SMOKE SIGNALS October 1,1995 Page 3
I I
Indians are getting a Mr shake
By Sen. Slade Gorton
The following article has been re
printed from The Washington Post,
September 18 edition. Senator Gorton,
a Republican from Washington state,
is chairman of the subcommittee on in
terior appropriations. Here he writes
about the B.I.A. budget cuts for 1996.
American Indian Tribes have been canvass
ing Capitol Hill asking congress to spare
their programs from budget cuts and to
restore the money to their ac
counts. They claim that the
1996 Interior Appropriations
bill hands them an unfair and
unequal share of the spending
reductions.
Unfair? No. Unequal? Yes.
Indian programs took the small
est reduction out of all the
spending categories within the
Interior Appropriations bill, and other Interior ac
counts will face steeper budget cuts as a result.
Any spending reductions are a part of our over
all goal to balance the budget. Specific groups of
people and organizations are not being singled out
for unfair treatment, nor are they being saddled
with a disproportionate share of the spending cuts.
The American people asked for a balanced bud
get, a lower deficit and a smaller government that
spends less. We all have to do our part to balance
the books and secure a prosperous future for the
next generation.
Over dramatizing the impacts of federal budget
reductions doesn't help and often leads to mis
perceptions. Let's set the record straight. The
Interior budget was reduced by 1 1 from the 1 995
level, while Indian programs were reduced by only
8. Compare that with other Interior accounts
such as forest services, which were reduced by
22; or land management accounts, which were
reduced by 1 4; or cultural accounts, which were
reduced by 15.
That aside, critics of the bill don't mention the
approximately $1.8 billion worth of programs in
four other appropriations bills. BIA programs
represent only one-third of all of the funding for
Indians.
Under the president's budget, Indian programs
would receive $356 million from the Department
of Agriculture, $20 million from the Army Corps
of Engineers, $5 million from the Department of
Commerce, $470 million from the Department of
Education, $214 million from the Department of
Health and Human Services, $485 million from
the Department of Housing and Urban Develop
ment, $4 million from the Department of Justice,
and $85 million from the Environmental Protec
tion Agency.
These sums aren't chump change. Moreover,
the Indians are not wholly dependent on federal
government for their income. Many tribes run revenue-generating
activities such as gambling op-
1
S rt tt k fc-. y ... .
erations. By contrast, most of the other programs
funded by the Interior Appropriation bill have not
secondary source of revenue. This bill is the sole
source of funding for the National Park Service
maintenance, cultural institutions like the Smith
sonian and National Gallery of Art, and the fed
eral government's massive land management re
sponsibilities. To insulate Indian programs from any funding
cuts can only be done at the expense of other In
terior agencies and programs. If we give more
money to Indian programs, we must give less
money to other Interior accounts. That would gut
our national sciences budget, undermine our abil
ity to manage our wildlife refuges and our land
management lands and hamper the government
in protecting those lands for the American
people's enjoyment.
The Senate recently passed an amendment en
dorsing the current BIA funding levels. It passed
with a strong majority and bipartisan support. If
the appropriations bill represented as dire a threat
to Indian tribes as the Indians would have us be
lieve, the amendment would not have passed so
easily.
Critics will discuss at length all of the things
this bill does not fund while they ignore what was
funded. The subcommittee prioritized funding for
health and education, two critical needs among
tribes around the country. Funding for Indian
Health Services (IHS) was increased. In fact, IHS
is the only program of that size that received an
increase. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) el
ementary and secondary-education funding was
increased by $2.1 million. We also increased
funding for legislated Indian land and water settle
ments by $5.6 million.
The largest Indian account to be cut is the Bu
reau of Indian Affairs account for central and area
office operations and tribal governments. In or
der to fully fund health and education and pro
vide funding for economic development, natural
resources, and other tribal pro
grams, we cut bureaucracy.
The American people have
demanded a balanced budget
and a smaller government.
Spending reductions, including
reductions in federal govern
ment staff, are part of reaching
that goal.
Of all the criticisms lobbed
against this bill, the one that troubles me the most
is the argument that reductions in spending will
undercut the tribes' right of self-sufficiency and
self-governance. The ability of tribes to govern
themselves is not determined by the amount of
money they are given. To the contrary, some
would argue that self-governance and self-determination
ought to involve a degree of self-sufficiency
and self-reliance.
As chairman of the subcommittee on interior
appropriations, it has been neither an easy nor a
pleasurable task figuring out how to minimize the
impact of budget cuts throughout all of the inte
rior programs. After much analysis of the im
pacts on all the programs funded in the Interior
bill, we have achieved a reasonable balance.
The dynamics of debate about spending have
changed since the 104th Congress began. Instead
of racing to get more money for this program and
that program, we are at the American people's
behest putting ourselves on the road to a bal
anced budget and reversing the trend of explo
sive government growth.
Again, no one can or should expect to be ex
empt from the inevitable cuts which ensue from
balancing the budget. It is an ordeal, no question
about it. But the difficulties we bear now will be
more than compensated when we finally have a
smaller government and a sounder economy.