[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12380-H12389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977, 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 253

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the further conference report to 
     accompany the bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the 
     Department of the Interior and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson], my good friend, pending which time I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Ms. PRYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor today this 
rule providing for the further consideration of the conference report 
H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1996. This is a simple, fair 
rule which waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration.
  The blanket waiver includes a waiver of clause 2 of rule XX as well 
as a waiver of clause 3 of rule XXVIII which permits the House to 
discuss provisions which may exceed the scope of differences between 
the House and Senate. Under the normal rules of the House, we will have 
1 hour of debate on the conference report itself in addition to the 
minority's customary right to offer a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions. Considering the serious fiscal situation which 
our country now faces, I am hopeful that the House will accept the work 
of the conferees so that we can send this important legislation on to 
the President for his signature.
  Every step we take to pass these important appropriations bills 
brings us one step closer to restoring stability to our Nation's budget 
and finances. As my colleagues will recall, the House first considered 
the conference report on the Interior bill on September 29. By a vote 
of 277 to 147, the House voted to send the bill back to conference with 
instructions to reinstate the House-passed moratorium on issuing mining 
patents. Although the House passed a separate motion instructing 
conferees to stand by the moratorium language, the conference agreed, 
the conference agreement dropped this provision and instead replaced it 
with the Senate language essentially requiring payment of fair market 
value.
  This new conference agreement continues the existing moratorium on 
issuing mining patents until mining law reform is enacted either as a 
part of reconciliation or if it is passed by both the House and Senate 
in a freestanding identical bill. Under the compromise agreement, the 
Interior Department is required to process within 3 years at least 90 
percent of grandfathered claims which are exempt from the current 
moratorium.
  In addition to addressing the moratorium issue, the conference report 
provides funding for the core program and missions of the agencies 
covered by this legislation including funding for operating the 
national park system and all of our public lands and for the health, 
care and education needs of Native Americans.
  Although the bill represents less spending than last year's level, 
funding for the operations of the Nation's national parks and 
monuments, national forests and grasslands, public lands and national 
wildlife refugees has been maintained. The bill also provides for basic 
energy research with an emphasis on industry cost sharing, and it funds 
research programs which focus on protecting human life and property 
from earthquakes and similar natural hazards.
  Funding for the repair and maintenance of the various Smithsonian 
museums and the National Gallery of Art has actually been increased, 
and the bill continues to demand Outer Continental Shelf offshore oil 
and gas leasing. The conference report also includes a reduction in the 
funding for the naval petroleum reserve need today ensure that the 
outlays in the conference report match the subcommittee's 602(b) outlay 
allocation and a provision permitting the National Park Service to 
spend up to $100,000 to develop a management plan for the Mojave 
National Preserve.
  The conference report total is more than 10 percent below the amount 
provided in last year's legislation. Savings have been achieved by 
eliminating redundant management layers, reducing grants programs and 
doing away with functions which the subcommittee believes are not 
inherent Federal responsibilities. Chairman Regula and the members of 
the Committee on Appropriations have made some very difficult choices 
in writing this year's bill, and I applaud them for their hard work and 
dedication. The chairman's system of prioritizing the must-do's, the 
need-to-do's and the nice-to-do's reflects the kind of fiscal restraint 
and responsibility we need to keep this Nation firmly on the road to a 
balanced budget.
  So I commend Chairman Regula for his leadership and for his patience 
in crafting a bill that avoids unnecessary earmarks and that honors our 
fundamental commitment to the American people to achieve meaningful 
deficit reduction and to create a smaller, more efficient Federal 
Government.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I look forward to hearing 
from my good friend from Ohio and from other Members who played a role 
in shaping this final conference agreement. House Resolution 253 
differs very little from the kind of rule granted by the Committee on 
Rules this year for conference reports on other appropriations bills. 
It is entirely appropriate for this debate. I urge my colleagues to 
adopt this rule and to pass the conference report without any further 
delay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] 
for yielding the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we oppose this rule, and the measure it makes in order, 
the conference report on Interior appropriations for fiscal 1996. This 
new conference report is only slightly different from the version of 
the legislation the House voted to return to the conference committee 
back in September. For the same reasons we stated at that time, we 
believe that Members should reject this rule and this conference 
report.
  The rule before us waives all points of order against the conference 
report, and against its consideration. One major reason why the 
conference report needs such a rule is that it contains numerous 
violations of clause 2 of rule XXI, the rule that prohibits 
legislation--policy matters--in an appropriations bill.
  We acknowledge that it is very difficult to avoid violating rule XXI 
entirely in an appropriations bill, but the Rules Committee usually 
tries--or we did try, in previous Congresses--to 

[[Page H12381]]
minimize the extent to which appropriations bills contain policy 
matters. Not only did those efforts prevent flagrant intrusions on the 
jurisdiction of authorizing committees, they also kept appropriations 
bills from getting bogged down in disagreements over issues that are 
unrelated to the amount of funding being provided to Government 
agencies.
  This rule, however, sanctions the use of the appropriations process 
to make far-reaching changes in policies governing the use of our 
Nation's resources. It makes it possible for the House to consider a 
bill that the Los Angeles Times has said is ``swollen with hidden 
attacks on the public lands, national parks, and the environment.''
  One of those attacks, as Members know, is on public lands containing 
valuable minerals. As Members recall, the mining legislation inserted 
into the first conference report is the issue that persuaded 277 
Members--an overwhelming majority of us--to vote to send that version 
back to conference for revisions.
  Unfortunately, the conferees came back with a wholly unsatisfactory 
response. The conference report does contain a moratorium on mining 
patents, but only until either budget reconciliation legislation 
containing provisions regarding patenting of mining claims and payment 
of royalties is enacted, or the House and Senate agree to such 
provisions in other legislation.
  Note that the moratorium could be lifted simply if the House and 
Senate pass such legislation--it is not necessary that it be enacted 
into law.
  The conferees also made a change regarding the Mojave National 
Preserve that attempts to allay the concerns of many of us about the 
original conference report. But it fails in that respect, too.
  Report language accompanying the new conference report allows the 
National Park Service to use $100,000 in existing funds to develop a 
management plan for the east Mojave area. But it does not overturn the 
original legislation removing the Mojave Preserve from the protection 
of the National Park Service by prohibiting the Park Service from 
spending more than $1 on it next year. It would still shift authority 
for the area back to the Bureau of Land Management, whose rules are 
much more lenient than the Park Service's on mining, grazing, dirt 
biking, and other detrimental activities.
  Many other egregious provisions that were contained in the original 
conference report remain in the new version. For example:
  The conference report directs the Forest Service to change policy 
with regard to the Tongass National Forest in Alaska--our Nation's 
premier temperate rainforest--in order to dramatically increase logging 
in environmentally sensitive areas of the forest;
  It prohibits adding new species of plants and animals to the 
endangered species list, despite clear scientific evidence that 
hundreds of species awaiting listing are headed toward extinction;
  It cripples a joint Forest Service-BLM ecosystem management project 
for the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest, a project that was 
intended to allow a sustainable flow of timber from that region. This 
provision threatens the protection of salmon and other critical 
species, and guarantees continued court battles over logging in that 
region; and
  It places a moratorium on the development of Federal energy 
efficiency standards.
  In addition to all these troubling provisions, the conference report 
endangers resource protection by reducing spending for many critical 
activities. The conference report cuts spending on the Interior 
Department and related agencies as a whole by 10 percent from this 
year's level, but within that reduction are much deeper cuts in many 
valuable programs, including wildlife protection, energy conservation, 
land acquisition, support for the arts and humanities, and support for 
native Americans. These are programs that do an enormous amount of good 
for our Nation for a relatively small sum.
  Defenders of this measure say that these cuts are necessary to help 
balance the budget but, in fact, the $1.4 billion cut this bill makes 
from last year's level is necessary only in the sense that the 
majority's budget plan needs it to help pay for $7 billion in added 
defense spending, including spending on weaponry that Pentagon 
officials themselves say the Nation does not need. It is necessary only 
because the majority's budget plan needs it to help pay for a 7-year, 
$245 billion tax cut that will mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  The real significance of this legislation is not its contribution to 
reducing the Federal budget deficit, but rather its contribution to the 
multipronged assault on environmental protection that has been launched 
by the Republican leadership in the House. When this legislation is 
viewed in the context of other antienvironmental measures the House has 
considered, or will be considering, its negative impacts are even more 
apparent.

  This conference report follows House passage of several so-called 
regulatory reform bills--the Contract With America bills that would 
cripple Federal regulatory agencies' ability to implement and enforce 
environmental protection laws;
  It follows House passage of the amendments to the Clean Water Act 
that would permit more water pollution and allow the destruction of 
more than half the Nation's remaining wetlands;
  It follows enactment of a provision included in the fiscal 1995 
rescission bill which will dramatically increase logging in national 
forests;
  It follows House passage of an appropriations bill which cuts funding 
for the Environmental Protection Agency by one third;
  It follows House passage of the budget reconciliation bill that would 
open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, and would 
provide special deals for industries that want to use the natural 
resources that belong to all Americans--mining, timber, ranching, and 
oil and gas interests--and special deals for concessionaires in our 
national parks, and for ski operators in our national forests; and
  It follows House Resource Committee passage of a bill that would 
weaken the most important provisions of the Endangered Species Act, 
imperiling our hard-fought efforts to protect our biological resources.
  Mr. Speaker, the President intends to veto this bill if it is sent to 
him in its current form. Thus, we have two choices: Either pass this 
bill now, and have it vetoed and returned to us for further changes, or 
send it back to conference now for those changes. At this late date, 
the wise choice would be to shorten the process by sending it back to 
conference now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, let us make it clear what the issue is. 
This body voted to recommit this bill to the conference committee for 
the purpose of including a mining patent moratorium. The patent 
moratorium was put back in the bill. It is the language that I had in 
the bill last year. I have been one of the key proponents of a patent 
moratorium. I voted to recommit my own bill to get a mining patent 
moratorium. I think it is essential. I think we need the patent 
moratorium in order to effect meaningful mining reform legislation.
  However, we are not a legislative committee. Our responsibility is to 
hold the line with a moratorium for fiscal year 1996 in hopes that 
there will be mining reform legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friends across the aisle that 
for 2 years they had complete control of the House, the Senate, and the 
executive branch, and there was no mining reform. The only thing that 
was enacted was the patent moratorium that I put in the bill last year 
after a struggle to get that. Now we have an opportunity again to have 
a mining patent moratorium in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read to my colleagues what the Department of 
Interior said about this language, and I 

[[Page H12382]]
quote from the Department's effect statement, and they say this, about 
what is in this conference report: ``This amendment language would hold 
back such a rush while Congress passes at least some form of mining law 
reform legislation.''
  So you have the Department of Interior saying that this language will 
hold back the rush to have patents issued. Without the moratorium 
language, we are going to have along line down at the Department of 
Interior of people waiting to file their patents and have them issued.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman also read the preferred 
action of the effect statement which indicate that the Department 
prefers the moratorium language that was in the bill last year to the 
moratorium language that is in this bill; is that not correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct, but the 
problem is that we cannot use the identical language, because the 
moratorium last year was conditioned on falling out if the mining 
reform legislation in conference was passed. Well, of course it was 
not, so the moratorium stayed in effect.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not have mining reform bill in conference as a 
free standing bill this year. We have mining reform legislation in 
reconicilation, also known as the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. This, 
again is conditioned on the fact that if, if there is in the 
reconciliation bill mining reform that must be signed by the President 
and becomes law, only then will the moratorium drop out. I would assume 
and hope that it will be not be signed by the President if it does not 
have good comprehensive mining reform. The President has said that.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the language of the so-called 
mining reform that is in the reconciliation bill, it does not require 
that the bill be sent to the President for his signature.
  Mr. REGULA. Well, reclaiming my time, the reconciliation bill cannot 
become law unless it is signed by the President. That is a legislative 
act.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that 
is an entirely different question, may I say to the gentleman. The only 
reason for doing away with the moratorium, the language in that bill, 
is passage by the House and the Senate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from West 
Virginia is talking about the second condition that it has to be an 
identical freestanding bill. If that occurred, it would allow every 
Member of the House and Senate to participate in establishing mining 
policy. That is extremely unlikely to happen.
  The real key is that if the reconciliation bill contains mining 
reform dealing with patents and royalties and it is signed by the 
President, then the moratorium drops out. Otherwise, it stays in effect 
and we will not have this rush of patents that otherwise would happen.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman for yielding and do commend him for all of the excellent work 
he has done in the area of mining law reform, and in an effort to 
invoke a true mining moratorium.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, though, if he is aware of a 
letter that has been written to a member of the other body from the 
Department of Justice stating the unconstitutionality of the particular 
provision to which you refer.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker I am very aware of it, and for that reason it 
becomes meaningless. So the key here is a reconciliation bill that 
contains mining reform that is signed by the President. Otherwise, the 
moratorium stays in place, which I know is what the gentleman would 
like to have happen.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if he would 
continue to yield, yes, but it is my understanding that the signature 
of the President is not required.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is on the 
reconciliation bill, and that is the key to having the moratorium drop 
out. As a practical matter, unless there is a reconciliation bill with 
mining law reform signed by the President, the moratorium stays in 
place for fiscal year 1996. That is the practical effect, because the 
question you have raised makes the second part moot.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, again, just let me emphasize that this does 
address what this body recommitted, and I supported the recommittal. 
Again, I want to emphasize, I support a mining patent moratorium. I put 
it in place in this subcommittee in previous years. I think that this 
does the job.
  Mr. Speaker, the real problem is with the reconciliation bill, and I 
would urge my colleagues on both sides who want meaningful mining 
reform legislation to talk to the conferees on the reconciliation bill, 
because there is where the action is. But if they do not do the job, 
and the President obviously has said he will not sign a bill that does 
not have good mining reform language, then the moratorium will stay in 
place in fiscal year 1996, as we were instructed.
  Mr. Speaker, let me mention the Tongass. The statement was made that 
this would dramatically increase the cut. Well, from 310 million board 
feet to 320 million board feet hardly qualifies as dramatically 
increasing the cut. All it does is give the Forest Service some 
flexibility.
  The Tongass language, and this is important that I emphasize to my 
colleagues, says, and I am quoting from the language, that the 
increased cut, which will be very, very slight, if any, because we have 
not put any extra money in to implement the cuts, so I doubt if there 
will be any extra cut, but if it is, it is ``to the maximum extent as 
is practical.'' Decided by whom? The Forest Service.
  The Chief of the Forest Service is appointed by the President of the 
United States. So, control over what happens in the Tongass remains, I 
emphasize remains, in the Forest Service. Because if they determine 
that not one extra board foot is practicable, nothing happens. 
Furthermore, they likely cannot do it because they do not have the 
money to accomplish that.
  So I think that the Tongass is raised as a symbolic issue, but as a 
real issue, it is meaningless, and I hope Members will not make a 
judgment on this motion on the basis that it is sending it back for the 
Tongass. That language does not do anything for all practical purposes. 
I was advised by the Forest Service that it really does not do 
anything.
  So I think it is important that we get on with this bill and not 
recommit it. Let us get it passed. if the President determines that 
this does not meet his standards for environmental conditions, he can 
veto it, and then we will go back to the drawing board and the ranking 
member and myself, along with our colleagues in the other body, will 
try to address as best possible their concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to the Members on my side of the 
aisle, and for all Members, for that matter, we talk about balancing 
the budget; the President is talking about balancing the budget, about 
cutting spending. The only way we cut spending is to cut spending. We 
have done this.
  This bill is 10 percent below 1995, and that is in the face of very 
challenging responsibilities. However, it keeps the parks open, it 
keeps the forest recreation areas open, it keeps the fish and wildlife 
facilities open, it keeps the Smithsonian open, the Kennedy Center, the 
National Gallery of Art. It funds the programs that are important.
  Obviously, there were some things we could not do. We could not buy a 
lot more land, we could not start more visitor centers. A lot of the 
nice things that we would like to do we could not do, but we have 
accomplished what I think is a very responsible bill, given the fact 
that we had 10 percent less to work with.
  Some on my side have been concerned about the National Biological 
Service. We have folded that into the U.S. Geological Survey to ensure 
that we have the scientific evidence and basic information that is 
needed to do an effective job in the Department of the Interior. We 
have in no way crippled the ability to deliver science. The 

[[Page H12383]]
USGS is a highly respected, reputable agency, and I think that what we 
have here is a very responsible bill, given the parameters of what we 
have to work with, and I would urge all of my colleagues, when the time 
comes, to reject the motion to recommit and to vote for the conference 
agreement.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose both this rule and the bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the bill if this rule should pass, for a 
number of reasons, but one that is particularly close to me and many 
other Members is one I want to mention here today.
  The people in America with the lowest life expectancy are native 
Americans. This bill cuts native American efforts. The people among us 
with the highest infant mortality rates are America's Indians. This 
bill cuts them. The American people do not support that. President 
Clinton does not support that.
  The people in America with the highest unemployment rates are native 
Americans. This bill cuts them. The people in America with the worst 
poverty in this Nation are America's Indian people. I have a 
reservation in Montana, proud people, northern Cheyenne, taught Custer 
a lesson in strategy. They have 65 percent unemployment. No people in 
America would put up with that for a month. These people have lived 
with it for more than a century.
  A turnaround has begun in Indian country. Because of the dozen and a 
half years of chairmanship of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
and his good colleagues, American Indians have begun to turn the corner 
toward a better future. This bill stops that progress. There is a 
quarter of a billion dollar cut in BIA programs in this bill. The 
American people do not support that.
  In a bill that is about to come to us, Housing and Urban Development, 
the people with the worst housing in America, American Indians, are 
about to find their housing money running out. And this bill cuts 
construction for native American projects by $20 million.
  If you left this up to a vote of the American people, they would say 
the Republicans are absolutely wrong about this. They would say, ``Mr. 
President, veto this bill. Don't harm these native Americans any worse 
than has already been done.''
  Native Americans are a proud people, and they are eager for a museum 
to be completed down on The Mall, the Native American Indian Museum. 
The Republicans killed the money for that museum and say it will not be 
built. The American people want it built. The American people want to 
understand how it is these native Americans got in the position they 
are in and that museum will help our understanding.
  It is shameful, my friends, and I have not used this word shame, 
which has been used on the floor of the House a lot this year, I have 
not used it, but these cuts to the first Americans are shameful, and my 
colleagues should vote against the bill on that basis alone.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for 
all his fine work on this bill. While I disagree with my colleagues on 
that side of the aisle, these cuts are necessary if we are going to 
indeed live up to a balanced budget over the next 7 years.
  I also have to say that I am disappointed in negotiations that have 
been going on in the situation over mining reform. Mining legislation 
in this country is based on laws that were passed in 1872, and for 120 
years mines which operate on Federal lands pay absolutely no royalties 
on billions of dollars of gold and copper deposits and everything else. 
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is absolutely right. he was the 
one who championed the idea of patent moratoriums which said no 
additional new mines until we figure out a way to force these companies 
to pay the royalties they should have paid, not just the last several 
years but frankly in many cases for hundreds of years.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] drafted legislation that very 
sensibly said we will agree to lift the moratorium if we can get a deal 
in the budget reconciliation package that establishes mining fees we 
can all agree on. It is my great disappointment at the end of the day 
and after a week of discussions to tell Members unfortunately the 
language that is going to be in the reconciliation package in terms of 
mining reform I frankly do not think is very responsible.
  True it will achieve about $160 million in income to the Federal 
Government from those mining operations, but first of all arguably that 
is only a fraction of what we might get, and then of the money that 
comes in the door, less than 20 percent of that $160 million actually 
comes from royalties, and so when we are through this first cycle, we 
are now going to discover that those mining operations can continue on 
Federal land for a fraction of what they should be paying.
  All we are asking for is the same kind of mining royalty fees that we 
see in Nevada and California and other States across this country where 
there is mining on States lands, they get their taxpayers a fair chunk 
of change and we should do that here in Washington as well. 
Unfortunately the language that is going to be tucked in the 
reconciliation bill in many cases will not only apply the royalty fee 
at too low a rate, it will apply it at too soon a step in the mining 
process to get us a far lower return than we should get and frankly is 
loaded with so many loopholes that you can drive truckloads of billions 
of dollars of ore right straight on through it.

  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for bringing a 
rule to the floor that makes sense. I will be delighted to support it. 
I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for 
beginning to champion this issue several years ago, but while we are 
trying to broker a deal that makes sense for the American people, we 
have not brokered the right deal yet and I cannot support the Interior 
Department appropriation bill with mining moratorium yanked out of it 
for a deal that none of us can face our constituents and fully support. 
I wish it were otherwise, Mr. Speaker, but it is not. As a result, I 
cannot support this very difficult package that my colleague from Ohio 
has tried to put back together.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand my good friends in 
the majority. Do they not read the polls about environmental 
protection, that the American people want to see that? Do they not read 
about 1872 mining laws? Do they not read about logging on Tongass and 
many of the other important initiatives?
  I think nobody is more eloquent than my friend from Montana talking 
about native American programs. Of all the Department of the Interior 
programs, 45 percent of the cuts come from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  These cuts are going to mean that thousands and thousands of native 
Americans are going to face cuts in law enforcement, on services to the 
elderly, on road repair, on housing repairs, social services, and as if 
that were not already devastating, the conference report abolishes the 
Office of Indian Education, eliminating educational funds for half a 
million Indian children.
  This bill also proceeds with a number of initiatives that gut the 
environment. Protection of fish, wildlife, plant species, a waiting 
list under the Endangered Species Act would be blocked for another 
year, even for species on the verge of extinction.
  The Forest Service, as I mentioned the Tongass, would be forced to 
implement an obsolete, ecologically unsound forest management plan for 
the environmentally sensitive Tongass National Forest.

  The dialog initiated between livestock permittees and other public 
land users, very important to those of us in the West, on the future of 
public rangelands will be put on hold. These are the 

[[Page H12384]]
famous RAC's, Rangeland Advisory Councils. Throughout the West they 
have been formed. They are ranchers, environmentalists, public land 
users. They are working well. Why do we want to put them on hold? These 
are going to determine the future of public lands. This bill does that.
  The Columbia Basin ecosystem management project, that deals with 
salmon and saving salmon and other vital resources of the Pacific 
Northwest, would also be subverted.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a bill that may even be worse than 
the last one. The mining moratorium. Despite the fact that we have been 
told that the mining moratorium provisions have been fixed to 
accommodate the overwhelming will of the House that a real patenting 
moratorium is included in the final bill, what we have is only a half 
loaf solution to a very real problem.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is going to veto this bill. The League of 
Conservation Voters is going to be against this bill. The main reasons 
are the Tongass, and the giveaway of free gold and public lands through 
mining patents that are going to continue.
  What would happen here is, the Interior Department would be mandated 
to sell off over 230,000 acres of public lands to mining companies in 
the next 3 years. In addition, if either the House or Senate passes 
legislation changing the mining law patent provision, the moratorium on 
new patents would be lifted.
  This is a bad bill. It should be sent back to conference. I urge its 
defeat, and I urge the defeat of the rule.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

          [From National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC]

             (By John Kostyack, Counsel and Cathy Carlson)

                     H.R. 1977 Still Fatally Flawed


        vote no on the interior appropriations conference report

       In September 1995, the House voted 277 to 147 to recommit 
     the FY96 Interior Appropriations conference report because 
     the report lifted a moratorium on ``patenting'' under the 
     Mining Law, allowing mining companies to buy public land for 
     as little as $2.50 per acre, and we get the gold for free.
       In the reconferenced bill, the give-away of free gold and 
     public lands through mining patents will continue. The 
     Interior Department would be mandated to sell off over 
     230,000 acres of public lands to mining companies in the next 
     three years. In addition, if either the House or Senate 
     passes legislation changing the Mining Law patent provision, 
     the moratorium on new patents would be lifted.
       The Mining Law patent give-away is not the only problem 
     with H.R. 1977. The Interior Appropriations bill also 
     undermines several vital natural resource programs.
       Protection of fish, wildlife and plant species awaiting 
     listing under the Endangered Species Act would be blocked for 
     another year, even for species on the verge of extinction.
       The Forest Service would be forced to implement an obsolete 
     and ecologically unsound forest management plan for the 
     environmentally sensitive Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
       The dialogue initiated between livestock permittees and 
     other public land users (in BLM Resource Advisory Councils) 
     on the future of the public rangelands would be put on hold.
       The Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, designed 
     to save salmon and other vital resources of the Pacific 
     Northwest, would be subverted. The latest scientific findings 
     would be ignored and timber sales and management plans would 
     be exempt from environmental review.
       Don't let Congress give away our Nation's precious 
     resources--vote no on H.R. 1977.
                                                                    ____


  Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1977--Department of the 
       Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, FY 1996

         (Sponsors: Livingston (R) Louisiana; Regula (R) Ohio)

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on H.R. 1977, the Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, 
     as approved in conference on October 31, 1995. Your 
     consideration of the Administration's views would be 
     appreciated.
       In an October 19, 1995, letter to the conferees, the 
     Administration identified the most troublesome provisions in 
     the original conference report with the goal of arriving at a 
     bill that serves specific, vital interests and that could be 
     signed by the President.
       Regrettably, the second conference report did not address 
     the significant funding shortfalls and objectionable 
     legislative riders. If the bill, as approved by the second 
     conference, were presented to the President, he would veto 
     it. The issues that were identified in the October 19th 
     letter are still serious problems and are described below.


                             funding issues

       The second conference did nothing to restore funds in the 
     areas that the Administration identified as significantly 
     underfunded. These are the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
     Department of Energy's (DOE's) energy conservation programs.
       The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget was increased in 
     the first conference $86 million above the Senate level. 
     However, there was no additional increase provided in the 
     second conference. That would still leave the program $136 
     million short of the House mark and $184 million below the FY 
     1995 enacted level. The most significant effect of this 
     action remains the crippling reductions targeted at tribal 
     priority allocation programs, which support essential tribal 
     government, law enforcement, housing improvement, general 
     assistance, Indian child welfare, adult vocational training, 
     road maintenance, and other reservation programs. The 
     Administration's view is that funding must be substantially 
     restored for these programs.
       DOE's energy conservation programs are still funded at a 
     net level of $536 million. There has been no increase from 
     the first conference level. This is $187 million, or 26 
     percent, below the net FY 1995 enacted level of $723 million, 
     and 38 percent below the President's request. Funding for 
     these programs must be restored significantly in order to 
     reach acceptable levels.
       In addition to the language issues addressed below, the 
     President will not sign an Interior appropriations bill 
     unless funding for these programs is significantly restored 
     without harming other high-priority programs or unless there 
     is an overall agreement between the Congress and the 
     Administration on budget priorities that addresses the 
     Administration's fundamental concerns about spending 
     priorities both in this bill and elsewhere.


                            language issues

       The conference committee has again chosen to continue to 
     include numerous legislative riders in the bill that the 
     Administration finds seriously objectionable. The riders that 
     were cited in the October 19th letter have not been 
     significantly improved in the second conference. These 
     provisions are so seriously flawed that the Administration 
     sees no way to remedy them, short of removing them 
     altogether. The most serious problems are:
       A mining provision that still does not adequately protect 
     the public interest. Unlike the language in the FY 1995 Act, 
     the moratorium contained in the second conference report on 
     new patents would be revoked if minimal provisions relating 
     to patenting (but not comprehensive mining reform) are 
     enacted into law through the budget reconciliation process, 
     or simply if the House and Senate approve an agreement in 
     identical form on patenting, royalties, and reclamation of 
     mining claims. The latter provision raises a serious 
     constitutional problem: the provision would be invalid under 
     the Chadha decision if construed to require anything less 
     than enactment. The moratorium language in the FY 1995 Act 
     must be restored.
       The Tongass (Alaska) forest management provisions that are 
     unchanged from the first conference. These still include 
     sufficiency language and would dictate the use of a 1992 
     forest plan that preempts our use of the most recent 
     scientific information.
       The Interior Columbia River Basin provision that is also 
     unchanged from the first conference. It would terminate 
     comprehensive planning for the management of these public 
     lands by prohibiting the publication of the final 
     Environmental Impact Statement or Record of Decision and 
     limiting the contents to exclude information on fisheries and 
     watersheds. The provision would risk a return to legal 
     gridlock on timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and other 
     economically desirable activities.
       Retention of bill language that provides only $1 for 
     National Park Service (NPS) operation of the Mojave National 
     Preserve and provides for land within the preserve to be 
     managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Report 
     language adopted by the second conference calling for more 
     studies by the Park Service and disclaiming an intention to 
     repeal portions of the landmark 1994 California Desert 
     Protection Act does not change the fact that the Preserve 
     would be starved of funding, and the purposes of the 
     California Desert Act would be undercut.
       No change in language from the first conference in a rider 
     to make permanent the protocol for identification of marbled 
     murrelet nests that was included in the FY 1995 rescission 
     bill, thereby eliminating normal flexibility to use new 
     scientific information as it develops.
       In addition, the Administration has previously expressed 
     concern about other legislative riders, including the 
     moratorium on future listings under the Endangered Species 
     Act, the Department of Energy efficiency standards one-year 
     moratorium, the 90-day moratorium on grazing regulation 
     implementation, and the provision affecting the Lummi Tribe 
     and seven other self-governance tribes in Washington State. 
     An additional funding issue concerns the severe cuts (nearly 
     40 percent) to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and 
     the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). These 
     significantly reduced funding levels would jeopardize NEA's 
     and NEH's ability to continue to provide important cultural, 
     educational, and artistic programs for communities across 
     America.
     
[[Page H12385]]



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 1995.
     Recommit Interior appropriations conference report.
       Dear Colleague: There are many good reasons to vote again 
     to recommit the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. 
     Here are two:


                        MINING PATENT MORATORIUM

       We need to maintain restore a true mining patent 
     moratorium. On July 18, the House voted 271 to 153 to 
     continue the existing moratorium to prevent the unjustified 
     giveaway of public lands to international mining 
     conglomerates. When the Conferees bowed to pressure from the 
     Senate and failed to include the patent moratorium, on 
     September 29, the House voted 277 to 147 to recommit the 
     Conference Report.
       The Conferees have returned with a sham moratorium. Unlike 
     the House amendment, this fake moratorium would not last 
     through the entire fiscal year. Instead, it would be revoked 
     if any patent provisions, no matter how weak, are included in 
     budget reconciliation. And of course we will have no 
     opportunity for a separate vote on the mining provisions in 
     reconciliation. Moreover, those provisions--which allow for 
     mineral-rich land to be sold only for the fair market value 
     of the surface and a royalty so riddled with deductions that 
     it won't collect any revenue--are not sufficient to protect 
     the taxpayers against the continuation of a multi-billion 
     dollar rip-off of public resources.


                   MANDATED LOGGING IN TONGASS FOREST

       We also must get rid of a rider added by the Senate to 
     dictate use of a scientifically flawed 1991 plan to increase 
     logging in Tongass National Forest in Alaska by 100 million 
     board feet (44 percent) over historic levels. Accelerated 
     logging in this magnificent old-growth rainforest will not 
     only threaten fish and wildlife viability, but also will 
     significantly increase the Tongass timber program's $102 
     million cost to the Treasury over the last three fiscal 
     years--a greater cash flow deficit than any other national 
     forest. To add further insult, the Tongass rider overturns a 
     Ninth Circuit court decision and insulates the timber barons 
     from further legal challenges from the public.
       The mining and tongass provisions are both fiscally and 
     environmentally irresponsible. We urge you to join us in 
     voting for a motion to recommit this seriously flawed bill to 
     the Conference Committee.
           Sincerely,
     George Miller,
       Committee on Resources.
     Sidney R. Yates,
       Subcommittee on Interior, Committee on Appropriations.

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to answer some of the things that have been 
stated here. No. 1, concerning funding for programs for Indians, I want 
to point out that reservation-based education, these are the programs 
run by the Indians for their own education, is $2 million over 1995 
levels. I would point out that health care--and these are the two areas 
of greatest Federal responsibility--health is fully funded at 1995 
levels.
  I would point out, also, that we restored in conference, which I 
insisted on, $86 million above the level for Indian programs in the 
other body. When we went to conference, the level in the other body's 
legislation was about $220 million less than ours, and we pushed hard 
in conference and got it up $86 million over the other body's level.
  There is not enough to go around to do everything, but I think we 
addressed the most important things, education and health.
  Some of the complaints about the existing programs are those that are 
operating under legislation passed when my friends across the aisle 
were in charge.
  Now, let us talk again about the issue of mining reform. I think this 
is not the venue or the forum to address it. That issue is in the 
authorizing area. As the Congressional Quarterly in 1994 reported, if 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] recalls, the President sent up 
a bill that had in it a provision for royalties, and the gentleman 
deleted it because he said this is a responsibility of the authorizing 
committee, which was proper.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Just about half of this bill is legislative. If the 
gentleman insists that this bill is the wrong forum to have a mining 
provision, why then do we have the provision that we have on the Lummi 
Indians? Why then do we have the provision on Tongass? Why then do we 
have the provision on so many other things if this is in the wrong 
forum?
  I would agree with the gentleman that we used legislative provisions 
in our bills when I was chairman, as well. But the fact remains that 
this is much more legislative and serves much more destructive purposes 
than our bills did at the time.
  Mr. REGULA. Let me just quote for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] from Congressional Quarterly:

       Chairman Sidney Yates had tried to steer clear of major 
     policy disputes that could spark a fight with authorizing 
     committees. He persuaded the panel, ``that is the 
     subcommittee'', for example, to exclude proposals to boost 
     entrance fees at national parks and to impose royalties on 
     hard rock miners.

  President Clinton included both policy proposals in his fiscal 1995 
budget request. So there was something that was proposed in the 
subcommittee by the President, and you took it out.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. The reason for that was that we had a different atmosphere 
from the legislative committees at the time that I was chairman, and 
they objected to our putting legislative provisions in. This Congress, 
on the contrary, uses the appropriations bills for legislative 
purposes. There is no objection from the legislative committees. As a 
matter of fact, the legislative committees give you the legislation in 
order to put it into the appropriations bills.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I would point out that, of course, we 
did not have the Tongass language in the bill in the House originally, 
but there is another body, and we have to conference with the other 
body and reach some level of agreement with them.
  I would point out also that the mining patent moratorium is not 
legislation. It simply says they cannot use the money in this bill to 
issue patents. As the Interior Department points out very clearly in 
their statement, there will be a land grab, a rush down in the 
department if we do not have a moratorium. That is why I put it in, to 
stop that from happening.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] talked about the shortcomings 
of the reconciliation bill, and I agree with him 100 percent in what he 
said. So the answer to that is to vote against the reconciliation bill. 
That is where the issue is.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. In our conference, I offered the gentleman's language on 
the moratorium that he put into our bill last year. It was voted down 
by the Republican side, including the gentleman's vote. Is that not 
correct?
  Mr. REGULA. The language could not be exactly what it was last year 
because it was conditioned on a conference report coming out of a 
conference on mining reform that was being held between the House and 
the Senate, a conference agreement which never materialized.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. YATES. It could have been.
  Mr. REGULA. Let me say, as the gentleman well knows, in the first 
conference I was the one who tried to maintain the House position on 
the mining patent moratorium. I voted to send the bill back for a 
second conference to get a mining patent moratorium. I do not believe 
anybody can question my dedication to accomplishing a mining patent 
moratorium.
  As the gentleman knows, I pushed this in our subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman and I 
have been friends for 20 years. We will remain friends no matter what 
happens, no matter how strained it is, we will remain very close 
friends.
  Mr. REGULA. Absolutely.
  Mr. YATES. The gentleman is exactly right in stating to the House 
that it was his language, it was his language that established the 
first moratorium. I wanted to do the same in this bill, and the 
gentleman would not do it.
  Mr. REGULA. Well, I think, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates], that we do accomplish the goal 

[[Page H12386]]
of establishing a moratorium. I think we achieved what we were directed 
to do by the motion to recommit that you offered in the first go around 
on this. If the President keeps his word that he will not sign any bill 
containing mining reform that is not good, then we have no problem, 
because it is clear that the moratorium stays in place unless there is 
a mining reform bill in reconciliation that has to be signed by the 
President.

  Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield further, the answer to what 
the gentleman proposes is to defeat this rule in which case we can go 
back to conference and change the language on the mining reform.
  Mr. REGULA. Well, I think, in response to the gentleman, that we have 
accomplished what your motion to recommit directed us to do, and that 
is we have put a moratorium in this bill.
  Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman knows 
that one of the experts in the House on the moratorium is the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. You heard his speech. He does not agree with 
you.
  Mr. REGULA. Well, I believe that I heard him say that he does not 
agree with what is happening in the reconciliation bill, and he 
clearly, and with good cause, has said that the language in the 
reconciliation bill is inadequate. I would also point out to my 
colleagues that the original Interior appropriations conference 
agreement had in it some of that very weak, sham legislation, as the 
gentleman from Illinois will recall, the so-called Craig language, and 
as part of getting the moratorium in our second conference, we 
eliminated that weak language that they attempted to place in the 
Interior appropriation bill in the other body. That is, of course, what 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] was addressing. We got rid of 
that.
  We have a mining patent moratorium in this bill to stop the giveaway 
until such time as we have good mining reform legislation, and I hope 
that the reconciliation conference committee will produce that. If they 
do not, I am quite sure the President will veto it, and therefore, the 
moratorium will stay in place, and I certainly urge everyone to vote 
for the rule, to vote against the motion to recommit that will be 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois, and vote for this conference 
report.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I never thought that I would say what I am 
going to say now about the Interior bill. This bill is a terrible bill. 
It is more legislative than it is appropriate. It provides a series of 
legislative provisions that should not be in this bill.
  The appropriations process has been taken over by the authorizing 
committees to a much greater extent than should be done. The provisions 
in this bill are such that it will wreak destruction upon so many of 
our natural resources. It certainly will provide another trail of tears 
for the Indian people because of the burdens that it places on them.
  The Republicans have insisted--on opposing President Clinton in the 
continuing resolution--that they are protecting their children's and 
the grandchildren's heritage. If that is truly their argument, then 
they will vote against this rule. They will vote against the conference 
report because this bill is destructive of our children's heritage.
  It is supposed to protect our resources. It does not do that. 
Tongass, of course, is the primary example of that. So, Mr. Speaker, I 
would urge a defeat of this rule, and in the event the rule is 
defeated, there will be no necessity for offering another motion to 
recommit.
  The House will recall, as was pointed out by my friend from Ohio, the 
chairman, that 7 weeks ago I offered the motion to recommit this 
conference report to improve the bill and to restore the mining 
moratorium. The conference committee reconvened. Instead of improving 
the bill, I suggest they made it worse.
  I urge defeat of this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the majority party in the House 
will come to its senses and reject this bill. This is a very bad bill, 
for any number of reasons.
  First of all, it slashes some very important programs. It cuts the 
National Endowment for the Arts by almost 40 percent. It slashes the 
National Endowment for the Humanities by almost 40 percent. It slashes 
and cuts away at the Nation's natural resources. It encourages 
increased logging in the Tongass National Forest, America's greatest 
temperate rainforest.
  Beyond that, most of the logs cut from the rainforest will be shipped 
overseas. The value added will not even be added, for the most part, in 
this country. We will ship it overseas as a natural resource. Somebody 
else will add the value to it, send it back to us, and we will purchase 
it from them. It makes absolutely no sense to do that in this way.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, on that point, over the last 3 years, the 
cuts from the Tongass National Forest cost the Federal Government over 
$100 million.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman for making that point. I thank the 
gentleman for making that point, and I want to say this: In addition to 
that piece of bad business, this bill contains a lot of bad business as 
well.
  Ask yourself this question: If you owned a piece of land with 
minerals under it, valuable minerals under that land, would you sell 
that land for $2.50 an acre or even $100 an acre and sell the mineral 
rights along with it and forgo most of the royalties associated with 
those minerals rights? of course, you would not. But that is what we 
are doing in this bill. We are selling the patrimony of our Nation. We 
are selling off vast mineral rights, billions of dollars, literally 
billions of dollars of mineral rights at bargain basement prices to 
people who will take it, many of them foreign companies. They will come 
here from foreign places, take these lands, reap the mineral resources 
from them, and take the profits away, away from the American people who 
are their owners. This is wrong. It is simply wrong.
  People on the majority party here come to us all the time and talk to 
us about running government as a business. Let us run it intelligently. 
Let us run it as a business.
  Let me tell you, we have an opportunity to do that by rejecting this 
bill. If we are serious about running America as a business or running 
the government as a business, the last thing we ought to be doing is 
selling off the most valuable resources that we have, among them, at 
least, the vast billions of dollars of mineral resources that reside in 
the western part of this country. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Therefore, this rule should be defeated, and the bill should be 
defeated.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the real problem today is getting out the 
facts. The facts are that this bill stops the giveaway, quite the 
contrary of what we just heard; it puts a moratorium on issuance of 
patents so that they cannot sell or give this away.
  The speeches keep addressing mining reform. This is not mining reform 
legislation. That is in reconciliation. It should have come out and 
have been passed in the last 2 years when my friends had control. They 
did not do it.
  I would certainly disagree that this is destruction of the Tongass 
when there are only a few million board feet added, and the Forest 
Service has control. There may not be any board feet added unless the 
Forest Service agrees to it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is sham, 
sham, sham. That is what this bill is all about.
  What we have got is a situation where the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] is promising the American people that, in fact, there is going 
to be mining reform, but underneath the so-called reforms, what we have 
is a situation where, if any of the big mining companies come in and 
somehow, just 

[[Page H12387]]
somehow assert their will in the Congress of the United States and 
somehow get through a bill that looks like mining reform, smells like 
mining reform, but is reform only in the sense of a piece of paper but 
has no substantive reform underneath it, then in fact the moratorium 
disappears.
  The American people grow up being taught that pennies are made out of 
copper. But if you are a foreign mine operator, they are made out of 
gold. The gold of the American taxpayer is being handed over to foreign 
mining operators simply because we do not have the will in the Congress 
of the United States to stand up to them. We have got a Republican 
Congress sitting here telling us today that we have got to raise 
Medicare premiums, that we have got to raise the rates on senior 
citizens in elderly housing, that we have got to raise the price of a 
college education, that we are going to take the meals away from 
elderly people, but when it comes to big foreign mining operations, oh, 
boy, we can find the dollars to subsidize them.
  There is no real attempt to reform the foreign mining operations in 
this bill. There is an attempt to pretend on the floor of the Congress 
of the United States that we have foreign mining operations that are 
going to adhere to some new standard, but underneath it everyone knows 
that follows this place that all those guys come in here with their 
contributions, they come in here and are able to somehow assert their 
will on the majority and be able to get the kind of consideration that 
no poor person in the United States of America can expect to get in 
this Congress these days.
  So I ask the people of this country, to, please, wake up; please, 
recognize that if you want a balanced budget, let us go after foreign 
miners, not after the working people and the poor of this country.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here as far as the 
American people are concerned is, yes, dealing with the question of 
appropriations, in this instance the Interior appropriations bill, and 
I guess the confusion is that they are seeing the Government not work, 
and we are now on the House floor talking about appropriations.
  I wish this had been done some time ago. But it is all a question of 
priorities. I just voted for an appropriation also bill on Treasury and 
Postal and the reason is because there was a compromise there. But this 
has no sense of compromise. This has no understanding of what the 
American people have been saying.
  Because is guts energy conservation programs, it certainly guts the 
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, and as to the native Americans, it guts the programs that 
will help educate their children. This legislation bars the listing of 
additional endangered species. It does not extend the moratorium on 
transferring the mineral-rich Federal lands to private owners. It 
overturns a key provision of the California Desert Protection Act, 
which designates the Mojave National Preserve as a unit of the national 
park system.
  Yes, it places new restrictions on the National Endowment for the 
Arts grant. This legislation wants to negatively legislate the NEA out 
of existence. Nobody wants to talk about that, the question of the arts 
and the First Amendment and the idea of children understand their Art 
heritage, arts in rural and inner-city schools is being. This is not 
about obscenity. This is about the National Endowment for the Arts 
providing programs for our rural hamlets and urban centers. In my 
district this hurts the Ensemble theatre, MECA, the Houston Ballet, 
Kuumba House, and the Houston Grand Opera. This bill hurts our Museums 
national and local (like Houston's Museum of Fine Arts). This bill cuts 
grants award going to our starving artists so they will not be able to 
produce the Nation's art. Yet we say we do not care about this. We do 
not care about the art of this Nation or the history of this Nation, 
and we are not supporting the fact that our history is the very manner 
by which we preserve our past.

                              {time}  1530

  The National Service Program, the AmeriCorps Program, which has been 
so successful in helping young people help their communities and go to 
college too! They work in cities and rural areas across this Nation. In 
Houston in the 18th Congressional District, they work with those unable 
to read, teaching them to read as they work in inner-city schools. 
These AmeriCorps students, under this bill see their funding gutted.
  That is what is wrong with the appropriations process. There are no 
priorities. We want this Government to work, we want the doors to be 
open, we want to bring people back to work so they can serve the 
American people, and, yes, we have agreed, over and over again, the 
Democrats, to a balanced budget. What we have not agreed to is the list 
of priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, let the Interior bill conferees go back, and be fair with 
the dollars that the American people have entrusted to them. Do not 
give $270 billions in tax cuts to the rich and then gut programs 
governing our environment, our Arts, our history and the American 
Indian. Do not take arts and history away from our children and deprive 
us of an environment that we can stand for and support. I just ask for 
a sense of fairness in this whole process. We must appropriate funds 
with the right priorities.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill probably speaks more to the values that we in 
Congress have toward the esthetics of America, its land, its people, 
and certainly its arts. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is 
probably one of the finest Members of this House, and it is a tough 
thing to bring this thing to the floor in the shape it is in.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition to the rule, and hopefully 
it will be defeated. If it is not, I hope that the bill is defeated and 
recommitted as it was once before, for several reasons.
  First of all, the taxpayers are still ripped off under this bill, 
particularly as the mining process goes. It defers to the authorizing 
bill, which makes it worse, so by adopting this bill and then leading 
us to the authorizing bill, we are not getting a fair shake for the 
American taxpayer.
  Second, the public gets cheated on the issue of the Endangered 
Species Act. It prohibits adding species not in the jurisdiction of the 
appropriations committee. It is in the jurisdiction committee, and this 
bill prohibits any endangered species from being added.
  Third, the bill cripples the Columbia River Basin from the ability to 
create a sustainable timber harvest, at the same time protecting the 
salmon runs, which are so vital to the local economy.
  Fourth, it puts a moratorium on the development of Federal energy 
efficiency standards.
  Fifth, and worst of all, it cuts the subvention to State and local 
governments for acquisition of lands to enhance the quality of life 
issues, that enhance the local economies. It locks up over $11.1 
billion in the bank. This money is made from the sale of public 
resources, and does not give it back, does not reinvest, does not do 
what most things do when you try to run Government like a business, 
reinvest in its resources.
  This bill locks that money up. These moneys should be reinvested, 
allowing us to create the esthetics that are essential for local 
communities to be a nice place to live. It fails to reinvest in 
America. That is why the rule should be defeated. If the rule passes, 
the bill should be defeated.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The reason 
that this bill and appropriation bill needs a rule is because, as the 
ranking member stated, this bill goes well beyond a straight 
appropriations bill. In fact, it gets into the heart of writing and 
rewriting almost 30 years of land use and 

[[Page H12388]]
landscape and environmental policy. Just as on the EPA bill we had 17 
riders, on this bill I dare say you have even more riders than that, in 
terms of suspending what is happening in various parks and various 
public lands across this Nation.
  I am sorry to see this happen, because I think that this bill, the 
Interior appropriations bill that in years before passed, had a great 
degree of comity; some controversy, but a greater degree of comity than 
almost any other appropriation bills before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I think with regards to the American public, there is 
great support for the conservation and the preservation of these 
special places and the rehabilitation of them. I think we had achieved 
that in the past, but we know that the issues are very hot. And when 
this comes down, this bill today is like a litany of issues that take 
away from the taxpayer, take away from the legacy of future 
generations, for the moment of today.
  As we look at it, this bill does not make any economic sense if we 
were to count the value of the assets, but, of course, they are 
discounted. They are given no value in terms of asset sales and what is 
happening to our forests, what is happening to our public lands. It 
makes no economic sense.
  This is not good business, this is bad business for the public. It 
makes no scientific sense. In fact, this bill suspends the very science 
of ecology and biology and others that the United States should be at 
the zenith of all nations in utilizing all our actions. We should be 
leading the world in terms of this conservation and the application of 
this science, not abandoning it.
  It is easy to give lectures about Amazonia, or the Rift Valley in 
Africa. But you suspend it. In fact, this goes into the unprecedented 
step of eliminating the National Biological Survey; symbolic, but 
nevertheless, I think the wrong symbol. It suspends court cases and 
laws that try to guard and safeguard these fragile ecosystems that are 
so important.
  The politics of this is bad politics. Look at the polls. Look at the 
polls in terms of what you are doing. If you do not think that is bad 
politics, I think you have another guess coming. The public does not 
want this to happen.
  Finally, I think from a moral standpoint, from a moral standpoint, I 
think we know that this type of action is wrong. It is wrong. I think 
we have a responsibility to future generations.
  As I heard my colleague and mentor Mo Udall often step to this well 
and say, we ought to leave part of this landscape the way it left the 
hand of the creator, quoting Mo Udall. I think he was right and I think 
he was touching on something all of us know we have a responsibility as 
policy makers and stewards today to uphold.
  You can go back in dollars and cents and make up for some of the 
mistakes we make, when we make a mistake with regards to a tax policy 
or spending policy. But this type of damage, you will never recover.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why this rule needs to be defeated, this bill 
needs to be defeated, and sent back to conference and corrected.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say once again we oppose this rule, and we oppose 
the measure that would make in order the conference report on Interior 
appropriations for next year, for a good many reasons, but especially 
for the reasons stated so well by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Vento, a couple of minutes ago, and also Mr. Yates and others in the 
past few minutes.
  This new conference report is only slightly different from the 
version of the legislation that the House voted to return to the 
conference committee back in September. For the same reasons stated at 
that time and the reasons stated over and over again on this floor 
afternoon, we believe Members should reject the rule and the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revised and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues, I am tempted 
to check with the Clerk and see if we are still debating H.R. 1977. I 
hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle a lot of statements 
that have no relationship to this bill.
  First of all, they say it is going to be a giveaway. This bill does 
not give anything away. It is the reconciliation bill that has mining 
reform, not this bill. This bill stops the giveaway. This bill has the 
moratorium.
  Now, my friend from California says it is only slightly different. It 
is very different because it has a patent moratorium in it. The bill 
that was sent back by my friend from Illinois, and I agreed with his 
motion, did not have a moratorium. We sent it back to put in a 
moratorium. We did. We put the moratorium in, and, believe me, it was 
not easy. But it is there. I think that is far more than slightly 
different.
  Then I have heard the statement that we are not doing enough for 
science. Let me point out that we have $137 million for natural 
resource research in the NBS that has been put into the USGS. We have 
$650 million for USGS, including resource research which is a 
scientific organization. We have almost $1 billion in energy research 
in science. So we get a total of at least $2 billion in science. That 
is not exactly a slight amount.
  Then I have heard the statement that it guts Indian education. Well, 
I do not understand how a $2 million increase over 1995 deserves that 
kind of a description. It is an increase in Indian-based education over 
1995. It is certainly no reduction.
  I have to say to all of my colleagues, this bill, given the fact that 
we were given 10 percent less to work with, is very fair. We have 
addressed the needs. As Members will recall, I said we divided into 
must-do's, need-to-do's, and nice-to-do's. We did those without regard 
to whose district it might be in, without regard to any partisanship. 
There are things in here in the must-do's that are in Democrat 
districts and Republican districts. There are need-to-do's in Democrat 
districts and Republican districts. We have done the best we could, 
given the fact that we had 10 percent less money.
  We have done the best we could to address the egregious problems in 
mining in the 1872 Act. We are not given the responsibility nor do we 
have the right to enact mining reform. That is an authorizing 
problem, as the gentleman from Illinois clearly pointed out, in 1994, 
and it is in the reconciliation bill. We said we have a thumb in the 
dike, no more patents, other than those in the pipeline, which we 
cannot deal with because of the Constitution, but no more patents until 
there is a mining reform bill signed by the President of the United 
States.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman condemns the provision 
respecting mining because it should be handled by the authorizing 
committee, why then should not the gentleman also condemn what the 
conference did in connection with Tongass when it accepted alternative 
P, which will increase the cut in Tongass by 44 percent?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not condemn that. 
That is something the other body insisted on. But as the Forest Service 
people said to me this morning, it really does not do anything. We have 
not put the money in to increase the cut, so as the gentleman knows 
from past experience, it cannot be increased. So that is a Trojan Horse 
really.
  The real issue here is the mining patent moratorium, and it is in 
here, as was ordered by the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). All time has 
expired. Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the 

[[Page H12389]]
point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 188, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No 798]

                               YEAS--237

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Fields (LA)
     Houghton
     Spence
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1602

  Mr. MORAN and Mr. STUMP changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________