[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9639-H9643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1996
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 231
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department of
the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman
from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 231 is an uncomplicated, but very
important rule which provides for the timely consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 1977, making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and related agencies in fiscal year 1996.
Specifically, the resolution waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration on the floor today. As
a precautionary step, the blanket waiver includes a waiver of clause 2
of rule 20, regarding legislative or unauthorized items, and clause 3
of rule 28, regarding items which go beyond the scope of the
conference.
The resolution was reported unanimously by the Rules Committee
yesterday by voice vote, and I would urge my colleagues to give it
their full support.
Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is certainly no
stranger to controversy. When such divergent issues as land use and
mining claims are combined with Federal funding for the arts and
humanities into a single spending bill, difficulties are bound to
arise.
Yet, where there are difficulties, there is also potential for
bipartisan compromise. I believe the Interior Subcommittee, under the
strong leadership of my good friend from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the
members of the conference committee--on both sides of
[[Page H 9640]]
the aisle--have worked very hard to finalize a balanced, responsible
product in the face of competing interests, and limited Federal
resources.
The American people have charged us with cutting Government spending,
and this conference report responds to their calls for a smaller, more
efficient Government. The bill is $1.7 billion below the President's
budget request and $1.4 billion below the fiscal year 1995 level--a 12-
percent savings from the 1995 funding level.
The conference report also meets our fundamental goal of reducing the
size and scope of the Federal Government. In addition to eliminating
certain agencies and programs, and consolidating others within existing
Federal departments, almost all agencies covered by the bill are funded
below the 1995 level.
Mr. Speaker, in recent days we have heard that this conference report
has attracted a potential veto threat from the White House. In light of
our efforts to resolve funding differences in a bipartisan manner, I
believe such a step would be very unfortunate, and even
counterproductive as we work to finalize this year's appropriations
process.
The Senate will soon consider the continuing resolution which the
House passed earlier today to ensure that the Federal Government
remains open for business as the new fiscal year begins on Sunday.
A Presidential veto at this time would just add to the challenges we
face in providing the Federal work force with fiscal stability.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, we have the responsibility to move this
critical process forward and to complete work on each of the 13 regular
appropriations bills. House Resolution 231 is a simple and
straightforward rule providing for the timely consideration of the
fourth conference report to come to the floor of the House. I urge my
colleagues to support this reasonable rule and to pass this balanced
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose this rule, and we oppose the measure that it
makes in order, the conference report on Interior appropriations for
fiscal year 1996.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and
against its consideration. One major reason why the conference report
needs such a rule is that it contains numerous violations of clause 2
of rule XXI, the rule that prohibits legislation, that is policy
matters, in an appropriations bill. Admittedly, it is nearly impossible
to avoid violating rule XXI entirely in an appropriations bill, but the
Committee on Rules usually tries, or at least we did try, Mr. Speaker,
in previous congresses, to prevent flagrant intrusions on the
jurisdiction of authorizing committees in these appropriations bills.
That is not the case here. The conference report contains far-
reaching changes in policies governing the use of our Nation's natural
resources, or, as the Los Angeles Times recently put it, it is, and I
quote, Mr. Speaker, ``swollen with hidden attacks on the public lands,
national parks, and the environment.''
{time} 1615
This rule is what makes it possible for the House to move forward and
to consummate those attacks.
To give some examples: This conference report includes a major change
in the law governing mining patents. Nearly everyone agrees that this
law, dating back to 1872, is in desperate need of reform. But rather
than continuing the existing moratorium on issuing mining patents to
give the policy committees time to draft a reform bill, as the House by
a margin of 271 to 153 voted to do, the conferees approved a change in
the price mining companies are required to pay for a mining patent from
no more than $5 an acre to fair market value of the surface of the
land. That so-called reform would enrich mining companies at a cost to
taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars in lost royalties.
The legislation also includes a back-door attempt to remove the
Mojave National Preserve from the protection of the National Park
Service by prohibiting the Park Service from spending more than $1 next
year on the Preserve and shifting authority for it back to the Bureau
of Land Management, whose rules are much more lenient than are the Park
Service's rules on mining, grazing, dirt biking, and other potentially
detrimental activities.
The conference report directs the Forest Service to change policy
with regard to the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, our Nation's
premier temperate rain forest, in order to dramatically increase
logging in environmentally sensitive areas of the forest.
The conference report prohibits adding new species of plants and
animals to the endangered species list, despite clear scientific
evidence that hundreds of species awaiting listing are headed toward
extinction.
The legislation cripples a joint Forest Service-BLM ecosystem
management project for the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest, a
project intended to allow a sustainable flow of timber from that
region. This provision threatens the protection of salmon and other
critical species and guarantees continued court battles over logging in
that region.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, to all these troubling provisions, the
conference report endangers resource protection by reducing spending
for many critical activities. The conference report cuts spending in
the Interior Department and related agencies as a whole by 10 percent
over this year's level. But within that reduction are much deeper cuts
in many extremely valuable programs, including wildlife protection,
energy conservation, land acquisition, support for the arts and
humanities, and support for Native Americans.
Proponents of this legislation say that these cuts are needed to
balance the budget. But in fact they are being used to help reorder
spending priorities in ways favored by the Republican majority. After
the House considers the Interior conference report cutting $1.4 billion
from resource protection and from cultural programs, we will be
considering a conference report on Defense Department appropriations
that increases spending for the military by $7 billion over the
President's request, and that includes funds for weaponry the military
officials themselves say the Nation does not need.
In other words, if both conference reports are enacted, we will be
spending five times the savings gained from this bill on additional
unnecessary spending for the Pentagon.
Thus, the significance of this conference report is not its
contribution to reducing the Federal budget deficit as its proponents
claim. Rather, its significance lies in its contribution to the multi-
pronged assault on environmental protection that has been launched by
the Republican leadership in the House.
When this legislation is viewed in the context of other anti-
environmental measures this House has considered or will be
considering, its negative impacts are even more apparent. This bill
follows House passage of several so-called regulatory reform bills, the
Contract With America bills, that would cripple Federal regulatory
agencies' ability to implement and enforce environmental protection
laws. It follows House passage of the amendments to the Clean Water Act
that would permit more water pollution and allow the destruction of
more than half the Nation's remaining wetlands. It follows enactment of
a provision included in the fiscal 1995 rescission bill which will
dramatically increase logging in National Forests. It follows House
passage of an appropriations bill which cuts funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency by one-third and includes numerous
provisions preventing the agency from enforcing antipollution laws. And
it follows the Committee on Resources' adoption of measures to be
included in the budget reconciliation bill that would open Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, that would provide
sweeping exemptions of environmental laws in the disposition of Federal
power assets, that would change concessions policy for our National
Parks in a way that would discourage competition, that would allow the
sale of National Forest lands in ski areas for development, and that
would protect the interests of those who currently benefit from the use
of Federal range lands for grazing.
Mr. Speaker, as Vice President Gore said recently, ``This bill takes
dead aim
[[Page H 9641]]
at this Nation's most cherished resources and will benefit special
interests at the expense of the taxpayers.''
For those reasons, the President has announced his intentions to veto
this bill. We have to put a stop to the wholesale destruction of our
Nation's resources that has been taking place this year. This is the
place to do it.
Rather than sending this bill on to the President at this time, I
would urge the House to shorten the process by defeating the rule and
sending the bill back to conference for the numerous major revisions it
needs.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves to be stopped dead in its
tracks. It is an absolutely lousy bill. The best way to stop it is to
defeat the rule that will allow its consideration.
There are a lot of things wrong with it, but the worst thing in the
conference report is the provision which relates to the moratorium on
mining patent claims which is an abomination under the guise of reform.
The conference agreement lifts the existing moratorium and allows
mining companies, many of which are foreign owned, to gain title to
Federal lands containing valuable hard rock minerals for a pittance. It
will result in billions of dollars being pocketed by mining companies
without payment of any royalties to the owner of the land, the U.S.
taxpayer.
This, in my view, is a travesty left over from the political stone
age. The original law that permits this outrage, this outrageous raid
on the Treasury, was enacted in 1872. If my old colleague Bill Proxmire
were still representing Wisconsin in the other body, you can be sure
that this provision would be the recipient of one of his Golden Fleece
awards. The magnitude of this giveaway is incredibly hard to grasp.
Let me give you one example. Just last year the Interior Department
signed away land containing an estimated $10 billion in gold for less
than $10,000. The so-called reform in this bill would mean that it will
only cost $100,000. The land is now owned by a U.S. subsidiary of a
foreign-owned corporation. Not only are we giving away the mining
rights for a tiny fraction of their value, we are also giving away
title to the land.
Now, that is not the only problem with this bill. If you take a look
at other sections of the bill, you will see, for instance, that it
allows increased logging in some of the most sensitive areas of the
Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It reverses key parts of the
California Desert Act passed last year.
The conference also contains draconian reductions in funding for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. It cuts funding for Indian education almost
in half. It reduces the Department of Energy's weatherization programs
by one-half, while at the same time it provides these gigantic ripoffs,
this huge glom of corporate welfare, to some of the largest
corporations in this country, and in fact some of the largest
corporations who originate outside the boundaries of our own country.
So for these and a variety of other reasons, some of which were cited
by the gentleman from California, I would strongly urge a vote against
the rule and a vote against the bill tomorrow if this House is ill-
advised enough to pass this rule this afternoon.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the
committee on resources.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule and in opposition to the legislation. As both my colleague from
California and my colleague from Wisconsin have pointed out, there is
just so much wrong with this bill that it is unbelievable that we are
considering it in this form, both in the harm it does to the
environment and the harm that it does to the American taxpayers. The
deficiencies are complete, they are throughout, and this bill should
not become law.
One of the most egregious provisions of this bill is that instead of
maintaining the patent moratorium on giving away lands, western lands,
to mining companies as this House has strongly advocated year after
year, the conference committee chose to ignore the clearly stated House
intent. Earlier this year the House voted 271 to 153 to support
extension of the 1995 patent moratorium. We took this action in
response to widespread concern that taxpayers were being cheated out of
hundreds of millions of dollars because of an archaic law enacted in
the days of Jesse James, the robber barons, and mineral kings. Rather
than honor or solidify the established bipartisan position, the
conference adopted language that replaces the patent moratorium with
even more deplorable language that currently exists under the 1872 law.
The conference report not only renews the processing of patent
applications which were substantively frozen by the 1995 appropriations
bill, but it also directs the Secretary to take such action as may be
necessary to take final action on all pending applications within 2
years.
This is no small matter. Since 1872, the United States has let over
3.2 million acres of lands and 231 billion dollars' worth of mineral
assets slip through our fingers in this way, charging minimal costs for
land transfers and no royalties at all for the people of the United
States who were the owners of this land when the land was transferred.
If this conference report is approved, the mining industry will
receive title to an additional 607 patents covering 230,000 acres of
the public's lands for the measly price of the surface rights.
Corporations clamoring to loot the public domain include ASARCO, U.S.
Gypsum, United States Steel, Exxon, Union Oil, American Barrick,
Manville Corp., Georgia Pacific, Santa Fe Pacific, Pfizer, Newmont, and
Noranda Mining Cos.
Just this year, because Congress failed to reform the 1872 mining
law, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was forced to sign away three
patents worth as much as $1 billion in public mineral resources for a
pittance of their true value, and no royalty will be paid on those
minerals that were owned by the taxpayers.
Lifting the moratorium will not only promote a giveaway of public
land, but it will put approximately 15.5 billion dollars' worth of
Federal minerals beyond the reach of any royalty payment for the
American taxpayer that this Congress may subsequently come up with.
So the taxpayer will sort of get screwed twice here, first by being
forced to give away the land, and then by collecting zero economic rent
or royalty for the extracted minerals. Nobody on the adjoining private
land conducts their business with the mining companies in that fashion.
We are constantly asked why do we not run the company like a business?
That is one of the reasons we do not, because the mining companies are
so powerful that we cannot get around to taking care of the public
interest.
The conference report should be rejected because it would also allow
applicants to use private contractors to gather and analyze critical
data to determine whether an applicant legally qualifies for the patent
or for free land. But this obviously creates a tremendous potential
conflict of interest.
There is no need for such haste as is envisioned in this conference
report. This conference report is clearly contrary to the best
interests of the environment of the West, and it is clearly contrary to
the best interests of the taxpayers of this Nation. We have endured
this giveaway of public resources for over 100 years now. We have tried
time and again to amend this law, to reform this law, and we have been
beaten back by the lawyers and the lobbyists of the mining companies,
and it is time to call a halt to it. If we cannot change the law, we
certainly should not ask the American public to endure the continued
whittling away of their wealth and their assets at the expense of the
mining companies' special interests.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would reject this legislation. If a
motion to recommit the conference report to exclude this provision is
offered, I would hope Members of the Congress would support that, as
they did earlier this year in their motions to maintain the patent
provisions of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the flaws in this conference report are not limited to
the failure to extend the
[[Page H 9642]]
moratorium on issuing mining patents. An egregious example of abuse of
the taxpayers and an unprecedented attack on our natural resources is
contained in the Senate rider dictating that timber interests dominate
management of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
Without any public hearings, the Senate has insisted on sweeping
language which will greatly increase taxpayer subsidized logging of the
magnificent old-growth forest in Alaska. Over the past several years,
the Tongass has earned the dubious distinction of losing more money--
$64 million annually according to one economist's study--than any other
national forest. The Senate language makes things worse.
The Senate rider would abort the Forest Service planning process and
congressionally dictate that the Tongass be managed according to a
discredited, draft 1991 plan. That plan--which has been rejected by the
administration for relying on outdated science--would provide for at
least 418 million board feet of timber annually, one-third more than
the average annual harvest on the Tongass over the past decade. Fully
implementing this provision could cost an additional $18 million
annually in Federal subsidies to support the increased logging.
Language added by the conference committee would permanently
constrain the Forest Service from amending the forest plan in any
manner which would limit lands allocated to timbering. Moreover, the
provision attempts to overturn a ninth circuit decision in a case
brought by tourism, Native, and conservation interests and would
insulate timber sales from environmental and subsistence use laws.
Mr. Speaker, the Tongass language has been highlighted as
objectionable to the administration by Vice-President Gore in conveying
the President's veto threat. It is opposed by Agriculture Secretary Dan
Glickman. It is opposed by the Governor of Alaska, Tony Knowles. It is
opposed by the Alaska Outdoor Council, a coalition of conservative
hunting and fishing groups. It is opposed by every Alaska and national
environmental group.
As an architect of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act, I take special
offense at this assault on our largest national forest. These permanent
changes in law are not within the proper jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. Moreover, there is simply no justification
for this outrageous abuse of public process and legal rights. Southeast
Alaska's jobless rate is lower than the national average. The economy
is more diversified than ever before and is growing. The Senate
language is an ill-advised attempt to turn back the clock and to manage
these public lands to favor a heavily taxpayer subsidized special
interest over all other competing users of the forest.
While the Tongass language alone provides sufficient reason for
the conference report to be rejected by the House, there are many other
fundamentally flawed provisions which undermine the 1994 California
Desert Protection Act by giving the National Park Service only $1 to
manage the Mojave National Preserve; unfairly target Indian tribes and
people by cutting the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget $351 million, 19
percent below the President's request, and $184 million or 11 percent
below the fiscal year 1995 funding level; derail the Columbia River
Basin ecosystem management project; fund Department of the Interior
scientific research at $35.7 million below the President's request;
prohibit wildlife species from being added to the endangered species
list and the designation of critical habitat; fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund land acquisition programs at $71 million
notwithstanding a $11.2 billion surplus in the fund.
Mr. Speaker, the list of objectionable provisions goes on and on.
This conference report should be rejected by the House. If not, the
President should veto it and insist that the Congress come up with a
new bill which is not an insult to the American people and our natural
heritage.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to certain provisions in
the conference report on H.R. 1976. While I am deeply concerned about
the effect of cutting $1.4 billion from our natural resource management
agencies, several individual items are especially egregious.
First and foremost, the conference report contains language which
will dramatically increase logging in the Tongass National Forest. This
provision may be unfamiliar to Members because it was not in the House
bill. It is a backdoor attempt to open the Tongass when scientific
evidence and sound forestry management dictate limiting harvests
overall and protecting important fish and wildlife habitat.
Under this provision, logging would be governed by a 1992 EIS
provision, alternative P, which is deemed sufficient to satisfy all
requirements of applicable law. By including sufficiency language, this
section precludes legal challenges and shuts off public comment. The
harvest levels set forth in the EIS are one-third greater than the
average over the past decade. Moreover, the Forest Service is directed
to develop a management plan for the Tongass which mandates harvest
levels at least as high as provided in alternative P. As a result, this
measure locks-in unprecedented harvests well beyond fiscal 1996.
This measure also makes permanent a provision of H.R. 1944, the
fiscal year 1995 rescission package, which prohibits the Forest Service
from setting aside any additional wildlife habitat in the Tongass. With
one simple reference, this measure precludes the Forest Service from
protecting important habitat for grizzly bears, bald eagles, and many
fish species. By extending this restriction in perpetuity, proponents
of this approach are throwing sound science and wildlife management out
the window. Moreover, this provision could push some species toward
extinction thereby triggering restrictions under the Endangered Species
Act [ESA]. As members know, ESA restrictions could limit harvest much
more than allowing the Forest Service to take proactive steps to
safeguard essential habitat.
Mr. Speaker, this measure does not belong in an appropriations bill.
It is a major policy change which has not been the subject of a hearing
or any debate in the House. Furthermore, it reaches well beyond fiscal
1996 to fundamentally alter timber management in the Tongass for years
to come. Finally, it throws sound science and timber management out the
window.
The conference report also strips House language extending the
moratorium on the issuance of patents under the anachronistic 1872
mining law. It replaces it with sham reform which requires miners to
pay fair market value for the surface estate exclusive of, and without
regard to, the mineral deposits in the land. This language is little
better than existing law which allows mining companies to buy public
lands for $2.50 or $5 an acre. Even in today's real estate market,
desert land 200 miles from the nearest town is worth very little when
one ignores billions worth of gold, silver, or platinum below the
surface.
Rather than working to address fiscal as well as environmental issues
associated with mining, some Members of the Congress are seeking to
scuttle comprehensive reform by passing measures piecemeal in
appropriations bills and through the budget reconciliation process.
While I firmly believe that comprehensive reform is the way to go, I
also believe that a patent moratorium is an appropriate stop-gap
measure because it protects the interests of every American taxpayer.
Without the moratorium, the Secretary of Interior will be forced to
immediately begin processing applications seeking to transfer 15
billion dollars' worth of public minerals into private hands. Members
of this body who are concerned about balancing the Federal budget
should take a hard look at the implications of lifting the moratorium.
Under the Senate language, the American people continue to get the
shaft under the 1872 mining law.
In another end run around the authorization process, the conference
report contains House language effectively transferring management of
the Mojave National Preserve from the Park Service to the Bureau of
Land Management. As many Members know, debate on the California Desert
Protection Act consumed several weeks during the 103d Congress. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] must be commended for bringing
this important measure to the House floor under a completely open rule.
Every Member of this body had the opportunity to offer amendments. The
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco] proposed an amendment changing the
status of the Mojave from a National Park to a National Preserve. While
this Member opposed that amendment, a majority supported it and the law
reflects this change. At the same time, the Congress supported
transferring management to the Park Service.
The financial arrangement in this measure is in direct contravention
to the will of the Congress. Once again, this appropriation bill is
being used to effect policy changes which should move through the
authorization process. This is an issue of national importance which
should be the subject of hearings and debate in the Resources
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the other body has added certain provisions making
fundamental policy changes which could adversely affect resources
belonging to every American regardless of where they live. The
appropriations process should be reserved for annual revenue measures.
We have an authorization process through which Members can effect major
policy changes. Various provisions of this bill make a mockery of that
process.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
[[Page H 9643]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appear to have it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of the rule I, the
Chair postpones further proceedings on this resolution until after the
vote on House Resolution 232.
The point of no quorum is considered as having been withdrawn.
____________________