[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 98 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time 
limitation on the amendment of 50 minutes, to be equally divided in the 
usual form.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object. Can we lock that in as 
the first amendment tomorrow morning?
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I ask further that there be no amendment in the 
second degree in order, and that the amendment be laid down tonight at 
the close of business, the time to start running in the morning.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I do not know what time we are going to end. If I can 
say to the chairman, I prefer to lay it down at 9:15 tomorrow morning.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I make that request--I withhold that request 
temporarily.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by Mr. 
Bradley be automatically placed before the Senate at 9:15 tomorrow 
morning and that there be 50 minutes of debate thereon, to be equally 
divided in accordance with the usual form, and that a vote occur 
thereon upon the reconvening of the Senate following the joint session 
and the luncheon tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to order the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on or in 
relation to the amendment by Mr. Bradley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senators.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Arkansas, Mr. 
Bumpers, is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2400

   (Purpose: To restrict the use of appropriated funds for patenting 
                  pursuant to the general mining laws)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2400.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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:

       On page 48 line 16, strike all after the words ``Sec. 
     112.'' and insert the following:
       ``If the House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 322 
     fails to report legislation which is enacted prior to 
     adjournment of the 103rd Congress sine die, none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws or to issue a patent 
     for any mining or mill site claim located under the general 
     mining laws.
       ``Sec. 113. The provisions of section 112 shall not apply 
     if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for the 
     claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with the 
     Secretary on or before the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     (2) all requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 
     of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or 
     lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 25, 26 and 37) for placer claims, 
     and section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for 
     mill site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied 
     with by that date.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we only have a total of 1 hour of debate 
to discuss what continues to be easily the greatest scandal in America. 
You read every day in the newspapers about a little scandal here and a 
little scandal there. They are all just peanuts compared to the 1872 
mining law.
  Mr. President, since 1872, the U.S. Government has deeded 3,244,000 
acres of land for $2.50 or $5. Those are called patents.
  Anybody who wanted to, for the last 122 years, could go out and stake 
a claim on 20 acres of public land and search for and mine minerals 
located on those claims. Occasionally, they would find something, and 
they would file an application with the Interior Department which 
essentially said: ``I found gold under this land. Give me a deed to 
it.'' The Interior Department, after verifying the information in the 
application, granted those deeds.
  Under the mining law, we have given away, for $2.50 or $5 per acre, 
more land than exists in the entire State of Connecticut. According to 
the Mineral Policy Center, more than $261 billion worth of gold and 
other hard-rock minerals, such as platinum, palladium, silver and 
copper, have been mined on land deeded for $2.50 or $5 an acre.
  And, Mr. President, what do you think the taxpayers of this country 
received in return for their minerals? Do you know what they received 
in return? Absolutely nothing, not even a dime.
  I have been fighting this battle on the floor since 1990. In 1990 I 
stood on the floor and said: ``No more. Let us impose a moratorium to 
prevent the deeding of any more of our land pending passage of 
legislation which would comprehensively reform the 1872 mining law. I 
lost that amendment by two votes--48 to 50. Four days later the 
Stillwater Mining Co. filed applications with the Interior Department 
seeking patents on more than 2,000 acres of land in Montana. They have 
since received first-half-final-certificates on those applications, 
which may mean that the company is legally entitled to the patents for 
which they have applied.
  Do you know what the Stillwater Mining Co. told the Department of the 
Interior was under that 2,000 acres of land which we will give them for 
$5 an acre? According to their own statistics, under today's prices the 
mine contains $38 billion worth of platinum and palladium. And what do 
the taxpayers of this country get, the taxpayers of this country who 
are laboring under a $4 trillion national debt, in return for this 38 
billion dollar worth of platinum and palladium? Absolutely nothing.
  Mr. President, since I lost that first patent moratorium amendment by 
2 votes, 438 patent applications covering 151,680 acres have been 
filed, and 252 first-half-final-certificates have been issued. Sixty-
four patents, covering 11,170 acres of public land, have actually been 
granted since 1990. In exchange for that 11,170 acres, under which lies 
more than $11 billion worth of gold and other hard-rock minerals, the 
taxpayers received $55,000 in return. This issue reads like a bizarre 
Russian novel.
  According to the Mineral Policy Center, the 30 most valuable mines 
subject to pending patent applications, contain hardrock minerals worth 
in excess of $34 billion. This estimate includes the patents recently 
granted to Barrick Resources by the Secretary of the Interior, under 
court order.
  While Barrick Resources, a Canadian company, allegedly can't afford 
to pay the Federal Government a royalty on its mineral production, they 
pay a 4 percent net smelter return and 5 percent net profit interest 
royalty to the Franco Nevada Gold Co. Barrick did not look for, and 
find, the gold themselves, they found someone else who had, and bought 
the claims from them presumably in exchange for cash and the promise of 
a handsome royalty.
  But when poor old Uncle Sugar says: ``How about me; after all, it is 
my land; it is my minerals; how about giving me a modest royalty'', the 
mining companies say: ``Sorry; we would have to shut down our mines and 
go out of business. All these people would lose their jobs if we had to 
pay the Federal Government a royalty.'' This is nothing more than pure 
hypocrisy.
  Eighteen months ago, the price of gold in this country was $333 per 
ounce; today it is approximately $385, $52 more than it was 18 months 
ago, at the beginning of the 103rd Congress.
  If the mining companies had to pay an 8-percent royalty, an 8-percent 
royalty, they would still receive $22 an ounce more than they would 
have 18 months ago, in the absence of a royalty. And they still make 
the same arguments. They still say: ``We will go broke. We are going to 
have to lay off all these people.'' 18 months ago platinum was selling 
for $356 an ounce; today it is nearly $417 per ounce. And Stillwater 
says: ``if we have to pay a royalty, we are going to shut our doors and 
throw all these people out of work.''
  American Barrick Resources Corp. recently reported that, for the last 
6 months, they had revenues in excess of $394 million. And what do you 
think their net profit was for that same time period? It was $122.8 
million.
  There is probably few, if any, other companies in America that 
reported that kind of return on those kinds of sales. And we gave them 
$11 billion worth of gold and said: ``Please, do not shut your doors. 
Please, do not lay anybody off.''
  There has never been a more appropriate time to refer to Uncle Sam as 
Uncle Sucker than now.
  Do you know what else is really interesting? Mining companies pay 
both royalties and severance taxes when they mine on State lands. One 
of my principal adversaries in this debate is from the State of 
Wyoming. If you mine gold, silver or trona on lands belonging to the 
State of Wyoming, you must pay a royalty of 5 percent of gross sales. 
But if Uncle Sugar said, ``I would like to receive a little money for 
mining on my land,'' the mining companies argue: ``No, I cannot do 
that. I would have to shut the doors and lay everybody off.''
  If you mine on State land in Utah you have to pay a royalty of 4 
percent of the gross value on nonfissionable metalliferous minerals and 
you also will pay a 2.6 percent severance tax on top of that.
  How about Uncle Sugar? It is our land. Why can't they pay us 
something like that? The mining companies say: ``Can't do it. We would 
just have to shut the doors.''
  The Newmont Mining Co. pays an 18-percent royalty on private land in 
the State of Nevada, just several miles from where Newmont and Barrick 
are mining on Federal land. How is it that Newmont can pay a private 
owner 18 percent but cannot pay poor, old Uncle Sam a penny? ``Can't do 
it; just have to shut our doors if we did that'', they respond.
  You know, the American people are upset about a lot of things. They 
are upset about a lot of the wrong things. They are not upset about 
this outrage because they do not even know it exists. That is a pity 
Mr. President.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 more minutes.
  If you mine in Arizona, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and almost any other 
Western State, on State-owned land, you are going to pay handsome 
royalties.
   In Oregon, a family operating a sand-mining company purchased 780 
acres of sand containing silica in the National Dunes Recreation Area 
under the 1872 mining law for $1,950. They are now negotiating to sell 
the land back to the Federal Government for $12 million. Let me repeat 
that. The United States deeded 780 acres worth $12 million to a family 
for $1,950.
  Once we give people deeds to land under the mining law they can do 
whatever they want. They could sell it for $4,000 and $5,000 an acre 
for a ski resort. They can build summer homes on the land. They do not 
need to mine it.
  Mr. President, as I said in my opening remarks, you cannot say what 
really needs to be said about this issue in such a short time, but I 
can tell you it is a scam of mammoth proportions. How much longer is 
this going to be permitted, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 3 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been involved with the senior Senator 
from Arkansas on this matter for 4 or 5 years now. I do not think we 
have had more contentious debates on any issue since my time in the 
Senate, now 8 years, than on this issue.
  But I think it is fair to say that the Senator from Arkansas has been 
tenacious, as he has on other things he has been involved in, like park 
concessions, the space station, and other things of that nature. I have 
told him personally, and I say here on the Senate floor, even though we 
disagree on issues, I have nothing but respect and admiration for his 
tenacity and his advocacy.
  I do say, though, Mr. President, that we need to look at the facts. 
The facts indicate that we have been willing, those of us that oppose 
the amendment of Senator Bumpers, on a number of issues, we have been 
willing to make changes.
  In fact, last year, this body passed a patent reform measure. The 
amendment indicated that those obtaining patents would pay fair market 
value for the surface rights of the land because, of course, we do not 
know what is under the land. There would have been a reversionary 
clause that, if someone used the property for anything other than 
mining, it would revert back to the Federal Government. There was a 
bonding provision in that amendment that passed last year.
  We have established a holding fee on unpatented land. Now people have 
to pay $100 per claim. There have been significant changes that we have 
agreed to in this body.
  However, those that want to really whack the mining industry want all 
or nothing. The problem is they keep getting nothing because they are 
not willing to be reasonable because there is only so much the mining 
industry can do.
  The reason I say that is, we need only look at the facts. In 
Australia and countries like South America, Mexico, and Canada, they 
have tried the same approach suggested by the senior Senator from 
Arkansas. As a result of that, they basically have no mining industry. 
It is gone.
  Some of these countries have gone back and are now trying to change 
their laws which, in effect, prohibited mining from taking place. As a 
result of their looking at their laws and in some instances changing 
their laws, countries like Mexico now are a big draw for mining 
companies, and there are a lot of opportunities that are now taking 
place in Mexico.
  People are now leaving the United States as a result of the 
uncertainty caused by my friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, 
because mining companies do not know what is going to happen. As a 
result of that, they are leaving because the industry here is no longer 
stable.
  The minerals industry is important to the United States. It is one of 
the few areas that we have had a positive balance of trade. We have had 
a positive balance of trade with gold exportation since 1989. We have 
jobs in the mining industry, almost 400,000 in the United States. The 
metals industry alone provides 45,000 jobs. The gold mining-related 
employment totals 79,000 jobs. In Nevada alone, there is about 14,000 
jobs, and many other Western States have significant numbers of people 
employed in the mining industry.
  The average mining employee's salary in Nevada, Mr. President, is 
almost $32,000 a year. The highest paid blue-collar workers in Nevada 
and in the West are in the mining industry.
  Indirect revenue to the State of Nevada as a result of mining is over 
a half-billion dollars. At this time, the United States is the number 
two gold-producing nation in the world. But we are not going to 
maintain that as a result of the things I have indicated before.
  The U.S. gold industry grew faster than Government employment in the 
1980's and early 1990's. In the United States, the gold industry has 
seen a 186-percent increase in employment between 1980 and 1992. The 
mining industry in Nevada has created--I indicated 14,000 jobs 
directly--about 40,000 jobs indirectly. And they are the best jobs.
  As a result of the unfavorable business climate that I have talked 
about, many prominent mining companies are simply leaving. That is a 
fact.
  I spoke recently to a woman who came back here representing women in 
mining. She indicated to me this would be her last trip back. I said 
``Why?'' She said, ``I cannot find a job in the United States.'' She is 
a geologist, with specialties in mining. Her husband is a mining 
engineer. They are both going to China. They both have 3-year contracts 
in China. She could not find a job in the United States, someone who 
has been in the industry for over 10 years, certainly somebody that 
knows the business.
  My friend from Arkansas talks about all this money being made by the 
minerals industry. He compares this to some of the facts he has on this 
chart.
  The fact of the matter is that $11 billion and $10 billion on these 
charts behind me are really guesses that somebody made. And I do not 
know who that someone was. No one knows what is under the ground. That 
is why we have exploration.
  I suggest that copper industry is really on shaky legs. The copper 
industry left the United States in the late 1970's. They have just been 
coming back. If we pass a royalty they cannot pay--it will not take 
much and it will put them flat out of business.
  The palladium industry, the Stillwater Mine my friend from Arkansas 
talks about, that was established in the State of Montana as a result 
of Government insistence. We did not have palladium in the United 
States. We really had to look hard to find it. It is one of the 
essential minerals we have. It is needed in many things. It is needed 
most of all in the defense industry. We had to import our palladium 
from the Soviet Union and we were really concerned because that country 
was in a state of social crisis, as was South Africa where we imported 
most of it. As a result of that, the Stillwater Mine was opened. I am 
very happy that the Stillwater Mine is in operation. But if anyone 
thinks that mine is going to make money automatically, they are wrong. 
It is a very marginal production.
  So the mining industry is important. All parts of it are important. 
And it is important we do not run the mining industry out of the United 
States. My friend, the senior Senator from Idaho, is going to speak at 
some length during his time allotted about what we have done to try to 
work something out with the responsible parties in this body. We are 
attempting to come to a good-faith compromise so the conference report 
between the House and the Senate will be meaningful.
  We want certainty. The mining industry wants certainty. The State of 
Nevada wants certainty. The people who work in those mines want 
certainty. We can only get that if we get a bill out of this Congress. 
Therefore, it is important that everyone understand we are trying to 
work out a fair and reasonable compromise.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Craig has 9 minutes; Senator Burns, 
4 minutes; Senator Murkowski, 4 minutes; Senator Bryan, 4 minutes.
  If we do not take it now we lose it. So whoever would like to speak 
should do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the proposed 
patent moratorium amendment to the Interior appropriations bill as 
offered by my distinguished colleague from Arkansas. Although I admire 
his tenacity on this matter, I do not think he comprehends the 
tremendous consequences of his amendment on Montana and other Western 
States.
  I believe that if my colleague were to visit Montana, he would 
discover that there is no need for his amendment. We already have a 
moratorium on mining patents. Through his war on the West, Secretary of 
the Interior Babbitt is singlehandedly holding up new mining operations 
in my State and in this country. With all due respect to the Secretary, 
we have not seen anything like him since Butch Cassidy and the Sundance 
Kid.
  Uncertainty over mining law reform has already taken its toll in 
Montana. During the past 2 years, a number of mining companies have 
suspended or reduced operations in my State, resulting in the loss of 
hundreds of good-paying jobs. This month, I received a very disturbing 
letter from Pegasus Gold Corp. This important company will close its 
Butte, MT, and Reno, NV, offices and suspend all exploration activities 
in the United States, within the next year, moving them to South 
America. Pegasus cites the threats of mining law reform legislation and 
unfriendly treatment by our Government agencies as their main reasons 
for this unfortunate decision.
  An economic analysis prepared by the Evans group shows that 
nationally, anywhere from 6,700 to 26,000 jobs could be lost if we are 
not careful about which reforms we enact. In addition, this same study 
shows that tax revenues will fall anywhere from $249 to $1.2 billion, 
having a major impact on mining dependent communities and local, State, 
and Federal Governments.
  The exodus of the mining industry from Montana and elsewhere in the 
United States is a direct result of the fear within the industry as it 
contemplates severe mining reforms like this one which has been offered 
by my colleague from Arkansas. Will the Senate do to the mining 
industry what we have done to the domestic oil industry, the domestic 
private aircraft industry, and the boat industry? Are we happy to see 
our best paying jobs in America continue to go overseas? I hope not.
  We have heard a lot lately from the Secretary of the Interior and 
some of my colleagues here in the Senate about scams, ripoffs, and so 
forth. Well there is no scam or ripoff taking place in Montana, Nevada, 
Idaho, Wyoming, or any other place in the Western United States where 
mining is conducted. I will tell you what there is though--a whole lot 
of hard-working folks supporting their families, their churches, their 
schools, their grocery stores, fire departments, and everything else 
that keeps hundreds of mining families and communities in the West 
alive.
  Are there abandoned mines and Superfund sites that are old mining 
claims? Heck, yes, but there are Superfund sites across the country 
that have resulted from any number of commercial activities which took 
place before technology allowed us to operate in a manner that 
guarantees certain levels of environmental protection.
  We hear all the time about the horror story mines--the ones that are 
left over from some former mining era. But you never hear about the 
good mining operations--and there are lots of them. Occasionally, 
someone will point out that there are one or two mines that are 
environmentally responsible. Well, these are not the exception. Today, 
they are the rule. Mines that are coming on line have to meet those 
kinds of rigorous standards and they do it.
  Yes, there are lots of abandoned mines dotted across the West. And 
you know what? There are lots of abandoned farms and small businesses 
that have been abandoned too. And you know why? I can guarantee you 
that it has a lot of do with excessive regulations and mandates from 
Washington, DC, that were simply to much for them. And there will be 
more abandoned mines unless we stop passing or threatening to pass 
unreasonable mining reform laws that put people out of business.
  There is a way to reform the mining law, generate some revenue, and 
guarantee environmental standards without putting the mining industry 
out of business, and I support those efforts wholeheartedly. But the 
best place to consider mining reform is not here. It should take place 
in the ongoing conference on mining reform where the effects of this 
legislation on Montanans and folks all across the country can best be 
considered.
  Mr. President, we have been through this debate before with the 
Senator from Arkansas, who has probably been as tenacious about this 
issue as anybody I have seen, and stays on it and stays with his 
figures. I would have to say yes, there have been 3 million acres, as a 
result of the National Mining Act, 3 million acres deeded into private 
hands.
  Does anybody want to venture to say how many acres was delivered into 
private hands under the Homestead Act? The whole State of Arkansas was; 
at 50 cents an acre as a result of the Louisiana purchase--the whole 
State.
  I do not know what it cost. It cost maybe about 50 cents an acre. 
Those are land-tenure laws. It was given and we can feed this country 
and many other countries as a result of it, because of two things. No. 
1, this society is free. No. 2, we can own land. We can own it and make 
it produce.
  But all at once in some way or other in this country, those people 
who produce wealth, produce jobs, have become bad people. Why? If there 
were not a land-tenure law there would be no mining there at all.
  I will ask consent that an editorial that was written in the Denver 
Post by Ed Quillen, who is far from the right side of the spectrum, be 
printed in the Record. What he is saying basically is the elitists do 
not want us to make our land produce. They want to come west and they 
want to see everything pristine. But there have to be servants to clean 
their swimming pools and to work in their motels and their nice 
mountain getaways. There have to be servants.
  A fellow who works in the mines making $30,000 to $45,000 a year does 
not make a very good servant. But in order to stay in this country he 
might work for $180 a week. That is what we are talking about here.
  We are talking about the resource recovery, management, and 
conservation. Regarding the Stillwater Mine that my friend from Nevada 
talked about, in my State of Montana, we do have water problems on the 
Stillwater River. But if that palladium is not produced in this 
country, we go to South Africa or Russia for a major supply, and do you 
know what the major ingredient is of catalytic converters that cleaned 
up our air? Palladium. We would have to go somewhere else for it.
  I just want to see some common sense in the approach. This is the 
wrong place to be talking about the change in policy. We have a 
conference committee now involved with Senator Craig of Idaho to change 
the policy and make some changes in that mining law. That has been 
changed 60 or 70 times, since it was written back in 1872, to reflect 
the changes of the times.
  I am going to fight for my jobs in Montana. They are the highest 
paying jobs that I have in the State of Montana. I do not think 
changing sheets in the motels in Montana is going to match what these 
jobs pay. America will end up short because there will be no mining 
left in this country.
  I ask unanimous consent the editorial by Ed Quillen be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Denver Post, May 29, 1994]

    Banning Mining Will Ensure There Will Always Be Enough Servants

       Of late, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit has complained 
     mightily about having to sell some federal land in Nevada for 
     about $10,000.
       The land holds about $10 billion in gold, and critics of 
     the Mining Law of 1872 say that the $10,000 is all that the 
     U.S. treasury will ever see of the $10 billion, since the 
     government collects no royalties on precious-metal 
     discoveries on public lands.
       The $10,000 argument isn't quite fair, because the mining 
     company will presumably put money into the federal treasury, 
     even without royalties: corporate income taxes, payroll 
     taxes, etc.
       Further, the gold in Nevada isn't exactly a bunch of 
     nuggets waiting for someone to come along and scoop up a 
     fortune. It's in microscopic particles that requires a 
     considerable investment, about $1 billion in this case, to 
     recover.
       However, other exploiters of public land resources--oil 
     companies, coal corporations, river outfitters, ski resorts--
     do pay royalties or the like, and so it seems only fair to 
     treat the precious metal operations in the same way.
       The Mining Law of 1872 is a relic of the day when federal 
     policy toward the West was pretty simple: get the place 
     settled and productive, and turn the public lands to private 
     ownership as quickly as possible.
       To that end, there were giveaways like the Homestead Act. 
     Railroads received vast land grants. Discoverers of valuable 
     mineral deposits got little--a ``patent''--to their sites. To 
     assist in the process of discovery, mineral surveys were made 
     at public expense, so that anyone picking up the Hayden 
     ``Atlas of Colorado'' in 1885 could glance at a map and learn 
     the likely spots for good ore.
       The idea was to make the West just like the rest of 
     America--most land in private hands, and producing to its 
     maximum economic potential.
       Since then, the public mood has changed. Hardly anybody 
     supports big transfers from the public domain to private 
     hands; the idea now is that public lands should stay public. 
     As long as that philosophy persists, the West will never be 
     like the rest of America, because so much of the territory is 
     controlled by the federal government.
       Given that, changes in the Mining Law of 1872 are 
     inevitable. It was designed for one national goal: to convert 
     wastelands like Colorado and Nevada into pleasing replicas of 
     Illinois. Now we've got a different national goal: to make 
     the West an entertaining theme park for People of Money.
       That's got to be the real agenda, even if it's usually 
     stated in terms of finance and protecting the public 
     treasury.
       Look at last year's public-lands controversy, grazing fees. 
     Some folks were hollering about ``welfare ranchers,'' as if 
     tripling the AUM fee would pay off the public debt. However, 
     if you confiscated every cow and sheep that ever grazed on 
     public land in 1990, the total sum would pay 22 minutes of 
     interest on the national debt. If you were truly worried 
     about the national debt, instead of shaping the West to your 
     own ends, you'd focus on something bigger than that. If you 
     were truly concerned about the environment, you'd work with 
     ranchers on the ground to devise better management practices.
       But if you were annoyed by rednecks or cow plops the last 
     time you drove 150 miles so that you could experience 15 
     miles of scenic bliss on your $1,200 mountain bike, you don't 
     complain about what really irks you. You complain instead 
     about environmental abuses or grazing subsidies.
       Come to mining, and the critics of the Mining Law of 1872 
     aren't really concerned about environmental abuses. If 
     there's a market for gold and it's too expensive to mine it 
     in the U.S., then the gold will be mined by $1-a-day laborers 
     in Venezuela or Brazil, where there aren't many environmental 
     regulations.
       It's NIMBY on a global scale. People want the benefits of 
     gold--jewelry, tooth fillings, computer edge-card connectors 
     that don't oxidize--but don't want to put up with the mess of 
     mining and milling the stuff. Cyanide seeping into the Amazon 
     is just as toxic as cyanide seeping into the Alamosa River.
       But what distresses Pamela and Courtney the most about the 
     great public-land ``giveaways to the mining industry'' was 
     that the mining industry pays relatively good wages.
       In 1980, the average weekly miner's pay was $600, as 
     opposed to $180 in the service portion of the tourist 
     industry.
       If the West is going to be a land of leisure, it needs a 
     leisure class and a servant class. Those $600-a-week miners 
     aren't about to volunteer to be servants. But get rid of 
     their ugly worksites, and many will move on. Those who remain 
     will take the $180 a week, and if there aren't enough of 
     them, well, Vail already imports considerable help from 
     Mexico, the Arkansas Valley and other Third World zones.
       The argument over the Mining Law of 1872 isn't really about 
     getting a fair return to the U.S. treasury. It's about making 
     sure there are enough affordable servants.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute I have remaining to the 
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan]. He has a total of 5 now.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague. I think it is 
important for the American people who are listening to this debate this 
afternoon to understand what is at issue and what is not at issue.
  My friend and colleague, the able and distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas, speaks with great passion and conviction. But he has framed 
the argument this afternoon as if the debate is between those who favor 
reform and those who favor the retention of the status quo. That is not 
the debate. Clearly, those of us who come from States which have 
enjoyed enormous benefit from this industry are concerned about the 
impact that a precipitous and unwise amendment would cause to an 
industry which, for us in Nevada, employs more than 12,000 people 
directly, and more than 49,000 people indirectly. Nevada is, as my 
senior colleague pointed out, the largest gold-producing State in 
America. If we were a separate country we would be the fourth largest 
producer in the world: Enormous mineral wealth.
  I think we need to put into some perspective, however, what we are 
talking about. In a State the size of Nevada, in the history of the 
Mining Act, about one-tenth of 1 percent of the total land mass in more 
than a century has been impacted by mining. That is one-tenth of 1 
percent.
  Often the misperception is conveyed that the devastation is 
throughout the entire West. There are problems, to be sure. Indeed, my 
colleague may make the point and have some merit to his argument if, in 
fact, the industry had not responsibly been prepared to acknowledge 
that change needed to be made. We have agreed in principle that there 
needs to be a royalty, so the compensation issue, which my friend from 
Arkansas argues, is simply a question of how much.
  Again, we implore that reason and balance be used in determining how 
much should be required by way of royalty. We do not disagree that 
there should be changes in the patenting process. And that has been 
addressed by those of us who have worked in this dialog for the past 
several years.
  Finally, there is no disagreement that there should be reclamation.
  So, on the three principal points my friend from Arkansas makes, the 
question of the patenting system, the question of royalties, and the 
question of reclamation, there is agreement that these are areas that 
changes need to be made. And the industry has come up with some 
responsible proposals to address those issues.

  What we are fearful of is that there are those who have an agenda 
beyond that of reform and balance. There are some who, frankly, have an 
agenda which is to eliminate all mining from the public lands. In my 
view, that would not only be a disaster for the State of Nevada, it 
would be a national disaster as well, because there is clearly a 
broader public interest in making mineral exploration available on the 
public lands of America, and that means primarily in the West. The 
State of Nevada has historically enjoyed enormous benefits.
  So with respect to those issues of royalties and patent reform, I 
think we can reach some agreement on that with respect to reclamation. 
A number of States, including my own State of Nevada, has adopted a 
reclamation law that currently is working. We are prepared to address 
the issue of reclamation responsibly. What we are not prepared to do is 
to provide such a massive delegation and grant to any Administrator of 
any Federal agency that would permit, under the guise of protecting a 
particular parcel of property, in effect, to give the right, absolutely 
on a de facto basis, to cease all mining on the public lands. That we 
are not prepared to do.
  Mr. President, this amendment I know is not coming for a vote today, 
but philosophically I hope my colleagues would reject it if it were, on 
the basis that we are in a negotiating process, those of us who are 
responsibly trying to seek a compromise, and they would allow that to 
come forward. It is my hope we can reach such a compromise in this 
session of Congress.
  I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and my colleague from the State of 
Nevada.
  Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment being offered by 
the Senator from Arkansas. I understand the Senator will be withdrawing 
the amendment, but I feel a need to speak on it regardless.
  I do not understand why the Senator from Arkansas is attempting to do 
this on this bill. I can understand his intention, however. But he 
knows, as well as everyone else, that we are in the middle of a mining 
conference, trying to reach a compromise on the mining law. We are 
working in good faith to reach an acceptable solution.
  I get the feeling, perhaps, that the Senator from Arkansas is not 
sure we can reach a compromise. I hope this is not the case. I stated 
several times that I want a bill in this Congress. As elected 
officials, we have a responsibility to produce a bill this year, if we 
possibly can, but it must be a comprehensive bill that provides 
certainty for the mining industry. I think we have to stop offering 
amendments to appropriations bills and try to resolve this issue if we 
go to conference on it. Personally, I am tired of listening to 
Secretary Babbitt bad-mouth the mining industry.
  I know the feelings of the Senator from Arkansas with regard to the 
Barrick Goldstrike Mine Co. This is, of course, one of Secretary 
Babbitt's favorite topics.
  I would like to make a few comments regarding debate over the patent 
concept. It is a myth that mining is a ripoff of the Federal Treasury. 
Mines make a profit, provide Federal, State and local tax revenues and, 
most importantly, a patent is really titled to the resource. And 
without the title, the ability to finance can often be constricted or 
eliminated entirely.
  In Nevada, the company that the Senator from Arkansas spoke of did 
receive patented land, but let us look at what it required to receive 
that patent.
  The mine is investing some $2 billion in capital investments. The 
Federal Government is going to receive about $720 million in corporate 
income tax. The mine is going to employ 3,000 to 4,000 employees a year 
for 10 years or longer. That is $2 billion in wages. These wages will 
generate $600 million in FICA and personal income taxes. Profit and 
employment from mining machine firms alone will generate another $300 
million in taxes. Obviously, the multiplier is tremendous. And tax 
revenues to local and State governments will pay an additional amount.
  Mr. President, that is no ripoff. As a matter of fact, it sounds 
pretty good to me. Mines provide jobs in times when jobs are pretty 
difficult to identify. When we import our metals, we obviously export 
our jobs and dollars. So this debate is not about a 1-year moratorium 
on patents; it is a debate about the future of mining in our Nation. It 
is a debate about jobs for the working men and women of the United 
States.
  I am ready to compromise on mining law, a responsible compromise. 
However, our efforts must be to stimulate and keep mining healthy, not 
to eliminate all future mining in this country. The question we must 
ask is do we want to create jobs and continue to contribute to a tax 
base, or do we want to force the mining industry to go outside the 
United States?
  During the next several weeks of conference negotiations, I hope we 
will be able to choose to keep the mining jobs in the United States.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President how much time does the Senator from 
Vermont want? I yield the Senator from Vermont 6 minutes, and more if 
he needs it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to echo many of the 
comments made by my colleague from Arkansas. Public sentiment 
overwhelmingly supports changing this archaic 1872 law. After 122 
years, it is time for Congress to reform how we mine on our public 
lands.
  One of the most important pieces of reform is to end patenting. Any 
company, whether domestic or foreign, that discovers a valuable mineral 
deposit on a piece of public land, can patent--or gain title to--the 
land for merely $5 per acre. More than $34 billion worth of hardrock 
mineral reserves are currently at stake. If we do not act during the 
103d Congress to end patenting, this land, owned by the American 
taxpayer, will be sold for less than $1 million.
  Since the word is out, Mr. President, that Congress plans to change 
the mining law, mining companies have begun racing to privatize some of 
the most valuable public lands in the United States. 613 patent 
applications are currently being processed by the Bureau of Land 
Management. These patents represent billions of dollars in hardrock 
mineral reserves, but will sell for a small percentage of their value.
  I repeat, if we do not put in place a patenting moratorium this year, 
the U.S. taxpayer will lose out on billions of dollars.
  Let me just describe to you briefly how easy it is for land 
speculators to gain title to Federal land. The prospector, whether a 
mining company or real estate speculator, stakes a claim to an area 
which they believe contains minerals. To maintain the claim they simply 
pay an annual holding fee of $100. Once $500 of development work has 
been performed, the claim holder may file a patent application for 
title to surface and mineral rights.
  When the patent is approved by the Department of the Interior, the 
claimant may purchase the land for $2.50 or $5 an acre, depending on 
the mineral deposit.
  It is that simple. There is no limit on the number of claims a person 
or company can locate. And claims can be held indefinitely, with or 
without mineral production. In fact, there is no requirement that 
mineral production ever take place.
  As was reported in every national newspaper this spring, a Canadian 
company gained title to $10 billion of mineral reserves for a mere 
$10,000. We are giving away a resource that is owned by all Americans, 
at a mere fraction of its true value.
  Arguments will be made, and have been made, that without such a 
subsidy, mining would not occur on these lands, because the cost would 
be too high. Critics of this amendment will claim that ending free 
access and security of tenure on the land would curtail exploration 
efforts among mining firms and increase costs. But plenty of mining 
companies throughout the West operate successful, competitive 
operations on private lands. These companies employ thousands of 
people, provide valuable resources to our Nation, and pay a fair, 
market-based price for the land they operate on.
  At one point in the history of our country, such subsidies had a 
rationale--when enacted, the West was sparsely populated and the infant 
industries of our growing country needed cheap sources of raw 
materials. Such subsidies encouraged settlement and development of an 
economic base. But these same subsidies today simply allow large 
corporations to make a high profit off of public land, without 
compensating the owner of the land--the American taxpayer.

  But you need not take my word for it, the market has spoken loudly. A 
General Accounting Office review reported that a claim patented for 
$42,000 sold just a few weeks later for $37 million. Between 1970 and 
1983, the GAO reports, the U.S. taxpayer received less than $4,500 for 
patents estimated to be worth upward of $47 million.
  The land give-away does not simply involve mining. Another GAO study 
reported that many of the claims are held for speculative purposes. 
Many real estate speculators take advantage of the patent loophole, 
purchasing land at rock bottom prices and selling for real estate 
development at a huge profit. Of 93 randomly selected patents studied, 
74 had no evidence of mineral extraction, 6 went unused, and 20 were 
used for nonmineral purposes, such as hotels or resorts.
  For example, in 1970, a company received patents on 61 acres of rocky 
hillside outside of Phoenix, AZ, for $153--or $2.50 per acre. A decade 
later, this company sold this land to a developer for $400,000. The 
land is now valued at over $40 million.
  Since the 1930's we have been trying to end patenting. In the past 
the Federal Government allowed patenting to take place for many mineral 
extraction activities. But in 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act removed 
coal, oil, gas, phosphates, and certain other minerals from the claim 
patent system of the 1872 mining law. The 1920 law set up a system of 
leasing in which the Federal Government retains ownership of the leased 
lands. Now it's time for hard rock minerals to meet an equal standard.
  A 1993 Roper Poll indicates that almost 70 percent of Americans want 
businesses to pay their fair share when extracting minerals from public 
lands. Why should hard rock mining be treated differently from any 
other mineral resource? Why subsidize hard rock mining, while other 
mineral extraction industries operate competitively, paying their fair 
share for use of Federal lands?
  Mr. President, the time has come to change the way we mine on public 
lands. The mining conference between the House and Senate is underway. 
Hopefully our Senate colleagues will work for comprehensive reform when 
negotiating with the House. The reform measure should contain a royalty 
that would provide appropriate compensation for a taxpayer-owned 
resource. It should institute much needed Federal environmental 
protection standards for mining operations and ensure reclamation of 
land after mining. it should establish a program to clean up our 
Nation's abandoned and unreclaimed hardrock mines. And finally, the 
reform measure should end the practice of land patenting.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do all they can to complete 
action on the mining reform measure pending in conference. We need to 
end the give-away of public lands now, before the close of the 103d 
Congress.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. And how much time remains on the proponents' side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and one-half minutes on the other side.
  At the request of Mr. Craig, the following statement of Mr. Wallop 
was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:
   Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the 
Bumpers amendment. Although I understand it is the Senator's intention 
to withdraw his amendment, this is, I believe, the fifth time the 
Arkansas Senator has offered an amendment to prohibit the expenditure 
of funds to accept and process patent applications at the Department of 
the Interior. But this year's debate is not simply a debate on the 
substance or merit of mineral patents. It is a debate which comes at a 
time when the House and Senate are engaged in a debate over reform of 
the mining law and it is unnecessary. Senator Bumpers happens to be one 
of seven Senate conferees currently involved in negotiations over 
mining law reform, including the patent issue. Granted, we are miles 
apart in our approach to reforming the mining law. But we should move 
forward in that conference to complete that task and not segregate the 
issue here on the floor of the Senate.
  Last year, in adopting S. 775, the Hardrock Mining Reform Act, Energy 
Committee members on both sides of the issue agreed that we would move 
forward in that manner and not divide the issues. But that is what we 
are doing here today. Why? Because the Senator from Arkansas believes 
we should put an end to the rush to file patent applications before we 
resolve our differences.
  What will happen to those patent applications between now and the 
time we get to conference? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. Since 
March 2 of last year when Secretary Babbitt initiated new procedures on 
processing patent applications, only one patent has been approved. Only 
one.
  How did that one get through this new system one might ask? A Federal 
judge ruled that Secretary Babbitt must comply with the law to 
reasonably process applications for mineral patents and that his 
disregard for the Mining Act's implicit mandate to do so was shameful.
  When the Secretary of the Interior issued that patent, he said that 
he was forced to do so. Imagine that, a Secretary of the Interior, who 
deemed himself worthy of being a Supreme Court Justice, proclaims to 
the public that he has to be forced to comply with the law.
  Frankly, I fail to see what justification there could be for 
congressional action to temporarily cease mineral patent processing. In 
point of fact, the patenting procedures put in place by Secretary 
Babbitt, requiring review by no less than six people in the solicitor's 
office before a thorough check by the Secretary, are equivalent to a de 
facto moratorium.
  So, in reality, this amendment would provide the Secretary only a 
small amount of protection against what he himself knows could be an 
avalanche of litigation unless some measure of progress is made on the 
remaining 600 or so pending patent applications.
  I might also note that many of those applicants have reached the 
first half certificate stage of the patent process. Once this 
certificate is issued, the BLM is required to conduct a mineral 
examination to confirm that the claimant has, in fact, made a discovery 
of valuable minerals within a claim. If so, the patent must be issued.
  The normal timeframe between confirmation of the discovery and 
issuance of a patent is roughly 17 days. But because of the de facto 
moratorium currently in place at the Department of the Interior, I am 
told that some patent applicants at the first half final stage and with 
a confirmed discovery have now been sitting in the Secretary's office 
for some 4 or 5 months. That, Mr. President, is simply not fair. Yet 
what the court has already judged as shameful disregard for the law the 
Senator from Arkansas seeks to promote in this debate. I appreciate the 
fact that Senator Bumpers has chosen not to ask for a rollcall vote on 
his amendment. The patent issue can and rightfully should be resolved 
by the conferees on mining law reform. But it must be addressed in a 
fair and reasonable fashion and avoid the potential for tremendous 
takings litigation. This is one member of the conference who will work 
very hard to achieve that goal.
  At the request of Mr. Craig, the following statement of Mr. Hatch was 
ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:
 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, which 
would restore language prohibiting the processing of mining patent 
applications by the Department of the Interior. As my colleagues know, 
the amendment would restore language originally included in the House 
bill, but deleted by the Senate Appropriations Committee. I believe the 
Senate Appropriations Committee was right to delete this prohibition.
  The right to patent is one of the most important aspects of a miner's 
security to tenure under the mining law of 1872. After a mineral 
discovery is made, and the Federal Government has determined that 
sufficient mineralization is present to justify development of a mine, 
a patent is issued that transfers ownership of the mineralized claims 
to the miner. The patent establishes fee ownership. This ownership is 
particularly critical for large-scale mining operations that may face a 
great variety of operating conditions over a period of as long as 100 
years. Economic cycles, temporary closures, and changing land-use 
patterns all result in significant risks to a mine's existence unless 
real land ownership exists.
  Without the ownership protection provided by a patent, miners 
throughout the West will have difficulty in bringing a mineral 
discovery into development. Banks will be reluctant to finance mines, 
and miners will hesitate to expend the large amounts of money needed 
for exploration. The major source of new mineral discoveries in today's 
world are small, independent miners, and the incentive to continue 
these discoveries is the knowledge that a patent will be issued in the 
end. If we eliminate the right to patent as proposed by this amendment, 
then we will eliminate this valuable resource that keeps our mining 
industry, and its associated industries, viable.
  I have opposed past attempts to place a moratorium on the issuance of 
mining patents, and the reasons for my past votes are still relevant 
today.
  First, the use of the appropriations process to make a substantive 
change in the mining law of 1872 is objectionable. This year, 
especially, the use of this process to amend the law is inappropriate 
since a comprehensive effort to reform the mining law has been 
undertaken in both the House and Senate. -Inclusion of language 
prohibiting the issuance of mining patents in this legislation will 
preempt the deliberations that are now proceeding between House and 
Senate negotiators where the issue of patents is an integral topic of 
discussion. Once again, the amendment would be an end-run around these 
ongoing negotiations.
  Second, some have argued that our existing mining law enables 
companies to control vast amounts of land in the Western United States. 
However, the issuing of patents under current law has in no way created 
a land-grab situation that needs the drastic remedy of a moratorium. 
Since 1781, over 700 million acres of Federal public lands have been 
transferred to private ownership for various reasons, including 
agriculture, railroads, State grants, timber, and desert lands. Of that 
amount, approximately 3 million acres have been patented for mining 
since 1781.
  Third, those who defend a patent moratorium do so by indicating the 
public is being ripped off by miners who can buy public lands for as 
little as $2.50 to $5.00 per acre. As my colleagues well know, this is 
a bogus argument. In order to demonstrate to Federal officials that an 
ore body is worthy of development, miners must complete extensive 
exploration work that often costs hundreds of thousands, or even 
millions, of dollars per claim. The $2.50 to $5.00 charge is a 
patenting fee, and is not at all associated with the cost of purchasing 
the land.
  It becomes quite tiresome to hear these low fees being used against 
the mining industry--most recently involving Barrick Resources--when in 
reality miners and mining companies pay huge sums of money to develop a 
mine, to create jobs where there were none, to keep a mine operating in 
tough economic times, and to pay sufficient State and local taxes.
  And, fourth, it appears there is already an informal patent 
moratorium in place. Officials at the Department of the Interior may 
disagree, but I have been closely following a case involving Utah's 
beryllium deposits in the Topaz Mountains of western Utah. The company 
developing these deposits applied for the patents beginning in June 
1992, over 2 years ago, and still has yet to receive a first half final 
certificate [FHFC] for these claims. This company has expended millions 
of dollars as of today in pursuit of these patents and, like several 
other companies in a similar position, may have no choice but to pursue 
legal action to force the Department to take final action on these 
applications.
  After the Interior Secretary revoked the delegation of authority to 
the Bureau of Land Management to issue FHFC and mineral patents last 
year and establish a patent review process that involves his personal 
review of each application, the processing of mining patents has slowed 
considerably, almost to a standstill. Even those applications currently 
in the pipeline are creeping along at a snail's pace, if indeed they 
are progressing at all.
  I understand, respect, and even encourage, the meticulous review of 
these applications. But, at some point, these reviews can become 
dilatory. I hope the pace of processing these and other applications 
has not been deliberately slowed until Congress passes a mining law 
reform bill that addresses patents. The Interior Department is 
obligated to enforce the law as it now stands, not as they hope it will 
be.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this patent moratorium 
amendment for these and other reasons. A patent application represents 
many years of exploration and investment. It would be unjust for a 
patent moratorium to be enacted by Congress for applicants who have 
already expended resources in their endeavors to secure patents.
  Furthermore, a patent moratorium enacted as part of this 
appropriations bill would stop a major part of the present mining law 
reform debate in its tracks. And, it would put at risk the many new 
mines this Nation must have to sustain its minerals production 
capabilities and the jobs this industry supports.
  I urge Senators to reject this amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in 1872, the U.S. Congress said in a mining 
law that it was important that we develop the mining industries of our 
public lands across this country. Those lands were primarily west of 
the Mississippi at that time and continued so through to today. But not 
only did we say it with mining, we said it for a lot of other reasons. 
We had not yet created the U.S. Forest Service. That did not come until 
about 20 years later. But we had an organic act that said some of our 
forest reserves ought to be managed for the purpose of tree production 
and protection for that purpose.
  We created a homestead law that gave away--gave away--over 287 
million acres, across the public lands of the West primarily, and for 
that purpose it was designed to give it free of charge to a person who 
would go out on the land, stake out their acreage and live on that land 
and develop it. Why did we do that? Because our Federal Government at 
that time had no policy to own land beyond very limited amounts. We had 
not created parks at that time. We had some military reserves. But our 
Government and this Congress did not believe that the Federal 
Government should own the land.
  Now, I say to the Senator, a good friend of mine, who proposes this 
amendment, when the Federal Government said to the State of Arkansas, 
``Here it is; take it; that within your borders is yours,'' that was 
called ceding the land at the time of statehood. Not one penny was paid 
by the citizens of Arkansas. Is it wrong that the citizens who gained 
patent or title to the land of Arkansas today might sell it for $1 
million an acre? Not at all. They own the land. What is wrong with 
that?
  Is it evil for the Federal Government to give away land? It was not 
evil in 1872. It was not evil in 1900. It was not evil 20 years ago 
because we believed it was the right thing to do for the purpose of 
developing our lands, for developing our economies and creating jobs, 
and only in the last 8 to 10 years has there been a progressive 
drumbeat that somehow the land could only be protected if it were owned 
and cared for and nurtured and stewarded by the Federal Government, and 
that somehow for private property to be held was evil.
  I do not believe private property is evil. It is the basis of our 
country's wealth. But I do believe today that there is room for a 
legitimate debate on how the Federal Government ought to release the 
lands it owns into the private sector and how much the Government ought 
to get in return. And in that respect the Senator from Arkansas is 
absolutely right. This is a debate worth having. This is a policy worth 
reviewing. And this is a decision that I hope our Government will make 
this year as it relates to lands that might be turned over in the sense 
of ownership or patent to an individual who would choose to mine that 
land for the purpose of supporting our industrial base and developing 
our minerals and metals resources.
  Now, you can call it the reform of the 1872 mining law, and I hope we 
will, and that we do not focus just on patenting but we focus on a 
whole parameter of issues like I did when I helped author, and this 
Senate passed last year, mining law reform known as S. 775.
  Mr. President, we did not just dwell on patenting--it is an important 
part of the 1872 mining law--but we looked at a whole, broad spectrum 
of issues that are critically important to our Government, to the 
Senator from Arkansas, and to our country's economic and industrial 
base. That is, are we going to have a mining policy for our country, 
and how are we going to manage it, and should it be different from the 
policy that was established in 1872 and then amended down through the 
years over six different times and changed by the passage of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and changed by the Clean Water Act 
and changed by the Clean Air Act?
  We are saying, yes, it should be changed today, that maybe royalties 
ought to be paid on hardrock minerals that have never been paid before. 
And the debate between the Senator from Arkansas and I is how much that 
royalty ought to be. He says one thing, I say another, and we get our 
accountants and all the statistics together. I hope this Congress will 
be given the option to decide whether he is right, the Senator from 
Arkansas, or whether I am right.
  But the main thing is we have collectively decided that royalties 
ought to be paid today in some form to the taxpayers of this country 
for the resources they own that are underneath the public lands of our 
country.
  Patenting is an issue. I think we ought to retain patenting, but I do 
not say give it away at $2.50 an acre. That is the law today. Barrick 
did not steal the land. They played by the law. And I said last year 
the law ought to be changed, and I was fought by this Secretary of 
Interior who wanted something different. We fought, and guess what 
happened? While we were arguing about how we ought to determine 
patenting, Barrick patented.
  I am sorry, Mr. Secretary of Interior. If you had gotten off your 
political soapbox and you had come to the negotiation table where we 
are today, maybe--just maybe--Barrick would not have happened. But it 
gave them a great political issue. ``Come on, Mr. Secretary. Get to the 
conference table today. Sit down with the Senator from Arkansas and the 
Senator from Idaho, and let us rewrite the 1872 mining law in a 
balanced and responsible way that all of us can live with that will 
assure a hardrock mining industry off the public lands of our Nation. 
We can deal with patenting. And we will deal with it.''
  Now, let us talk about operation standards and reclamation. What are 
we talking about? We are talking about how we deal with the land after 
we have mined it. Do we retain it; take it back to its natural 
topography; put the soil back on it; put the plants back on it the way 
it was before it was disturbed so that 100 years from now there will be 
no mark of man on the terrain of Western States? Yes. We ought to, and 
we are doing it. The question is, Who makes the decision and who 
develops the reclamation plan? I say the Federal Government ought to 
have a limited part in it. But the States on which this land resides 
ought to have a major role. That is an issue.
  Unsuitability is another issue. In other words, is the land suited 
for mining, or is there another purpose for it? Who makes that 
decision? I do not think the Secretary of Interior ought to have the 
discretionary right to say yes or no after millions of dollars have 
been spent determining or finding out if the mineral and the metal is 
there.
  The question then ought to become how best can you safely mine it in 
an environmentally sensitive way, not whether you should mine it or 
should not mine it.
  Those are the kinds of issues that are bound up in the whole of the 
debate. The Senate has passed a bill. The House has passed a bill. We 
heard the Senator from Nevada, who has been a major leader in this 
issue with me, saying now let us sit down at the table and negotiate. 
Senators in good faith for the last 2 months have been doing just that 
amongst ourselves, and the Senator from Arkansas has been at that 
table. I compliment him for working progressively with us to see if we 
cannot resolve the issue.
  What is at stake: 100,000 jobs, a billion-dollar industry. And if the 
President and the Secretary have their way, 30,000 or 40,000 people are 
out of work. Even the law that I wrote and proposed would destroy some 
2,500 jobs in the West, just to make those kinds of reforms.
  Mr. President, that is the reality of the debate. I hope the Senator 
from Arkansas will continue to work with us as we strive to build a 
compromise and reform the 1872 mining law.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is the fifth year that I have sought 
compromise with my colleagues from the West on this matter. For 2 
months, Senator Johnston, who chairs the Energy Committee, and the 
conferees on the Republican side and the Democrat side, met every 
Wednesday morning in an attempt to craft something that would be 
acceptable to both sides, including the Senator from Idaho.
  And every time some concession was offered--and believe me, many 
concessions were offered by Senator Johnston that I did not agree 
with--the Senators representing the mining interests always responded 
that more was needed.
  After 2 months of meeting every Wednesday morning, a letter was sent 
to Senator Johnston from the ranking member on the committee, Senator 
Wallop, which essentially said ``we cannot agree to your proposed 
compromise. We are pulling out of this effort to reach an agreement.'' 
I will not put this letter in the Record without Senator Wallop's 
consent. But it essentially says ``we cannot agree to much of anything 
you have proposed.'' I want to tell you that I did not agree to much of 
Senator Johnston's proposal either, because I thought it was giving 
away the store. But I did not threaten to filibuster the conference 
report.
  Senator Burns and Senator Craig have invoked the Homestead Act. I 
assume that because when this country was founded we gave people land 
for 50 cents an acre to settle and build a home and farm it, my 
colleagues believe that we ought to still be plowing with mules and 
plow points, and using horses and buggies for transportation.
  Even so, if they will agree to pay the U.S. Government the equivalent 
of what 50 cents an acre was in the early 1800's, we could have a deal. 
But to suggest that because of the Homestead Act--admittedly a very 
benevolent act for all of the citizens, not just a few mining 
companies--that we should be giving away billions of dollars' worth of 
gold, is sheer lunacy.
  I heard Billy Graham one time make a point that I think is 
appropriate for this debate. He said, ``You know, when our first child 
was born and he said `da-da,' I thought I was going to faint, I was so 
excited.'' But he said, ``If that child was 50 years old and was saying 
`da-da,' I would be calling every psychiatrist and counselor I could 
find.'' That is what these people are doing. We are still saying `da-
da' 122 years after the mining law was passed.
  Mr. President, one of the worst problems with the mining law is that 
there are 592 million acres of Federal land open to mining, and the law 
assumes that the highest and best use for virtually every acre of it is 
hardrock mining.
  I do not understand my Western colleagues' universal reaction in 
opposition to the imposition of a reasonable royalty. All the revenues 
to be received would be returned to the West in order to reclaim 
abandoned mines. There are roughly 557,000 abandoned hardrock mine 
sites in this country. The largest is located in the junior Senator 
from Montana's home State, in Butte, that is going to cost taxpayers 
$1.5 billion to clean up.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to be gracious and yield. But I want to 
finish my statement.
  Mr. CRAIG. For one question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. For one question.
  Mr. CRAIG. In my proposed reform, we suggested that if the Senate and 
the Congress grant the right of patenting, that a fair market value be 
paid for the land. Is that not now reasonable today, that citizens who 
acquire that land for mining pay the estimated royalty?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, everyone who has been following this 
debate knows that the issue the Senator raises is a complete red-
herring. The surface of the type of land we are discussing is probably 
not worth more than $100 an acre, in most instances. We are talking 
about the billions of dollars worth of gold underneath this land.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am talking about royalty and fair market value. S. 775 
has a royalty, plus the fair market value sales price of the land. Is 
that not reasonable?
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield. I just want to make a few final 
points, and then yield the floor.
  The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] made a point that we import 
palladium from Russia. I am not sure what the rationale is for his 
concern. I assume if we import anything from Russia, we should not 
impose a tax to try to curb that practice.
  Russia is a big gold producer. If we wind up importing gold, under 
the rationale of the Senator from Nevada, there never would be a 
royalty on gold because we could get it from Russia. To invoke the cold 
war to try to keep doing what we have been doing for 122 years, which 
is the biggest scam in America, is an outrage.
  In addition, approximately 75 to 80 percent of the gold mined in this 
country goes into jewelry? I have nothing against jewelry. I tell you, 
I have never worn a ring in my life. I have never worn a bracelet. I do 
not personally care anything about jewelry. But I do not criticize 
those who do. But here we are, giving away precious minerals, billions 
of dollars' worth of gold, to subsidize jewelry producers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the reason I brought this amendment up 
today was for two reasons. No. 1, this amendment is in the House 
bill. The House has this language in its bill. The second reason is to 
say and to put my colleagues on notice that if that conference 
committee, to which the Senator from Idaho alluded, and on which he and 
I both sit, come back with a decent compromise that is filibustered, I 
promise I will try to put this amendment on the first bill coming 
through the U.S. Senate, to stop patenting right dead in its tracks. 
And then there will not be much room for compromise.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bryan). 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 withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2400) was withdrawn.
  Thr PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee 
amendment on page 48 line 16 is agreed to.
  So the excepted committee amendment on page 48 line 16 was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2397

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the National Endowment 
for the Arts. This agency has had a remarkable record of achievement 
over the past 30 years, but has too often been the subject of unfair 
criticism in recent times.
  I hope that every Member of the Senate, including the critics of the 
Endowment, are aware of the large volume of outstanding work that the 
Endowment has done. And, since Jane Alexander became chairman, the 
praise for the agency has been even greater. There is a new sense of 
respect and appreciation for the Endowment's work.
  Ms. Alexander has visited 34 States already. She has demonstrated an 
unparalleled commitment to making sure that the American people 
understand the true record of the Endowment, and especially its support 
for the Nation's museums, symphonies, regional theaters, dance 
companies, arts education programs, and local arts activities.
  These grants have benefited every State in the Union. Many of the 
grants are awarded on a 3-to-1 matching basis, with three State and 
local dollars matching the Federal dollars, so the impact of the grants 
is leveraged very effectively.
  In the 5 years from 1987 through 1991, the combined Federal and State 
arts investment in Massachusetts totaled nearly $120 million. Those 
funds reached audiences of over 200 million people, provided 64,000 
children and 15,000 teachers in our State with arts instruction and 
performances. They helped to generate $238 million in private funds to 
match the public moneys.
  Without question, these funds have made a difference in our State and 
I am sure they have made a comparable difference in each of the other 
states across the Nation.
  At the recent Tony Awards ceremony in New York, Jane Alexander spoke 
of the Endowment's support for plays and playwrights, and the 
indispensable support it has given for developing new work. Endowment 
support can be found at the heart of nearly every Pulitzer Prize-
winning play, either through a grant to the playwright or to the 
company which produced it. These works contribute to our national 
cultural heritage and are enjoyed by countless Americans in regional 
and local theaters in all parts of the country.
  All of these beneficial results are achieved through our modest 
Federal investment in the Endowment. It is a modest annual 
appropriation that has declined in real dollars in recent years.
  Support for the arts is an important principle of federalism that I 
strongly support. It is part of our national responsibility to 
encourage a climate in the country that promotes the development of the 
arts and encourages understanding and participation in music, 
literature, painting, sculpture, dance, and other forms of creative 
expression.
  Any fair accounting of the Endowment's record will conclude that it 
is ably fulfilling its mission. It is providing indispensable support 
to the Nation's cultural institutions and it is increasing the public's 
access to the arts.
  The appropriation for the Endowment of this legislation is a 
reduction of 5 percent below last year. The companion House bill 
contained a 2-percent reduction. I hope that the conferees will 
consider the serious impact that the continued erosion of funding 
levels will have on the Endowment, and that any reduction in funds will 
be left to the chairman to distribute among its programs.
  The conferees will have an important opportunity to express their 
confidence in Chairman Alexander for the impressive efforts she is 
making on behalf of this important agency.
  I commend Jane Alexander for her achievement. She is bringing new 
vigor and leadership to this essential agency. She deserves our 
support, and so does the Endowment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the floor 
managers. As the information comes in necessary to proceed on the 
appropriations bill, I will certainly defer to that. But my remarks are 
short in nature, and I want to comment on the situation with regard to 
the targeted funding reduction to the National Endowment for the Arts. 
I am fully aware that the chairman, Chairman Byrd, will assure that 
there will be fair treatment for that budget in conference, and I have 
no doubt that that will take place.
  I just wish to state that the reductions that are apparent and that 
are coming will severely affect some of the programs of the Endowment 
in my State and in NEA institutions across the America. It will affect 
the touring programs and art education programs.
  The Endowment's far-reaching support of projects in rural and 
historically underserved areas, such as my home State of Wyoming, would 
be affected by these targeted cuts. NEA touring programs of musicians, 
artists, and dancers increase the availability of the arts for all 
Americans, and that work should be commended and supported.
  For the most part, those that make the grants at the NEA do an 
excellent job. We must not forget that they have awarded nearly 100,000 
grants since the year 1965.
  Yet, I do agree that sometimes ugly, tasteless, obscene and plain 
stupid and inane performances take place, and when they do it reflects 
on the entire activities of the NEA. We have seen the discussion today 
of the bloodletting at the Walker Arts Center, and that legitimately 
engendered spirited debate over the mission of NEA.
  That is why I have from time to time supported amendments presented 
by my friend, Senator Helms, not in all cases indeed, but when we are 
talking about certain depictions of certain mutilations and human 
bodily functions, there is a point that sometimes is missed that 
anything like that may go on, and I would certainly not hesitate to 
assure that it did go on under the first amendment. The only remarkable 
difference is it does not have to be paid for by the taxpayers. That is 
what is often forgotten in the rush.
  I shall never forget the rush as we dealt with the Mapplethorpe and 
the Serrano activities many months ago now. It seems quite current, 
actually. But remembering that here was a $47,000 grant, the total out 
of a budget of $171 million, and you would have thought on both sides 
that the Earth was going to quit rotating on its axis. The extremists 
on both sides will drive the issues. We are not going to do anything 
with Shakespeare in the park or quilting or regional theater. And 
sometimes we lose ourselves in the emotion of the debate. I submit that 
funding such tasteless art is an exception to the generally very well 
demonstrated competency of the NEA grant process.
  The House has reduced the Endowment funds by 2 percent. These are 
things that are troubling. I do think that all of the issues that 
become so apparent to us as tasteless and obscenity are exceptions to 
the generally very well demonstrated competency of the NEA grant 
process.
  The Senate's bill includes an $8.5 million reduction from the 
President's budget request of $170.1 million. This would bring the NEA 
budget back to where it was prior to fiscal year 1984. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee has also targeted four specific Endowment 
programs: Theater, visual arts, presenting and commissioning, and 
challenge grants.
  These targeted reductions would threaten important projects in the 
State of Wyoming. Without the availability of challenge grants--that 
require a 3-to-1 private industry to Government match--the Wyoming Art 
Museum and the Wyoming Art Council would not be able to provide the 
diversity of programs and services to Wyoming's artists and arts 
organizations.
  Many of my colleagues who support the arts may be feeling the 
pressure to keep quiet on this issue. But it is my lifelong view that 
the arts are a very integral part of our society and serve as a 
unifying force of the American spirit. We are all concerned about the 
economy and the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, none more than 
those who manage these bills on the floor. Our efforts to curb the 
Federal deficit should be balanced with a reasonable and sensible view 
of the value of arts in America.
  I very much appreciate the fact that the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd, has agreed to consider the 
position of NEA Chairman Jane Alexander and many Members of this body 
concerning these targeted cuts when this matter goes to conference. My 
friend from Oklahoma, my fine colleague, Donald Nickles, has agreed to 
assure that in conference we will do the things that are required to be 
done.
  We all know that when these two of our colleagues say they will do 
something, their credibility is never subjected to question.
  The funding application review process has come under fire at the NEA 
in recent years. A lack of control over the awarding of subgrants and 
seasonal grants has been the primary cause of the problems which has 
led to much criticism of the NEA. Jane Alexander's goal of ``Bringing 
the best art to the most people''; her basic common sense; her 
professional and personal good taste, and native civility is helping to 
change the public's negative perception of the NEA. She has taken 
sincere steps to increase the agency's accountability and strengthen 
the award process.
  Chairman Alexander has made important changes in the NEA's 
administration of grants, grantee reporting requirements, and 
procedures for grantee requests for project changes. She has strongly 
emphasized the need for improvement in the selection of grant 
application review panels. Her travels over the past year to 35 States 
and her meetings with town and school officials, artists, and State 
arts organizations have resulted in enormous grassroots support.
  On a local level, the NEA has been instrumental in strengthening arts 
organizations in Wyoming and has provided so many cultural 
opportunities for people throughout my State. Between 1987 and 1991, 
combined Federal and State arts investment in Wyoming totaled over $4 
million, and that investment has yielded significant dividends. The NEA 
supported activities in Wyoming that drew audiences of over 3 million 
people in that time period. There have been thousands of grants awarded 
to Wyoming artists.
  The Grand Teton Music Festival, the Buffalo Bill Historical Center, 
and Nicolaysen Museum and many other organizations and individuals have 
benefited from support from the Endowment. Overall, in the 27 years of 
Federal and State support for the arts in Wyoming, the NEA has helped 
to increase the number of performing arts companies, museums, arts 
centers, and other arts organizations from 15 to over 60.
  Let us give a creative and articulate woman such as Jane Alexander 
this opportunity to truly lead the National Endowment for the Arts. We 
cannot legislate good management. Our job is to see that it works well. 
The Chairman should have direct authority to sensibly manage the budget 
cuts that Congress appropriates.
  I would reiterate my strong support for Jane Alexander's leadership 
of the National Endowment for the Arts and I continue to wish her well.
  I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the managers 
for this opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, with the kind permission of the 
managers of this bill I ask unanimous consent of the Chair that I might 
be granted permission to speak as though in morning business for 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator may proceed.

                          ____________________