T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment was discussed a few moments ago by Senator Grams and approved by Senator Wellstone. It deals further with the emergency in Minnesota they discussed earlier. I was delighted at the wonderful cooperation between those two Senators. I agree with their description of the emergency. I ask the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have worked with the Senator from Wyoming on this subject, a subject in which he has been interested, I believe, ever since he came to the Senate, and one in which I am interested as well. The bill does include an increase for this Payment In Lieu of Taxes. This money is very important to many counties--rural counties almost entirely--that have much or most of their property owned by the Federal Government. I would like to be more generous than this. I think this is about as far as we can go. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Wyoming to come up with a reasonable increase. I am willing to accept it. I believe my colleague is as well.

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is entirely correct.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Mexico is correct, but I really need to say more to respond to him in the affirmative. He has perhaps been the most eloquent, though he has been certainly strongly supported by the Senator from North Dakota on that side of the aisle, our friend, Senator Inouye, from that side of the aisle, and the Senators from Arizona, in attempting at least to begin with the huge backlog in the absolute necessity of constructing new Indian schools that are 100 percent our responsibility and for renovating and repairing those that can constructively be renovated and repaired. The Senator from New Mexico also knows how difficult this has been in past years because while the President of the United States has always asked us for big increases in the budget really for spending more money than we thought overall was appropriate to spend, he has always ignored these Indian school needs. This year, in this budget, the President did dramatically reverse himself and did ask for a generous appropriation for new Indian school construction. That partnership, and the bipartisan partnership on the floor of the Senate, gave me the ability of drafting this bill to begin both appropriate new construction and a large number of repairs and rehabilitation. I would be deficient in my own duty if I did not say that the first person who saw this need--not only saw this need but spoke eloquently to this need--was the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. GORTON. This one is not done yet.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I think there are just two more relatively brief speakers, and we can then finish this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Then, if it is brief, why don't you go ahead, I suppose.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have at least three reasons to urge adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Maine. The first, of course, is the eloquence that she has evidenced in presenting it and her persistence in pursuing this particular course of action. Second is that this is directly analogous to the first amendment we adopted today by the two Senators from Minnesota. It is a decision, effectively, that we have already made that this money should be appropriated on an emergency basis. It is included in another bill that is slower to pass. Unfortunately, it was not included in the military construction bill, which did have a number of emergency expenditures in it. The third comes even closer to home for this Senator because, as the Senator from Maine knows, Washington and Oregon, and for that matter, California, do have listed salmon species. I may say to the Senator from Maine, we got an advance appropriation and it didn't prevent the listings from taking place, by any stretch of the imagination. But I think it did help my State and the other two States to prepare for what is going to be a long campaign toward their recovery. The hope that a listing may be prevented is a worthy goal on the part of the Senator from Maine. But even if it doesn't happen, this will have helped in connection with whatever the steps are thereafter. If the junior Senator from Maine would not mind, we can accept this amendment now and, of course, give other Senators an opportunity to speak. So she is ahead and she might as well win while she has a chance.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the majority leader has indicated that he hopes we can continue debating this bill and finish it tonight, or at least get to a point tonight where it can be finished, perhaps, with a vote on final passage tomorrow. I think that is possible, and this will be part of it. So I hope the Senator from Illinois will finish his remarks on it. We will ask for a rollcall, and then we will set voting on it aside until we find out how many other amendments there are. I believe the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, wishes to come in with an amendment that would require a vote. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, may have an amendment. Senator Nickles may have one. I am not sure about the Senator from Alabama. But there are a fairly small number that will require votes. I strongly suggest that anyone who feels that his or her amendment cannot be accommodated as a part of a managers' amendment-- and we have a very large one now that includes many of the proposals made--if anybody wants to have a vote or debate, they really need to be on the floor very promptly to do so because we would like to go ahead and finish. With that, I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with all respect, it seems to this Senator that this amendment is more about the National Endowment for the Arts than it is about the Indian Health Service. To give a comparison, the amount of money for the Indian Health Service in this bill is more than $2.5 billion. The amount for the National Endowment for the Arts cultural institutions is $105 million. As a consequence, this amendment would add to the Indian Health Service something less than one-third of 1 percent of the budget of the Indian Health Service --something less than one-third of 1 percent. It would subtract from the National Endowment for the Arts some 7 percent of the amount of money appropriated to it. Our bill provides a $143 million increase for the Indian Health Service for next year over the current year, more than the entire appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts. I find it ironic it was less than an hour ago that this Senator was praised by the Senator from New Mexico, who is a vocal advocate for the Indian Health Service, for the generosity with which we were treating that service. Of the amount we are talking about for the Indian Health Service, $56 million is specifically for improved clinical services, which obviously could include diabetes treatment and prevention efforts. But even more significant in connection with this amendment is the fact that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provides $30 million a year for 5 years specifically to accelerate diabetes efforts for Native Americans. This year is the fourth such year. So there is $30 million for the fourth consecutive year for the specific purpose of this amendment. On the other hand, the National Endowment for the Arts has not had a single increase in its funding since 1992. In many respects, the $7 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts is symbolic; $7 million is real, but in a sense it is symbolic--but it is an important symbol. It is far less than the President's budget has in it. In fact, one of the elements in the long letter from the Executive complaining about this bill is that we are not generous enough with the National Endowment for the Arts. But when we had our great debates on that subject during the mid- 1990s, one of the focal points of the debate was that the National Endowment for the Arts was not using its money correctly and was funding objectionable artistic efforts, objectionable groups, and organizations and individuals. In the intensity of the debate, I believe in 1995 and 1996, an extensive list of reforms was imposed on the National Endowment for the Arts with respect to the way in which it spent its money and made its grants. Now far more of its money goes to grants to the States. More of its money is spread more broadly around the United States, particularly to relatively small communities rather than a concentration in New York and Washington, DC, and Los Angeles and San Francisco. In other words, the very reforms that were demanded by the Congress have been, I think, cheerfully and thoroughly carried out by the National Endowment for the Arts in a manner quite responsive to what Congress asked for. To continue to punish the Endowment for the sins of its predecessors, or the supposed sins of its predecessors, seems to me to be perverse. I do not believe it appropriate for literally the 10th straight year either to reduce or freeze the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts. I would have to say I think it is doing good work. It is one of those fields in which relatively small grants provide sort of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to a multitude of arts organizations around the country, and provides a tremendous help to them in securing private contributions for their efforts. Some say the money that we provide through the National Endowment for these organizations comes back tenfold, fiftyfold, a hundredfold in private and local contributions. It does seem to me long past time that we recognize the changes in the National Endowment and reward them for a job well done, even though the reward contained in this bill is modest. I said 2 days ago when this debate began that last year we included such a modest increase. The House was adamant about freezing the appropriation for the Endowment and we ultimately receded to the House. I said then I don't intend that should happen this year. I think it is time for the House to recede to us. I think it is time to deal fairly with an important part of the culture of the United States, and I think this amendment is unnecessary for the purpose for which it is stated because we have far more money in the bill already for the purpose of this amendment than is included in the amendment itself. I believe we should leave this modest increase and encourage the National Endowment for the Arts to continue the good work and to continue to follow the dictates of this Congress about the way in which it does that work, rather than to continue to punish it for perceived past sins which I am now convinced have long since been cured. For that reason, Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Illinois wanted a rollcall. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent we lay this amendment aside and proceed to an amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent the vote on the amendment be set aside. I had told Senator Bryan we could go to him next. Does the Senator from Alabama----

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. The majority leader said 6:30 p.m. can come and go. If there is a prospect of finishing this bill tonight, the defense debate will be diverted. I think we can finish, I hope, by 8 o'clock this evening. The Senator is protected.

Mr. GORTON. I put that in the form of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe Senator Sessions is willing to withdraw the rollcall on this amendment. It will be accepted by voice vote. Also, I have a unanimous consent request with respect to the votes that have already been ordered.

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.