[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16382-S16384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE 1872 MINING LAW

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have just come from the second 
conference committee meeting on Interior appropriations. As you recall, 
in the first conference committee report there was a provision to take 
the existing moratorium on mining patents away so that the Bureau of 
Land Management would start issuing patents again.
  Just for background information, the provision last year prevented 
the Interior Department from accepting new patent applications and 
prohibited Interior from processing existing applications except those 
393 applications which had gotten relatively far in the process.
  Today, the conference committee effectively rejected the patent 
moratorium even though when the original conference committee submitted 
its report to the House of Representatives, the House voted almost two 
to one not to accept it and to send it back to the conference committee 
between the House and the Senate to rework the mining patent provision. 
Well, they reworked it. They reworked it with Saran Wrap. It is so 
transparent that it does not even pass the giggle test.
  What is so transparent about it? The new conference report says, we 
will continue the moratorium that we had last year until either: No. 1, 
the President signs a reconciliation bill that relates --think of it--
to patenting and royalties; or No. 2, both the House and the Senate 
pass another piece of legislation relating to royalties, patenting and 
reclamation, even if the President vetoes that bill.
  Mr. President, royalties, reclamation, and patenting are all in the 
reconciliation bill. They are scams, but they are in there. And so if 
the reconciliation bill is signed into law or if Congress includes the 
same sham provisions on another bill, the moratorium is off. The 233 
patent applications that we have told BLM they cannot go forward with 
will be processed, will ultimately be granted, and the mining companies 
will receive thousands of acres of land containing billions of dollars 
worth of gold, silver, platinum and palladium, for which the U.S. 
Government will not receive one red cent. Let me strike that. They will 
receive a red cent. The reconciliation bill has a royalty provision. It 
will provide $18 million to the Treasury over the next 7 years.
  I will let you be the judges, Mr. President and colleagues, is this a 
scam on the American people or not? Under the reconciliation bill, if 
these provisions stay, the Government will receive $18 million in 
royalties on Federal lands that are mined over the next 7 years. How 
much do you think the mining companies are going to take off the land 
in the next 7 years--Federal lands, patented and unpatented? I will 
tell you what it is: tens of billions of dollars of gold, silver, 
platinum, and palladium. And in exchange the taxpayers of this country 
will receive less than $5 million per year.
  In the 123-year period, since the mining law of 1872 was signed by 
Ulysses Grant, the mining companies have extracted in today's dollars, 
according to the Mineral Policy Center, $241 billion--not million, 
billion--worth of gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and other hard 
rock minerals. What has poor old Uncle Sugar, Uncle Sucker gotten for 
that $240 billion worth of hard rock minerals? Zip, zero, nothing.
  The argument is made that the mining companies create jobs, and they 
do. So does General Motors; so does RCA; so does General Electric. But 
we do not build billion-dollar buildings for those people to 
manufacture in, conditioned on them hiring somebody.
  It is the most incredible thing. This is the seventh year I have 
fought this battle. In 1991, I came close. I came within one vote of 
stopping this. What do you think happened after that? The number of 
applicants for patents on lands skyrocketed. It scared the life out of 
the mining companies. I remember the Stillwater Mining Co., which was 
owned by a couple of paupers called Manville and Chevron. They applied 
for their patents on 2,000 acres of land in Montana 4 days after I came 
within one vote of winning this battle. What do you think there is 
under the 2,000 acres? There is $38 billion worth of platinum and 
palladium. That is their figure, not mine. They are the ones that say 
it is worth $38 billion. Two or three years ago representatives of 
Stillwater came to my office and said their situation was very dicy. 
``We are just not sure we can open this up. It may not be profitable.''
  So what happened? Last year Manville bought Chevron's interest in the 
mine and just recently Manville sold its interest to a group of public 
investors for $110 million plus a 5-percent royalty. They can deal with 
each other and retain overrides of 5 percent. But if you suggest they 
pay Uncle Sucker 1 percent, the hue and cry goes up in this body as 
though you have just defamed the Holy Bible.
  When I said a moment ago that the provisions in the reconciliation 
bill were a scam, so transparent they would not even pass the giggle 
test, there is a provision in the reconciliation bill that is even 
worse, which says that the mining companies will pay ``fair market 
value.''
  Now, does that not sound reasonable? You can go home and tell the 
Chamber of Commerce where they know nothing about this mining 
legislation, and somebody raises the issue: ``But, Senator, how can you 
vote to give billions 

[[Page S16383]]

of dollars worth of gold and silver away that belong to the taxpayers 
and not get a dime in return? The mining companies are happy to pay up 
to 24 percent to private owners, but not one thin dime to the Federal 
Government. How can you justify that?''
  Mr. Politician says: ``I tell you how I justify it. I am going to 
make them pay and I have voted to make them pay fair market value.''
  Mr. Chamber of Commerce questioner says: ``That sounds like a fair 
deal to me.''
  That is the end of the story, except for one little thing. Fair 
market value is defined as the surface, not the minerals.
  So Stillwater Mining Co. which has 38 billion dollars' worth of 
platinum and palladium under their 2,000 acres will pay $10,000 under 
current law, and once the fair market value goes into effect they pay 
$200,000, or $100 per acre. Is that not something? Mr. President, $100 
an acre for 2,000 acres of land, and the taxpayers of this country get 
the shaft again.
  When you say ``fair market value,'' I have a proposition for the 
mining companies: I would like to offer an amendment here for my 
colleagues to vote on, reversing fair market value. Define fair market 
value as the minerals, and we will give you the surface. They would 
knock that door down over there getting out of here.
  Do you think they do not know what they are doing? Do you think the 
Senators who come in here and offer these outrageous proposals do not 
know what they are doing? I invite anybody to ask any Senator to 
explain one simple question: Why is it, Senator, that the mining 
companies are willing to pay the States royalties to mine hard rock 
minerals on State lands, why is it they are willing to pay up to 24 
percent royalties on private lands, but if you suggest a 1 percent 
royalty on Federal lands, they are all going to go broke, shut down, 
and throw all those poor innocent people out of a job? I invite any 
Senator to come to the floor and answer that question.
  Mr. President, 135 years is long enough. I thought maybe we could 
develop a little shame, so I raised the issue. How can you vote to cut 
$270 billion in Medicare for the elderly for their health care? Do not 
give me that wordsmith junk about how we are not cutting, we are just 
slowing the growth.
  Mr. President, 75 percent of the people on this country over 75 on 
Social Security live on less than $25,000 a year. They are scared to 
death they will have a toothache and have to have a root canal. They 
are terrified of a cancer diagnosis, which they know will break them 
even if they are covered by Medicare. Mr. President, 50 percent go to 
bed terrified at night even thinking about the possibility.
  So we routinely cut $270 billion from Medicare for the elderly. We 
cut Medicaid for the poorest of the poor. There were even proposals to 
cut out Medicare-Medicaid benefits for 13-year-old pregnant girls. Yes, 
I talked to a doctor Saturday afternoon who told me about witnessing 
the delivery of a baby of an 11-year-old.
  Go to any indigent hospitals and find out what is going on in the 
world. We will take care of that. We will teach them reliance, 
independence. We will make good citizens out of them. We are going to 
cut their school lunches. We are going to cut Medicaid.
  If you happen to want a college education, we are cutting education 
by 30 percent--the most massive cut in the history of the world in 
education. We are going to cut Head Start. We are going to cut school 
breakfasts when teachers tell me oftentimes that is the only decent 
meal the child gets during the day.
  What are we going to do for the mining companies? We are going to 
give them carte blanche to mine all the hard rock minerals they want to 
mine off of Federal lands that belong to the taxpayers. Is that called 
corporate welfare? How can you call it anything else?
  How can anybody with a straight face say we will balance the budget, 
and we are going to do it off the backs of the people who can least 
afford it, and we are going to give a $250 billion tax cut which is 
really a tax break for the wealthiest people in America.
  Many people who make less than $25,000 a year and have children will 
never get a dime. If you have a wife and two children and you are 
making $100,000 a year and paying $10,000 in taxes, you get the whole 
smear. If you have a wife and four children making $20,000 or $25,000 a 
year and you pay no income tax, you do not get a dime.
  What kind of tax equity, tax fairness is that? There is something 
seriously wrong in this Congress and there is something seriously wrong 
in this country when we routinely and almost cavalierly allow these 
giant mining companies all these hard rock minerals--billions of 
dollars worth every year--for nothing in exchange and penalize the most 
vulnerable people in America.
  I do not often agree with the senior Senator from Texas, Senator 
Gramm. However, when he says he wants everybody to start getting out of 
the wagon and help pull, I could not agree more. I say to these big 
corporate mining companies, many of which are foreign owned, get out of 
the back of the wagon and help the rest of us pull.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I was stunned to see that the 
United States will consider paying $1 billion to the United Nations.
  I was stunned because Mexico owes the United States $1.3 billion--it 
was due yesterday, and this administration told Mexico they did not 
have to make the payment on time--maybe later.
  When I ran for the Senate in 1992, I said that I wanted to bring more 
common sense to Washington. This is a perfect example of our misplaced 
priorities, and our sense of fiscal responsibility.
  Mexico owes us over $1 billion--due yesterday and they do not have to 
pay.
  Even though the United Nations is den of waste and abuse with no 
reforms in sight, this waste and abuse has been going on for a long 
time.
  On October 19, I introduced a sense-of-the-Senate, Resolution 185, 
that Mexico should repay its debts to the United States on time and in 
full.
  None of these debts should be reduced or rescheduled. The sense-of-
the-Senate also says that no further loans should be made to Mexico 
without specific congressional approval.
  Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, in a big public relations move, Mexico 
made a $700 million repayment on the $12.5 billion in loans that it 
owes to the United States. However, Mexico owed the United States $2 
billion on October 30, 1995.
  By paying the $700 million early, they planned--and it worked--to 
avoid making the full payment, the remaining $1.3 billion, on October 
30. Mexico bet correctly. This administration told them they did not 
have to pay. They could roll over the payment.
  Mr. President, if Mexico does not make these payments on time in the 
beginning, these so called loans will quickly become foreign aid--they 
will not be paid off.
  The Congress did not vote for foreign aid. The American taxpayer 
cannot afford more foreign aid. And the loans to Mexico should not 
become foreign aid.
  The bulk of the United States loans to Mexico do not come due until 
1997. They will not be fully repaid until the year 2000. But if Mexico 
cannot repay its short term loans on time--then I do not have any hope 
that the loans coming due in 1997 through 2000 will ever be repaid. 
They will roll it over into foreign aid.
  This particular $2 billion loan has been extended now three times. 
This is an outrage. And what makes it worse is that the administration 
wants to throw away another $1 billion of taxpayers money, this time on 
the United Nations.
  The United Nations has a huge bureaucracy. In 1993, the Bush 
administration found that the United Nations has no means by which to 
stop waste, fraud, and abuse by its employees. Mr. President, salaries 
for the 53,000 U.N. bureaucrats are 24 percent higher than for our 
civil servants. We are the ones paying the bills. They have a $12 
billion retirement fund at the United Nations. The Secretary General 
makes more 

[[Page S16384]]

than our President. And we are sending money to support that type of 
extravagance.
  These U.N. conferences are a waste of money and are boondoggles. 
There is no better description of them than a boondoggle. In 1996, one 
is planned in Istanbul called a City Summit held to address urban 
problems. One was held last March in Copenhagen called a Social Summit. 
From what we hear it was quite the social occasion. And we all know 
about the cost of the Woman's Conference held in Communist China in 
September.
  The highlight of the 50th anniversary celebration was their 
invitation to Fidel Castro--a Communist dictator--who got applause when 
he asked the United States to end the embargo against Cuba. I am sure 
this celebration cost the United States a huge sum of money. And that 
is what we will be paying for with the $1 billion they plan to send.
  Further, Mr. President, there are now 16 U.N. peacekeeping operations 
around the world that are costing us over $1 billion a year.
  The fact is that over the last 50 years we have paid the United 
Nations $96 billion. Current estimates are that we still pay 40 percent 
of the United Nations budget. We still pay 40 percent of U.N. budget. 
Yet, when a Communist dictator stands up to criticize this country, he 
gets a standing ovation.

  Mr. President, the point of all this is the United States should be 
concentrating on collecting the money that is owed us and not finding 
ways to send more out. Instead, the Clinton administration spends its 
time and effort trying to appease the United Nations--and finds ways to 
spend tax dollars.
  I want to put this administration on notice that I will do everything 
I can to stop the United Nations from getting this money until Mexico 
pays us back in full and on time.
  Mr. President, I thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________