[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4602, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4602) making appropriations for the 
Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Regula moves that the mangers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill H.R. 4602, be instructed to insist on the House 
     position on amendments numbered 67 and 68.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Andrews of Texas). The gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Dicks] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to instruct on a moratorium 
that I have offered in the past 4 years. The language has been included 
in the House Interior appropriations bill since fiscal year 1992, and 
each year negotiators with the other body have demanded this provision 
be stricken during the conference.
  This year I had hoped comprehensive mining reform legislation would 
be enacted, as bills had passed both bodies, but as yet the conference 
has made little progress. I am increasingly less optimistic that reform 
of this antiquated law will occur in this Congress.
  The language in question does not stop mining. It does not require 
royalties. It does not impose any new reclamation requirements. In 
short, it simply insures that the taxpayers retain title to the land at 
the termination of the mining process.
  As an example of what has happened, in Denali, we have several 
thousand acres, 1,300 acres, that were purchased for $6,000 total. We 
are estimating we will have to pay $22 million to repurchase land that 
was sold by the Government for $6,000.

                              {time}  1410

  I do not want that to happen in the future. In June the Mineral 
Policy Center released a report which echoed the concerns I have had 
over this issue for some time. Their report captioned ``Golden Patents, 
Empty Pockets'' concludes that unless Congress takes action during the 
103d Congress, title to more than $34 billion in mineral resources 
belonging to the American taxpayers will be signed over to private 
mining companies for no more than $800,000. Thirty-four billion for 
$800,000 and with no royalties. Many of these companies with pending 
patent applications are not even American businesses. We are literally 
giving our rich mineral resources--our gold, our silver, our platinum--
away to foreign interests for bargain basement prices.
  It is possibly the biggest travesty in Government and yet it has been 
happening under an antiquated 1872 law. The Mineral Policy Center 
report estimates that since 1872 the Federal Government has given away 
more than $231 billion of mineral resources belonging to the public, 
either by patent or by royalty-free mining on public lands.
  Now I recognize that these figures do not represent profits to the 
mining industry. Certainly there are costs incurred in getting these 
minerals out of the ground, but these figures are a clear indication 
that the Government is not receiving a reasonable return for the 
taxpayers under the current law. I find it incomprehensible that we are 
willing to give away the public lands with virtually no compensation.
  Just recently the Secretary of the Interior was forced to approve a 
patent application of the American Barrick Resources Corp. for 1,038 
acres. Those lands hold mineral reserves valued at more than $10 
billion. Barrick took title to the land for $5,190 and will pay no 
royalty on the mineral resources that until the patent was approved 
were owned by the Federal Government. A Canadian company has secured 
from the United States title to these valuable lands, something it 
could not secure from its own government. No other country that I am 
aware of in the world deeds their land and minerals over to industry 
without retaining some interest for the Government.
  Patent applications have increased as Congress has tried 
unsuccessfully in recent years to reform the mining law. Currently 
613 patents covering 250,000 acres are being processed by BLM. The 
longer Congress avoids mining reform, the more likely all of the 
mineral resources are to leave public ownership for the bargain rate of 
$2.50 to $5 an acre with no chance of gaining royalty payment on the 
resources.

  While many of these 613 applications are too far along in the process 
to be affected by my amendment, if we adopt my patent moratorium we at 
least slow the rapid give away and maybe will require that both sides 
get to the bargaining table on mining reform, and that is what should 
happen. We should get a completion of the mining reform conference. The 
Mineral Policy Center recommends an immediate patent moratorium and 
estimates this would save more than $10 billion in recoverable minerals 
reserved from being privatized by mining companies.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth year that the House has adopted this 
language, and in each of the past three it has been sacrificed for some 
other cause in conference. If my amendment had been in place in May, 
the Secretary, and that is in May of this year, would not have been 
forced to turn over an estimated $10 billion in minerals to a Canadian 
company. The secretary himself called the land transfer, quote, ``the 
biggest gold heist since the days of Butch Cassidy.'' While the Barrick 
travesty is history we can take action to stop further give aways and 
possibly force the reluctant mining interest to the table for 
meaningful negotiations on comprehensive mining reform. Absent a patent 
moratorium, time is on the side of the mining industry. This amendment 
gives the American taxpayers, the owners of those public lands, a 
better bargaining position by ending the land giveaways until a more 
comprehensive solution is reached.
  My motion is supported by the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Subcommittee and by Secretary Babbitt, and I urge the Members to adopt 
this motion.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct 
the conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, Senate amendments 67 and 68 strike provisions the House 
included in the bill that would prevent accepting and processing 
applications for patents and prohibit the actual patenting of Federal 
lands to claimants under existing mining laws. Similar provisions have 
been included by the House many times in the recent past and have 
similarly been rejected by the Senate.
  There is no question that the practice of transferring title to 
Government lands to the private sector for nominal fees, and the 
subsequent mining of minerals with no compensation to the Government, 
is one that many of us in Congress believe should be changed. Currently 
a bill reforming the entire mining law is in a House-Senate conference. 
Were the conference to conclude with an agreement acceptable to both 
Houses the provisions we carry in this bill would be unnecessary. 
However, the outcome of that conference is in some doubt. Absent a 
permanent change in the law, lands can continue to be transferred to 
the private sector without adequate compensation. This is why these 
provisions are important.
  I would caution that these provisions will meet with strong 
opposition in the Senate, both from Senate conferees as well as western 
mining interests in the Senate as a whole, and are apt to be 
filibustered in a manner similar to grazing fee provisions in last 
year's bill, even if agreed to by Senate conferees.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion of 
the gentleman from Ohio, Ralph Regula, a colleague of mine on the full 
Appropriations Committee.
  I am sure he is sincere in his view that mineral patenting is a 
flawed system. The gentleman knows I disagree with him on this matter, 
as do many western Members. The other body disagrees as well, for the 
offending provisions in H.R. 4602 were removed in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee and were not restored on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, there are indeed champions of a mineral patenting 
overhaul in the other body, indeed, several sit on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. Yet, they did not choose to use an 
appropriations maneuver to effect such reform. Why did they choose not 
to? Because there is an ongoing mining law reform conference wrestling 
with the patenting issue as well as broader concerns about hardrock 
mining in the West.
  The insistence of our House conferees on a mineral patent moratorium 
in the fiscal year 1995 spending bill greatly imperils the likelihood a 
successful conclusion to the reform conference can be achieved. It's 
that simple, Mr. Speaker.
  A simple freezing of the status quo on mineral patents--something 
Secretary Babbitt has practically achieved administratively, in 
derogation of the law, I might add--may well pull the rug out from 
under efforts to reach comprehensive reform. These reforms are more 
than just the manner in which tenure is granted, these are changes in 
the manner in which mining claims are initiated, the lands prospected, 
discoveries made and developed into mines and the land reclaimed.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to seem disingenuous about my position on 
comprehensive reform. As the ranking member of the authorizing 
subcommittee on mining, I'm sure many Members will remember my strong 
views on H.R. 322, the House-passed reform vehicle.
  But my opposition to that bill is irrelevant to this debate. I urge a 
``no'' vote from my colleagues on this motion because I truly believe 
it undermines the effort of the authorizing committee of conference. 
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this would not be the first time an 
appropriations moratorium on mineral patent issuance has occurred. The 
fiscal year 1992 bill for the Interior Department attempted to restrict 
then Secretary Lujan from processing oil shale mining claim patent 
applications. It is instructive to note what happened to that ban.
  An oil shale miner challenged the Department's refusal to process his 
application for claims near Vernal, UT, in the Federal district court. 
On July 28, 1992, Judge Bruce Jenkins ruled that the Secretary's duty 
to process mineral patent applications in a timely fashion was not 
extinguished by that year's oil shale moratorium provision. 
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Justice Department did not 
appeal the ruling, and the application was subsequently processed.
  Mr. Speaker, I think its clear, given this judicial precedent, that 
if such a moratorium is signed into law this year, mineral patent 
applicants will simply sue to have it overturned. But why should the 
Congress make citizens have to litigate a property right like this? It 
just doesn't make sense to me.
  Let's continue to work within the confines of the mining law reform 
conference to achieve consensus on comprehensive amendments to the 
manner in which our public lands are used for hardrock mining. That is 
a tall order, I know, but I believe it remains possible to reach 
closure this Congress if sham reform such as a patenting moratorium is 
not substituted in its place.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise in support of the motion to instruct offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. I thank him for his leadership on 
this issue.
  I think it is absolutely critical to maintain the moratorium in the 
House bill on the patenting of Federal lands.
  There are three general reasons for doing this. No. 1, we need to 
protect the taxpayers' interests. It is way past time to continue to 
sell off this land at $2.50 or $5 an acre, the price that was set in 
1872, when it might have been a reasonable price. It certainly is not 
now, given the extremely valuable resources that are at issue here. The 
General Accounting Office estimates there is something like 64 billion 
dollars' worth of minerals on Federal lands today. Selling those at 
$2.50 an acre does not make a whole lot of sense.
  The second reason for supporting the moratorium is that we all know 
or at least hope that we are going to get a mining law reform bill 
passed sometime soon. When we do, there will be revisions in this area. 
Obviously, in anticipation, there is a rush to patent claims now. We 
need to have this moratorium in place so as not to be further ripped 
off by this rush to patent while awaiting final passage of mining 
reform.
  Finally, there is a strong environmental reason for doing this. Under 
the provisions of the mining reform bill that we hope to see enacted, 
we are going to see requirements for reclamation and remediation and 
other ways of avoiding environmental problems associated with hard rock 
mining. We need to limit unrestricted patents now so as to enable these 
protections to be put in place in as many sites as possible where they 
will be needed.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], a senior member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources and an expert on this matter.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this land is not your land. This land is not my land. 
This land is the hardrock mining companies for basically free.
  The lands I am talking about are our public lands--rich in minerals 
such as gold and silver--to which the name of each American is on the 
deed of title.
  Yet, these are the lands under which the mining law of 1872 still, to 
this day, allows multinational mining conglomerates to seize fee simple 
title under what is known as a mining claim patent for a mere $2.50 or 
$5 an acre.
  And what type of so-called mining law is this?
  Why, a couple of years ago the Arizona Republic carried a story about 
a gentleman who paid the Federal Government $155 for 61 acres' worth of 
mining claims. Did he mine these claims? Did he produce mineral wealth 
from them.
  Well, today, these mining claims are the site of a Hilton hotel. The 
gentleman who patented them now estimates that his share of the resort 
is worth about $6 million. Not a bad deal, except from the taxpayers 
point-of-view.
  I could cite countless examples of similar situations. There are 
billions of dollars worth of federally owned minerals that have already 
been given away. And, there are billions of dollars more, about 34 
billion dollars' worth to be precise, that are currently subject to 
patent applications pending before the Interior Department.
  The situation we find ourselves in is that the House of 
Representatives over the last several years has included a provision to 
place a moratorium on the further issuance of mining claim patents as 
part of the Interior appropriation bills.
  And, by a 3 to 1 margin, last year this body passed the comprehensive 
mining law reform bill I am sponsoring. Yet, time and time again we 
find resistance to these provisions in the other body. Enough is 
enough. Let us have comprehensive mining law reform.
  But as a stop-gap measure, let us support the gentleman from Ohio, 
Ralph Regula, in this motion to instruct the House conferees on the 
Interior appropriations bill to maintain the patent moratorium 
provision in conference with the Senate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio, yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this attempt to impose a moratorium on future mining 
patents in my opinion will only serve to diminish the prospects for 
enacting overall, comprehensive mining law reform this year. I would 
urge my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct House Members to 
insist on the patent moratorium adopted by the House earlier this year.
  I support responsible, comprehensive reform this year, but simply 
adopting this piece-meal approach to mining reform will only serve to 
jeopardize chances for a broader bill. For those who want to see mining 
law reform should realize that singling out issues such as patenting 
will only reduce Congress' resolve to enact comprehensive reform this 
session. Mining law reform must be given the chance to be dealt with in 
its entirety under the existing conference committee.
  Many Members of the House have worked to develop responsible 
proposals addressing the whole spectrum of mining issues. Resolving the 
patenting issue should remain one of the key goals of the conference 
and should be developed within the confines of the conference.
  It is unfortunate that the very ardent proponents of mining law 
reform continue to offer elements of their larger agenda on a piecemeal 
basis to an appropriations bill. It strikes at the very heart of the 
legitimacy of their claims that they want reasonable reform of the 
mining law.
  This effort will not serve the best interest of the conference nor 
achieve the goal of finding a final resolution to mining law reform. I 
would urge my colleagues to defeat this motion.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco], a member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  This motion to instruct would place a 1-year moratorium on patenting 
of hard rock mining claims. I want to say to my colleagues that we are 
addressing this issue right now in a comprehensive mining law 
conference committee, and I would not want to do anything to derail 
those efforts.
  But let me say to my colleagues that I recognize that the gentleman 
from Ohio is raising legitimate issues. Nobody in my State of Idaho in 
particular would deny that there have been abuses of the patenting 
process. But I think what we ought to do is deal with these abuses in a 
comprehensive way in the conference that is now going on instead of 
taking these issues in an isolated fashion.
  If I may, as we often do in the House of Representatives, let me talk 
about my district. In 1982, in Shoshone County, in my district, there 
were 8,400 hard rock mining jobs and associated jobs in the industry. 
Right now we have about 500. But with the price of silver creeping up, 
there is a good chance we are going to get those miners back to work 
and we will have some active mines and we can bring back a 
restructuring and a rebirth of the mining industry in a proper way. We 
can do it hopefully with a reasonable reform bill and do it with what 
is going on right now in the conference. But I do not feel that we 
should be picking apart this bill right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to 
instruct. Let me say that I am working as hard as I can to bring about 
reasonable mining law reform, but I do not think this is the way to do 
it. Again, in my State, which is known as the Gem State, where we have 
hard rock mining jobs, I do not want to send those jobs overseas and 
offshore, so I urge a no vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct.
  The House has supported a patent moratorium for several years now as 
an interim step to achieving comprehensive mining reform. And, we have 
addressed the overriding need to reform the 1872 mining law, 
fundamental to which is ending the archaic practice of patenting--or 
practically giving away--public mineral lands.
  As you will recall, the House voted by a 3-to-1 margin last fall to 
reform the mining law of 1872. The House passed a strong bill, but one 
that will not harm the mining industry's ability to mine profitably on 
Federal lands while at the same time allow the Government to keep a 
fraction of the value of such minerals.
  One of the key issues in the mining reform debate is that of patents. 
Under the 1872 law, which governs mining for precious metals, like 
gold, silver, and platinum on Federal lands, miners who discover one of 
these minerals are entitled to a patent--or fee-simple title to the 
land. Since 1872, the United States had transferred over 231 billion 
dollars' worth of mineral assets to mining companies, charging minimal 
administrative costs for the land transfer and no royalty whatsoever.
  The bill adopted by the House and reflected in the House counteroffer 
would eliminate the patenting process.
  As many of you know, it is the patenting system which legally forced 
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to transfer ownership of nearly 2,000 
acres of public land in Nevada--land containing $10 billion in gold--to 
a Canadian-owned mining company for the appalling sum of just $9,765. 
If we do not stop patenting, through mining reform or through a 
patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform--we will see 
more and more such cases in the years to come.
  We are trying to resolve this issue, and many more, with the Senate 
conferees right now. However, we are not optimistic. After receiving an 
offer from the Senate conferees on June 29, we countered prior to the 
August recess. We are now waiting to hear back from the Senate. The 
industry is pushing hard to block reform. The Senate appears entirely 
undecided about what kind of mining reform to enact, or, for that 
matter, whether or not to support any kind of mining reform at all.
  In the meantime, and in light of the very real possibility that we 
will not achieve reform this year, we should move to block mining 
conglomerates from pirating valuable public minerals just because they 
are able to tie up reform in the Congress.
  That is where the provision on a patent moratorium in the Interior 
appropriations bill comes in.
  Unless Congress acts now by enacting H.R. 322 or by enacting this 
patent moratorium, title to an additional 24 billion dollars' worth of 
mineral reserves--which rightfully belong to the American taxpayer--
will be signed over to international mining conglomerates for the 
paltry sum of less than $1 million. These companies will win the golden 
ring simply by paying $5 an acre--and what do the taxpayers get in 
return? Nothing, an empty pocket.
  The patent moratorium is not comprehensive mining reform: but it is a 
very important interim step.
  So, I urge a vote for the motion to instruct. Far from obstructing 
the work of the mining conferees, it will expedite our work, and will 
demonstrate that the House--and hopefully the Senate as well--insist 
that if we cannot achieve real reform, we will at a minimum stop the 
giveaway of public resources until such time as we do achieve reform.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for his motion. 
We should stand in support of it on this floor today.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], the ranking member on the House authorizing 
committee.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
motion of my friend from Ohio, seeking to direct the Secretary to break 
existing laws even as we labor in conference to change those laws.
  Mr. Speaker, rarely have I heard as much disinformation about the 
existing state of affairs than I have heard about the mining law. At a 
time when Americans are worrying about jobs and the state of the 
economy, we are being asked to short circuit an ongoing conference on 
reform of the mining law which threatens the outcome of that 
conference.
  Many of my colleagues in this body do not agree with me and my 
colleagues who have miners earning a living in their districts. I do 
not have an automobile plant in my district, but I would be the last to 
attempt to short-circuit the process of a conference regarding 
automobile safety standards by outlawing the sale of gasoline. 
Especially on an appropriations bill.
  Largely because of Secretary Babbitt's insistence on making media 
appeals on behalf of mining law reform, Congress has spoken in both 
Houses on the matter. By varying degrees, all concerned about the jobs 
of Americans in the mining industry want to see appropriate changes to 
that bill. That is why we are now in conference on an authorizing bill. 
It makes no sense to alter that now and risk the entire conference.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about how under the existing law, you 
can get public land for as little as $5 an acre. After seeing Secretary 
Babbitt on TV complaining his being compelled by the courts to issue a 
mineral patent, Mr. Richard Swainbank, of Fairbanks, AK, wrote the 
Secretary to ask for an acre. He included a check for $5, and asked 
that his acre be on a lake in Alaska with a view of mountains. 
Furthermore, he asked the Secretary, that his acre come complete with 
gold, platinum, or scandium. Much to his surprise, Mr. Swainbank 
received a letter from the Department of Interior saying, in essence, 
that it was not nearly that easy. To quote in brief, ``For most 
individuals, the exploration process leading to the discovery of a 
valuable mineral deposit may cost several hundreds of thousands of 
dollars per claim, and that expenditure may lead to nothing if no 
minerals are found or the BLM mineral examiners determine that the 
requirements of discovery of valuable minerals have not been met.''
  So, Mr. Swainbank got his check for $5 back, and did not get his 
land. Neither, apparently, does anyone else, according to this 
Department of Interior official.
  So, I ask the House: If the idea that you can get land for $5 an acre 
is dead wrong according to Secretary Babbitt's own Department, and the 
Congress is already engaged in a conference on meaningful mining law 
reform, why should we support any measures which could disrupt such 
reform? I suggest we should not, and urge my colleagues to do the same 
and defeat the motion.
  Let me just add to my friend from Ohio, the author of the motion, 
that I was in my office when he described the problem of the mining 
claims in Denali National Park. The gentleman fully knows that we would 
not be acquiring those lands if they were not added to the park which 
they should have never been. I have argued long and hard against land 
grabs which affect private property. I wish that some of my colleagues 
would listen a little more closely before adding active mining claims 
like this to national parks. It is not the fault of the miners seeking 
to work their claims--it is the fault of the Congress whose appetite 
for new parklands and acquiring private property seems to have no 
bounds.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, am I not correct that the change of 
boundaries came out of the gentleman's committee and not ours?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the gentleman. 
The gentleman voted for it. It was not my idea. It was by that time Mr. 
Udall and Mr. Miller and the rest of them that voted for it.
  Mr. REGULA. It came out of the authorizing process, am I correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It did. But I voted against it, remember that, 
and I talked against it on the floor.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand. There has been a lot of talk about this 
affecting jobs. The mining can go on with the moratorium. There is 
nothing in the moratorium that stops the mining. So how would it affect 
jobs?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If you cannot achieve an ultimate goal of the 
patent on the claim, why should you keep on mining?
  Mr. REGULA. I thought the goal was to mine, not to own the land.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Oh, both. Both. It is both. Second, may I 
suggest to you, we are now working on this process in the conference.

                              {time}  1440

  The gentleman knows good and well what he is doing is running around 
the back door, trying to undo what the conference may not be able to 
achieve this session. I think that is inappropriate. If the gentleman 
wants to do this, let the appropriate committees do it, not through the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
what does he think the chances are of getting comprehensive mining 
reform in this session?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I hope zero, right up front. I hope 
zero because the bill is a bad bill that left this House. It was a 
decent bill when it left the Senate, and there now has been a mark put 
forth that no one could accept. But that is beside the point. We are 
going through the process.
  If the gentleman wants to do all the legislative process in the 
appropriations bill, let us let him do it. But that is not the way it 
should be done. This is the back door approach to a solution that can 
be done through the legislative process and the conference.
  If we do not succeed this year, then the House has to come back next 
year and do the bill right, as they should have done this year, not 
take and put our jobs overseas and take jobs away from the miners.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is so pessimistic about the 
outcome of the conference, he is on the conference committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentlemen and I sit side by side.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman be willing to help us in 
that conference committee resolve this issue so this does not become a 
perennial issue for the House of Representatives?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, we will resolve the issue when the 
gentleman accepts the fact that there are miners and mining industry in 
this country in the West that need some provisions that the gentleman 
did not include in the bill that he brought out. He knows it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying that he would 
support getting conclusion of the conference report?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, we support revision of the 1872 
mining law. And by the way, we have worked on 37 different changes. The 
Senate passed the bill, a very good bill, and the House messed it up. 
It went over there. Then they got a mark from the leading Senator. I 
should not mention his name. We do not know where we are right now.
  Then, fortunately, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] has 
to put up with sitting next to me, and I know it just pains him 
terribly. I do not have the control that he has. He is in the majority. 
I do not know who is going to call the conference.
  But besides that, there is a meeting of the mind and protection and 
promotion of mining legitimately. I do not think we have a chance this 
session.
  That is not the point. The point is, we still have the opportunity to 
do the process. Why go around the back door? I do not understand that 
at all. I do not think it is the appropriate thing.
  My colleagues know my feelings on the other pieces of legislation in 
the appropriations process, legislating on the authorizing committee. I 
am surprised that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is not 
here right now raising holy heck about this. He is always one who 
objects to this process.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman from Alaska refers to the actions of the other body. I think 
it would be important to remind our colleagues that the other body 
passed this, their so-called reform, by only a voice vote. They are not 
on record.
  We have passed this reform authorization bill this year by an 
overwhelming bipartisan, along with western members of my party 
supporting in this effort. So I hope that the gentleman would recognize 
that there are those from the Western States that represent mining 
companies and miners who represent the mining industry who recognize 
that there have been abuses in the past.
  What we are trying to do here is correct those abuses along with 
mining rather than speculating on the public's land.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, may I suggest 
respectfully, the gentleman hit it right on the head. In the past.
  What this committee has done and has always tried to do is punish for 
those people in the past. There has been over 37 changes in that mining 
law. The miners have to apply themselves to every clean air, clean 
water law today.
  Now they are telling the people that they cannot keep their mines. 
They have to pay money up front.
  What we are trying to do is drive the industry over to other 
countries. By the way, Mexico and all the Scandinavian countries do not 
charge royalties, and we are trying to charge royalties today. Do not 
go through the back door.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a 
couple minutes on this issue. I also sit on the mining conference 
committee and also come from a Western State, where mining is an 
important industry to our people.
  It is important that we recognize what is happening here. We have a 
mining conference that is now operative between the House and Senate, 
the committees that are germane to the issue who are working on the 
issue. And yet here we face in an appropriations bill an effort to put 
into place a moratorium.
  It has been said and just discussed recently that there have been 
some past circumstances that are continuously pointed to where Members 
can point to abuses of the system. But I want to reemphasize that those 
circumstances by and large have already been addressed and in the 
conference committee itself we are ready and willing to talk about 
solutions.
  One of the solutions, if my colleagues are concerned about a small 
payment for a patent claim, it has already been agreed to have the 
payment be made for fair market value or for the surface, a royalty to 
be paid on the minerals that are taken and reverter deeds that gives 
land back to the Federal Government when the mining operations 
terminate. There are reasonable Members willing to work together to 
find a good solution to this.
  What we do not need to see is efforts to go outside the system and 
put into place a piecemeal approach to solving a problem. In fact, that 
is going to be counterproductive to helping us get the entire issue 
resolved in terms of mining reform. We cannot ask those who are 
involved on the germane committees to come together and work to try to 
resolve the differences in this country and between the House and the 
Senate on this issue if we are going to piecemeal it in the 
appropriations process.
  I urge a vote against this motion.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me again point out to my colleagues, we have had this moratorium 
through the House, passed the House four times in the last 4 years. 
Each time it drops out because we are told we are going to have 
comprehensive mining reform.
  We have been promised that for 4 years. Nothing has happened.
  We talk about piecemeal. This is not permanent legislation. This is 
for 1 year only. We are saying, let us not give away another 250,000 
acres for $2.50 an acre on these 613 patents that are pending and in 
the meantime wait for some more mining reform.
  That is what we need, and I hope that the commitment I have heard 
today comes to fruition. But I am getting pessimistic, given the fact 
that this has been promised for the last 4 years.
  Let me emphasize, this does not affect jobs. This moratorium does not 
in any way effect a requirement of royalties. It does not affect 
anything having to do with environmental rehabilitation. It does not 
affect jobs because mining can go on regardless of the moratorium, and 
so I think it is only responsible that we put in the moratorium so that 
we can get the comprehensive mining reform and address this problem 
permanently. If that were to happen, then we could drop this out of our 
conference report, if we can get that done this year.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion 
to instruct.
  Inclusion of the patent moratorium is more important this year than 
at any other time in the past. As Members will recall, the House voted 
by a 3-to-1 margin last fall to reform the mining law of 1872, a Civil 
War era law that encourages the giveaway of billions of dollars of 
gold, silver, and other minerals that belong to the American taxpayer. 
We passed a good bill, a tough bill, but one that will both allow the 
mining industry to continue to operate profitably, and also allow the 
taxpayer to recoup some of the value generated by the mining of its 
metals.
  We are now in a conference committee with the Senate, which passed a 
bill--openly repudiated at the time of its passage--designed to serve 
only as a ticket to conference.
  Now, some 10 months later, serious obstacles stand in the way of 
achieving mining reform this year. The Senate appears entirely 
undecided about the scope and design of what is acceptable as policy or 
can pass that body. There are three, or four, or more factions, each 
threatening to kill any package that does not meet with their often 
contradictory views. For a body which often has to function largely by 
unanimous consent, that is an ominous signal.
  One of the key issues in the mining reform debate is that of patents. 
Under the 1872 law, which governs mining for precious metals, like 
gold, silver, and platinum on Federal lands, miners who discover one of 
these metals are entitled to a patent--or fee-simple title to the land 
from American citizens and the mineral wealth it contains. Since 1872, 
the United States has let over 231 billion dollars' worth of mineral 
assets slip through our fingers in this manner, charging minimal costs 
for the land transfer and no royalty whatsoever.
  Now, the position of the House, which this body approved by a 3-to-1 
margin, is that we should end the patenting system. We should not give 
away permanent ownership of the public lands. We don't do that in oil 
and gas leasing. The States don't do it in hard rock mining. I don't 
think that many private individuals do it.
  The Senate has seen the issue somewhat differently. They propose 
giving patented ownership of the subsurface resource to the mining 
company, and having the public retain the surface rights. Then, when 
all the valuable mineral has been stripped away, ownership of the site 
would revert to the taxpayers.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is the meaning of the phrase, ``They get the gold, 
and we get the shaft.'' It is a preposterous argument. Although the 
mining industry claims patenting is critical to its ability to 
function, no State gives private companies title to its resources, and 
yet the companies mine on State land. I know of no private citizens who 
give mining companies title to their land for mineral exploration and 
production, and yet they mine on private lands.
  And while we are discussing the States, I should point out that 
mining companies pay royalties to States and private landowners, too, 
unlike on Federal lands.
  Under the infamous patenting system, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 
earlier this year was forced to transfer absolute ownership of nearly 
2,000 acres of public lands in Nevada--land containing $10 billion in 
gold--to a Canadian-owned mining company for the miserable sum of just 
$9,765. If we do not stop patenting--through mining reform or through a 
patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform--we will see 
more and more such cases in the years to come.
  We are trying to work this issue, and many more, out with the Senate 
conferees right now. The House conferees have forwarded several offers 
to the Senate in the last few weeks but have received no positive signs 
as yet from the Senate.
  There are ominous signs that suggest the mining industry may not wish 
this issue resolved, believing that, at this late date in the 
congressional session, it may be possible to kill the legislation 
altogether and with it, reform of the patenting process and the payment 
of a fair royalty to the American people.
  The House, which has repeatedly voted for reform, has included a 
moratorium on future patents in this Interior appropriations bill. The 
House wisely included this moratorium because of concerns that, should 
mining reform fail, Secretary Babbitt would be compelled under the 1872 
mining law to continue to virtually hand over ownership of public 
resources.
  No one hopes more than I that we do pass a mining reform law this 
year. But in the event that we do not--and I must candidly say that it 
is possible that the mining industry can prevent enactment of reform--
we cannot be party to the continued looting of the Treasury by foreign 
gold companies and others.
  So we should include a patent moratorium for two reasons. One, 
symbolically, we should send a clear message to the mining industry and 
its spokespeople in the Congress that the House--and hopefully the 
Senate--are not going to depend solely on the prospect for mining 
reform; we are taking out an insurance policy in the form of a patent 
moratorium.
  And second, as a practical matter, we should not leave the 1872 law, 
and particularly the patenting process, on the books should no action 
be taken on comprehensive reform. If we must defer until next year 
comprehensive reform for the benefit of the taxpayers who own the 
resource, we should hold the program in abeyance. For while we may not 
have agreed on the precise design of reform at the point, virtually 
everyone agrees drastic reform of the mining program is necessary.
  So, I urge a vote for the motion to instruct. Far from obstructing 
the work of the mining conferees, it will expedite our work, and will 
demonstrate that the House--and hopefully the Senate as well--insist 
that if we cannot achieve real reform, we will at a minimum stop the 
giveaway of public resources until such time as we do achieve reform.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion.
  Patenting is the last step in a very laborious, time-consuming and 
expensive process that often costs mining companies millions of 
dollars. Based on the faith that through diligence and expertise, a 
properly pursued claim can be ripened into a concrete bundle of 
property rights known as a patent, companies spend years locating a 
mineral deposit, recording a claim to it, working and developing it, 
and turning it into a profit-making endeavor. That is what the mining 
law of 1872 envisions, and that is what mining companies do.
  Mining companies are willing to invest in the search for minerals, in 
the process creating jobs and tax revenues as well as vital commodities 
for our Nation's industry, because they know that a successful search 
for a commerciable deposit can be protected under the law by the rights 
provided in a patent. Yet again this year, some people are asking the 
mining industry to continue to invest in and search for and develop 
mineral deposits and forego the valuable patent rights they seek. It is 
unfair to continue to ask this year after year based on the prospect 
that we in Congress will comprehensively fix the mining bill. Results 
of these reform efforts are at best uncertain again this year.
  I have great respect for my friend, Mr. Regula. He and I have talked 
at length about the mining bill and patenting in particular, so I am 
familiar with his justifications. Nonetheless, Congress has been 
working on mining reform for at least the past 6 years, and each year 
we ask mining companies to tie up their planning, their activities, 
their investment for just a little longer by accepting a patent 
moratorium. I share the concern that a few patents have in the past 
come back to haunt the taxpayers, but there are better ways to deal 
with that problem, including better enforcement of existing law, than a 
patent moratorium.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Andrews of Texas). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 318, 
nays 64, not voting 52, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               YEAS--318

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaugther
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--64

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Gillmor
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Herger
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Orton
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Skeen
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thomas (CA)
     Vucanovich
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--52

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bentley
     Camp
     Clinger
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     DeFazio
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hayes
     Huffington
     Kopetski
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Machtley
     Maloney
     McCurdy
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Owens
     Rangel
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Serrano
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Synar
     Thomas (WY)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Washington
     Wilson
     Wynn
     Yates

                              {time}  1509

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Velazquez for, with Mr. Dornan against.
       Mrs. Maloney for, with Mr. Grams against.
       Mr. Nadler for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.
       Mr. Lewis of Florida for, with Mr. Thomas of Wyoming 
     against.

  Mr. ROYCE and Mr. LIVINGSTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois and Mr. CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Andrews of Texas). Without objection, 
the Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Yates, Murtha, 
Dicks, Bevill, Skaggs, Coleman, Obey, Regula, McDade, Kolbe, and 
Packard.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________