[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9678-H9691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 231, I call
up the conference report on 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, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). Pursuant to the rule, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 21, 1995, at page H9431.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with somewhat mixed emotions. I had hoped
to bring my first Interior appropriations conference agreement, as
chairman, to the floor with unqualified support. Unfortunately, there
are some divisions among conferees as you will note from the conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is compromise. In my 9 months
as chairman I have learned that our form of government is truly a
democracy, and I would not change that. Despite that fact, I, like many
of our conferees, am not happy with every provision in the bill.
However, the conference agreement before you today is an excellent
example of how we on the Committee on Appropriations have taken our
pledge to balance the budget very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before you today charts a new course, a
fiscally responsible course, but a course which also provides for the
protection and enhancement of our public lands, preserves the critical
science and research capabilities, and maintains health and education
programs for native Americans and, I would add, very important,
respects private property rights.
While I believe this bill is fiscally very responsible and represents
common sense, the action of the conferees with respect to mining is in
direct opposition to the views of a bipartisan majority of this body,
as was evident by the vote on the Klug amendment, I understand there
will probably be a motion to recommit and each Member will have to make
his or her own decision on the mining policy issue.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is 10 percent, or $1.4 billion below 1995
spending levels. This represents real savings, both now and in the
future. By not starting new programs or construction, we save costs in
future years. The bill terminates agencies and programs and puts others
on notice that Federal funding will terminate in the near future. This
bill is not business as usual.
We are not cutting at the margins with the hopes that we can keep
programs on life support until more money becomes available in the
future. Instead, we have terminated lower priority initiatives to
provide scarce resources to meet the many critical needs of our public
lands, to ensure quality health and education for native Americans and
to promote quality science and research in energy and public land
management.
Specifically, four agencies are eliminated: the National Biological
Service; Bureau of Mines; DOE's Office of Emergency Preparedness; and
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. In addition, more than 35
individual programs have been eliminated.
With respect to the National Biological Service, an issue of some
interest to many in this body, let me reiterate that the NBS has been
eliminated. However, as many agreed, the core natural resource research
activities, critical to responsible stewardship of our public lands,
has been preserved and will be carried out by what is widely recognized
as the premier unbiased, credible, specific agency, the U.S. Geological
Survey.
This will ensure that critical research, critical scientific
information will continue, and that it will be conducted independent of
regulatory influence or agendas and will ensure scientific excellence.
In keeping with our commitment to reduce spending, we have also cut
funding for this activity by 15 percent.
{time} 1045
As to the endangered species program, we are waiting on the
authorizing committee inasmuch as the authorization for the Endangered
Species Act has expired and we hope that the Committee on Resources
will bring out a bill. The appropriation recognizes that we are waiting
for that action.
The National Endowment for the Arts is funded at the House-passed
level of $99.5 million. The statement of the managers also makes it
clear that it is the intent of the House to terminate Federal support
for the NEA after fiscal year 1997. Again, this is consistent with the
authorizing bill that has come out of the committee of jurisdiction.
Funding for land acquisition, as in the House-passed bill, is not
earmarked and is funded at 40 percent below last year's funding levels.
This ensures that the limited funding will be directed only to high
priority projects for the four land management agencies. If there is a
critical piece of land, there will be funding available, but we do no
earmarking.
Contrary to what Members may have read in their local press, passage
of this bill will not force the closure of one single national park or
recreation area. No park will be forced to close under this agreement,
as funding for park operations is over 1995 levels by $5 million. I
would point out that this is in the face of a 10-percent reduction
overall. We have kept the funding for those agencies, those facilities
where the public interfaces at pretty much 1995 levels in terms of
operations. In the case of the parks, it is $5 million over 1995. There
certainly is not reason whatsoever to close any park.
To achieve that, increased savings were made in lower priority park
programs such as land acquisition and construction. Those things are
nice to do, but we did not have the funding to achieve that. Initially,
I tried to divide the responsibilities into three categories, must-do's
need-to-do's and nice-to-do's. Some of these are nice to do, but we had
to take care of the must-do's.
Construction has been reduced by more than 14 percent, and land
acquisition is down nearly 44 percent. Overall--and that is including
every dimension of the park activity--funding is
[[Page H 9679]]
down less than 5 percent. With respect to construction, we have funded
critical maintenance, health and safety, and repair and rehabilitation
rather than starting new projects.
In effect, let us take care of what we have. This is very important.
All of you who are homeowners recognize that you have to take care of
the repairs and rehabilitation of a structure or the result of much
more expensive problems late on. We have taken that approach in dealing
with our responsibility in terms of construction.
Funding for critical scientific research is also maintained,
including important health and safety research and mineral assessments
of the former Bureau of Mines, which will now be carried out by the
USGS and the Department of Energy for significant savings. This
disposition upholds the House position that much of the work of the
Bureau in health and safety research and minerals information is
critical and these functions will be preserved.
I might also add that in terms of the energy funding, we respect the
contractual obligations of the U.S. Government. We have many projects
that are underway and research through contracts with universities,
almost all of them matching funds. Nevertheless we ensure that these
contracts can be carried out and that the word of the U.S.
Government will be maintained.
Core programs that are critical to providing for the needs of native
Americans have also been maintained. Funding for the Indian Health
Service is down less than 1 percent from last year's level. I might add
that many native Americans came to see me in the past 3 weeks, and
without exception they said the most important thing to them is the
tribal priority allocations [TPA]. We recognize their concerns, and for
that reason we directed the $87 million increase over the Senate to
TPA.
Energy programs have also been reduced 10 percent from 1995 levels
with commitments for continued downward trends. Numerous energy
projects were terminated and the limited funding focused on projects
and programs which leveraged significant non-Federal investment. While
new construction was significantly curtailed, it was our goal to take
care of necessary maintenance and rehabilitation of Federal facilities,
and a good example is the Smithsonian, where the conference report
provides nearly $34 million, which is the President's budget request,
for critical repair and restoration of aging Smithsonian facilities.
As Members may recall, when the Interior bill was on the House floor
in July, the House voted 271 to 153 to support maintaining the existing
moratorium on the issuance of mineral patents on public lands. However,
the Senate prevailed in the conference, and that moratorium is not
presently in the conference report.
I reiterate, in terms of the budget, this is a good bill and with
respect to the stewardship of our public lands and resources, I also
believe it is a good bill. In the long term we cannot truly be good
stewards of our public lands and our cultural and natural resources, we
cannot foster scientific excellence, we cannot ensure a better future
for native Americans, we cannot improve our energy security, if we
cannot first get our fiscal house in order.
I think it is imperative for future generations, if they are to have
the same rich heritage that we have, that we have control of our fiscal
house, that we not spend their future.
Page 53 in the statement of the managers which accompanies the
conference report--House Report 104-259--contains a typographical error
under amendment No. 110 which deals with the fossil energy research and
development appropriation for the Department of Energy. The general
reduction to processing research and downstream operations in the oil
technology program is $1,100,000.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record at this point a table on the
various amounts in the bill as agreed to by the conference managers.
[[Page H 9680]]
TH29SE95.000
[[Page H 9681]]
TH29SE95.001
[[Page H 9682]]
TH29SE95.002
[[Page H 9683]]
TH29SE95.003
[[Page H 9684]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, my young friend, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], did not have an easy job in crafting
this bill. When we start off with a billion dollars plus, less than we
had the previous year, and have to allocate the balance among some of
the most important programs for the people of this country, it becomes
a critical job. Much as I respect what my good friend has done, I think
it is a terrible bill.
I have been here in this House a fairly long time, much of it spent
working on the Interior appropriations bill. This is the first year,
first time in all these years that I refused to sign the conference
report on the Interior appropriations bill. Why? It is such a bad bill.
It is a terrible bill.
It is so bad that only one of the Democratic conferees signed the
conference report. We do not have time this morning to go into all the
defects of the bill. It is a giveaway bill. It opens up the people's
natural resources for the taking.
Mr. Speaker, over the years that I have been on this committee, we
have tried to protect and foster the people's public resources. This
bill does just the opposite. It opens the people's resources for
exploitation. It turns over the Nation's wealth for the exploitation by
special interests. It would cut down our ancient forests. It would
enter our oil reserves much more, and it would open up the capture of
our valuable minerals.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, we were able for the first time, for the
first time, to check the giveaways that the Mining Act of 1872 had laid
the foundation for. We were able to stop the giveaways of our gold and
our silver, of all of our precious metals and our precious minerals, by
approving a moratorium on patents transferring lands to a mining
company for, what price, $2.50, $5. That stopped the giveaway to an
extent. We finally, in that moratorium that we prepared, we
grandfathered in existing claims and some of them have matured. I will
talk about them a little later. But the Members of this House
recognized the moratorium as a great idea and that it should be
continued. On a vote to instruct conferees, which I offered, to uphold
the moratorium, the vote was 271 to 151. Ninety-five Members of the
Republican Party voted to instruct the conferees to continue the patent
moratorium, 95 Members of the Republican Party.
What happened in the conference, Mr. Speaker? The first motion that
was made in the conference was made by a Republican conferee of the
House to kill the patent moratorium. And it carried, with the votes of
six Republican conferees. My good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula], who had so eloquently supported the moratorium when it passed
the House in the first instance, was the only Republican to vote the
other way. If carried with the votes of the majority of the Republican
conferees and by the vote of one Democrat. And with that vote, down
went the moratorium.
Mr. Speaker, I propose today to reinstate that moratorium. I propose
to make a motion to recommit this bill to the conference in order to,
by instructing the conferees, to insist upon maintaining the patent
moratorium. It is still a good idea. It is still a good idea. The
Members of the House who voted for that moratorium ought to vote for
it. Why? Well, let me tell my colleagues what the moratorium that we
had in existence for one year did. How important was it?
The moratorium held up, and this information is from the Interior
Department, the moratorium held up 235 current applications involving
138,879 acres of public land containing over 15.5 billion dollars'
worth of gold, silver, and other minerals. If the moratorium goes down,
as it will unless my motion carries, if the moratorium goes down, these
lands will be sold to the large mining corporations for next to
nothing. And additionally, a new crop of patent applications for more
public land and minerals will be filed at bargain-basement prices.
Waiting in the wings, Mr. Speaker, are 332,771 outstanding mining
claims covering more than 6.6 million acres of public land, about the
size of the State of Maryland. If the moratorium is lifted, all of
these claims will be eligible for application and the loss to the
American taxpayer could reach into the tens of billions of dollars.
As an example of what approval of one of these applications may be,
let me cite what happened as reported in the newspapers on September 7,
1995. Interior Secretary Babbitt made headlines. He said he reluctantly
had to do what he had to do. He had to sign away 110 acres of Federal
land in Idaho containing minerals worth $1 billion to a Danish company.
And how much did the Danish company pay for all that property? Just
$275. And again, on September 26, 1995, Secretary Babbitt was forced to
sign away title to 118 acres of public lands in Nevada worth over $68
million in gold. For how much? For $540.
These were patents that we could not stop. These were patents that
had been grandfathered under the provisions we adopted, and there was
nothing we could do to prevent them. But others can be, others can be
by the patents moratorium that was approved in last year's
appropriations bill. We want to put it into this bill as well. We want
to get a fair deal for our valuable minerals. Nothing excessive, just a
fair deal. Some compensation, some compensation for the people's wealth
that is being exploited. Now we get none.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, when the time comes I propose to offer my amendment,
and I urge Members of the House to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, my old friend, Chairman Regula, did not have an easy job
in crafting this bill. And while I disagree with some of the decisions
he made, the major flaws in this conference report are not of his
doing. The allocation for the Interior Subcommittee was far too small--
$1.1 billion less than the fiscal year 1995 amount. And while some may
cheer this fact, those of us who know the Interior bill realize it has
no fat; every cut we make has a direct impact on someone's life. Every
dollar we cut from the Bureau of Indian Affairs means the quality of
life for native American declines; every dollar we cut from low-income
weatherization assistance means an elderly couple will go cold this
winter; and every dollar we cut from the National Endowment for the
Arts means another public school student will be deprived of art
education.
The cuts to vital programs in this bill are reason enough to oppose
it, but when all of the extraneous legislative riders are added, it
heaps insult on top of injury.
The administration has said the President will veto this conference
report unless major changes are made. I agree with the President. The
Interior bill needs a higher allocation and it needs to be free of
legislative riders. Then and only then will it be worthy of a
Presidential signature.
bureau of indian affairs
The most troubling aspect of this conference report is that it
devastates programs for native Americans. It does so by cutting funding
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $388 million from the budget
estimate. This crippling cut is directly targeted at programs that help
Indian tribes run their reservations. If we ratify these cuts by
passing this conference report, we will not only be harming one of the
most impoverished and vulnerable segments of our society, but we will
be breaking yet another treaty with the Indian people.
Under this conference report, the tribal priority allocation at the
Bureau of Indian Affairs is $122 million less than it was in the House-
passed version of the bill. This catastrophic reduction will decimate
programs operated by tribal governments, including: child welfare
services, higher education scholarships, adult vocational training,
social services, and housing repairs. In addition, health and education
programs for native Americans are inadequately funded. All totaled,
these cuts will result in massive increases in unemployment, crime,
hunger, illness, and a general deterioration of tribal communities.
One cannot help but think of the words from Dee Brown's classic
novel, ``Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.''
They made us many promises, more than I can remember, and
they only kept one; they promised to take our land, and they
did.
Through treaties and other agreements, the American Indians turned
over their land, cultural traditions, and general way of life to the
U.S. Government in exchange for secure lands, housing, medical care,
and education. But once again our Government is undermining supposedly
iron-clad agreements. Yet again the Great Father is devastating
American Indians, just as we did at Wounded Knee in 1890.
[[Page H 9685]]
There is also a little-noticed provision in this bill that singles
out a small Indian tribe in Washington State and punishes them even
further for simply wanting to defend the water rights they were given
by our Government. The Lummi Indians are a proud and honorable people
and they simply want the Government to live up to their promises.
Instead, this bill hammers them into giving up their water rights or
have their Federal funds cut in half. This cruel provision has no place
in an Interior Appropriations bill.
mining moratorium
I would like to address the lifting of the mining patent moratorium
in the conference report. This is a very disturbing development and may
be one of the most egregious acts committed on the American public by
the Republican leadership since the so-called revolution of the 104th
Congress.
As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle work to slash and cut
assistance to those who need it most, welfare for the mining industry
has been given new life. As you all know, the mining patent moratorium
expires on September 30, 2 days from now, if it is not explicitly
continued in the Interior appropriations bill. Once this happens the
give away of public lands will once again start in earnest.
I find it ironic that the Republican majority litters the airwaves
with rhetoric about reducing the deficit. They say one thing, but talk
is cheap, about $2.50 to $5 an acre. This reminds me of the Teapot Dome
scandal which occurred during the twenties, when then Secretary of the
Interior, Albert Fall, went to jail as a result of having given, really
as a gift, the oil belonging to the people of the United States. It
seems the Teapot Dome scandal is happening all over again, but maybe we
should call it the Land Plot scandal. If my Republican colleagues
really want to cut the deficit why are they willing to give away our
precious minerals and ores. I would like to share with you what the
Federal Government receives for development of resources on public
lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources on Public Lands Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil............................................... 12.5 percent of
gross.
Natural gas....................................... 12.5 percent of
gross.
Coal, surface mined............................... 12.5 percent of
gross.
Coal, underground................................. 8 percent of gross.
Gravel............................................ Full fair market
value.
Building stone.................................... Full fair market
value.
Calcium........................................... Full fair market
value.
Clay.............................................. Full fair market
value.
Sulphur........................................... 5 percent of gross
value.
Phosphate......................................... 5 percent or more of
gross.
Sodium............................................ 2 percent or more of
gross.
Potash............................................ 2 percent or more of
gross.
Gold.............................................. Free of charge.
Copper............................................ Free of charge.
Silver............................................ Free of charge.
Uranium........................................... Free of charge.
Molybdenum........................................ Free of charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very upsetting to me, as I am sure it is to my colleagues who
voted overwhelming 271 to 153 in support of the Klug amendment
retaining this moratorium. Yet, by the slimiest of margins the House
conferees subverted the will of this body and receded to the Senate
position, even after being instructed to do otherwise.
If my colleagues would indulge me I would like to take this
opportunity to read the comments of one of our most learned colleagues
on this subject.
. . . 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
Mining Policy Center reported 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. . . . 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.
Chairman Regula spoke these eloquent words on behalf of the American
people September 13, 1994, ensuring the fiscal year 1995 Interior
appropriations conference report prohibited the Interior Department
from processing new mining claims on Federal land. In the short time
the moratorium has been in place, it has saved American taxpayers
millions of dollars by blocking the Federal Government from giving away
precious minerals and ores to foreign mining companies who take
advantage of an ancient law that allows them to mine on our public
lands for almost nothing.
This very troubling feature of the conference report has caused the
administration to threaten a veto of this bill. In a statement by Vice
President Al Gore the lifting of the moratorium was singled out as one
of the primary reasons the President will not sign this legislation and
is why I cannot lend my support to my good friend and colleague Ralph
Regula in his maiden voyage as chairman.
I certainly hope all of the Members who voted for the Klug amendment
will not give in to the pressure of the mining industry, but instead
reaffirm their support for ending this corporate welfare by voting for
a motion to recommit.
national forests
This bill does more than just betray our trust with the Indian people
and expand subsidies for mining companies, it also devastates our
national forests.
The conference report to be ratified here today will dramatically
increase logging on our already overtaxed forests. While funding for
forest research, recreation and state and private forestry is slashed,
this bill actually increases the appropriation for timber sales
management and timber road construction.
This conference report also contains a legislative rider that would
force the Forest Service to adopt Alternative P in the Tongass National
Forest in Alaska. Alternative P is a radical forest management plan
that has been rejected by the Forest Service and the Governor of Alaska
because it would wreak ecological havoc on the Tongass.
What's more, this conference report also contains sufficiency
language--a rider which prevents all environmental law from being
enforce in the Tongass. The Endangered Species Act is dismissed, the
National Environmental Policy Act is waived, the Clean Water Act is
ignored and all other applicable laws are considered irrelevant. In
addition, this sufficiency language prevents all citizens,
environmentalists and private land owners alike, from exercising their
rights to sue the Federal Government.
If we adopt this conference report we will be rejecting the judgment
of the Forest Service, we will be putting a great forest at risk and we
will be setting a dangerous legal precedent.
nea and neh
And this bill doesn't just stop at ravaging our environmental
heritage, it also cripples our cultural heritage. This conference
report will cut the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities by nearly 40 percent. These cuts are far
out of proportion to the total reduction in this bill.
I wonder if we all fully understand the impact these cuts will have
on our society. Performances will be cancelled, museums will close, and
art education opportunities in our schools will be cut back sharply.
And while every segment of our country will suffer from these
deplorable cuts, none will be hurt more than the children.
The conferees also adopted legislative language which dictates what
types of art the NEA is allowed to fund. This rider, the so-called
Helms language, is blatantly unconstitutional and has the heavy handed
overtones of former communist countries which decided what art and
literature were acceptable for the people. I sincerely hope this House
does not want to get in the business of deciding what books are
appropriate and what paintings are offensive.
All of these cuts and legislative riders are indicative of the warped
priorities in this conference report. Do we really want to cut
weatherization funding for poor families by $100 million, as this bill
does, at the same time we increase spending on low-priority research
and development projects? Do we really want to gut funding for
endangered species programs? Do we really want to cut funding for the
National Park Service by $68 million? Do we really want to harm the
Indian people? Do we really want to give away precious minerals on
Federal land for next to nothing? Do we really want to subvert the will
of Congress and the desires of the people of California by eliminating
our newest National Park, the Mojave National Preserve? Do we really
want to censor art? I know I don't want to and I don't think the
American people do either.
There are a few bright spots in this conference report and I want
thank our chairman for his enormous assistance with the Holocaust
Museum; thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to salute the staff. They
did an excellent job under very difficult circumstances.
But sadly, the fact remains, this bill hurts Americans, all
Americans, in a profound way. And this is why Mr. Speaker, for the
first time in 44 years, I must vote against an Interior appropriations
conference report.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Myers].
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time and rise in support of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, all members of the Committee on Appropriations realize
the difficulty this year we have all had in putting a bill together and
still honoring our commitment to balance the budget, at least by the
year 2002. If I had had my druthers, we would have not terminated the
Bureau of Mines, but I understand that was a compromise, so we accept
this.
Mr. Speaker, I will pose a question to the gentleman from Ohio,
Chairman Regula.
As I understand it, the conference report to H.R. 1977 contains $13.7
million for the Department of Energy's industrial advanced turbine
system program. The mission of the program is to
[[Page H 9686]]
develop more efficient gas turbine systems for industrial power
generation. Implementation of the turbine program will help keep U.S.
manufacturers on the cutting edge of turbine technology for power
generation applications and enhance our Nation's economic
competitiveness.
Is it your intent that the $13.7 million provided by your
subcommittee for 1996 be used to fund each of the two projects selected
for the industrial advanced turbine systems program so that they have
the opportunity to participate in the full-scale prototype
demonstration phase?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding of the conference
agreement.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
including this.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking and
congratulating the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our chairman, for
the way he has handled this bill. I greatly appreciate his courtesy and
cooperation, and I want the gentleman to know that I genuinely regret
that I cannot support the end product of his work.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this conference report deserves to be
defeated. Congress should not pass it. If it is passed, it should be
vetoed, and that veto should be sustained.
It is true that there are some good things in this report. For
example, in terms of funding, the report is better than the bill when
it left the House.
Overall funding levels, however, fall far short of meeting our
responsibilities, whether with regard to programs for Native Americans,
or proper stewardship of this country's natural and cultural resources,
for energy-related research, and for fostering the arts and humanities
that enrich our national life.
These shortfalls are not really surprising. They reflect the serious
imbalance in the overall Republican budget plan, which overemphasizes
new weapons and cutting taxes for well-off Americans at the expense of
needed domestic programs.
Even worse, this conference report is loaded with riders, some of
them merely unwise and shortsighted restrictions on spending, others
far-reaching legislative provisions of exactly the kind that the normal
rules prohibit.
Why is this happening? Well, the pattern could not be clearer. Some
of the riders continue and expand the Republican leadership's sneak
attack on our environment and natural resources, while others are old-
fashioned sweetheart deals with friends and supporters. I will not take
the time to go through the full list of these bad items, but I do want
to mention a few.
For starters, there is the language about the gold and other so-
called hard rock minerals found on Federal lands. For too long the
American people, the property owners, have been shortchanged. Under the
obsolete mining law of 1872, the Secretary of the Interior has no
choice but to sell these lands for a pittance.
Our appropriations bill for last year included a moratorium on these
bargain basement sales. We tried to extend that in a strong bipartisan
vote when this bill left the House and later insisted on it in
instruction to conferees.
So what did the conference produce? Well, not only does it not
include the moratorium, it actually would require the Secretary to
speed up the processing of these patent applications.
Other bad provisions here deal with the national forests. The House
bill was not all it should have been, but the Senate bill was really
bad, with provisions, for example, to force the Forest Service to sell
off more timber in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
So what happened in conference? Well, it was to make the bad Senate
bill even worse, adding language intended to block any challenge to
expanded cutting in areas where the Forest Service wants to protect
fish and wildlife and other important values. That is wrong, and we
should not support it.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I could talk about the provisions
in the conference report that would also block grazing reform, and
many, many others, but I think the point has been made. This conference
report deserves to be defeated.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the subcommittee.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. Due
to the funding allocation we had to work with, it has been very
difficult to put together responsible legislation. But we have done it.
The conference report to H.R. 1977 puts us squarely on the side of
reducing the deficit. The bill spends $1.4 billion less than last year,
for a 12-percent savings.
As I said, drafting this legislation has been difficult. We had to
eliminate 4 different agencies and eliminate over 35 individual
programs to meet our budget cuts. For each of us on the conference
committee, that meant accepting some very difficult cuts.
This conference report is proof that we are serious about reducing
spending. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and to
oppose any attempts to change it. We have crafted a carefully balanced
bill that spreads the pain of deficit reduction as evenly as possible.
I would like to say something about provisions in the conference
report relating to mining. The conference report moves significantly
toward mining law reform. Instead of a moratorium on mining on Federal
land, it includes a requirement that mining companies pay fair market
value for the land. It also includes provisions that return the land
back to the Federal Government if ever used for non-mining purposes.
These mining provisions in the conference report are a huge step
forward in reforming the mining law to ensure a fair return to the
Treasury and to protect the environment.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report and to reject
attempts to recommit the measure. A moratorium would yield nothing--no
increased revenue, no protection from abuses of the mining law. A
moratorium on issuing new mining patents would do nothing but ensure
the status quo.
I urge my colleagues to support this conference report without any
changes, and oppose the anticipated motion to recommit.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding this time.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, a motion will be made to
recommit this conference report with instructions.
This motion, to be offered by Mr. Yates, only concerns the mining
claim patent issue, and I would urge the Members to support it.
My friends, a cruel hoax is being perpetrated on the American public.
It is cruel indeed.
For contained in this conference report is a provision which will
allow billions of dollars worth of valuable minerals underlying Federal
lands to be transferred to private interests for free under the mining
law of 1872.
This provision exists despite a national outcry against this 19th
century practice that continues to this day.
It exists despite a bipartisan amendment which passed in this body by
an overwhelming vote last July aimed at halting this practice.
A vote of 271 to 153, on an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Scott Klug, and myself.
It exists despite a motion to instruct House conferees to insist on
retaining the language of this amendment in its dealings with the other
body.
And it exists despite the alleged preoccupation of some Members of
this body that the Government should be run more like a business.
Well, my friends, what business, what individual, would allow
minerals underlying land that they owned to be given away for free?
Who, in their right mind, would say, hey, what a great deal, pay me
the value of the surface of my land and you can have the underlying
gold, or silver, for no charge?
[[Page H 9687]]
Yet, this is what is contained in the conference agreement before us
today.
The House, last July, took a strong stand in seeking to extend a
moratorium on the issuance of mining claim patents.
This was done on a bipartisan basis. Liberal or converstaive,
Republican or Democrat, we agreed that it is time to put a halt to
allowing public lands containing billions of dollars' worth of minerals
to be patented for a mere $2.50 an acre.
Yet, the purveyors of the special interests had a different idea.
Scarificing the public interest on the alter of corporate welfare,
they sought, and succeeded, in getting the conference committee to
include in this legislation what amounts to sham reform of the mining
law of 1872.
I urge every Member to vote in support of the recommittal motion, so
that the public, at least in this instance, can receive some assurance
that the Congress is not in the business of squandering their natural
resource heritage for a pittance of its fair market value.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion
to recommit, because it is not the concept of special interests per se;
it is taking a special interest in the hard-working men and women who
are risking their lives daily and making a decent and honorable living
by mining this Nation's resources so that this Nation can continue to
prosper.
My friend from West Virginia came forward and offered some points
that I think need to be addressed. No. 1, it is important to remember
that in the western United States, for example, in Gila County, AZ, 97
percent of the land is under Federal control.
Have there been problems in the past? Certainly. But the conference
report provides rational, reasonable reform. Gone are the days when
someone can file a patent and then take that land for nonmining
purposes. We are getting rid of that.
Mr. Speaker, do not be deceived. It is time to stand up for American
jobs. It is time to recognize the reality that this Nation as a whole
prospers when the mining industry and those working in that industry
are allowed to continue to earn an honest day's wage.
So that is the special interest I rise to defend, the hundreds,
indeed, thousands, of hard-working men and women in the Sixth District
of Arizona who will lose jobs if we file this moratorium and in essence
hang up a sign on the western United States saying ``Closed for
business.'' Because, rest assured, Mr. Speaker, if we do that, then we
will sound the death knell for the mining industry in the western
United States and we will send jobs out of this Nation to foreign
shores. And instead of the dreaded corporate welfare, well, friends, we
will have genuine welfare, as we make honest, law-abiding citizens
wards of the State.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
conference report. This committee had a significant problem in terms of
1 billion dollars' worth of cuts that they had to make in terms of the
overall budget. But the fact of the matter is instead of going after
the waste that is in the departments and the agencies that they have
had, within their review instead of going after the programs in terms
of corporate welfare, in terms of the timber roads, in terms of the
mineral extraction laws, of grazing permits, instead of many other
exploitive policies, they chose to take those dollars out of the Bureau
of Indian Health. They chose to cut down the Indian Education Program.
They chose to shortchange the land management agencies and the jobs
they are trying to do, to abandon the Columbia River study project.
They chose to turn their back on the natural resources and the
protection of those resources, and yielded instead to the robber barons
of the 19th century operating in 1995.
These individuals for many years have received and exploited the
lands of this Nation, have harvested the timber; and not just harvested
it for a profit, but at the expense of the taxpayer. When you add in
the timber roads, the rehabilitation, the other things that have to go
on, the taxpayers actually lose tens of millions of dollars. Most
egregious, of course, is the rejection of the moratorium on the
patenting of mineral claims.
The fact of the matter is the moratorium is no victory. It is a
stalemate, and that keeps the pressure on for real mining reform. But
what they do in this legislation is they say that the 600 claims must
be accelerated claims in terms of acting on the claims and granting
patents therefore giving this land away at so-called fair market value
in the West and in other places in this country where the land value is
very, very low, to give away those billions of dollars worth of
minerals, which is the legacy and the property of future generations
and of this generation.
{time} 1115
If we want to deal with the deficit, we cannot go back and then serve
the special interests in this particular legislation. That is what
happens in this legislation, cut and slash again and again, programs,
that are important to people, programs that provide for the protection
of our natural resource legacy. To squander money by opening up the
Tongass Forest, demanding we will cut and harvest more timber there,
where it costs us taxpayer dollars to do that, and it costs us millions
of dollars to do it, this bill is an outrage; not just wasting taxpayer
dollars but destroying our natural resource legacy.
It is a shame and it is a sham, the type of mining reform that is in
this legislation. It should be soundly defeated, and we should be
voting for the Yates motion, as we did initially for at least a mining
patent moratoria. We should be voting for that motion to send this back
to conference, at least so we can get the mineral patent moratorium in
place.
The President needs to and has pledged to veto this bill, and it
richly deserves our no vote and it deserves a veto by the President so
that we can get some sound policy and sound deficit reduction in the
process of public policy setting in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the
fiscal year 1996 Department of Interior appropriations bill. This
legislation, which is based on pseudoscience, fails in terms of
priorities, process, policy, and the pragmatic. I strongly urge defeat
of the conference report for H.R. 1977.
Under this bill, the Federal Government stewards are prevented from
carrying out the basic responsibilities with which they have been
charged, protecting the land and water resources of our Nation. The
Members of Congress and the professional land managers have a sworn
duty to protect wildlife and biological diversity, to preserve the
environmental value of our national parks, and to provide opportunities
for outdoor recreation. The conference report essentially abdicates
such commonsense responsibilities and constructs a new set of
priorities in which the rights of the American people to use and enjoy
the public lands of our Nation finish dead last behind a wide variety
of special interests, in essence the users who exploit public
resources.
During the course of consideration, the majority simply circumvented
the normal legislative process. This measure is not just a spending
bill, this encompasses wholesale policy. In Congress, the House
strictly separates policymaking authority changes from the
appropriations spending and this is done for good reason. There has
been no indepth open debate and hearings on the policy changes which
are being directly sent to the President. The public has not had an
adequate opportunity to examine the policy path that is being advanced,
much less the Members of Congress. We have completely rewritten the
Endangered Species Act, forestry laws, and land management laws behind
doors closed to all but a select few. This is not in keeping with the
American tradition of representative government: the American people
have a right to know that significant policy changes are being made and
they have a right to know the direction of the new policy path.
Mr. Speaker, there is a simple reason these crucial policy decisions
were tacked on to the Interior appropriations bill instead of being
considered independently: these policies were added as riders because
on their own, they do not stand up to scrutiny. This is bad policy
based on distorted science and values. The American people do not
support it. Such change would not be sustained in the heat of open
debate.
Many successful programs are seriously underfunded or even eliminated
in this bill. The majority has made these cuts in the name of deficit
reduction but the cuts are not fair or balanced rather money is wasted
on timber
[[Page H 9688]]
sales, roads and construction that is being forced on the land
management agencies while Indian education is eliminated and Indian
health programs short changed. I support deficit reduction, but this is
not the way to achieve the goal of controlling spending. Problems we
face in managing our natural resources will not go away just because we
ignore them, and disregarding these issues will only cost the American
taxpayer more in the long run.
The moratorium on new listing under the Endangered Species Act of
animals and plants as endangered or threatened will only increase the
cost of recovery down the road. There is ample scientific evidence that
we need to be proactive in species management if we are to succeed in
recovering species with reasonable cost and regulation. Eliminating the
National Biological Survey [NBS], which has undertaken crucial research
on species, will only exacerbate the difficulty and increase the cost
of preserving endangered species. Moreover, it is hypocritical for this
Congress to call for better science and then deny funding for the NBS,
an agency specifically set up to conduct unbiased scientific research.
Eliminating the Bureau of Mines, which has been very successful in
improving mine safety, is also shortsighted. Not only will there be
economic repercussions to the elimination of this agency, there will be
a significant human cost as workers in the mining industry face more
dangerous conditions in their place of work.
The catalog of questionable policy decisions included in this bill
stretches on well beyond those policies I have just mentioned. The
mining patent moratoria to prevent the public land giveaways under the
1872 mining law are eliminated, energy conservation and weatherization
programs are severely reduced or eliminated, historic preservation
efforts are crippled, new guidelines to set minimum national standards
for the management of Federal lands used by Western ranchers to graze
livestock are postponed, and the Forest Service will be forced to
implement an unsound management plan for the Tongass National Forest.
Furthermore initiatives to provide recordation of existing rights of
ways on public lands is set aside. These actions simply personify the
mismanagement and political interference regards professional
stewardship and the law.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report severely undermines our national
legacy of conservation, it fails in terms of process, and it fails in
terms of policy. We must remember that the policies and programs
already in place to carry out the mission of the Interior Department
are not the work of Democrats or Republicans alone. Instead, they are
derived from years of deliberation, of listening and responding to the
core conservation and preservation values and ethic of the American
people. This conference report reflects a failure to uphold the
deliberative process that underlies the American tradition of
conservation. We can and must do better than this. I urge defeat of the
bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, all of us here have been elected to represent
the 600,000 people in each of our respective districts, but each of us
also knows that we need to put always the interests of our great
country ahead, No. 1. We are all Americans and we are proud of our
heritage and this body.
Today, we have a terrible deficit and debt, $5 trillion. Each of us
has to look under every rock and stone to try to get that deficit down.
Somehow, though, certain interests have been able to keep mining
royalties tied to 1872 law. That is ridiculous, and what a bargain for
them.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that if this bill goes forward there are
interests that have a lock on about 1,200 acres of land that they are
going to be able to put a claim on for about $8,000 or $9,000, and they
are going to make a windfall profit of $10 billion on that money that
they invest. That is not right. That is not right at all.
In fact, that is why the Citizens Against Government Waste say this,
and I will include the letter for the Record. Mr. Speaker, the letter
reads, in part, as follows: ``Dear Representative. In July, the House
voted 271 to 153 against corporate special interests. This sounds like
reform, but it is not; it is pure corporate welfare. As much as $15.5
billion in taxpayer-owned minerals will be sold beginning September 30
if the moratorium is not renewed.'' That is tomorrow.
``Instead of taxpayers receiving billions in return from these sales,
CBO estimates that the Senate reforms will provide a mere $150 million
over 7 years. Simply put, a moratorium period must be adopted to allow
for more comprehensive reform.''
``The Interior Department estimates this single action could result
in the issuance of 600 patents covering 230,000 acres of taxpayer land
in the next 2 years. The Citizens Against Government Waste urge you to
support the motion to recommit and pass mining claim patent moratorium
language.''
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this Interior appropriation bill unless
we also pass and adopt the motion to recommit. The rape and pillage of
taxpayers across this country has got to stop and we can do it with
this motion, and I hope that we are successful.
Citizens Against Government Waste,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1995.
Dear Representative: The 600,000 members of the Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) urge you to support
the motion to recommit the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations
conference report and instruct the conferees to renew the
moratorium on patent applications for public lands.
In July, the House of Representatives boldly voted 271-153
against corporate special interests and extended the
moratorium for another year. However, during the conference,
a Senate provision was adopted which lifts the patent
moratorium and allows mining claim patents for the price of
the land surface. This sounds like reform, but it's not: it's
pure corporate welfare. As much as $15.5 billion in taxpayer-
owned minerals will be sold beginning September 30 if the
moratorium is not renewed. Instead of taxpayers receiving
billions in return from these sales, CBO estimates the Senate
reforms will provide a mere $150 million over seven years.
Simply put, a moratorium period must be adopted to allow for
more comprehensive reform.
The Interior Department estimates this single action could
result in the issuance of more than 600 patents covering
230,000 acres of taxpayer land in the next two years. CCAGW
urges you to support the motion to recommit and pass mining
claim patent moratorium language.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Schatz,
President.
Joe Winkelmann,
Chief Lobbyist.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
(Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deep opposition to this
bill. Amongst many other things, it prematurely terminates three vital
initiatives that protect fishery habitat in the Northwest, amongst many
other bad cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my unmitigated opposition to this
bill. From funding decreases in land acquisition and energy
conservation to the termination of the National Biological Survey and
the Office of Indian Education, this bill is so packed with ill-advised
cuts that it would take me an hour just to list them all. At the top of
the list, however, is this bill's treatment of our Nation's sports and
commercial fisheries.
First, this bill prematurely restricts and terminates three vital
initiatives to protect fisheries habitat in the Northwest--PACFISH,
INFISH, and the Upper Columbia Basin assessment. These measures are
designed to ensure that activities in the region's national forests
don't harm important spawning and rearing habitat for trout and salmon.
Second, this bill drastically slashes funding for land acquisition.
If we are serious about protecting private property rights, we must
purchase the lands necessary to provide the habitat for fish and
wildlife.
And third, this bill terminates all funding for new species listings
under the Endangered Species Act. We are simply putting our heads in
the sand if we think that stopping agencies from listing species will
somehow magically make endangered species problems go away.
On the west coast, we are struggling to reverse the decline of our
world famous salmon runs. As recently as 1988, these salmon contributed
more than $1 billion and 60,000 jobs annually to our regional economy.
Since then, however, salmon fishing revenues have dropped by 90 percent
because of declining populations.
To those of you who think that gutting funding for the ESA or habitat
protection or land acquisition will help the economy, I say go talk to
the unemployed fisher men and women in my district, go talk to the
bankrupt tackle shop owners in Idaho, go talk to the thousands of
recreational fisher men and women in this country who may never be able
to catch a salmon in the Pacific Northwest again, go talk to the native
Americans whose culture and religion rely on salmon that will soon no
longer exist.
Yes, we need to reduce the deficit. But the priorities in this bill
are all wrong. We can do better than this. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this bill.
[[Page H 9689]]
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking chair, for yielding time to me.
I want to respond to my good friend from Arizona who took the well
and very legitimately and forcefully defended the mining jobs in his
district. Mr. Speaker, what is important to note here in this
moratorium is we are not talking about a moratorium on mining. Plenty
of mining goes on and will still be able to go on, on unpatented
claims. What we are talking about is a moratorium on the issuance of
patents on Federal claims, which is the transfer from Federal ownership
to private ownership.
Mr. Speaker, plenty of mining goes on, on unpatented claims. We are
not going after the jobs in the district of the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. Hayworth] or the district of the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs.
Vucanovich]. In addition to that fact, there are plenty of royalties,
State taxes paid by mining companies today, yet mining continues, jobs
are provided. The only problem with the regime today is that the
Federal taxpayers get nothing for the disposition of their resources.
State governments do, yes; other companies do, yes; but not the true
owners of the land, the Federal taxpayer. That is the issue here. It is
not a moratorium on mining.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
conference report. This bill represents nothing less than an assault on
the environment.
You know, one reason that I'm proud to be a Republican is that I
think our party looks to the future--we expect people to make
sacrifices today to protect the Nation's well-being tomorrow. That's
the idea behind many of our welfare reform proposals. That's why we
believe in balancing the budget; we don't want to saddle future
generations with our mistakes.
But in the bill before us now, we throw that principle to the winds.
We squander precious resources, robbing them from future generations.
We tell wealthy mining operations that they don't have to wait, we'll
give away national resources to them right now for a song. This bill
violates basic Republican principles, and for what? Not to cut the
deficit; this bill denies the Federal Government--the taxpayers--money
that is their due, by giving away our resources.
Now, I voted for the Interior bill when it passed the House. I had
some qualms about a number of items in it, but overall I thought it was
an important vote for deficit reduction. But the bill that has come
back from the Senate--with its Tongass National Forest and Columbia
River Basin and mining provisions--this conference report is
intolerable.
I urge all my colleagues who care about the environment to vote
against this bill.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill. Even though
there is an outstanding chairman, this is not a good bill. I think on a
bipartisan basis a lot of people are expressing concerns across the
board about many provisions. I am going to cite the one that is most
important to me and many of us that represent native Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts native American programs in education,
health, housing by 11 percent. However, of all the programs within the
Department of the Interior, here is the real pain: Forty five percent
of these cuts are absorbed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What this
means, Mr. Speaker, is that thousands of native American people across
the country are going to face cuts on many issues affecting
reservations, law enforcement, services to the elderly, road repair,
housing repairs, and social services.
Here is the most devastating cut, Mr. Speaker. The elimination of the
Office of Indian Education, which basically destroys our promise to
native Americans that they will receive the same educational
opportunities as the rest of our citizens. Four-hundred thousand Indian
children are not going to get these educational opportunities.
On the environmental side, the elimination of the biological service
basically says that sound science and information about biological
diversity and mining safety is not as important as it should be. At a
time when 50 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources, the bill
slashes energy conservation by 27 percent.
The bill basically also continues the 1872 mining law, Mr. Speaker. I
am a westerner, I am pro mining. I have probably as many mines as
anybody here, but there is no reason for any foreign corporation, as it
exists at the Yellowstone, to be able to purchase for $2.50 a Federal
acre. That is simply not right. Without this moratorium, Mr. Speaker,
this is going to continue occurring.
With the endangered species, we are basically saying we are not going
to do any more listings, we are not going to pay attention to
endangered species, plants, animals. That is not good sound policy. The
Tongass, I have been there. What are we going to do, are we going to
continue the decimation of our forests?
What are we going to do about the arts, the humanities, 39 percent
cut to the National Endowment of the Arts, the Endowment of the
Humanities. These are not elitist programs. These are grass roots
programs that help artists, that train people, that create jobs. This
is short-sighted.
Mr. Speaker, the best we can do is vote for the motion to recommit.
We need to kill this bill. It will be vetoed and it will come back. The
two chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Yates, and the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Regula, are good people. They have produced far better
products in the past and we expect that to happen again after the veto.
But a strong vote is needed to send a message, to send a strong message
that the bill as it comes out on a bipartisan basis is not a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the fiscal year
1996 Interior appropriations conference report. This conference report
sets a new low even for this House: It singlehandedly abandons our
commitments to native American people, devastates many important
environmental statutes, and destroys our arts community.
Let me be clear that if this legislation is sent to the President's
desk in its current form, it will be vetoed.
This is more than a simple appropriations bill, it is a recipe for
disaster comprised of a narrow political agenda and a heavy dose of
partisan politics.
I thought the message the American people sent the Congress in 1994
was that they wanted an end to business as usual. This bill does not
pass the test: It sends the wrong signal at the wrong time and it
should be defeated.
Continuing the Government's miserable track record of keeping our
word on Indian treaties, this bill further reduces vitally important
funding for a wide array of Indian health, education, and housing
services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] by 11 percent.
However, of all the programs within the Department of the Interior, the
BIA is absorbing 45 percent of all the cuts.
These harsh cuts will mean that thousands of native American people
across the country will face cuts in law enforcement on reservations,
services to the elderly, road repair, housing repairs, and social
services. These cuts literally hit Indians where they live. This will
be felt from the hogans on the Navajo reservation to the tarpaper
shacks of Pine Ridge. It will be a cold, harsh winter for all.
The elimination of the Office of Indian Education will demolish our
promises to ensure that the first Americans receive the same
educational opportunities as the rest of our citizens. By eliminating
the Office of Indian Education this bill eliminates educational
opportunities for half-a-million Indian children and adults.
Indian children are about 3 times as likely as their peers to drop
out of high school. Today, 36.2 percent of all native American children
live in poverty. Native American students on average score 15 percent
lower than their peers on standardized tests. Only 9 percent of native
Americans have a 4-year degree compared with 20 percent of other
Americans. Yet, this bill eliminates programs for dropout prevention
and special education for gifted and talented students.
[[Page H 9690]]
This bill eliminates the Native American Fellowship Program, which
makes awards to native American graduate students to study in the
fields of medicine, education, psychology, law, business
administration, and engineering. Once students complete their
education, they must return to native American communities to practice
their professions.
And let me set the record straight about something else--native
American tribes are not seeking handouts. They are seeking to have
promises that were made in treaties and statutes fulfilled. The Federal
Government has a solemn duty to live up to its promises to sovereign
Indian nations. This bill turns its back on this obligation and leaves
the first Americans with less support, few resources, and yet another
broken promise.
As if that were not bad enough, this bill devastates environmental
programs. At a time when sound science and information about biological
diversity and mining safety is more critical than ever, this bill
eliminates the National Biological Service and the Bureau of Mines. At
a time when nearly 50 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources,
this bill slashes energy conservation program funding by 27 percent
meaning that our dependence on foreign oil will only increase.
This bill would eliminate the moratorium on mining claim patents,
thereby continuing the yard sale policies of the 1872 mining law which
Congress refuses to update and reform. Without this moratorium,
foreign-owned mining companies will be able to buy up our land for as
little as $2.50 an acre, remove any and all of our precious natural
resources and abandon the land without cleaning up the mess they have
made. The American West is already littered with many of these mining
disasters. This bill will create thousands more.
This bill bars the listing of any new endangered species until the
end of fiscal year 1996 or until legislation reauthorizing the act is
enacted. It also bars the use of funds to designate critical habitat
for species which have already been listed, risking our chance to save
endangered populations of plants and animals.
This bill delays the implementation of new grazing regulations,
despite the fact that the Resource Advisory Councils [RAC's]
established by these regulations are already in place in many States
and are moving forward with bipartisan recommendations for rangeland
management.
In my State of New Mexico, our Lieutenant Governor, a Republican, has
said that ``ranching interests are well-represented on the council.''
And Fran Gallegos, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to serve as
chair of the State's council, has said that ``I will not allow
political agendas to mar the work we are beginning now.'' And while
this kind of bipartisan consensus-building is occurring in New Mexico
and in other States, Congress is preparing to stop the RAC's and delay
implementation of any changes in rangeland management while we wait for
new legislation to be enacted. I fail to understand why yet another
bureaucratic process is necessary while thousands of hardworking men
and women who make their living from the land wait for a conclusion to
this issue. It is time to put it behind us. Unfortunately, this bill
would make us begin all over again and reinvent the wheel.
And in yet another giveaway to corporate interests, this bill would
increase logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest, denuding yet
another section of our precious national forests for a quick buck. And
the bill goes even further to prohibit the Forest Service from setting
aside additional acreage in the Tongass as areas where logging would be
barred in order to protect wildlife.
Even though the contribution of every American to our arts and
humanities amounts to less than the cost of two postage stamps, this
bill reduces funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by 39
percent. Even though every industrial nation in the world has some kind
of government program to support the arts, this bill calls for the
elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts in 3 years.
Furthermore, the National Endowment for the Humanities is cut by 36
percent.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill and I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting it down. The American people did not send us to Washington to
pollute their air and water, destroy our arts community and abandon our
commitments to those who lived here first. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
bad bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct something. The gentleman
mentioned that the Office of Indian Education had been terminated. That
is not accurate because in the House we added back $52.5 million for
that office, and we maintained that in the conference committee. So
there is now $52.5 million for the Office of Indian Education.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just to reintroduce exactly what the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson] said, because one of the most troubling aspects
of this conference report is that it devastates programs for the native
Americans. I just cannot understand the attitude of this House. How can
we overlook the history of our irresponsible crushing of the Indian
people over the centuries?
Mr. Speaker, this conference report compounds that irresponsibility.
It does so by cutting funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $288
million from the budget estimate. This crippling cut is directly
targeted at programs that help Indian tribes operate their
reservations. If we ratify these cuts by passing this conference
report, we will not only be harming one of the most impoverished and
vulnerable segments of our society, but we will still be breaking
another treaty with the Indian people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one-half minute.
Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the native Americans, the conference
came up from the Senate $86.5 million. The House had a substantially
higher number, the Senate was much lower, and we did restore a good
portion of that and we allocated most of the increase to the tribal
priority allocations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
{time} 1130
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a case where a very good Member is
bringing us a very bad bill, and I am sorry about it. but I just cannot
bring myself to support it.
Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at what this bill does to the Tongass;
if we take I look at what it does to the Bureau of Indian Affairs; if
we take a look at what it does to the California Desert Act; if we take
a look at what it does on mining, as has been discussed often this
morning, my only question would be where is Bill Proxmire when we
really need him? If Bill was here, he would absolutely give this bill
the Golden Fleece Award for this Congress, because this bill, which is
above all supposed to be a bill that protects the public's interest,
instead caves in to the private interests.
Mr. Speaker, the worst of all offenses is what has been done or what
has not been done to reform the mining law. As I pointed out on the
floor yesterday, under existing law, Interior was forced last year to
sign away land under which was located an estimated $10 billion in
gold, and they had to sell it for 10,000 bucks. Under the so-called
reforms working their way through this place, that price tag would rise
to 100,000 bucks. Big deal.
Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me that the only logical thing for this
House to do, if we care about defending the public's interest, is to
support the recommittal motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates], repair this bill, at least in one way. That still does not mean
that the bill would be worth passing, in my view, because of all of the
other problems. But at least it would fix up a notorious rip-off of the
taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge support of the motion of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
as it is written and to oppose the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, there were, some would argue, good and valid reasons to
have a moratorium on mining in America. There were three arguments. One
was land was being sold at giveaway prices, $2.50 to $5 an acre.
The second was land that was being patented or mining was not being
used for mining, it was being used for some other purpose.
The third was the fact that there was no royalty being paid. This
process is designed to address problems like that, and this bill has
done that.
Mr. Speaker, the conference committee report, which I urge my
colleagues to read and to pay attention to, makes these issues clear.
In legislation which we have adopted, in fact, there now is a provision
that the full market value of the land has to be paid. There is no
[[Page H 9691]]
giveaway. So the first argument has been dealt with.
Second, there is a reverter provision. If on any occasion the land is
not used for the mining purposes, it reverts automatically. The second
issue is dealt with. Both of those are dealt with in the conference
committee report itself.
But third and finally, the issue of a royalty is also dealt with in
both the House and Senate reconciliation legislation. A royalty will be
paid. There may, indeed, have been good reasons for those who were
interested in them to impose a mining moratorium, but they were
resolved in this report. I urge my colleagues to recognize we have
fixed those problems.
The miner moratorium hurts jobs and hurts people. For the other side,
for those who oppose it to say we do not need minerals in America, we
are anxious to protect jobs, but we do not care about miners jobs, so
we do not need minerals produced in America and we can buy those
minerals from overseas, they miss so much of the debate.
Mr. Speaker, we need those jobs here in America and in the western
United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit
and to support this legislation.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, merely to point
out to the gentleman that we are not getting the full value of the
land. We are getting the value of the surface of the land. We are not
getting the value of the minerals that lie below the land. The value of
that land, with its dust and its scrub and its rocks and consisting of
land that nothing can grow on, is bound to be practically nil.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the President: Mr. President,
this bill is probably going to get to your desk. On behalf of the West,
sir, veto it and send it back. This bill is bad for the West.
This bill is bad for the public's land, because it has in it a
terrible bias toward extractive industry, an unconscionable bias.
This bill does break our word to the first Americans. America's
Indian people are the least well-housed, have the highest infant
mortality rate, they suffer the highest unemployment rates, they have
the least length of time in which they live. This bill is going to make
it worse for them. Mr. Speaker, I again say: Please, Mr. President,
veto it.
This bill gives away our natural resources, particularly in the West,
at bargain basement prices. It mandates timber volumes in sensitive
forests. The boys in the board room are getting their greed satisfied
with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I say: Mr. President, veto it.
Jim Watt must be smiling. He could have written this bill. Mr.
President, veto this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I again say: Mr. President, out our way, we like the
National Endowment for the Arts. This bill cuts that agency almost 40
percent in the next year. And what is worse, it applies Government
censorship to the grants. In the West, we do not like censorship. Mr.
Speaker, I say: Mr. President, veto this bill.
____________________