[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.

                          ____________________