[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.

                          ____________________