother to assess 
what is going on anymore; they just look for where NEA is sending its 
grants, and they have their grants follow on.

[[Page S10378]]

  I think we would be better off if we urged people consuming or 
funding art in this country to be careful about it, to think about it 
in terms of its quality, to think about it in terms of its potential 
for greatness, to think about what it calls us to. Does it call us to 
greatness? The Federal Government, with its sense of politics, doesn't 
need to be signaling that some art is worthy, some speech is worthy, 
other art is unworthy, other speech is to be disregarded.
  It is not that we do not believe in art in America. All of us 
understand that the gifts of expression which God has given us are to 
be developed and they should be developed educationally and by 
individuals. But because art is expression and because it is related to 
values and because it is speech, it is inappropriate for the Government 
to say that some art is to be funded, some art is to be subsidized, and 
other art is to be disregarded, that other art is somehow unworthy and 
not to be provided merit.
  I believe that we will be a more civil society if we have a 
marketplace which determines what happens in the art community rather 
than a subsidy from Government. I believe we will be a well educated 
people, but it will be when we understand art for its value to us, not 
art that we receive at the hand of Government or art that becomes a 
part of a welfare state for the rich or for others in the community. I 
believe that art is an expression that ought to be regarded as an 
individual's choice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to table the Ashcroft amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Ashcroft 
amendment No. 3593. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announed--yeas 76, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hollings
     Mikulski
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3593) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 2237, 
the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1999.
  The Senate bill provides $13.5 billion in budget authority and $8.7 
billion in new outlays to operate the programs of the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for fiscal year 1999.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $13.5 billion in budget 
authority and $14.0 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999.
  The subcommittee is below its section 303(b) allocation for budget 
authority and outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                S. 2237, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1999 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL               
                                   [Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Defense  Nondefense   Crime  Mandatory   Total 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:                                                                                           
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,404   ......        58    13,462
  Outlays......................................................  .......     13,959   ......        58    14,017
Senate 302(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,410   ......        58    13,468
  Outlays......................................................  .......     13,960   ......        58    14,018
1998 level:                                                                                                     
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,712   ......        55    13,767
  Outlays......................................................  .......     13,648   ......        50    13,698
President's request                                                                                             
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     14,063   ......        58    14,121
  Outlays......................................................  .......     14,384   ......        58    14,442
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,370   ......        58    13,428
  Outlays......................................................  .......     13,956   ......        58    14,014
               SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO--                                                               
                                                                                                                
Senate 302(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority.............................................  .......         -6   ......  .........       -6
  Outlays......................................................  .......         -1   ......  .........       -1
1998 level:                                                                                                     
  Budget authority.............................................  .......       -308   ......         3      -305
  Outlays......................................................  .......        311   ......         8       319
President's request                                                                                             
  Budget authority.............................................  .......       -659   ......  .........     -659
  Outlays......................................................  .......       -425   ......  .........     -425
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority.............................................  .......         34   ......  .........       34
  Outlays......................................................  .......          3   ......  .........        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping 
  conventions.                                                                                                  

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend the full committee and our 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for the hard work on this bill. As 
a member of the subcommittee, I am especially grateful to our chairman, 
the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) for his 
sensitivity to the special needs and concerns of New Mexicans. We live 
in a State with vast Federal land ownership. Programs within the 
Interior Department and the Forest Service, especially, which are 
funded by this bill, have a major impact on the lives of my 
constituents. As in previous years, it has been a pleasure working with 
Senator Gorton to craft a bill that is good for both New Mexico and the 
Nation.
  I am especially pleased that this bill accommodates additional 
funding for the New Mexico Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque and 
the El Camino Real International Heritage Center, as well as for 
Bandelier, Aztec ruins and Petroglyph national monuments, the Rio 
Puerco watershed rehabilitation, and the Middle Rio Grande Bosque 
Research proposal. This bill also provides increased funding for the 
vanishing treasures initiative and continues support for my Indian 
diabetes initiative.
  At a time when we are asking every committee of the Senate to work 
with tight spending caps to preserve and extend the progress we have 
made in balancing the budget, the committee has reported to the floor a 
bill that still provides for an increase in spending for our national 
parks. Hard choices were made to achieve this increase and I applaud 
the committee's work in providing this increase.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the bill.

                          ____________________