[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9575-S9600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
distinguished colleague and friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, be 
recognized for 10 minutes, without my losing the right to the floor, 
and that I immediately be recognized following the conclusion of his 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first I want to thank my very good friend 
and colleague, Senator Bumpers, for yielding the time. It is very 
gracious of him. He has waited a good period of time to offer his 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I rise today to call on Congress to complete the New 
World Mine acquisition and protect Yellowstone National Park. Now that 
the administration and congressional leadership have reached a budget 
agreement that allows for the acquisition of the New World lands, we 
need to move decisively. We have belabored this matter much too long 
and now is the time to finish the job.
  Yellowstone National Park was created 125 years ago. ``For the 
Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.'' Indeed, this is the entrance at 
mammoth Yellowstone Park. You probably cannot read the inscription over 
the arch but it says ``For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.'' 
And of course, immediately to my right is the Old Faithful geyser.
  Every year, Mr. President, 3 million people visit the park, bringing 
their children and grandchildren to enjoy the unspoiled beauty that is 
Yellowstone--from the Roosevelt arch, which I am pointing to here on my 
right, at the original entrance, to the breathtaking grandeur of Old 
Faithful, to the spectacular wildlife which calls this unique place 
home.
  During the month of August, I was fortunate to be present to 
celebrate Yellowstone's 125th anniversary with Vice President Al Gore. 
As I entered the park, I remembered my first trip to Yellowstone many 
years ago. The noble and majestic geysers, the boiling paint pots, and 
the vast scenery were the stuff of magic to a small child--and remain 
so today.
  These wonders cannot be seen anywhere else in the United States or, 
for that matter, in the world. I guarantee you there is not one 
Montanan, young or old, that does not fondly remember his or her first 
visit to the park, or anybody in our country for that matter. Finishing 
the New World acquisition is critical so our children may witness the 
wonders of nature, much as we have over the past 125 years.
  For the past 8 years, America has lived with the threat that a large 
gold mine could harm Yellowstone, our Nation's first national park. 
This mine,

[[Page S9576]]

on the park boundary, could irreparably damage the park by polluting 
rivers and devastating wildlife habitat.
  In 1996, local citizens, the mining company itself, and the 
administration, reached a consensus agreement that would stop the 
proposed mine--they all agreed; the administration, the local 
community, and the company--and it would protect Yellowstone and 
surrounding communities.
  This agreement provides for the Federal Government to acquire the 
mine property from Battle Mountain Gold in exchange for $65 million. 
The balanced budget agreement calls for this money to be appropriated 
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The New World agreement, I think, is very important for two reasons. 
First, it protects Yellowstone National Park for future generations. 
What could be more important?
  Second, it protects my State of Montana. It protects Montana's 
natural heritage, but it also protects Montana's economy.
  Many of the local communities surrounding Yellowstone depend on the 
park for their economic well-being. If the mine had been built, 
Yellowstone would have been harmed, and with it the communities and the 
families that depend on Yellowstone for their livelihood. It is for 
this reason that a majority of local citizens and businesses oppose the 
mine and support the agreement.
  In addition, the agreement obligates the mining company to spend 
$22.5 million to clean up historic mine pollution at the headwaters of 
the Yellowstone River. This will create jobs and clean up the 
environment, thereby benefiting the regional economy and improving 
locally fisheries.
  As a Senator representing Montana, I will fight to ensure that 
Montana receives these benefits.
  The bipartisan budget agreement provides an increase of $700 million 
in land and water conservation funding. Of this increase, $315 million 
has been designated as funding for priority land acquisitions.
  It is my understanding in speaking with the administration and with 
others that the New World and Headwaters acquisition were specifically 
discussed as the projects that would be funded by the $315 million 
designation. It would be unconscionable for Congress to violate the 
spirit and the intent of the budget agreement by failing to appropriate 
the funding necessary to complete the New World acquisition.
  In addition, placing further restrictions such as requiring 
authorization is both unnecessary and unwise. We need no additional 
authorization. The agreement has been agreed to already. New legal 
procedures, on the other hand, would just stall an already reached 
agreement, one that is widely supported and one that protects the park.
  Every year, numerous land acquisitions that are not individually 
authorized take place utilizing Land and Water Conservation Funds. By 
attaching strings to this acquisition--it is an authorization--Congress 
will have done nothing but endanger Yellowstone National Park. Indeed, 
the President's senior advisers strongly object to attaching any 
strings to this funding, and if Congress insists on stalling and 
delaying this agreement, the President may well veto the Interior 
appropriations bill upon the recommendation of OMB and other agencies. 
Because Yellowstone is at stake, he would be right to do so.
  I pledge here today to help lead the charge to uphold that veto if 
necessary. When Yellowstone and Montana's heritage is threatened, I 
will not sit idly by. We can and we must protect Yellowstone National 
Park.
  I thank my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas, and I yield the 
floor.


       excepted committee amendment beginning on page 123, line 9

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the committee 
amendment beginning on page 123, line 9.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


 Amendment No. 1224 To Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 
                 123, Line 9 Through Page 124, Line 20

 (Purpose: To ensure that Federal taxpayers receive a fair return for 
  the extraction of locatable minerals on public domain land and that 
                     abandoned mines are reclaimed)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1224 to excepted 
     committee amendment beginning on page 123, line 9.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Add the following at the end of the pending Committee 
     amendment as amended:
       ``(c)(1) Each person producing locatable minerals 
     (including associated minerals) from any mining claim located 
     under the general mining laws, or mineral concentrates 
     derived from locatable minerals produced from any mining 
     claim located under the general mining laws, as the case may 
     be, shall pay a royalty of 5 percent of the net smelter 
     return from the production of such locatable minerals or 
     concentrates, as the case may be.
       ``(2) Each person responsible for making royalty payments 
     under this section shall make such payments to the Secretary 
     of the Interior not later than 30 days after the end of the 
     calendar month in which the mineral or mineral concentrates 
     are produced and first place in marketable condition, 
     consistent with prevailing practices in the industry.
       ``(3) All persons holding mining claims located under the 
     general mining laws shall provide to the Secretary such 
     information as determined necessary by the Secretary to 
     ensure compliance with this section, including, but not 
     limited to, quarterly reports, records, documents, and other 
     data. Such reports may also include, but not be limited to, 
     pertinent technical and financial data relating to the 
     quantity, quality, and amount of all minerals extracted from 
     the mining claim.
       ``(4) The Secretary is authorized to conduct such audits of 
     all persons holding mining claims located under the general 
     mining laws as he deems necessary for the purposes of 
     ensuring compliance with the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(5) Any person holding mining claims located under the 
     general mining laws who knowingly or willfully prepares, 
     maintains, or submits false, inaccurate, or misleading 
     information required by this section, or fails or refuses to 
     submit such information, shall be subject to a penalty 
     imposed by the Secretary.
       ``(6) This subsection shall take effect with respect to 
     minerals produced from a mining claim in calendar months 
     beginning after enactment of this Act.
       ``(d)(1) Any person producing hardrock minerals from a mine 
     that was within a mining claim that has subsequently been 
     patented under the general mining laws shall pay a 
     reclamation fee to the Secretary under this subsection. The 
     amount of such fee shall be equal to a percentage of the net 
     proceeds from such mine. The percentage shall be based upon 
     the ratio of the net proceeds to the gross proceeds related 
     to such production in accordance with the following table:

Net proceeds as percentage of gross proceeds:                    Rate \1
                                                                    \
    Less than 10...............................................     2.00
    10 or more but less than 18................................     2.50
    18 or more but less than 26................................     3.00
    26 or more but less than 34................................     3.50
    34 or more but less than 42................................     4.00
    42 or more but less than 50................................     4.50
    50 or more.................................................     5.00
 
 
\1\ Rate of fee as percentage of net proceeds.

       ``(2) Gross proceeds of less than $500,000 from minerals 
     produced in any calendar year shall be exempt from the 
     reclamation fee under this subsection for that year if such 
     proceeds are from one or more mines located in a single 
     patented claim or on two or more contiguous patented claims.
       ``(3) The amount of all fees payable under this subsection 
     for any calendar year shall be paid to the Secretary within 
     60 days after the end of such year.
       ``(e) Receipts from the fees collected under subsections 
     and (d) shall be paid into an Abandoned Minerals Mine 
     Reclamation Fund.
       ``(f)(1) There is established on the books of the Treasury 
     of the United States an interest-bearing fund to be known as 
     the Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter 
     referred to in this section as the ``Fund''). The Fund shall 
     be administered by the Secretary.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of the 
     Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in his 
     judgement, required to meet current withdrawals. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the 
     Fund in public debt securities with maturities suitable for 
     the needs of such Fund and bearing interest at rates 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into 
     consideration current market yields on outstanding 
     marketplace obligations of the United States of comparable 
     maturities. The income on such investments shall be credited 
     to, and form a part of, the Fund.
       ``(3) The Secretary is, subject to appropriations, 
     authorized to use moneys in the Fund

[[Page S9577]]

     for the reclamation and restoration of land and water 
     resources adversely affected by past mineral (other than coal 
     and fluid minerals) and mineral material mining, including 
     but not limited to, any of the following:
       ``(A) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned surface 
     mined areas.
       ``(B) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned milling and 
     processing areas.
       ``(C) Sealing, filling, and grading abandoned deep mine 
     entries.
       ``(D) Planting of land adversely affected by past mining to 
     prevent erosion and sedimentation.
       ``(E) Prevention, abatement, treatment and control of water 
     pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
       ``(F) Control of surface subsidence due to abandoned deep 
     mines.
       ``(G) Such expenses as may be necessary to accomplish the 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Land and waters eligible for reclamation expenditures 
     under this section shall be those within the boundaries of 
     States that have lands subject to the general mining laws--
       ``(A) which were mined or processed for minerals and 
     mineral materials or which were affected by such mining or 
     processing, and abandoned or left in an inadequate 
     reclamation status prior to the date of enactment of this 
     title;
       ``(B) for which the Secretary makes a determination that 
     there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State 
     or Federal laws; and
       ``(C) for which it can be established that such lands do 
     not contain minerals which could economically be extracted 
     through the reprocessing or remining of such lands.
       ``(5) Sites and areas designated for remedial action 
     pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 
     of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 and following) or which have been 
     listed for remedial action pursuant to the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 
     (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following) shall not be eligible for 
     expenditures from the Fund under this section.
       ``(g) As used in this Section:
       ``(1) The term ``gross proceeds'' means the value of any 
     extracted hardrock mineral which was:
       (A) sold;
       (B) exchanged for any thing or service;
       (C) removed from the country in a form ready for use or 
     sale; or
       (D) initially used in a manufacturing process or in 
     providing a service.
       ``(2) The term ``net proceeds'' means gross proceeds less 
     the sum of the following deductions:
       (A) The actual cost of extracting the mineral.
       (B) The actual cost of transporting the mineral to the 
     place or places of reduction, refining and sale.
       (C) The actual cost of reduction, refining and sale.
       (D) The actual cost of marketing and delivering the mineral 
     and the conversion of the mineral into money.
       (E) The actual cost of maintenance and repairs of:
       (i) All machinery, equipment, apparatus and facilities used 
     in the mine.
       (ii) All milling, refining, smelting and reduction works, 
     plants and facilities.
       (iii) All facilities and equipment for transportation.
       (F) The actual cost of fire insurance on the machinery, 
     equipment, apparatus, works, plants and facilities mentioned 
     in subsection (E).
       (G) Depreciation of the original capitalized cost of the 
     machinery, equipment, apparatus, works, plants and facilities 
     mentioned in subsection (E).
       (H) All money expended for premiums for industrial 
     insurance, and the actual cost of hospital and medical 
     attention and accident benefits and group insurance for all 
     employees.
       (I) The actual cost of developmental work in or about the 
     mine or upon a group of mines when operated as a unit.
       (J) All royalties and severance taxes paid to the Federal 
     government or State governments.
       ``(3) The term ``hardrock minerals'' means any mineral 
     other than a mineral that would be subject to disposition 
     under any of the following if located on land subject to the 
     general mining laws:
       (A) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
       (B) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and 
     following);
       (C) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the 
     Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
       (D) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 
     351 and following).
       ``(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       ``(5) The term ``patented mining claim'' means an interest 
     in land which has been obtained pursuant to sections 2325 and 
     2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein 
     or lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36 and 37) for placer claims, 
     or section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for 
     mill site claims.
       ``(6) The term ``general mining laws'' means those Acts 
     which generally comprise Chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and 
     sections 161 and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have come here today for the eighth 
consecutive year to debate what I feel very strongly about and have 
always felt strongly about. I have never succeeded. Since I am going to 
be leaving next year, I know all my friends from the West are going to 
be saddened by my departure, and so far I don't have an heir apparent 
to take on this issue.
  First of all, I want to make an announcement to the 262 million 
American people who know very little or nothing about this issue. The 
first announcement I want to make today is that they are now saddled 
with a clean-up cost of all the abandoned mining sites in the United 
States of somewhere between $32.7 and $71.5 billion. Now, let me say to 
the American people while I am making that announcement, you didn't do 
it, you had nothing to do with it, but you are going to have to pick up 
the tab of between $32 to $71 billion.
  The Mineral Policy Center says there are 557,000 abandoned mines in 
the United States. Think of that--557,000 abandoned mines, and 59 of 
those are on the Superfund National Priority List. Mining has also 
produced 12,000 miles of polluted streams. The American people didn't 
cause it; the mining industry did it, and 2,000 of those 557,000 sites 
are in our national parks.
  Now, Mr. President, my amendment would establish a reclamation fund 
in the Treasury and it would be funded by a 5-percent net smelter 
return for mining operations on taxpayer-owned land. Royalties based on 
gross income or a net smelter return are traditionally charged for 
mining on private land and for mining on State-owned land.
  Much of the hardrock mining going on in this country is being done on 
the lands that you have heard me talk a great deal about--that is, 
lands that have been sold by the Federal Government for $2.50 an acre. 
However, a significant amount of mining goes on on lands where people 
have a mining claim on Federal lands and they get a permit to start 
mining. The Federal Government continues to own the land. We don't get 
anything for it. We don't even get $2.50 an acre for that land. So my 
net smelter royalty only applies to those lands which we still own.
  Now, isn't that normal and natural? If you own land that has gold 
under it and somebody comes by and wants to mine the gold under your 
land, the first thing you do is say, how much royalty are you willing 
to pay? Nationwide, that figure is about 5 percent. But I can tell you 
one thing, and this is a major point, if somebody came to you and said, 
I want to mine the gold, the silver, platinum, or palladium under your 
land, the first thing you would demand is, How much are you going to 
pay me for it?
  The U.S. Government cannot because Congress won't let them charge a 
royalty for mining on public land. We say, ``Here are some of the terms 
under which you can mine. ``Sic 'em, Tiger.'' Have a good time. Make a 
lot of money. And be sure you don't send the Federal Government, 
namely, the taxpayer of America, any money, and if you possibly can, 
leave an unmitigated environmental disaster on our hands for the 
taxpayers to clean up.''
  You know, Mr. President, I still can't believe it goes on. I have 
been at this for 8 years and I still cannot believe what I just said, 
but it is true.
  The other part of my bill establishes a net-income based reclamation 
fee based on the profits of the mining company on lands that were 
Federal lands but that have been patented by the mining companies; that 
is, lands which we have sold for $2.50 an acre. The only way in the 
world we can ever recover anything from these mines is through a 
reclamation fee. It is altogether proper that we get something in 
return for the lands that we sold for $2.50 an acre and it is 
altogether proper that that money be used to reclaim these 557,000 
abandoned mine sites.
  Mr. President, here is a closer look at what I just got through 
saying. The royalty rate in the Bumpers/Gregg amendment is 5 percent 
net smelter return, which is typically what is charged for mining 
operations on private land. The royalty will produce $175 million over 
the next 5 years. The reclamation fee ranges from 2 to 5 percent of net 
income for operations on patented lands, the lands that we sold for 
$2.50 an acre. That produces $750 million. And altogether, those two 
provisions would, over the next 5 years,

[[Page S9578]]

produce $925 million--not a very big beginning on the roughly $32 to 
$70 billion we are going to have to cough up to clean those places up.
  Mr. President, look at this chart right here. The thing that is a 
real enigma to me, is that we make the coal operators in this country 
pay us 12.5 percent of their gross income for every ton of coal they 
take off of Federal lands. That is for surface coal. If it's an 
underground mine the coal companies pay a royalty of 8 percent of their 
gross income to the Federal Government.
  Natural gas. If you want to bid on Federal lands and produce natural 
gas, it is incumbent upon you to pay a minimum of 12.5 percent of your 
gross income. When it comes to oil, if you want to drill in the Gulf of 
Mexico, you must also pay a 12.5 percent gross royalty.
  There are oil and gas wells all over the Western part of the United 
States. And for every dollar of gas or oil they produce, they send 
Uncle Sam 12.5 cents.
  But look here. For gold, they don't send anything. For silver, they 
don't send anything. For platinum, they don't send anything. And since 
1872, when the old mining law was signed by Ulysses Grant, the mining 
companies have not paid a penny to the U.S. Treasury.
  Now, Mr. President, in 1986--and I use this just as an illustration 
to tell you why we so desperately need this reclamation fund in the 
U.S. Treasury--there was a mine called Summitville in Colorado. 
Summitville was owned by a Canadian mining company called Galactic 
Resources. They got a permit to mine on private land from the State of 
Colorado. In June of that same year, their cyanide/plastic 
undercoating--and I will explain that in a moment--began to leak.
  Let me stop just a moment and tell people, my colleagues, how gold 
mining is conducted. You have these giant shovels that take the dirt 
and you put it on a track and you carry it to a site and you stack it 
up on top of a plastic pad, which you hope is leakproof. And then you 
begin to drip--listen to this--you begin to drip cyanide--yes, 
cyanide--across the top of this giant heap of dirt. The cyanide filters 
down through this big load of dirt and it gathers up the gold and it 
filters out to a trench on the side.
  Now, you have to bear in mind that if that plastic pad, which I just 
described for you a moment ago, is not leakproof, if it springs a leak, 
you have cyanide dripping right into the ground, right into the water 
table, or going right into the nearest stream, and so it was with 
Summitville. The plastic coating on the ground, which was supposed to 
keep the cyanide controlled, began to leak. And the cyanide began to 
escape. And the cyanide began to run into the streams headed right for 
the Rio Grande River. Galactic could not do anything. They weren't 
close to capable of doing anything. And so the Federal Government goes 
to Galactic and says, ``We want you to stop this and we want you to pay 
us damages.'' Do you know what they did? They took bankruptcy. Smart 
move. They took bankruptcy. So what does that leave the U.S. 
Government, which is going to ultimately have the responsibility for 
controlling this leakage of cyanide poison? It leaves us with a $4.7 
million bond. That is the bond they had put up to the State of Colorado 
in order to mine.
  Here you have a minimum of $60 million disaster on your hands with a 
$4.7 million bond. And so it is today, Mr. President--35 people 
employed since 1986, controlling the cyanide runoff from the mine in 
Colorado, and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers of this country will 
be $60 million, minimum.

  Here is one that is even better, Mr. President. This came out of the 
New York Times 2 days ago. It is a shame that every American citizen 
can't read this. It's called ``The Blame Slag Heap.''

       In northern Idaho's Silver Valley, the abstractions of the 
     Superfund program--``remediation,'' ``restoration,'' 
     ``liability''--meet real life. For over a century, the 
     region's silver mines provided bullets for our soldiers and 
     fortunes for some of our richest corporations. The mines also 
     created a toxic legacy: wastes and tailings, hundreds of 
     billions of pounds of contaminated sediment * * *.
       In 1996--13 years after the area was declared the nation's 
     second-largest Superfund site, the Justice Department filed a 
     $600 million lawsuit against the surviving mining companies. 
     The estimated cost of cleanup ranges up to a billion dollars. 
     The Government sued after rejecting the companies' laughably 
     low settlement offer of $1 million.

  A $1 billion cleanup, and the company that caused the damage offers 
$1 million to settle.

       The companies, however, have countersued.

  They are countersuing the Federal Government, and do you know what 
they allege? They say it happened because the U.S. Government failed to 
regulate the disposal of mining waters.
  Can you imagine that? The company is suing the Government because the 
Government didn't supervise more closely. The story closes out by 
saying, ``Stop me before I kill again.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article from the New York 
Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          The Blame Slag Heap

                           (By Mark Solomon)

       Spokane, Wash.--In northern Idaho's Silver Valley, the 
     abstractions of the Superfund program--``remediation,'' 
     ``restoration,'' ``liability''--meet real life.
       For over a century, the region's silver mines provided 
     bullets for our soldiers and fortunes for some of our richest 
     corporations. The mines also created a toxic legacy: wastes 
     and tailings, hundreds of billions of pounds of contaminated 
     sediment, leaching into a watershed that is now home to more 
     than half a million people.
       In 1996, 13 years after the area was declared the nation's 
     second-largest Superfund site, the Justice Department filed a 
     $600 million lawsuit against the surviving mining companies. 
     The estimated cost of the clean-up ranges up to a billion 
     dollars. The Government sued after rejecting the companies' 
     laughably low settlement offer of $1 million. If the 
     companies don't pay, the Federal taxpayers will have to pick 
     up the tab.
       The companies, however, have countersued, alleging, among 
     other things, that the Government itself should be held 
     responsible. Why? Because it failed to regulate the disposal 
     of mining wastes.
       Do I believe my ears? In this era of deregulation, when 
     industry seeks to replace environmental laws with a voluntary 
     system, are the companies really saying that if only they had 
     been regulated more they would have stopped polluting? I've 
     heard the Government blamed for a lot of things, but 
     regulatory laxity was never one of them--until now.
       In fact, Idaho's mining industry has long fought every 
     attempt at reform. In 1932, for example, a Federal study 
     called for the building of holding ponds to capture the 
     mines' wastes. The companies fought that plan for 36 years, 
     until the Clean Water Act forced them to comply.
       Now Congress is debating the reauthorization of the 
     Superfund, and industry wants to weaken the provision on 
     damage to natural resources. If the effort succeeds, what 
     will happen in 50 years? Will the polluters sue the 
     Government, blaming it for failing to prevent environmental 
     damage?
       Quick, stop them before they kill again.

  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield specifically to his last comment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield for a question.
  Mr. CRAIG. Does the Senator know about the new science that comes out 
of the study of the Superfund site in Silver Valley, ID? Does he 
understand also that mediation on the Superfund is now tied up in the 
courts--conducted by the State of Idaho--that has really produced more 
cleanup and prevented more heavy metals from going into the water 
system, and the value of that? Does he also recognize that the suit 
filed by the Attorney General was more politics and less substance?
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is a subjective judgment, is it not?
  Mr. CRAIG. I believe that is a fact.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is it not true that the company has countersued the 
Federal Government saying, ``You should have stopped us long ago''? 
Isn't that what the countersuit says--``You should have regulated us 
more closely''?
  Mr. CRAIG. But the countersuit says that based on today's science, if 
we had known it then, which we didn't--you didn't, I didn't, and no 
scientist understood it--then we could have done something different. 
But as of now this is not an issue for mining law; this is an issue of 
a Superfund law that doesn't work, that promotes litigation. That is 
why the arguments you make are really not against mining law reform, 
which you and I support in some form. What you are really taking is a 
Superfund law that is tied up in the committees of this Senate, is 
nonfunctional, and produces lawsuits.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Can you tell me where the Superfund law says if you

[[Page S9579]]

were ignorant of what you were doing and caused the damage, you are 
excused? Do you know of any place in the Superfund where there is such 
language as that?
  Mr. CRAIG. What I understand is we have a 100-year-old mine where we 
are trying to take today's science and, looking at it based on your 
argument, move it back 100 years. We should be intent on solving 
today's problems and not arguing 100 years later.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is the State of Idaho willing to take over this cleanup 
site and absolve the U.S. Government of any further liability?
  Mr. CRAIG. My guess is that the State of Idaho with some limited 
assistance would champion that cause.
  I have introduced legislation that would create a base of authority. 
We believe it would cost the Federal Government less than $100 million. 
The State would work with some matching moneys. They would bring in the 
mining companies and force them to the table to establish the 
liability. Guess what would happen, Senator. We would be out of the 
courts. Lawyers would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal 
fees. And we would be cleaning up Superfund sites that have been in 
litigation for a decade, by your own admission and argument.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, the U.S. Government has sued this company for 
$600 million. The Government estimates that the cleanup cost is going 
to be $1 billion. The Senator comes from the great State of Idaho, and 
I am sure they don't enjoy ingesting cyanide any more than anybody else 
in any other State would.
  But the Senator would have to admit that Idaho couldn't, if it wanted 
to, clean up this site. It doesn't have the resources. It is the 
taxpayers of this country that are stuck with that $1 billion debt out 
there with a company which brashly says, ``If you would have regulated 
us closer, we wouldn't have done it.'' That is like saying, ``If you 
had taken my pistol away from me, I wouldn't have committed that 
murder.''
  Mr. CRAIG. If you would yield only briefly again--I do appreciate 
your courtesy--there is not a $1 billion price tag. That is a figment 
of the imagination of some of our environmental friends. There is no 
basis for that argument. There isn't a reasonable scientist who doesn't 
recognize that for a couple hundred million dollars of well-placed 
money, that problem goes away. But, as you know, when you involve the 
Federal Government, you multiply it by at least five. That is exactly 
what has gone on here.

       I will tell you that for literally tens of millions of 
     dollars, the State of Idaho, managing a trust fund, has shut 
     down more abandoned mines, closed off the mouths of those 
     mines, and stopped the leaking of heavy metal waters into the 
     Kootenay River, and into the Coeur d'Alene, and done so much 
     more productively, and it has not cost $1 billion. Nobody in 
     Idaho, including our State government, puts a $1 billion 
     price tag on this.

  This is great rhetoric, but it is phony economics.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just say to the Senator from Idaho 
that my legislation for 8 long years has been an anathema to him. I am 
not saying if I were a Senator from Alaska, Idaho, or Nevada I wouldn't 
be making the same arguments.
  But I want to make this offer. It is a standing offer. If the State 
of Idaho will commit and put up a bond that they will clean up all 
those abandoned mine sites in that State, that they will take on the 
responsibility, and do it in good order, and as speedily as possible, I 
will withdraw my amendment. I don't have the slightest fear. We all 
know that this is a Federal problem. It is a Federal responsibility to 
clean up these mine sites. The only way we can do it is to get some 
money out of the people who got the land virtually free and who have 
left us with this $30 billion to $70 billion price tag.
  Let me go back, Mr. President, and just state that since 1872 the 
U.S. Government in all of its generosity has given away 3.244 million 
acres of land. We have given it away for $2.50 an acre. Sometimes we 
got as much as $5 an acre. There are 330,000 claims still pending in 
this country. And the Mineral Policy Center estimates that since 1872 
we have patented land containing $243 billion worth of minerals--land 
that used to belong to the taxpayers of this country.
  We now have a moratorium on all but 235 patent applications. But the 
235 applications, when they are granted, will represent the continued 
taxpayer giveaway of billions of dollars worth of minerals and land.

       Stillwater Mining Company in Montana has a first half 
     certificate for 2,000 acres of land in the State of Montana. 
     What does that mean? That means they are virtually assured of 
     getting a deed to 2,000 acres of land. It means that they are 
     virtually assured of paying the princely sum of $10,180. 
     Guess what is what is lying underneath the 2,000 acres: $38 
     billion worth of palladium and platinum. My figure? No. 
     Stillwater's figure. Look at their prospectus. Look at their 
     annual report. They are saying to the people who own stock, 
     ``Have we pulled off a coup.'' We are going to get 2,000 
     acres of Federal land for $10,180, and it has $38 billion 
     worth of hardrock minerals under it--palladium and platinum.

  You know, one of the things that I think causes me to fail every year 
is that it is so gross, so egregious, that people can't believe it is 
factual, that it is actually happening. But it is true.

       Look at what happened to Asarco. They paid the U.S. 
     Government $1,745. What did they get? $2.9 billion worth of 
     copper and silver.

  You never heard of a company called Faxe Kalk. Do you know the reason 
you never heard of it? It is a foreign mining company. You don't 
usually hear of them. The other reason you don't hear of them is 
because they are a Danish company. One of the things that makes this 
issue so unpalatable is that many of the biggest 25 mining companies in 
the United States are foreign companies.
  We ought to go today to Denmark and say, ``We would like some of your 
North Sea oil.'' What do you think they would say if we said, ``Look, 
we are going to start drilling here off the coast of Denmark. We will 
give you a dollar now and then for the privilege.'' They would say, 
``You need to be submitted for a saliva test.''
  But the Faxe Kalk Corporation comes here, and they say, ``You have 
110 acres out here in Idaho, Uncle Sam. We would like to have it. We 
will pay $275 for it.''
  So they go to Bruce Babbitt and they say, ``We will give you $275 for 
this 110 acres.''
  Do you know what is underneath it? One billion dollars worth of a 
mineral called travertine. It is a mineral used to whiten paper. That 
is $275 the taxpayers get and $1 billion a Danish corporation gets.
  In 1995 the Secretary of the Interior was forced to deed 1,800 acres 
of public land in Nevada to Barrick Gold Co., a Canadian company, for 
its Gold Strike Mine. Barrick paid $9,000 for that 1,800 acres.
  Mr. President, there isn't a place in the Ozark Mountains of my State 
where you could buy land for one-tenth that price.
  The law required Secretary Babbitt to give Barrick, which is the most 
profitable gold company in the world, land containing $11 billion worth 
of gold for $9,000.
  I could go on. There are other cases just as egregious as that. For 8 
long years, I have stood at this very desk, and I have made these 
arguments, as I say, which are so outrageous I can hardly believe I am 
saying them, let alone believing them.
  Newmont Mining Co. is one of the biggest gold companies in the world. 
They have a large mine in Nevada which is partially on private land.
  When people say that somebody is mining on private lands, if you will 
check, Mr. President, you will find that in most cases that land was 
Federal land that somebody else patented, and then somebody like 
Newmont comes along, and they say, ``You hold a patent on this land 
that you got from the Federal Government for $2.50 an acre and we want 
to mine on it.'' Do you know what Newmont pays to the land owner on its 
mine in Nevada? An 18 percent royalty.
  Mr. President, as I just mentioned, most of the land being mined on, 
so-called private lands, are private because somebody bought it from 
the Federal Government years ago for $2.50 or $5 an acre.
  True, it is private. They own it. They paid for it. The mining 
companies are willing to pay the States--they are willing to pay the 
States a royalty. They are willing to pay the States a severance tax. 
They are willing to pay the private owners of this country an average 
of 5 percent. But when it

[[Page S9580]]

comes to paying the Federal Government, it is absolutely anathema to 
them. There is no telling how much the National Mining Association 
spends every year on lobbying, on publicity, on mailers, you name it, 
to keep this sweetheart deal alive.
  Since I started on this debate 8 years ago, the mining companies of 
this country have taken out billions of dollars worth of minerals from 
taxpayer-owned land. And do you know what the Federal Government and 
the taxpayers of this country got in exchange for that? One 
environmental disaster after another to clean up. And so that is the 
reason my bill, which contains a royalty and a reclamation fee, goes 
into a reclamation fund to at least start undoing the environmental 
damage these people have done because it is too late to get a royalty 
out of them. The gold is gone. We got the shaft. They got the gold. And 
it is too late to do anything about it. But you can start making them 
pay now to clean up those 555,000 sites.
  Arizona has a 2 percent gross value royalty for mines located on 
State lands and a 2.5 percent net income severance tax for all mines in 
the State. Montana, 5 percent; fair market for raw metallic minerals; 
1.6 percent of the gross value in excess of $250,000 for gold, silver, 
platinum group metals.

  All of these States charge royalties for mining operations on State-
owned land. Most of them also charge a severance tax for mining 
operations on all land in the State. Mr. President, what do they know 
that we don't? A lot. The States are collecting the money, but not 
Uncle Sam.
  Do you know why I have lost this fight for the last 8 years? Those 
States that have mining on Federal lands have great representation in 
the U.S. Senate. I know that every single Western Senator is going to 
start flocking onto this floor as soon as I start talking about this 
amendment.
  Do you see anybody else on this floor who is not from the West? Do 
you know why? My mother used to say, ``Everybody's business is nobody's 
business.'' This is everybody's business, except it just doesn't affect 
their States. There are no mining jobs in their States. For 8 years I 
have heard all these sayings, as to how many jobs you are going to 
lose, despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office says, ``None.''
  ``You are going to lose all these jobs. It is going to discommode the 
economies of our respective States.'' And yet the States don't 
hesitate. We have people in this body who are Senators from the West 
who have served in State legislatures, who helped pass these laws, who 
helped impose royalties and severance taxes against the mining 
companies. But somehow or other they go into gridlock when they get 
here. At the State level they don't mind assessing these kinds of 
taxes. The States need the money. We do, too. We are the ones who are 
tagged with this gigantic bill for reclamation.
  Mr. President, I could go through a list of things I have here. Amax, 
for example, pays 6-percent royalty on the Fort Knox Mine in Alaska. 
The chairman of the Energy Committee 2 years ago passed legislation 
providing for a land exchange on Forest Service land in Alaska. The 
Kennecott Mining Co. was willing to pay the Forest Service a $1.1 
million fee up front, and then a 3-percent net smelter return on the 
rest of it. We agreed on it, ratified it. I voted for it.
  But, now, isn't it strange that here is a mine in Alaska that we had 
to legislatively approve--because of the ownership of the land, it 
involved a land exchange--and I was happy to do it because it was a 
fair deal and these people demonstrated an interest in paying a fair 
royalty for what they took.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I will not belabor this any 
further.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question, 
because it affects my particular State?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I was getting ready to yield the floor. I want to say in 
closing, I know a lot of people would like to get out of here as early 
as they can tonight. I don't intend to belabor this. I said mostly what 
I want to say. I may respond to a few things that are said, so I am 
going to turn it over to my friends from the West and let them respond 
for a while, and then hopefully we can get into a time agreement after 
four or five speakers have spoken.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend 
from Arkansas on the mining issues he brings up.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? When I 
introduced this amendment, I failed to state that my chief cosponsor on 
the bill is Senator Gregg from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I would like to call attention to the statement 
that was made by the Senator from Arkansas relative to the Green Creek 
Mine. The thing that made that so different is the unique 
characteristic of that particular discovery, where all the components 
were known relative to the value of the minerals. The roads were in, 
the infrastructure was in. It was not a matter of discovery, going out 
in an area and wondering whether you were going to develop a 
sufficiency of resources to amortize the investment necessary to put in 
a mine. So I remind my colleagues, there is a big difference between 
the rhetoric that we have heard here and the practical realities of 
experience in the mining industry.

  We have seen both the effort by Canada and Mexico to initiate 
royalties. What has happened to their mining industry? It simply moved 
offshore. We have to maintain a competitive atmosphere on a worldwide 
basis; otherwise the reality for United States mining will be the same 
as was experienced in both Mexico and Canada.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to Senator 
Bumpers' amendment. This is not the first attempt he has made, 
initiating actions through the Interior appropriations process. We seem 
to be subjected to this every year. I know the intentions are good. But 
the reality is that the amendment as offered represents a profound--and 
I urge my colleagues to reflect on this--a profound and wide-reaching 
attempt to reform the Nation's mining laws in a way that prevents any 
real understanding of the impacts of the legislation. Because, as 
written, Senator Bumpers' amendment would not only put a royalty of all 
mining claims--all mining claims--but would also put a fee on all 
minerals produced off of lands that have ever gone to patent. Those are 
private lands. Let me, again, cite what this amendment does. It would 
not only put a royalty on all mining claims, but would also put a fee 
on all minerals produced off lands that have ever gone to patent. Those 
are private lands. So, this is nothing more than a tax. It is a tax. 
And it is this Senator's opinion that this makes Senator Bumpers' 
amendment subject to a constitutional point of order.
  Let me set this aside for a moment and address the specifics of my 
opposition to the amendment. This approach to revenue generation is no 
different than placing a tax on, say, all agricultural production from 
lands that were at one time, say, homesteads. It is retroactive. Even 
though Senator Bumpers doesn't like it, the fact remains that patent 
claims are exactly the same as homestead lands. They are all private 
lands.
  I cannot even begin to imagine the genesis of this punitive and 
dangerous amendment. This is an unmitigated attack on all things 
mining. We have absolutely no idea what impact this legislation would 
have on our ability to maintain a dependable supply of minerals; no 
idea what environmental disasters would be created when this 
legislation shuts down the producing mines across the country. We have 
no idea how many workers will be put on the unemployment line. We have 
no idea whatsoever on the effects of this legislation.
  The issue is very complex. It is not appropriate that it be dealt 
with in an appropriations process. There is a right way and a wrong way 
to go about mining reform. You can chose the right way and offer your 
reform in a fair and open process, giving everyone the opportunity to 
participate in the formation of the legislation, which is what Senator 
Craig and I, along with the cosponsors of the legislation, have 
attempted to do in the legislation that has been offered. Or you can, 
as I observe, do what Senator Bumpers has seen fit to do and offer your 
legislation in a form where not one single person

[[Page S9581]]

outside the Senator's office has the opportunity to either understand 
or contribute to the process.
  I think there is too much at stake in mining reform to treat this 
complex subject in such a dangerous and offhand manner. Senator Craig, 
along with myself, Senator Reid, Senator Bryan, Senator Bennett, 
Senator Burns, Senator Hatch, Senator Thomas, Senator Campbell, Senator 
Stevens, Senator Kempthorne, among a few, have introduced S. 1102, the 
Mining Reform Act of 1997. As such, I encourage my colleagues to 
recognize the time and effort that has been put into developing a 
package of reforms that set the stage for a meaningful, honest, and 
comprehensive reform. We are going to be holding a series of hearings 
to explore all aspects of the legislation and the effect it will have 
on the Nation's environment and economy.
  I know many Members have indicated their interest in the formation of 
this legislation and the process of the hearings as they unfold and 
intend to participate. This is how reforms should take place. Reform 
should take place in an orderly manner in the hearing process, and we 
have lived up, I think, to the expectations of those who have 
indicated, ``All right, we will stand with you, but give us a bill.'' 
We have met that obligation and filed a piece of comprehensive mining 
reform legislation.
  We are going to consider the amendments as part of the process of 
debate, and if they make a legitimate contribution to the mining reform 
effort--and I emphasize reform effort--we are going to adopt them. This 
is the appropriate method to resolve mining reform, not as a last-
minute amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, which we have 
seen the Senator from Arkansas propose time and time again.
  The reform that Senator Craig, I, and others have offered lays a 
solid foundation upon which to build mining reform. Our mining reform 
bill should, I think, please reasonable voices on both sides. If you 
seek reform that brings a fair return to the Treasury, and it is 
patterned after the policies of the mining law of Nevada--and it works 
in Nevada--and it protects the environment and preserves our ability to 
produce strategic minerals, I think you will find a great deal to 
support in this legislation. It does work.
  The legislation protects some of the smaller interests, the small 
miners. It maintains traditional location and discovery practices.
  Yes, it is time for reform, but it has to be done right. Bad 
decisions will harm a $5 billion industry whose products are the muscle 
and sinew of the Nation's industrial output. The future of as many as 
120,000 American miners and their families and their communities are at 
stake. Any action to move on amendment is absolutely irresponsible to 
those individuals, because it is the wrong way to do it.
  I know you have heard this before, time and time again, but we do 
have a bill in now and it is a responsible bill. We owe Americans a 
balanced and open resolution to the mining reform debate. This reform 
mining legislation honors the past, recognizes the present, and sets 
the stage, I think, for a bright future.
  The legislation that we offer advances reforms in four areas: 
royalties, patents, operations, and reclamation.
  Let me be very brief in referring to the royalties. The legislation 
creates the first-ever hard rock royalty. It requires that 5 percent of 
the profit made from mining on Federal lands be paid to the Federal 
Government. This legislation seeks a percentage of the profit, not the 
value of the mineral in place. We do this for a very specific reason. 
Failure to do so would cause a shutdown of many operations and prevent 
the opening of new mines. It would also cause other operators to cast 
low-ore concentrates into the spoil pile as they seek out only the very 
highest grade of ores.
  America boasts some very profitable mines, but there is an equal 
number that operate on a very thin margin. The Senator from Arkansas 
doesn't address the reality of what happens when the price of silver or 
the price of gold drops and their margin squeezes. We have some mines 
that actually operate during those periods with substantial losses.
  That is why we designed our royalty to take a percentage of the 
profits. Under the proposal that the Senator from Arkansas has 
proposed, time and time again, many of these mines would actually 
operate at a loss because they could not deduct their production costs 
prior to the sale of their finished product.
  If the mine makes money, the public gets a share. That is a fair way 
to do it. Nobody benefits from a royalty system so intrusive that it 
must be paid for through the loss of jobs, the health of local 
communities, and the abandonment of lower grade mineral resources.
  Some would want to simply drive the mining industry out of the United 
States because they look at it as some kind of an environmental devil 
that somehow can't, through advanced technology, make a contribution to 
the Nation. I say that they can, they will and, through this 
legislation, they will be able to do a better job.
  In 1974, British Columbia put a royalty on minerals before cost of 
production was factored in. Five thousand miners lost their jobs. That 
is a fact. Only one new mine went into operation in 1976. The industry 
was devastated. The royalty was removed 2 years later in 1978.

  That is the reality of the world in which we live and the 
international competitiveness associated with this industry. Years 
later, the industry in British Columbia still has not completely 
recovered. I happen to know what I am talking about because the Senator 
from Alaska is very close to our neighbors in British Columbia.
  So I say to those who forget history, they are doomed to repeat it.
  Patents: Patenting grants the right to take title to lands containing 
minerals upon demonstration that the land can support a profitable 
operation.
  Patents have been abused, no question about it. A small number of 
unscrupulous individuals have located mineral operations for the sole 
purpose of gaining title and turning the land into a lodge or ski 
resort. These practices are wrong. They are not allowed under the new 
legislation.
  The reform that we have offered cures these problems without 
punishing the innocent. We would continue to issue patents to people 
engaged in legitimate mining operations, but a patent would be revoked 
if the land is used for purposes other than mining.
  Operations: To separate legitimate miners from mere speculators and 
to unburden the Government from mining claims with no real potential, 
we require a $25 filing fee be paid at the time the claim is filed and 
make the annual $100 claim maintenance fee permanent.
  Environmental protection: Our revisions weave a tight environmental 
safety net. The reform permit process requires approval for all but the 
most minimal activities. The bill requires reclamation, and the bill 
requires full bonding to deal with abandonment.
  The Senator from Arkansas doesn't acknowledge the effort relative to 
what this bonding will mean. It will mean that mines that are abandoned 
will have a reclamation bond in place to make sure the public does not 
have to bear the cost of cleanup. The bond is going to be there; it is 
going to be held. It is a performance bond, that is what it means.
  As we address the responsibility for a prudent mining bill, please 
recognize the contributions that have been made in trying to formulate 
something realistic that will address the abuses that we have had in 
the past. That is what we do in our bill.
  The bill addresses mines already abandoned by establishing a 
reclamation fund as well. Filing fees, maintenance fees and the royalty 
go into that fund. So we have addressed that in a responsible manner.
  For those who seek meaningful reform to the Nation's general mining 
laws, then our legislation does the job. It fixes past abuses without 
punishing the innocent. It shares profits without putting people out of 
work. It assures the mining operations cause the least possible 
disturbance. And it makes sure we don't pay for actions of a few bad 
operators and provide sources of funds for reclamation.
  Both sides of the mining reform debate have come a long way toward a 
constructive compromise. I have met with Senator Bumpers on many 
occasions, and at one time actually thought we were going to reach an 
accord. But unfortunately we didn't. But we have gone ahead and put in 
the bill. The bill will help carry us, I think, the last

[[Page S9582]]

mile and provide the balanced reform that has, so far, eluded us.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me, Senator Craig and others in 
continuing to craft this open and meaningful mining reform. With equal 
vigor, I ask each and every Member of this body to join us in opposing 
Senator Bumpers' proposal, a reform crafted in the dark of night and 
offered in a forum guaranteed to confuse and shroud the real impact of 
the legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will not at this point speak to the 
merits of the amendment. Both the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator 
from Alaska have done so, each of them repeating points that I can 
remember having heard almost verbatim in several previous sessions of 
Congress. My remarks will be much more narrow.
  Section (d)(1) of this amendment states:

       Any person producing hardrock minerals from a mine that was 
     within a mining claim that has subsequently been patented 
     under the general mining laws shall pay a reclamation fee to 
     the Secretary under this subsection.

  The Senator from Arkansas quite properly described that fee as a 
severance tax, and a severance tax it is. It applies only to minerals 
coming out, presumably, in the future from certain classes of lands in 
the United States. It is not something directed at the restoration of 
those lands, but is to be used as a source of money for much broader 
purposes.
  The Senator's description of it as a tax is accurate.
  Article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States under 
which we operate states--and I quote--

       All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives.

  No such tax appears in the similar bill that the House of 
Representatives has passed.
  It is crystal clear to me that should this tax be added on to this 
bill it will be blue slipped in the House of Representatives, that is, 
it will not be considered on the grounds that that portion of the bill, 
that subject of the bill could only originate in the House.
  The House of Representatives is as jealous of its prerogatives to 
originate tax bills as the Senate is to ratifying treaties or to 
confirm Presidential appointments or to engage in any of the activities 
that are lodged by the Constitution in this body.


                             Point of Order

  As a consequence, although there has been some time devoted to the 
merits of this amendment, and because I believe that it clearly 
violates article I, section 7 of the Constitution, I raise a 
constitutional point of order against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is debatable. 
Is the point of order well-taken, would be the question?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry. Do we ask for the yeas and nays at 
this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is appropriate.
  Mr. REID. I do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I hope that we can resolve this issue. It is quite clear 
that it does violate the Constitution of the United States. That is by 
taking the Senator's own statement during the time he was debating his 
amendment. It is clear from his own statement that it is a violation of 
the Constitution.
  I say to my friends who are listening to this debate, Members of the 
Senate, that we would vote on this issue and if this issue prevails, of 
course, the amendment falls. But I would also say that we should look 
at this on the legal aspect. If this stays in this bill, the bill is 
gone. There is no question that it is unconstitutional and we should 
vote based on the constitutionality of this amendment, not on the 
merits of the amendment.
  I say to my friends that we have voted on some aspect of an amendment 
like this on other occasions. My friend from Arkansas has framed it 
differently this time. Therefore, we have raised this point of order. I 
ask that we dispose of this. It is getting late into the night. I 
repeat, if this constitutional point of order is upheld, the amendment 
falls.
  Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we will probably soon be voting 
on this important amendment and on this important issue.
  I was sitting in my office and listening to my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas, my friend and neighbor, and thought that I 
might come down and try to give him some help and support, not that he 
needs any more help in articulating the issue and speaking about it and 
outlining it, which he does so beautifully, but to let him know that as 
a new member of the Energy Committee, one that just arrived here and 
has not spent even a year here, and with him getting ready to retire 
and having announced his retirement, that I want to let him know I am 
going to pick up this ball wherever it may land today, I say to Senator 
Bumpers.

  I come from a State that has obviously some mining interests, but I 
come from a State that has had oil and gas development and exploration 
for many years.
  I am from a position of understanding that when it is done correctly 
how much of a benefit it can be in terms of jobs and economic 
development and helping people and enriching the corporations and 
businesses as well as the average working man and woman.
  But I can also see from knowing about our history in Louisiana that 
when the laws are not fair, when they are not written with the taxpayer 
in mind, that the taxpayers can be shortchanged. When taxpayers are 
shortchanged, families are shortchanged, and when families are 
shortchanged, children are shortchanged. When I think of the hundreds 
of millions and billions of dollars that could have been allocated 
differently perhaps in the history of our State as we took out oil and 
gas, that would have been more fair to everyone.
  I have to sympathize in a great way with what the Senator from 
Arkansas is speaking about regarding many of our Western States.
  To my great colleague and chairman of the Energy Committee, from a 
State very far from ours, I do not want him to think that I am meddling 
in other States' business. I have been in the legislature for many 
years in my own State. But it is an issue that should concern every 
taxpayer in America.
  As we look for dollars to send our children to the best of schools 
that we can provide, when we look and scrape for dollars to provide 
immunization shots for them so that they can live a healthy life, when 
we are looking for dollars every day to try to literally make decisions 
about life and death, to not have these laws and rules and regulations 
established in such a way to just give fairness to the taxpayer is why 
I am here.
  I am going to support this amendment. I am coauthoring this 
amendment. I am going to work diligently with Senator Bumpers and other 
Members on both sides of this aisle to learn more about the specifics, 
to be a strong advocate for reform and change, to make sure that this 
allocation is done fairly for the taxpayers, and for somebody in these 
rooms to start dealing the deal for the taxpayer for a change and not 
specifically for a particular company or a particular entity. I know 
that my colleagues from these other States will keep that in mind as we 
move along with this amendment and this bill.
  So I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his great work, for 8 years 
of his impassioned speeches, and hope that many Members of our Senate 
will become more knowledgeable about this issue because I can 
understand by looking at this amendment, not even having read all of 
the details of it, what is causing the consternation.
  We are not talking about $2.50 or $1 or $15. We are talking about 
$750 and $550 million. When you talk about serious dollars, people wake 
up and get exercised about it. But it is about time maybe some of this 
money got into the hands of our children and families that need it that 
could use it for other

[[Page S9583]]

things that would be important, not to mention the environmental 
concerns which are also of great concern to everyone.
  So I am proud to support the amendment. I am happy for my name to be 
listed as a coauthor. Since I just got here, I plan to spend a lot of 
time working on the Energy Committee and look forward to working with 
members of the Energy Committee and others.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not think there is a Senator in this 
body who is not sensitive to families, is not sensitive to the working 
men and women of this country.
  Who do you think is employed by the mines? Do we just disregard the 
job opportunities? Do we deny America of a resource that is used in 
just about everything that we pick up, from pencils to what we tie our 
shoes with? Doesn't that involve families, children, and schools, and 
roads, and public safety? It is a resource. Families and people are 
involved.

  There is a basic fairness here. There is a human factor. All of this 
just doesn't jump out of the ground into the truck and then a faceless 
person drives a truck and a faceless person goes home to feed his 
family and pay his taxes, payroll taxes, insurance, workmen's comp. All 
of this is created out of commercial activity.
  Now, if none of that is there, then you have even taken away the 
opportunity for upward mobility for the greatest number of people in 
this country.
  There is not anybody here that is not sensitive to people and to the 
working men and women of this country or to families or even 
communities and all it takes to operate the communities, because to 
many of them, this is a commercial opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly on the amendment 
that has been offered. I recognize the Senator from Washington has 
raised the issue of constitutionality on this amendment. I leave that 
to constitutional attorneys in this body--of which he happens to be a 
leading one--to debate and discuss.
  Let me mention quickly some of my concerns to the opposition of the 
underlying amendment. I believe the Senator from Arkansas has brought 
forward an appropriate amendment. What we are talking about here is 
essentially corporate welfare. This is not about family, and whose 
families does this or that, quite honestly. As a practical matter I 
believe the majority of the mining companies involved here, or a large 
percentage, come from other countries. We are talking about families. 
It would be how we benefit families from different countries. It is a 
classic case of corporate welfare.
  The Senator from Arkansas has outlined in great detail, and very 
appropriately, what appears to a considerable outrage being perpetrated 
on the taxpayers of America in that we are selling land at $2.50 an 
acre which generates billions of dollars worth of revenue to 
corporations who pay virtually nothing in relationship to that revenue 
as it relates to the ore brought out of that land. In fact, the irony 
is they get a depletion allowance, a depletion tax allowance on the 
basis of this $2.50 land--not using that as a basis--which shouldn't 
apply to them to begin with because the land isn't purchased at a fair 
value. Yet they are given a tax break, a depletion allowance, in order 
to subsidize what is already grossly subsidized.
  It is appropriate as we step forward, as the Senator from Arkansas 
has, and say if you are going to make this type of money off lands 
which are publicly owned--and the land is not publicly owned by the 
State, it is publicly owned by the Federal Government, and the Federal 
Government is the people of this country, not just the people of one 
State--if you are going to make money off publicly owned lands, the 
public should get some sort of return on it. That is only reasonable. 
The public should have the right to expect that it would benefit from 
the extraction of these valuable ores from land which they own, much as 
anybody who was a stockholder in a company would benefit from the 
profits of a company. The taxpayer is essentially the stockholder. The 
land is owned by the taxpayer. Therefore, there is a legitimacy to the 
position taken by the Senator from Arkansas that the value that is 
being withdrawn from this land should be returned in part, at least, to 
the people whose land is being used.
  If you own a farm and you discover there is oil under your land, as a 
private citizen, and you go to an oil company and say, ``Come on to my 
farm and pump my oil out,'' you are not going to say, ``I will sell you 
my land for $2.50,'' would you? Nobody would, no. You will say, ``Come 
on to my land, I may lease it to you for $2.50''--I find that hard to 
believe for the purposes of pumping oil, ``but when you pump that oil 
out I will want a percentage of that profit.'' It is called a royalty 
payment. That is what is being proposed by the Senator from Arkansas.

  It is totally reasonable in light of the staggering, staggering 
wealth which is generated from these mining claims in exchange for the 
minute amount of money that is paid for these mining claims. Estimates 
that have been pointed out by the Senator from Arkansas: For as little 
as $1,500, people purchased mining claims that generated over $3 
billion; for as little as $275, people purchased mining claims worth 
over $1 billion; for as little as $9,000 people generated mining claims 
worth over $11 billion; and we have pending one where people will pay 
about $10,000 for benefits of approximately $38 billion.
  How can anybody in good conscience go back to their taxpayers and say 
we just sold a piece of your land that has $38 billion worth of assets 
on it; we just sold it for 10,000 bucks? Who would go to their 
neighbor, with a straight face, and say ``They just found oil on my 
land. I just sold it to the oil companies for $10,000. The oil is worth 
$38 billion. Didn't I get a good deal, neighbor?'' You would be laughed 
out of town.
  I think people who have the responsibility, the fiduciary 
responsibility of protecting the taxpayer and the taxpayers' land might 
also be laughed out of town, or at least be voted out of town if they 
continue to pursue this course.
  I strongly support the underlying amendment. I will leave it to the 
constitutional lawyers to settle the constitutional point. But the 
concept of giving the taxpayers a fair break on this issue, the concept 
of giving the taxpayers a decent return on this very valuable asset is, 
I think, very appropriate, and it is time we started putting an end to 
this kind of corporate welfare.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Two brief points. First, the Senator from New Hampshire 
describes what is an entirely reasonable point, it seems to me, if we 
are talking about land sold by the United States in the future.
  But in effect he is saying a policy we ought to adopt is one that 
would be analogous to something in my own State, where 20 years ago you 
sold shares of stock in Microsoft for $10 a share and they are now 
worth $100,000 a share today, and he says, ``Gee, I made a bad bargain. 
I ought to get some more of that back. I want a share of that profit.'' 
That goes to the equities of the position.
  The point before the Senate now is whether or not we can 
constitutionally deal with this. The Senator from Louisiana made the 
perfect argument on our side. She said we aren't getting enough taxes, 
we need to get more taxes out of these lands.
  That is exactly what the Senator proposes to do--tax these lands. Tax 
bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This does not 
originate in the House of Representatives. It is not something that 
this body constitutionally can deal with. That is the point on which we 
are going to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say, first of all, that I would have asked for a 
division, incidentally, before the point of order was made if I had had 
the chance.
  Let me make a parliamentary inquiry. Division is not in order after 
the point of order is made, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say to my colleagues that I didn't get a chance 
to ask for a division. So, if you want to stand on ceremony, if you 
want to go home and tell the folks back home why

[[Page S9584]]

you voted to continue giving billions of dollars worth of gold and 
silver away every year because of this little fine, distinguished 
point, you go ahead and do that. Be my guest.
  If you are looking for something to hang your hat on even though you 
would be entirely incorrect, you can do it.
  Do you know something else? The Senator from Alaska, the Senator from 
Nevada, the Senator from Idaho, and others who introduced this bill in 
this Senate, they have a royalty provision in their bill. That bill, 
like the bills I introduced, has been referred to the Senate Energy 
Committee, not the Finance Committee. Obviously my amendment does not 
contain a tax.
  So we raise this little fine diversionary point and we hope that 
people will forget that, since 1872, 243 billion dollars' worth of 
their property has been expropriated by the biggest corporations in the 
world--not in America, in the world. So, candidate, when you see a 30-
second spot next year saying, ``He voted to continue this foul, 
outrageous, egregious practice, and the landowners of this country, the 
taxpayers who own it, you tax them for everything.'' How many times 
during the budget debate did I hear the cries about the ``poor, taxed 
American taxpayer?'' Go home and tell that taxpayer you were just 
kidding. If you weren't kidding, why are you voting to continue to give 
billions of dollars worth of their property away every year?
  The Senator from Alaska says, ``If you pass the Bumpers amendment, 
you are going to drive all these mining companies offshore.'' Do you 
know what my response to that is? If all you want to do, Stillwater 
Mining Co., is take 38 billion dollars' worth of platinum off of 2,000 
acres of land in Montana and give us $10,000 back for your $38 billion, 
so long, good riddance. What on Earth are we thinking about in this 
body?
  So, Mr. President, let me make this point one more time because I 
promise you there is going to be a lot of 30-second spots next year on 
this issue. You cannot duck this one forever. You cannot campaign back 
home on the finely crafted point of order made by the Senator from 
Washington that this doesn't belong in this bill and the House of 
Representatives will blue slip it. Since when did that become a big 
item around here? If you are looking for something to hang your hat on, 
you go ahead; you vote for the point of order and then go home next 
fall, and when you are in a debate with your opponent and he says, ``He 
has voted time and again to give away these billions of dollars of 
resources that belong to you, the American people for nothing; he is 
willing to make the oil companies pay 12.5 percent royalty, make the 
gas companies pay a 12.5 percent royalty, is willing to make the coal 
operators pay a 12.5 percent royalty, or an 8 percent royalty for 
underground mining, but when it comes to gold and silver, he gets 
lockjaw, just can't get it out of the chute.'' You answer that when 
your opponent hits you with that and tells you that the Federal 
Government would have received $12 billion in royalties since 1872 for 
patented land alone.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. No, I will not yield. Then you stand on ceremony. And 
when your opponent charges you with that, you say, ``Well, there is a 
little distinction. The Constitution says * * *.'' You see how that 
goes over.
  Let me make one other point. Even if the point of order was valid 
against the reclamation fee, which it clearly is not, how can anybody 
argue that the royalty is unconstitutional.
  So I leave it to your conscience on how you want to handle this. I 
will yield now to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask my learned colleague if he thinks that the 
constitutional matters are strictly in the realm of technical matters 
and are of no consequence, which is what the Senator from Arkansas 
inferred? This is a constitutional point of order, is it not?

  Mr. BUMPERS. It is a point of order.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It has great significance relative to the manner in 
which this body conducts itself.
  Mr. BUMPERS. As the Senator knows, nobody in this body has shown a 
deeper devotion to the Constitution of the United States than the 
Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yet, the Senator from Arkansas says it is a 
``technical'' matter and of no consequence.
  Mr. BUMPERS. All I'm saying to my colleagues is that you're not going 
to get a chance to vote on a division, you are not going to get a 
chance----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is not the fault of the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BUMPERS. All I am saying is that the point of order was made 
before I could ask for a division. I am saying that could be worked 
out, and it could be easily worked out.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We both follow the rules of the Senate. My question to 
the Senator is, does the Senator from Arkansas regard this issue as a 
technical matter when it is a constitutional provision?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I still have the floor, do I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to ask for a division.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Somebody objected? I can't believe this.
  Mr. President, like Mo Udall used to say, ``Everything that needs to 
be said has been said, though everybody hasn't said it.'' I have said 
about all I can say for the eighth year. I consider this the most 
egregious thing that the Senate turns its back on every year. Of all 
the battles I have fought, particularly on the defense budget and in 
the Energy Committee, none of them are of equal importance to me as 
this. It is an absolute enigma to me how this body continues to vote to 
continue this outrageous practice.
  While you are telling them about that fine constitutional 
distinction, in answer to why you are giving the gold and silver away 
to the biggest mining companies in the world, also remind them that not 
only do we not get one farthing in return for our gold and silver, they 
have just left you with a $32 to $70 billion cleanup cost.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Arkansas has stated there has 
been a fine distinction point raised. That fine distinction point is 
the Constitution of the United States. I think that is something that 
we should be concerned about. This country has been in existence for 
more than 200 years, and this body has been in existence for more than 
200 years. I think if we are anything of significance, which I believe 
we are, we are a country that is bound by the constitutional dictates 
set up by our Founding Fathers. The constitutional point of order lies.
  Now, I also think, prior to voting on this, that we have to 
understand that much of what the Senator from Arkansas says, throwing 
these numbers around, talking about 30-second spots, these are a 
figment of someone's imagination. You cannot get out of here and talk 
about billions of dollars in cleanup and all the problems caused by 
mining. The fact of the matter is that with rare, rare exception, all 
of the cases he has talked about are cases involving mines that have 
long since been depleted, old mines where we had no reclamation laws, 
we had no environmental laws. That is why the Superfund is attempting 
to go clean them up. Under modern day reclamation and mining in the 
Western United States, we have good laws. He talks about leach mining, 
where you lay down a plastic pad and what if it leaks. Well, it doesn't 
leak. We have stringent controls that guarantees that.

  I would also say, Mr. President, that I understand the feelings of 
the Senator from Arkansas about mining--I believe it is a very 
important industry in this country--when he says--and he said this 
before--``If you do not like what we are doing to you in the United 
States, adios.'' And he waves.
  Let me talk about two of the States that are small States 
populationwise. Let's talk about the State of North Dakota and see how 
important mining is to North Dakota.
  The value of minerals mined in North Dakota for the year 1995 was 
almost $308 million; directly contribution to Federal Government 
revenues, $21 million is what the Federal government gains from the 
mining in a tiny State of North Dakota; total jobs gained directly and 
indirectly in North Dakota, 13,000 jobs.

[[Page S9585]]

  Take another very small State, the State of Wyoming, the smallest 
State populationwise, or maybe Alaska is, but one of the smaller two 
States. The value of minerals in the State of Wyoming, over $2.5 
billion; jobs in Wyoming, 41,000.
  The point is that mining is important. We are a net exporter of gold. 
This has only happened during the last 10 years.
  We talk about a favorable balance of trade. We have one in mining, 
which is very significant and important to this country. The price of 
gold has dropped significantly this past year. It was over $400 an 
ounce, and now it is barely $320 an ounce. Mining companies are having 
trouble making it.
  So, I say also to my friend from Arkansas that every battle that he 
fights on the Senate floor is the most important battle that he fights. 
We have heard him on a number of issues that he talks strenuously and 
very passionately about. On every one, he tells us that it is the most 
important. I have great respect and admiration for his ability to 
debate. But the fact is, sometimes we are debating facts that are not 
at issue.
  The issue before this body today is a constitutional issue as to 
whether or not the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas violates the 
Constitution. He has stated it does. I do not know if he wants a 
rollcall vote on it, or whether we should do it by voice vote.
  I say through the Chair to my friend from Arkansas, I have a question 
for my friend from Arkansas. He has acknowledged that his amendment 
violates the Constitution.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I didn't acknowledge that. But go ahead.
  Mr. REID. My question was, do you want a rollcall vote on that, or 
should we do it by voice vote on a constitutional provision?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator does not have the option of doing that. He 
is going to be voting on the amendment, period. He is going to be 
voting on the point of order raised by the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator want a rollcall vote on that?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.
  Mr. REID. I thought there was an acknowledgment here in the Senate 
that it did violate the Constitution.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Nevada is incorrect. My amendment does 
not violate the Constitution and it deserves an up or down vote. What 
is the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Alaska so afraid of?
  Mr. REID. So, in short, Mr. President, there has been an 
acknowledgment, even by the proponent of the amendment--the Record 
speaks for itself--that this amendment violates the Constitution.
  I want everyone walking over here to vote to understand that we 
said--``we,'' those of us who have talked for years against the 
amendments offered by my friend from Arkansas; and I will not describe 
the amendments--we have said that we would offer mining law reform, and 
we have done that. We have done that. This is a good bill. It calls for 
a royalty, reforms the patenting process, and reclamation. It is a good 
bill. We have done that. We have kept faith.

  I also want everyone to understand, especially on the Democratic 
side, this constitutional issue, or the underlying amendment, has 
nothing do with the regulation that we disposed of here yesterday on 
the Senate floor. This has nothing to do with the issue--some 
controversy between the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from 
Nevada--within the Democratic conference. This is a separate issue 
dealing with a tax, a tax that has been established with not a single 
hearing, with no debate whatsoever prior to getting here. It was thrown 
upon us here, on the Senate floor, this morning.
  So I say we should go forward with this constitutional point of 
order.
  In closing, let me say that the taxpayers of this country, the 
hundreds of thousands of people that work in mining, do care about 
mining. Their jobs come from mines. They pay taxes. And they provide 
for one of the finest industries that we have in the Western part of 
the United States.
  I also say that we talk about environmental laws. I invite my friend 
from Arkansas, and anyone else that wants to see good reclamation, come 
and see what mining companies do in the modern-day West. Joshua trees 
are not torn up in a mining process. They must be saved so that when 
the mining is completed they can be replanted.
  The mining company not far from my hometown, Searchlight, NV--they 
have a mining operation that has also a farming operation. They save 
all of the trees that have been uprooted from the mining. When that 
particular part of the mine is closed, they have to replant the Joshua 
trees.
  So mining companies have contributed a lot environmentally to this 
country.
  I think we have to understand that the passionate arguments of my 
friend from Arkansas are based little on fact and much on passion.
  Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, before we vote, I want to make just a couple of 
additional remarks for the Record.
  Listening to my colleagues speak about the Constitution and the 
intricacies of whether this is appropriate or not, compels me to say 
that the most important thing about our Constitution in the United 
States is the essential component written in that document about 
justice and fairness. That is what our Constitution is about. That is 
all this issue is about. It is about fairness and justice to the 
taxpayers and to the families and to children in our country.
  To the children who come to me now and in the future, and perhaps 
look a little sad, telling me they come from families that may be poor, 
they don't have what they need, I remind them that they are not poor, 
that they live in a State and in a country with bountiful resources. 
They actually own gold and silver that belong to them.
  But for some reason that I am finding hard to understand, for over 
100 years this Senate and the House of Representatives refuses to 
acknowledge that this is not something we own, the 100 of us sitting 
here; this is something that the public owns. It belongs not to us, not 
to a few companies, nor to many companies. It belongs to the children 
of America. This is their land. It is their gold. It is their silver. 
And it is our job to make sure they get a fair portion--not all of it--
but a fair portion of it. It is clear to me that they have not for 130 
years gotten their fair portion of what is theirs, what was given to 
them--not by us, but by God, and others.
  So I want to make that point for the Record.
  I hope we will vote soon.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, be added as a 
cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Second, Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues 
that on this point of order, if you want to vote ``no'' because of the 
constitutional technicality which is raised by the point of the order 
by the Senator from Washington, bear in mind that the point of order is 
clearly not valid at all against the royalty provision in this bill.
  The reason I can tell you that with absolute certainty is because the 
bill of the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Idaho, and the 
Senator from Nevada, has a royalty provision in it. The Parliamentarian 
of this body referred it to the Energy Committee--not the Finance 
Committee. There isn't any question that there is no point of order 
against the royalty provision in this bill.
  Second, I would like to ask my distinguished friend from Nevada, if I 
could have the attention of the Senator from Nevada----
  Mr. REID. Which one?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada if he will 
tell his 99 colleagues why Newmont Mining Co.--which is the biggest 
mining company in Nevada--why is it that they are willing to pay 18 
percent royalty for private lands they mine on, and land which is a 
part of the very same mine which they got a patent on from the U.S. 
Government for $2.50 an acre, why they are not willing to pay any 
royalty on that.

[[Page S9586]]

  Mr. REID. I would be happy to respond to my friend from Arkansas.
  First of all, again, with all due respect to my friend from Arkansas, 
it is somewhat misleading to say they get $2.50 an acre for land.
  Mr. BUMPERS. They got it for $35----
  Mr. REID. Let me finish my answer.
  To develop that piece of land costs them tens of millions of dollars. 
You don't simply go out in the deserts of Nevada or any place in the 
West and locate a claim and start scooping out the gold. I am not 
saying millions of dollars. I am saying tens of millions of dollars.
  In addition to that, the unique situation that the Senator has 
raised, they also purchased next to their mine a ranch.
  And the reason they purchased the ranch originally was so their 
mining operations would not interfere with the ranch property. They 
bought that ranch so their trucks could go through the property on 
their roads. They found on that land some mineral value. Since they 
owned the ranch, and they found some gold. And the reason they were 
willing to do that, and pay the fee on land that they already had, is 
because they had an ongoing operation. They had already developed and 
they discovered gold there, and it was the profitable thing for them to 
do. They didn't do it, just to go out and then somebody said, ``You 
start paying us 18 percent royalty.'' They already had a huge mining 
operation in the immediate vicinity of the property they agreed to 
lease.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator realize that the land on which they are 
paying 18 percent royalty was formerly Federal land and was patented by 
a totally different person and they bought it, they bought it from 
somebody else who paid the Federal Government either $2.50 an acre or 
$5 an acre? They are paying him, not the Federal Government.
  You see, if they had been smart enough to get a patent before this 
other fellow did, they would not have had to pay anything. Now they are 
paying somebody else who patented the land 18 percent, but if they had 
gotten the patent from the Federal Government, they wouldn't have had 
to pay a penny.
  Indeed, Senator, I don't want to make too much light of your 
argument, but I don't even know what your answer is. I still do not 
understand why it is they are willing to pay 18 percent royalty to a 
guy who patented the land from the Federal Government. It is now 
private land because he bought it for $2.50 an acre. They are willing 
to pay him 18 percent royalty but the other lands--it is a part of the 
same lode of gold that they got a patent on from the Federal 
Government. They are not willing to pay one farthing, and the reason 
they are not willing to, I say to the Senator, you and I both know the 
answer, they got a bird nest on the ground.
  Mr. REID. First of all, these lands started being patented a long 
time ago. If you look at Carson City, which was before the 1872 mining 
law, they had a different way of patenting claims than started in 1872. 
Claims in Nevada have been patented for many years as they have in the 
Western part of the United States. I can't give you the genealogy of 
the claim about which the Senator speaks, but assuming my friend from 
Arkansas is right, that it was originally patented by someone else and 
then they purchased it, I say this.
  First of all, the reason that Newmont Mining Co. or any other mining 
company would be willing to pay extra on it is because we live in a 
system of free enterprise where people pay what they feel they can pay 
in order to make a profit. And surrounding this piece of land is land 
that they have spent tens of millions of dollars developing. The land 
that they are leasing from another individual, this company, is land 
that has already been patented. Newmont didn't have to spend a single 
penny to get the patents. That is very, very difficult. It didn't used 
to be very tough but now it is very difficult to patent.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator know of any mine that has ever been 
developed in the history of this country where a lot of money wasn't 
spent to develop it, on private land or Federal lands?
  Mr. REID. Oh, sure.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You always have to spend a lot of money developing it, 
don't you agree?
  Mr. REID. No, I would not agree at all. For example, under the 1872 
mining law, you don't have to patent land. You can go out and locate 
land any place you want. In the town where I was born, a guy in 1898, 
walking through there--the 1872 mining law was in effect--found some 
gold. It didn't cost anything to develop it. They started mining it.
  But under modern law it is very difficult to patent a claim. That is 
why I talk about companies spending millions of dollars.
  Around the area where I was born and raised, in Searchlight, we only 
have one mine, which is right over the line in the State of California, 
owned by the Viceroy Mining Co. That relatively small mine cost $70 
million before they took an ounce of gold out of the ground, $70 
million. So, I mean, we talk about $2.50 an acre and it was patented 
land.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Were we to follow the Senator's logic to its logical 
conclusion, would this not be a fair summary, that it costs millions of 
dollars to develop land belonging to the United States but nothing to 
develop lands that belong to private interests?
  Mr. REID. No.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That's the reason they are paying royalties to private 
interests.
  Mr. REID. Absolutely not; because as you know--maybe the Senator from 
Arkansas didn't understand my answer. Maybe he did not want to 
understand the answer. The fact is, as I have explained, the area of 
land where they have the lease and are paying royalties on land that 
was patented a long time ago. They didn't have to spend any money to 
develop that. It was right there. They did not have to spend money to 
get a patent. It was already patented.
  In modern-day mining it costs a lot of money to patent a claim. It 
didn't use to. It does now.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If that is true, why don't they just come in and say, 
``Look, we bought this land that had already been developed by somebody 
else who patented it and it is not fair for us to take this because it 
originally belonged to landowners and we want to pay a royalty on it.'' 
Would that be fair?
  Mr. REID. I say respectfully to my friend from Arkansas, I do not 
understand the question. The fact of the matter is the profit motive 
governs mining companies, ranchers, as it does those who own clothing 
stores, automobile dealerships, and mining companies that are trying to 
make money to pay the wages of people who work for them. I acknowledge 
that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We are prepared to vote, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friend from Arkansas. I appreciate the deeply held 
commitment of my colleague to the issue of mining law reform. As I have 
told my colleague many times over the years, I agree with him that the 
1872 mining law is in need of reform--our differences on this issue are 
one of degree.
  The Bumpers amendment simply goes too far. If enacted, this amendment 
would severely threaten the economic viability of the hardrock mining 
industry in my home state of Nevada and throughout the western United 
States.
  For the fifth year in a row, Nevada's mines have collectively topped 
the 6 million ounce mark in gold production. In 1996, there was a total 
of 7.08 million ounces of gold produced in Nevada. The state's rich 
landscape has made Nevada the largest gold producer in the nation with 
66.5 percent of all production. In addition, it now accounts for 10 
percent of all the gold in the world.
  The most recent information from the State of Nevada indicates that 
direct mining employment in Nevada exceeds 13,000 jobs. The average 
annual pay for these jobs, the highest of any sector in the state, is 
about $46,000, compared to the average salary in Nevada of about 
$26,000 per year. In addition to the direct employment in mining, there 
are an estimated 36,000 jobs

[[Page S9587]]

in the state related to providing goods and services needed by the 
industry.
  The impression left by proponents of this amendment is that the 
mining industry has free reign to extract mineral resources from public 
land. Nothing is further from the truth. In my state, Nevada mining 
companies must pay taxes like any other business, and they also pay an 
additional Nevada tax called the ``Net Proceeds of Mines Tax.'' This 
tax must be paid by mining companies regardless of whether they operate 
on private or public land. The total Net Proceeds tax paid to the state 
in 1995 was approximately $33 million. With the addition of sales and 
property tax, the industry paid approximately $141 million in state and 
local taxes in 1995. In addition, the Nevada mining industry paid 
approximately $95 million in federal taxes in 1995.
  The additional taxes imposed by the Bumpers amendment would be 
extremely onerous for mining operators in Nevada. These new taxes would 
likely force many mining operations to shut down, thereby causing an 
overall reduction in federal and state tax revenues paid by the 
industry. The bottom line is that the mining industry pays taxes just 
like any other business, and in Nevada they pay an additional tax 
targeted specifically to their industry.
  The issue of reclamation is also central to the mining law reform 
debate. The State of Nevada has one of the toughest, if not the 
toughest, state reclamation programs in the country. Nevada mining 
companies are subject to a myriad of federal and state environmental 
laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and 
Endangered Species Act. Mining companies must secure literally dozens 
of environmental permits prior to commencing mining activities, 
including a reclamation permit, which must be obtained before a mineral 
exploration project or mining operation can be conducted. Companies 
must also file a surety or bond with the State or the federal land 
manager in an amount sufficient to ensure reclamation of the entire 
site prior to receiving a reclamation permit.
  It is in the context of promoting the economic viability of the 
mining industry and of encouraging strong environmental reclamation 
efforts administered by the states that I view the debate over the 
reform of the Mining Law of 1872. As I have stated many times over the 
years, I feel that certain aspects of the 1872 mining law are in need 
of reform. Specifically, I feel strongly that the patenting provision 
of the current law should be changed to provide for the payment of fair 
market value for the surface estate. All patents should also include a 
reverter clause, which would ensure that patented public lands would 
revert to federal ownership if no longer used for mining purposes. I 
believe that mining law reform legislation should ensure that any land 
used for mining purposes must be reclaimed pursuant to applicable 
federal and state statues. And finally, I believe that mining law 
reform legislation should impose a reasonable royalty on mineral 
production from Federal land.
  Mr. President, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997, of which I am a 
cosponsor, addresses each of the concerns I have just outlined. This 
legislation would impose a 5% net proceeds royalty on mineral 
production from Federal lands. It would make permanent the $100 
maintenance fee for every claim held on federal land. It calls for the 
payment of fair market value for patented lands and includes a reverter 
provision to ensure that patented lands are used only for mining 
purposes. Finally, the legislation directs revenues from mineral 
production on Federal lands to a special fund to assist state abandoned 
mine clean-up programs. It is my hope that this legislation will serve 
as the starting point for the debate over mining law reform in the 
105th Congress.
  I agree with the Senator from Arkansas that we have waited long 
enough for Congress to enact comprehensive mining law reform. The aura 
of uncertainty that the industry has been forced to operate under for 
the last decade is causing many companies to look overseas for their 
future operations. The number of U.S. and Canadian mining companies 
exploring or operating in Latin America continues to grow dramatically. 
I do not feel, however, that the legislation before us today provides 
the proper context to rewrite the general mining laws.
  I hope I will have the opportunity in the near future to work with 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and other interested Members of 
this body to craft a piece of legislation that we can move to the floor 
and enact in this session of Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. First, I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada 
for his very good statement. I disagree of course, but I appreciate him 
and consider him one of the best Senators in the Senate. He is, indeed, 
an honorable man, and his word is as good as his bond. I think he 
really would like to sit down and work out some sort of reform 
legislation, and I thank him for those words.
  Before we vote, to my colleagues just let me say this; two things. 
No. 1, this point of order made, this constitutional point of order: If 
you are going to vote on this, you bear in mind that if we allow a 
point of order to be made against my amendment, what is to stop others 
from raising points of order against any of your amendments where the 
opponents want to avoid an up or down vote?
  No. 2, if you are worried about what the House of Representatives is 
going to do, bear in mind this is a House bill we are voting on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  The question is, Is the point of order well taken? The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is absent 
due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present, and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced, yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Wellstone
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 
39. The point of order is well taken. The amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BRYAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am not able at this time to propound a 
unanimous-consent request, but I have been talking to the manager of 
the bill and to the Democratic leader about this issue, and the next 
issue we hope to consider, or plan to consider, is the Food and Drug 
Administration reform package. It is absolutely essential that we 
complete the Interior appropriations bill, and we must do that this 
week, and we will do that. If we have to stay late tonight and have 
votes tomorrow, up until 12 o'clock, or whatever it takes to finish it, 
we will do it.

[[Page S9588]]

  I believe we are close to where we will be able to see exactly what 
is needed. Perhaps we can get the amendments worked out. The managers 
are going to be working on that. We are not ready to do that right now. 
We will work in the next few minutes, and we will let the Members know 
what the prospects are. We will be working on a UC that will allow us 
to complete the bill and get to final passage either tonight or first 
thing in the morning. We will be prepared to do something on that 
within, I hope, a short period of time.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1229

 (Purpose: To provide an alternative source of funds for operation of, 
  or acquisition, transportation, and injection of petroleum products 
                 into, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
committee amendment be set aside, and on behalf of myself and Senator 
Murkowski I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the committee amendment 
will be set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] for himself and 
     Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1229.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 80, strike line 14 and all that follows through 
     page 81, line 6 and insert the following:


                     ``strategic petroleum reserve

                    ``(including transfer of funds)

       ``For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $207,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $207,500,000 
     shall be repaid from the ``SPR Operating Fund'' from amounts 
     made available from sales under this heading: Provided, That, 
     consistent with Public Law 104-106, proceeds in excess of 
     $2,000,000,000 from the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 
     Numbered 1 shall be deposited into the ``SPR Operating 
     Fund'', and are hereby appropriated, to remain available 
     until expended, for repayments under this heading and for 
     operations of, or acquisition, transportation, and injection 
     of petroleum products into, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: 
     Provided further, That if the Secretary of Energy finds that 
     the proceeds from the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 
     Numbered 1 will not be at least $2,207,500,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, the Secretary, notwithstanding section 161 of the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, shall draw down 
     and sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in fiscal 
     year 1998, and deposit the proceeds into the ``SPR Operating 
     Fund'', in amounts sufficient to make deposits into the fund 
     total $207,500,000 in that fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the amount of $2,000,000,000 in the first proviso and 
     the amount of $2,207,500,000 in the second proviso shall be 
     adjusted by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget to amounts not to exceed $2,415,000,000 and 
     $2,622,500,000, respectively, only to the extent that an 
     adjustment is necessary to avoid a sequestration, or any 
     increase in a sequestration due to this section, under the 
     procedures prescribed in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, 
     as amended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Energy, 
     notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act of 1975, shall draw down and sell oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in fiscal year 1998 
     sufficient to deposit $15,000,000 into the General Fund of 
     the Treasury of the United States, and shall transfer such 
     amount to the General Fund: Provided further, That proceeds 
     deposited into the ``SPR Operating Fund'' under this heading 
     shall, upon receipt, be transferred to the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve account for operations and activities of 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to satisfy the 
     requirements specified under this heading.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment that we are offering 
would avoid further sales of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. It accomplishes this goal by providing alternative sources of 
funding for the Interior bill to replace the planned sale of $207.5 
million that is now in the bill as reported by the Appropriations 
Committee.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established under the Energy 
Policy Conservation Act of 1975. It is our Nation's primary insurance 
policy against market chaos if there is an international oil supply 
disruption. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act and Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve were authorized earlier this year in the Senate by 
unanimous consent.
  For the past several years, the Interior Appropriations Act has 
included sales of the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an 
offset to Federal spending in that bill. I recognize that such sales 
have been proposed in the past by the administration, that they have 
been undertaken reluctantly by the Appropriations Committee. But 
depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even to fund the worthy 
programs in this bill now before the Senate is an unwise policy.
  In hearings before the Senate Energy Committee earlier this year, we 
had several distinguished experts on world oil markets and on the 
Middle East repeatedly emphasizing the fragility of the current 
political situation in the major oil-producing regions outside of the 
United States. We have no assurance that the near future might not 
bring unwelcome political changes that would result in a reduction in 
the world's energy security. While the United States itself does not 
import an overwhelming fraction from the Middle East, the world oil 
market is highly integrated, and shortages anywhere quickly translate 
into higher prices at the pump here in the United States.
  In this context, annual sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve amount to a piecemeal cancellation of our national energy 
insurance policy. Moreover, our sales from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve have been cited by other countries as justification for selling 
off their oil reserves to offset short-term spending needs that they 
themselves have. We saw this happen in Germany earlier this year when 
they sold oil from their strategic reserves to raise the extra revenue 
needed to bring their budgets within the guidelines contained in the 
Maastricht Treaty.
  Sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have negative 
short-term impacts for ordinary Americans, in addition to these longer 
term threats to our Nation as a whole. Whenever the Federal Government 
dumps $200 million of oil on the market, it delivers a sucker punch to 
the independent oil and gas producers who are operating on the margin 
of profitability. Our independent producing sector is an important part 
of the oil supply equation in the United States. The oil and gas 
industry is the second largest industry in my State of New Mexico. If 
there is a way to avoid inflicting these economic losses on these mom-
and-pop operations that characterize a good deal of our domestic 
industry, we need to do that. In this context, I will note that my 
efforts and those of my cosponsor have been strongly endorsed by the 
Independent Petroleum Association of America, by the National Stripper 
Well Association and by the American Petroleum Institute.
  Fortunately, we found a way to avoid sales of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve in this bill without cutting $200 million of funding for 
programs that affect Indian tribes, energy conservation, national 
parks, research and development, the arts, and the other vital subjects 
covered by the bill. Pursuant to the Defense Authorization Act of 1996, 
the Secretary of Energy is required to sell the Elk Hills Naval 
Petroleum Reserve. It now appears that the Secretary will receive more 
for Elk Hills than is accounted for in the balanced budget agreement.

  The amendment I am offering today takes these excess proceeds, uses 
them as a funding source in place of oil sales from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. We will not know the exact amount of the excess 
proceeds until January of 1998 when the administration sends the 
Congress a final proposal to sell Elk Hills under the 31-day notice-
and-wait provision contained in the law that authorizes that sale. The 
possibility exists, though, that we could capture enough funds through 
this amendment to obviate the need to sell oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve next year

[[Page S9589]]

and potentially beyond. This coupling will certainly be a consideration 
in my judgment as to whether it is a good idea for Congress to allow 
the sale of Elk Hills to go forward.
  This amendment is intended as a positive step to meet the needs being 
addressed by the Interior bill by tapping an alternative source of 
funds instead of sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Stopping SPR sales as a source of general revenue is a good national 
economic policy. It is good for our domestic oil and gas industry, and 
particularly for the most vulnerable independent producers of oil and 
gas in my State and other petroleum-producing States.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleague the Senator 
from New Mexico with regard to the amendment that he has offered.
  What this amendment would do is avoid the ultimate budget gimmick, 
which is selling $60 a barrel oil for $18 and calling it ``income'' for 
the American taxpayer. These oil sales would result in $173 million 
actual loss to the American taxpayer.
  We have sold 28 million barrels of oil. What have we sold it for? To 
contribute to balancing the budget. Think of the inconsistency here. We 
created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975. We created it because 
at that time we were dependent on imported oil for about 36 or 37 
percent of our oil consumption. Today we are facing a 52 percent 
dependence on imported oil.
  In light of our current situation, selling down the SPR simply makes 
no sense whatever. In 1975, when we were 32 percent dependent, we 
formulated the SPR with the idea we had to have a reserve oil supply in 
case of national emergency, and suddenly when we are 52 percent 
dependent, we start to sell the reserve?
  The oil from Elk Hills was supposed to go to the SPR, but we have 
waived the requirement for the last 10 years, and the oil was sold to 
balance the budget. Now we are selling Elk Hills, and it is only right 
that some of the money go to the purpose of stopping the drain on SPR.
  This amendment does not cost the taxpayers any money. What we are 
trying to do is try to avoid a huge loss. This amendment works within 
the budget rules and avoids a terrible policy result--both from the 
energy and budgetary standpoint--buying high and selling low. But the 
Government seems to do it all the time. We are like the man in the old 
joke who was buying high and selling low and who claimed that he 
``would make it up on volume.''

  So, today, Senator Bingaman and I are introducing this amendment to 
provide a short-term source of funding for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
  Soon, the Department of Energy will complete the sale of the Naval 
Petroleum Reserve No. 1, as directed by Congress. We are optimistic 
that the sale will raise more money than previously estimated. This 
amendment would place proceeds in excess of $2 billion from that sale 
in a fund that would be used to pay for the SPR.
  This amendment was proposed by the DOE and should, at a minimum, 
avoid an oil sale in the next fiscal year. I think it is appropriate 
that extra proceeds from the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve, after 
contributing to deficit reduction, be used to stop the drain on our 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The amendment will not permanently resolve the problems with 
providing funding for SPR, but it should temporarily stop the bleeding. 
In the face of our oil dependency, and the continuing drain on SPR, I 
can't resist noting that there are still some in this body that oppose 
the production of domestic oil resources.
  So as it stands now, this body does not appear to support the 
domestic storage or production of oil. Some may not like the reality 
that this Nation will continue to need petroleum. Petroleum moves our 
transportation system. We have no other alternative, at least none in 
the foreseeable future. However, reality doesn't cease to be a reality 
because we ignore it. We are talking about people's lives, jobs, their 
livelihood. I certainly understand the difficult task that the 
Appropriations Committee faces as it attempts to fund all of the 
important programs under its jurisdiction.
  However, I must insist that, in the future, we resist the temptation 
to drain the SPR to meet these priorities, if indeed the SPR has an 
objective at all, which is to serve as the country's energy security 
during a time of crisis.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment today. I also 
strongly urge my colleagues to join with us to permanently end the 
draining of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fulfill our 
shortsighted, short-term desires.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to make a few points. The first 
point is, I did speak to Secretary of Energy, Federico Pena, in the 
last hour. He has authorized me to indicate to all Senators that he 
strongly supports the amendment that Senator Murkowski and I are 
offering, and he believes it is a good public policy and a policy that 
we ought to adopt here.
  I also want to indicate a particular appreciation to Bob Simon on my 
staff, who is the person who has done all the work in coming up with 
this proposal.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section explanation of 
the amendment be printed in the Record following my statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


            proviso-by-proviso explanation of the amendment

       The amendment strikes and replaces the section of the bill 
     dealing with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The following 
     are the key provisions of the new section:
       The head of the section follows the existing bill by 
     appropriating $207.5 million for operations of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve in FY 1998.
       The first proviso stipulates that any proceeds from the 
     sale of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve (known as Naval 
     Petroleum Reserve Number 1) that are in excess of $2 billion 
     are to be used to support the operations of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve (and also for additional acquisition of SPR 
     oil), until those excess funds are expended. Thus, if the 
     sale of Elk Hills were to net $2.4 billion, under this 
     proviso, we would have the operations of the SPR covered for 
     the next two fiscal years. The budget offset, under CBO 
     scoring, for this extra spending is provided in the fourth 
     proviso, which I will address in a minute.
       The second proviso takes care of the situation in which the 
     excess proceeds from the sale of Elk Hills are not enough to 
     fully cover the cost of operations of the SPR in fiscal year 
     1998. In such a case, SPR oil would have to be sold to make 
     up the difference, similar to what the current language of 
     this bill provides.
       The third proviso addresses the fact that CBO and OMB score 
     the sale of Elk Hills differently. While this amendment does 
     not have Budget Act points of order against it, without this 
     proviso, it could theoretically trigger a budget sequester at 
     OMB, because of their scoring rules. This proviso eliminates 
     any possibility of an OMB budget sequester, and was worked 
     out in close cooperation with senior management at OMB, which 
     endorses this amendment.
       The fourth proviso provides for a special sale of SPR oil 
     to offset the other spending in this amendment. CBO scores 
     the entire amendment as not increasing the overall spending 
     of the Interior Appropriations bill, so it is not in 
     violation of the Budget Agreement or any provision of the 
     Budget Act.
       The final proviso of this new section transfers the funds 
     for operating the SPR into the appropriate account in the 
     U.S. Treasury. It is similar to the existing final proviso in 
     the existing section that is being replaced.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment is constructed in a fashion 
that evades budget points of order. That is to say, no points of order 
would be appropriate. But it does take advantage of a quite 
conservative estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of the 
revenues that may accrue from the sale of Elk Hills.
  I also note that the amendment could result in the Department of 
Energy capturing several hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue 
that could otherwise go into the General Treasury. As a member of the 
Budget Committee, this is a precedent about which I have some real 
concern.
  On the other hand, as I said from the time that the House bill passed 
and we worked on our own, I am not completely comfortable with the sale 
of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, including the sale in the 
bill that is in the President's budget request and House action.
  Having said all of that, balancing on both sides, I am willing to 
accept the amendment, as is my comanager from

[[Page S9590]]

Nevada. We can deal with the issue in conference, and I hope that it is 
either acceptable or can be put into acceptable form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1229) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1230

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mrs. Murray, 
     for herself, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1230.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of Title III, add the following:
       Sec.   . Within 90 days of enactment of this legislation, 
     the Forest Service shall complete its export policy and 
     procedures on the use of Alaskan Western Red Cedar. In 
     completing this policy, the Forest Service shall evaluate the 
     costs and benefits of a pricing policy that offers any 
     Alaskan Western Red Cedar in excess of domestic processing 
     needs in Alaska first to United States domestic processors.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to discuss briefly my amendment to 
alter U.S. Forest Service rules regarding the export of Western Red 
Cedar logs from Alaska. Today, because there are no Alaskan sawmills 
that use this cedar, this National Forest timber is exported as raw 
logs primarily to foreign customers.
  That is a real problem for our independent mills in Washington and 
Oregon who have traditionally been dependent on public timber. As we 
all know--and have discussed in the context of this bill--National 
Forest timber sales have plummeted since the 1980s. The independent 
mills that have survived are technologically advanced, with a well-
trained workforce, but are always scrambling for reasonably-priced 
timber.
  As a rule, National Forest timber must be processed before it can be 
exported overseas. This Congress imposed that policy nearly 20 years 
ago. There is almost unanimous agreement that federal timber should be 
processed in America to create the maximum number of American jobs.
  One exception to the rule of domestic processing is that where no 
market for a certain species of tree exists, the Forest Service will 
deem that species ``surplus.'' A surplus species can be exported in as 
a raw log.
  In Region 10, there are currently no Alaskan processors who can use 
the Western Red Cedar. The Forest Service has, thus, deemed it surplus. 
But it is definitely not surplus to the domestic needs of sawmills and 
workers in the Pacific Northwest. I've been approached by several mills 
who are desperate for this cedar, including Skookum Lumber in Shelton, 
WA, and Tubafor Mill, in Morton, WA.
  My amendment requires the Forest Service to offer these national logs 
at domestic prices to mills in the lower 48 states. It requires the 
agency to establish a three-tiered policy giving Alaskans first 
priority, other American companies next priority, and only if no one 
wants these logs--which is highly unlikely--may they be exported 
internationally.
  Mr. President, this is a common-sense amendment. Members of the 
Washington delegation, including Representative Norm Dicks and former 
Represemtative Jolene Unsoeld, have worked to make this policy change 
since 1991. Now is the time to use these Federal resources for the 
benefit of American working families.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1230) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I hope for only a very short period of 
time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that the pending business be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1231

(Purpose: To provide for the disposition of oil lease revenue received 
as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in United States of America 
                          v. State of Alaska)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. McCain, 
     for himself, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1231.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC.  . DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN OIL LEASE REVENUE

       (a) Deposit in Fund.--One half of the amounts awarded by 
     the Supreme Court to the United States in the case of United 
     States of America v. State of Alaska (117 S. Ct. 1888) shall 
     be deposited in a fund in the Treasury of the United States 
     to be known as the ``National Parks and Environmental 
     Improvement Fund'' (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Fund'').
       (b) Investments.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     amounts in the Fund in interest bearing obligations of the 
     United States.
       (2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (4) Credits to fund.--The interest earned from investments 
     of the Fund shall be covered into and form a part of the 
     Fund.
       (c) Transfer and Availability of Amounts Earned.--Each 
     year, interest earned and covered into the Fund in the 
     previous fiscal year shall be available for appropriation, to 
     the extent provided in subsequent appropriations bill, as 
     follows:
       (1) 40 percent of such amounts shall be available for 
     National Park capital projects in the National Park System 
     that comply with the criteria stated in subsection (d); and
       (2) 40 percent of such amounts shall be available for the 
     state-side matching grant under section 6 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8); and
       (3) 20 percent of such amounts shall be made available to 
     the Secretary of Commerce for the purpose of carrying out 
     marine research activities in accordance with subsection (e).
       (d) Capital Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Funds available under subsection (c)(2) 
     may be used for the design, construction, repair or 
     replacement of high priority National Park Service facilities 
     directly related to enhancing the experience of park 
     visitors, including natural, cultural, recreational and 
     historic resources protection projects.
       (2) Limitation.--A project referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall be consistent with--
       (A) the laws governing the National Park System;
       (B) any law governing the unit of the National Park System 
     in which the project is undertaken; and
       (C) the general management plan for the unit.
       (3) Notification of congress.--The Secretary shall submit 
     with the annual budget submission to Congress a list of high 
     priority projects proposed to be funded under paragraph (1) 
     during the fiscal year covered by such budget submission.
       (e) Marine Research Activities.--(1) Funds available under 
     subsection (c)(3) shall be used by the Secretary of Commerce 
     according to this subsection to provide grants to federal, 
     state, private or foreign organizations or individuals to 
     conduct research activities on or relating to the fisheries 
     or marine ecosystems in the north Pacific Ocean,

[[Page S9591]]

     Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean (including any lesser related 
     bodies of water).
       (2) Research priorities and grant requests shall be 
     reviewed and recommended for Secretarial approval by a board 
     to be known as the North Pacific Research Board (referred to 
     in this subsection as the ``Board''). The Board shall seek to 
     avoid duplicating other research activities, and shall place 
     a priority on cooperative research efforts designed to 
     address pressing fishery management or marine ecosystem 
     information needs.
       (3) The Board shall be comprised of the following 
     representatives or their designees:
       (A) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be a co-chair of 
     the Board;
       (B) the Secretary of State;
       (C) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (D) the Commandant of the Coast Guard;
       (E) the Director of the Office of Naval Research;
       (F) the Alaska Commissioner of Fish and Game, who shall 
     also be a co-chair of the Board;
       (G) the Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management 
     Council;
       (H) the Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission;
       (I) the Director of the Oil Spill Recovery Institute;
       (J) the Director of the Alaska SeaLife Center;
       (K) five members nominated by the Governor of Alaska and 
     appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, one of whom shall 
     represent fishing interests, one of whom shall represent 
     Alaska Natives, one of whom shall represent environmental 
     interests, one of whom shall represent academia, and one of 
     whom shall represent oil and gas interests; and
       (L) three members nominated by the Governor of Washington 
     and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce; and;
       (M) one member nominated by the Governor of Oregon and 
     appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

     The members of the Board shall be individuals knowledgeable 
     by education, training, or experience regarding fisheries or 
     marine ecosystems in the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, or 
     Arctic Ocean. Three nominations shall be submitted for 
     each member to be appointed under subparagraphs (K), (L), 
     and (M). Board members appointed under subparagraphs (K), 
     (L), and (M) shall serve for three year terms, and may be 
     reappointed.
       (4)(A) The Secretary of Commerce shall review and 
     administer grants recommended by the Board. If the Secretary 
     does not approve a grant recommended by the Board, the 
     Secretary shall explain in writing the reasons for not 
     approving such grant, and the amount recommended to be used 
     for such grant shall be available only for other grants 
     recommended by the Board.
       (B) Grant recommendations and other decisions of the Board 
     shall be by majority vote, with each member having one vote. 
     The Board shall establish written criteria for the submission 
     of grant requests through a competitive process and for 
     deciding upon the award of grants. Grants shall be 
     recommended by the Board on the basis of merit in accordance 
     with the priorities established by the Board. The Secretary 
     shall provide the Board such administrative and technical 
     support as is necessary for the effective functioning of the 
     Board. The Board shall be considered an advisory panel 
     established under section 302(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.) for the purposes of section 302(i)(1) of such Act, and 
     the other procedural matters applicable to advisory panels 
     under section 302(i) of such Act shall apply to the Board to 
     the extent practicable. Members of the Board may be 
     reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in performance of 
     their duties for the Board. Not more than 5 percent of the 
     funds provided to the Secretary of Commerce under paragraph 
     (1) may be used to provide support for the Board and 
     administer grants under this subsection.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski.
  The amendment would deposit $800 million into a newly created 
national park and environmental enhancement fund within the U.S. 
Treasury.
  The interest from the account would be dedicated to three purposes:
  First, to make critically needed capital improvements in America's 
national parks.
  Second, assist States in their park planning and development needs.
  Third, provide for research on the marine environment. This is 
strongly endorsed by the National Parks and the Conservation 
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Trust for 
Historic Preservation, and Center for Marine Conservation.
  I thank Senators Stevens and Murkowski for their assistance and 
leadership, as well as Senator Gorton, on this amendment.
  The revenue which will finance this special account is oil lease 
revenue awarded to the Federal Government by the U.S. Supreme Court 
earlier this year. Both the United States and Alaska claimed ownership 
of the land from which the oil was extracted.
  Mr. President, we all know that the people of Alaska were bitterly 
disappointed in the Court's decision to find on behalf of the Federal 
Government and to award the money to the Federal Treasury. 
Nevertheless, the Court has rendered a final judgment.
  I am pleased to say that passage of this amendment will enable us to 
employ the money not only for the people of Alaska but for every other 
State.
  Under this amendment, 40 percent of the yearly interest of the new 
account--up to $20 million annually--will be dedicated to making high-
priority capital improvements in our national parks. Now is the time to 
act. The integrity of the national historic treasures that comprise our 
National Park System is at stake.
  The GAO estimates that unmet capital needs throughout the system 
total more than $8 billion. Current funding levels are grossly 
insufficient to meet these requirements.
  Last year, out of the $1.6 billion that Congress appropriated to 
operate and maintain the 314 national parks, monuments, and historical 
sites, two-thirds were spent on park operations, leaving $400 million 
available to finance capital improvements.
  Let me remind you, Mr. President, that the GAO estimates that of the 
unmet capital needs throughout the system of more than $8 billion last 
year, there was $400 million available to finance capital improvements. 
Mr. President, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it 
takes a long time to catch up.
  Grand Canyon National Parks offers a historic and sobering example of 
the magnitude of the funding shortfalls that we face. The parks' 
general management plan calls for over $350 million in capital 
improvements. This fiscal year the parks received approximately $16 
million, of which only $12 million was available for capital purposes. 
This scenario is repeated at parks throughout the country.
  Mr. President, no one knows this better than the Senator from 
Washington, and the Senator from Alaska. I think it is important to 
stress we are not talking about luxuries. We are talking about needs. 
The vast majority of the capital improvements we are talking about are 
necessary to preserve the natural and historical resources that makes 
our parks so special.
  Mr. President, earlier this summer, U.S. News & World Report featured 
a cover story, which I have here, entitled ``Parks in Peril.''
  I urge my colleagues to read what is a very enlightening and 
compelling piece. The story was highlighted. I show it here, as 
follows:

       The national parks have been called the best idea America 
     had. But their wild beauty and historical treasures are 
     rapidly deteriorating from lack of funds, pollution, 
     encroaching development, overcrowding, and congressional 
     indifference.

  I am not proud of that, Mr. President. None of us should be. The 
American people love our Nation's parks, and rightfully expect us to 
exercise responsible stewardship of our natural treasures.
  By passing this amendment we can take a significant step to remedy 
the funding shortfall, and care for our parks in a responsible and 
timely manner.
  I know that the Senate Energy Committee--in particular, Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Bumpers, and Senator Thomas, and others--is working 
diligently on comprehensive park funding and management reform 
legislation. I applaud their efforts, and look forward to the fruits of 
their arduous labors.
  But, while we await these reforms, we have an obligation to take what 
action we can to meet park needs. Every day we wait, the national 
parks--from Maine's Arcadia National Park, Yosemite in California, and 
Alaska's Gateway to the Arctic to the Florida Everglades--fall into 
further disrepair and neglect.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters of support from key conservation organizations who strongly 
support this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S9592]]

                                                    National Parks


                                 and Conservation Association,

                                               September 16, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The National Parks and Conservation 
     Association (NPCA) is delighted to support your amendment to 
     H.R. 2107, the Department of Interior Appropriations bill, to 
     establish a National Parks and Environmental Improvement 
     Fund. As you know, NPCA is America's only private non-profit 
     citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, 
     preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. An 
     association of ``Citizens Protecting America's Parks,'' NPCA 
     was founded in 1919, and today has nearly 500,000 members.
       Our support for your amendment is based on our 
     understanding that the amendment contains the following 
     provisions:
       1. Distribution of fifty percent of the interest earned by 
     the fund to benefit the National Park System and twenty-five 
     percent to benefit the State-side program of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund. We understand that the remaining 
     twenty-five percent would be made available for a grant 
     program for marine research and education in and relating to 
     the water of the North Pacific ocean.
       2. The National Park Service portion of the trust fund 
     allocation ``may be used for the design, construction, 
     repair, or replacement of high-priority National Park Service 
     facilities directly related to enhancing the experience of 
     park visitors, including natural, cultural, and historic 
     resources protection projects.''
       The National Park Service faces a growing and alarming 
     backlog of projects vital to sustaining the resources of the 
     national parks and to ensuring the health, safety, and 
     enjoyment of park visitors. New revenue sources to supplement 
     regular appropriations must be found to assist the National 
     Park Service in fulfilling its congressionally-mandated 
     mission of passing on these precious lands unimpaired to 
     future generations. The unique natural, cultural, and 
     historic heritage embodied in our parks constitutes one of 
     the greatest treasures that belong to the American people.
       Your amendment, as noted above, represents a creative and 
     welcome effort to enhance the resources available to the 
     National Park Service to protect and preserve our parks.
       Through the funds it provides, the National Park Service 
     will be able to add meaningfully to its ability to preserve 
     historic structures, to protect cultural sites; to clean up 
     polluted areas; and to enhance transportation facilities, 
     among other important projects. Your amendment will make a 
     very worthwhile contribution, and we applaud you and all who 
     support you for your creativity and leadership in bringing 
     this initiative before the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                              Albert C. Eisenberg,
                          Deputy Director for Conservation Policy.

     
                                  ____
                                               September 17, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
         Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the Center for Marine 
     Conservation, I want to express CMC's strong support for your 
     amendment to the Department of Interior Appropriations Bill 
     (H.R. 2107) to provide for the disposition of oil lease 
     revenue into the ``National Parks and Environmental 
     Improvement Fund.'' In particular, CMC applauds your 
     initiative to create a fund for the purpose of funding marine 
     research activities related to the fisheries or marine 
     ecosystems in the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Arctic 
     Ocean.
       CMC is especially interested in the Bering Sea ecosystem 
     and is committed to investigating new mechanisms to achieve 
     greater coordination of scientific research, and develop more 
     effective adaptive and ecosystem management to stem the 
     decline of several species in that ecosystem. Additional CMC 
     commends you, Senator McCain, for including representation by 
     an environmental interest on the North Pacific Research 
     Board.
       CMC's only concern is that appropriations to this fund not 
     be offset by funds otherwise appropriated from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund in the Department of the Interior 
     Appropriation Bill. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
     vitally important to conservation.
       CMC appreciates your continued effort to fund marine 
     research and conservation. We look forward to working with 
     you to conserve our marine heritage.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William R. Irvin,
     Acting Vice President for Programs.
                                  ____

                                                National Trust for


                                        Historic Preservation,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 1997.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the approximately 275,000 
     members of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, I am 
     writing to support an amendment to the Department of the 
     Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 2107, to establish a 
     National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund (the 
     ``Fund'').
       Pursuant to this amendment, the oil lease revenues awarded 
     by the Supreme Court to the United States in United States v. 
     State of Alaska, totaling $1.6 billion, would be deposited in 
     the Fund. The interest earned by the Fund would be allocated, 
     subject to appropriation, as follows: 40 percent to capital 
     projects in the National Park System that enhance the 
     experience of park visitors, including natural, cultural and 
     historic resource protection projects; 40 percent to the 
     state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and 20 
     percent for a grant program for marine research and education 
     relating to the waters of the Northern pacific ocean.
       This amendment represents a very positive and important 
     first step in addressing the multi billion dollar backlog of 
     deferred maintenance and necessary capital expenditures for 
     our National Park System. A solid consensus exists in the 
     Congress and the executive branch and the American public 
     that we must begin to address the problems in our National 
     Parks, to eliminate the accrued backlog with a systematic 
     plan implemented over the next decade, and to look for new 
     sources of funding in addition to regular appropriations. 
     Your amendment presents a creative means and mechanism for 
     enhancing funds available to both our National Parks and 
     state and local park systems. The National Trust is pleased 
     to offer our enthusiastic support for the amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                            Edward M. Norton, Jr.,
                         Vice President for Law and Public Policy.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again the thrust of this amendment is to 
help our national parks. If we abdicate our responsibilities to 
maintain the integrity of the National Park System we will have spoiled 
the most precious part of our national heritage, squandered the 
birthright of our children, and failed to meet one of our most basic 
responsibilities. Let's not allow that to happen.
  I want to again thank Senator Murkowski, especially Senator Thomas 
and Senator Bumpers, for the efforts they are making for an overall 
solution to the problems in our National Park System. That work is 
diligent, and needs to be rewarded. I look forward to their results. In 
the meantime, I think this is an important step forward.
  Mr. President, I thank the sponsors and the managers of the bill for 
their cooperation and assistance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment provides funding to help 
resolve some of the most pressing concerns relating to national park 
and State recreation facilities, and to the ocean areas off Alaska.
  The amendment would reserve $800 million that was not anticipated to 
be received by the Federal Treasury in a case recently decided by the 
Supreme Court.
  That case--cited at 117 S.Ct. 1888--involved a dispute between the 
Federal Government and the State of Alaska over the right to mineral 
lease revenue on the natural formation off the coast of Alaska known as 
Dinkum Sands.
  The Federal Government prevailed and received lease revenue plus 
interest totaling $1.6 billion.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that the 
Federal Treasury would receive only $800 million.
  Our amendment would deposit the other $800 million in a new fund 
called the National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund. Beginning 
with fiscal year 1999, the interest from this fund would be available 
for: First, capital projects in the National Park System; second, State 
outdoor recreation planning, development, and acquisition; and third, 
marine research important to the vast Federal and State waters off 
Alaska.
  Forty percent of the annual interest would be available to design, 
construct, repair, and replace National Park Service facilities to 
enhance the experience of park visitors.
  In Alaska this will go a long way toward expanding and upgrading the 
overcrowded visitor facilities that have become a significant problem.
  As Senator McCain mentioned, the need to upgrade the Park Service 
facilities nationally is great, and may run into the billions of 
dollars. Our bill would create a mechanism specifically designed to 
begin to address this problem.
  Our amendment would make 40 percent of the annual interest available 
under section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to the 
States to be used for outdoor recreation planning, development, and the 
acquisition of land.
  The States, too, face a backlog in upgrading existing park facilities 
and creating new facilities.
  Finally, our amendment provides 20 percent of the annual interest 
from the

[[Page S9593]]

National Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund for marine research 
in, and relating to, the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic 
Ocean.
  These vast marine areas off Alaska comprise more than half of the 
Nation's coastline, provide over half of the Nation's commercial 
fisheries harvest, and contain vast mineral resources important to 
Alaska and the Nation. This income was derived from those waters.
  We face pressing concerns in these waters that touch every part of 
Alaska's coastline. Some of the immediate concerns include, to name 
just a few:
  Declines in certain bird and marine mammal species in the Bering Sea; 
a failure this year in our Bristol Bay and Kuskokwim salmon returns; 
excessive fisheries harvests and other unknown activities in the Russia 
portion of the Bering Sea; environmental contamination in the Arctic 
Ocean; subsistence whaling concerns; the need to develop new products 
and more environmentally efficient fishing methods; and the need to 
develop fisheries for underutilized species (such as the dive fisheries 
in southeast Alaska) that could help take the pressure off other fish 
stocks.
  Our amendment would establish a North Pacific Research Board that 
would set marine research priorities and recommend grants to tackle 
those priorities. The Secretary of Commerce and Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game, or their designees, would serve as cochairs of the 
Board.
  The Secretary of Commerce would approve or disapprove the Board's 
grant recommendations. The amendment gives the Board very broad 
discretion in setting the priorities for the research grants.
  We know of some of the issues that need immediate attention, but not 
all of them, and we can't know what the priorities should be in the 
future. To summarize, the amendment Senator McCain and I are offering 
will improve the experience visitors have at our national parks and 
State parks, and will greatly increase our knowledge about the vast 
waters off Alaska.
  I urge other Senators to support this measure.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                Amendment No. 1232 to Amendment No. 1231

 (Purpose: To provide for the disposition of certain escrowed oil and 
  gas revenue received as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in 
                   United States v. State of Alaska)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), for himself, and 
     Mr. Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 1232 to amendment 
     numbered 1231.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona 
     strike all after ``(a) Deposit in Fund.--'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof:
       ``All of the amounts awarded by the Supreme Court to the 
     United States in the case of United States of America v. 
     State of Alaska (117 S. Ct. 1888) shall be deposited in a 
     fund in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the 
     ``Parks and Environmental Improvement Fund'' (referred to in 
     this sections as the ``Fund'').
       (b) Investments.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     amounts in the Fund in interest bearing obligations of the 
     United States.
       (2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (4) Credits to fund.--The interest earned from investments 
     of the Fund shall be covered into, and form a part of, the 
     Fund.
       (c) Transfer and Availability of Amounts Earned.--Each 
     year, interest earned and covered into the Fund in the 
     previous fiscal year shall be available for appropriation, to 
     the extent provided in subsequent appropriations bills, as 
     follows:
       (1) 40 percent of such amounts shall be available for 
     National Park capital projects in the National Park System 
     that comply with the criteria stated in subsection (d);
       (2) 40 percent shall be available for the state-side 
     matching grant program under section 6 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8); and
       (3) 20 percent shall be shall be made available to the 
     Secretary of Commerce for the purpose of carrying out marine 
     research activities in accordance with subsection (e).
       (d) Capital Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Funds available under subsection (c)(1) 
     may be used for the design, construction, repair or 
     replacement of high priority National Park Service facilities 
     directly related to enhancing the experience of park 
     visitors, including natural, cultural, recreation and 
     historic resources protection projects.
       (2) Limitation.--A project referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall be consistent with--
       (A) the laws governing the National Park System;
       (B) any law governing the unit of the National Park System 
     in which the project is undertaken; and
       (C) the general management plan for the unit.
       (3) Notification of congress.--The Secretary shall submit 
     with the annual budget submission to Congress a list of high 
     priority projects to be funded under paragraph (1) during the 
     fiscal year covered by such budget submission.
       (e) Marine Research Activities.--
       (1) Funds available under subsection (c)(3) shall be used 
     by the Secretary of Commerce according to this subsection to 
     provide grants to federal, state, private or foreign 
     organizations or individuals to conduct research activities 
     on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the 
     north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean (including 
     any lesser related bodies of water).
       (2) Research priorities and grant requests shall be 
     reviewed and recommended for Secretarial approval by a board 
     to be known as the North Pacific Research Board (the Board). 
     The Board shall seek to avoid duplicating other research 
     activities, and shall place a priority on cooperative 
     research efforts designed to address pressing fishery 
     management or marine ecosystem information needs.
       (3) The Board shall be comprised of the following 
     representatives or their designees:
       (A) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be a co-chair of 
     the Board;
       (B) the Secretary of State;
       (C) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (D) the Commandant of the Coast Guard;
       (E) the Director of the Office of Naval Research;
       (F) the Alaska Commissioner of Fish and Game, who shall 
     also be a co-chair the Board;
       (G) the Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management 
     Council;
       (H) the Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission;
       (I) the Director of the Oil Spill Recovery Institute;
       (J) the Director of Alaska SeaLife Center; and
       (K) five members appointed by the Governor of Alaska and 
     appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, one of whom shall 
     represent fishing interests, one of whom shall represent 
     Alaska Natives, one of whom shall represent environmental 
     interests, one of whom shall represent academia, and one of 
     whom shall represent oil and gas interests.

     The members of the Board shall be individuals knowledgeable 
     by education, training, or experience regarding fisheries of 
     marine ecosystems in the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, or 
     Arctic Ocean. The Governor of Alaska shall submit three 
     nominations for member appointed under subparagraph (K), 
     Board members appointed under subparagraph (K) shall serve 
     for a three year term and may be reappointed.
       (4)(A) The Secretary of Commerce shall review and 
     administer grants recommended by the Board. If the Secretary 
     does not approve a grant recommended by the Board, the 
     Secretary shall explain in writing the reasons for not 
     approving such grant, and the amount recommended to be used 
     for such grant shall be available only for grants recommended 
     by the Board.
       (B) Grant recommendations and other decisions of the Board 
     shall be by majority vote, with each member having one vote. 
     The Board shall establish written criteria for the submission 
     of grant requests through a competitive process and for 
     deciding upon the award of grants. Grants shall be 
     recommended by the Board on the basis of merit in accordance 
     with priorities established by the Board. The Secretary shall 
     provide the Board with such administrative and technical 
     support as is necessary for the effective functioning of the 
     Board. The Board shall be considered an advisory panel 
     established under section 302(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.1801 et 
     seq.) for the purposes of section 302(i)(1) of such Act, and 
     the other procedural matters applicable to advisory panels 
     under section 302(i) of such Act shall apply to the Board to 
     the extent practicable. Members of the Board may be 
     reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in performance of 
     their duties for the Board. Not more than 5 percent of the 
     funds provided to the Secretary of Commerce under paragraph 
     (1) may be used to provide support for the Board and 
     administer grants under this subsection.
       (f) Financial Assistance to the States.--Section 6(b) of 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 
     460l-8(b)) is amended--

[[Page S9594]]

       (1) Apportionment among states; notification.--
       (A) By striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Sixty percent shall be apportioned equally among the 
     several States;
       ``(2) Twenty percent shall be apportioned on the basis of 
     the proportion which the population of each State bears to 
     the total population of the United States; and
       ``(3) Twenty percent shall be apportioned on the basis of 
     the urban population in each State (as defined by 
     Metropolitan Statistical Areas).
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively, and inserting after paragraph (3) 
     the following:
       ``(4) The total allocation to an individual State under 
     paragraphs (1) through (3) shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     total amount allocated to the several States in any one year.
       (g) Funds For Indian Tribes.--Section 6(b)(6) of the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 
     460l8(b)(6)) (as so redesignated) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(6)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (1), all federally 
     recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (as 
     defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1602) shall be treated collectively as one 
     State, and shall receive shares of the apportionment under 
     paragraph (1) in accordance with a competitive grant program 
     established by the Secretary by rule. Such rule shall ensure 
     that in each fiscal year no single tribe or Alaska Native 
     Corporation receives more than 10 percent of the total amount 
     made available to all Indian tribes and Alaska Native 
     Corporations pursuant to the apportionment under paragraph 
     (1). Funds received by an Indian tribe or Alaska Native 
     Corporation under this subparagraph may be expended only for 
     the purposes specified in subsection (a). Receipt in any 
     given year of an apportionment under this section shall not 
     prevent an Indian tribe or Alaska Native Corporation from 
     receiving grants for other purposes under than regular 
     apportionment of the State in which it is located.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me commend my good friend, the 
Senator from Alaska, the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens.
  I want to point out that my amendment is very similar to the one 
offered by the Senator from Arizona. It does, however, make one 
significant change that I think is critical to the success of this 
trust fund.
  Before I start, I want to say that I am particularly pleased that 
Senator McCain recognizes the significance of these funds--the $1.6 
billion that flowed from receipts that had been generated from lease 
sales in Alaska, the offshore, so-called ``Dinkum Sands.'' He has taken 
my Senate bill, S. 1118, and used it as the model for his amendment. 
Obviously believing that this authorization should occur on an 
appropriations bill.
  My particular initial concept was to use $800 million to fund the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I think the improvement that the Senator from Arizona and the senior 
Senator have added formulating consideration of the national parks, as 
well as Arctic research, are to be commended. And, as a consequence, I 
think the appropriateness of my second degree is worthy of 
consideration.
  My amendment differs specifically on one significant measure. It 
places simply all of the Dinkum Sands escrow account--that is $1.6 
billion--in an interest-bearing account in the Treasury Department as 
opposed to the amendment of Senator McCain, which would put only half 
of that amount--or $800 million in an interest-bearing account in the 
U.S. Treasury.
  What we would do, Mr. President, is not utilize the principal but 
simply the yield. The interest off the account would be approximately 
$120 million a year, and would be distributed in the same manner as the 
McCain-Stevens-Murkowski amendment: Forty percent would go to our 
national parks; 40 percent to the state-side Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and 20 percent to Arctic research.
  I might add the necessity of funding our national parks is as a 
consequence of the billions of dollars in deferred maintenance that are 
associated with those parks, and the reality that we clearly need some 
capital improvement projects.
  So, again there would be a long-term funding mechanism. And the 
merits, I think, speak for themselves.
  It would relieve the appropriators in the sense that this would fund 
a good deal of what currently we have to fund through an annual 
appropriation process.
  I am not going to go through the jungle of bureaucratic 
interpretations and the manner in which the Budget Committee has to 
operate. But 40 percent would go to national parks capital improvement 
projects, and 40 percent to the State, matching the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. That is a State and Federal matching program which 
has done a great deal in the history of encouraging States, and the 
people in those States and communities, to generate funding of their 
own with the Federal matching funds and pride for worthwhile projects 
in their communities. Twenty percent would go into marine research, 
primarily in the Arctic.
  Here is the authorization and appropriation chart for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. You can see the that authorizations have 
simply gone off the chart. We continue to authorize, and feel good 
about it. We go home and say, ``We have authorized the project.'' But 
if it is not appropriated, why, it is window dressing.
  You can see the red line, or the actual appropriations. They hit a 
high in 1977 of about $800 million. They dropped down to virtually 
nothing--somewhere in the area of $150 million in 1981, and they have 
leveled off. The state-side LWCF matching grant program has fared even 
worse.
  Clearly, this is a worthwhile program. It is two for one: for every 
Federal dollar it is matched by state and local money.
  There is the other chart, shows the demand for stateside Land and 
Water Conservation Fund grants.
  Clearly, the demand is there from America, American citizens, and 
communities with regard to the benefits of this type of funding.
  By placing only half of the Dinkum Sands revenue in this fund, I 
think it will be self-defeating. It will not provide the money 
necessary to adequately fund these programs, especially the State-side 
Land and Water Conservation Fund matching grant programs.
  I would also like to say that as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I intend to work with the Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee next year to ensure that we have not just 
created another paper account. Rather, I promise to work to ensure that 
the money earned off this account will be available for appropriations 
for the very important purposes we set forth in this amendment.
  Before the conference we would like to work with the Budget Committee 
on how to best minimize the impact of this amendment on the 
appropriators. That is the only way we can answer the call of my 
outdoor recreation initiative to reinvigorate our parks, forests, and 
public lands in order to enhance Americans' visits to those parks and 
conserve natural resources, wildlife and open spaces.
  My bill--S. 1118--now a part of my second-degree amendment, would 
create a trust fund with the $1.6 billion Dinkum Sands escrow account. 
It would use just the interest from the account as follows: 40 percent 
to fund capital improvement projects at our national parks; 40 percent 
to fund State-side LWCF matching grants; and 20 percent to fund arctic 
research.
  With respect to the portion that would go to the state-side LWCF 
matching grant program, for over 30 years those grants have helped 
preserve open spaces. They have built thousands of picnic areas, 
trails, parks and other recreation facilities.
  I urge my colleagues to look at the merits. This is one chance in a 
lifetime where we have found the funding, $1.6 billion. We can put this 
money in an area which has worked so successfully and address the 
legacy that we have to maintain our national, state and local parks.
  At a June 11 hearing, witnesses from across the country testified in 
support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It has helped fund 
over 8,500 acquisitions on 2.3 million acres and built 28,000 
recreation facilities in all of the 50 States. Federal Land and Water 
Conservation Fund grants are matched dollar for dollar by State and 
local communities so Americans can get two for the price of one. My 
amendment presents an opportunity to expand on that possibility.
  The state-side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act makes it 
possible to have a national system of

[[Page S9595]]

parks, as opposed to just a National Park System. So one would ask, why 
did Congress and the administration defund this successful program 2 
years ago? Well, that is a good question, Mr. President. They defunded 
it because they had other priorities.
  This is an opportunity to address one of America's highest 
priorities, and that is our national system of parks. Working with the 
coalition including Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, the 
National Conference of Mayors, the National Recreation and Parks 
Association and various endowment groups, we were successful in 
building support for the Land and Water Conservation State grant 
program.
  Senator Gorton, I think, heard the message. He put funding for the 
state-side LWCF matching grant program in the Interior appropriations 
bill, for which we are most appreciative. I think his wise action 
ensures the short-term viability of the stateside matching grant 
program.
  Our next step, of course, is to find a long-term program for the 
State matching grant, and our amendment, like my initial effort, 
certainly does that. That is why I support the initial amendment by the 
Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens. But as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
the committee with jurisdiction over national parks, I recognize the 
reality of what we are doing here. We are moving without the 
authorization of the respective committees, and I am certainly 
sensitive to that. But this is a rare and extraordinary opportunity to 
address the disposition of funds that come in, and as a consequence I 
think can best be used in the manner proposed in my amendment.

  I might say further that I am happy that a portion of the interest 
will fund this backlog of capital projects in our parks. We have held 
committee oversight hearings on March 13 and March 20 to tackle the 
challenge of park maintenance, and I am glad to see Senator Thomas, who 
chaired this meeting, is joining me in this second-degree amendment.
  I think it is important to recognize further, Mr. President, as we 
address this rare opportunity, that we have had in the Energy Committee 
extensive hearings on this matter. This is a chance where America can 
take better care of her parks, and it is our duty to restore their 
brilliance, their luster. We face an $8.6 billion backlog of unfunded 
Park Service operations and programs in this country --$8.6 billion. We 
are not appropriating the funds. The interest earned by this account 
may not be enough, and until the National Park Service has a system for 
settling priorities for capital improvements and infrastructure repair, 
Congress is going to have to keep a close eye on how the money is 
spent. But we have the money and we are directing that it not go for 
administration purposes of the Park Service.
  The land and water conservation fund is authorized through the year 
2015 at $900 million a year. However, far less than that authorized 
amount is appropriated each year, and we now have an opportunity to fix 
the system.
  Using the proceeds of this account for these purposes makes sense. It 
is consistent with the vision of the Land and Water Conservation Act 
and the promises made three decades ago. These promises were, I remind 
my colleagues, that oil receipts, offshore oil receipts, will primarily 
fund the land and water conservation fund for public recreation and 
conservation in this country.
  Well, it is fine to put it in, and obviously the industry is out 
there and they are initiating a cash flowback, but it is not going 
where it was intended simply because there are other priorities. And I 
am not here to delve into the priorities.
  Mr. President, if the underlying amendment were made law, the 
interest on the account which could be spent on the stateside Land and 
Water Conservation fund grant program would only be somewhere between 
$16 million and $24 million--not much to be divided between the 50 
States, territories and Indian tribes. If the need in our country for 
recreation is overwhelming, the very health of our Nation requires our 
attention, and the States are in the best position to address that 
shortfall.
  I would like to point out, if the amendment that I have proposed is 
accepted, this amount we were looking at from the yield off the 
principal, not the expenditure, would total some $32 million to $48 
million for the stateside LWCF matching grant program each year--a 
considerably increased sum and obviously more meaningful to the States 
and territories as well.
  The needs in our country for recreation are overwhelming. The very 
health of our Nation and our natural human resources depend on programs 
such as this, particularly in the innercity areas. Again, every dollar 
we provide to the stateside of the land and water conservation program 
doubles the impact as far as this matter is concerned.
  Finally, we have an opportunity to take a step to improve the System 
and reap benefits for our children and their children.
  Finally, the question is, do you want to do just a little or do you 
want to have a major impact--a major impact--on preserving open spaces, 
refurbish and build picnic areas, trails, parks and other recreation 
facilities. You have the opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask the remainder of my statement be printed in the 
Record at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me turn to the issue of Arctic and North Pacific 
fisheries research--a critical issue I have worked on from my first day 
in the Senate:
  My first speech on the floor of the Senate involved the importance of 
Arctic research, particularly as it related to fisheries.
  My first major legislative initiative was the Arctic Research and 
Policy Act, signed into law by President Reagan.
  The Arctic Research Commission, created by this Act, had as its first 
recommendation the need to develop a fuller understanding of Arctic 
Ocean, Bering Sea, and the ecosystems they sustain.
  This amendment include our effort to fulfill the commission's 
recommendations. I am pleased to see the commission play an important 
role on the board created by this amendment.
  I particularly like the approach of using proceeds from Arctic OCS 
revenues invested in scientific research to better understand the 
Arctic ecosystem:
  Arctic wealth provided these revenues, so it is only fair to return a 
portion to help protect the Arctic itself.
  The wealth of North America is in the Arctic. Not simply energy and 
mineral wealth--but also a wealth of renewable resources, a wealth of 
scenic beauty, a wealth of diverse living ecosystems, and a wealth of 
recreational opportunities.
  Our scientific investment in this part of the world is inadequate, 
particularly when we compare it with what we spend for scientific 
research in the Antarctic, where we do not have people or resources.
  Today we take another step in addressing this inequity. It isn't the 
first step, nor will it be the last.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The mayors of every 
city in the Nation want it, the Governors of every State in the Nation 
know the good that can be accomplished.
  I think the Chair.
  I commend the amendment to the Senate, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment is not acceptable. We had 
worked all day with the senior Senator from Alaska and the Senator from 
Arizona on a proposal that I had not previously seen that really ought 
to be authorized, even in its original form, and about which I have 
some concerns, the composition of the research board, the involvement 
of the Department of the Interior, the way in which money is allocated, 
the kind of scoring problems that we will have which will create 
problems with the Budget Committee. But it seemed to me that the 
compromise that we had reached on it among several of us was clearly 
worth going forward with.
  This second-degree amendment involves now $1.6 billion, at 8 o'clock 
at night, when we were attempting to finish a bill on which it does not 
belong because it needs to be authorized, and it has not been cleared 
on the other

[[Page S9596]]

side. We made no attempt to clear it on the other side. I did not know 
it was coming. Other Senators, including the majority leader, feel as I 
do. I move to table the second-degree amendment of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll 
to ascertain the presence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1234

   (Purpose: To make $4,000,000 of funds appropriated to the Forest 
 Service for emergency construction in fiscal year 1996, available for 
 reconstruction of the Oakridge Ranger Station which was destroyed by 
                                 arson)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send another amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Smith of 
     Oregon, for himself and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1234.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 127, at the end of title III add the following 
     general provision:
       Sec. 3  . Of the funds appropriated and designated an 
     emergency requirement in title II, chapter 5 of Public Law 
     104-134, under the heading ``Forest Service, Construction,'' 
     $4,000,000 shall be available for the reconstruction of the 
     Oakridge Ranger Station, on the Willamette National Forest in 
     Oregon; Provided, That the amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official request, that includes designation of 
     the amount as an emergency requirement as defined by the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress; 
     Provided further, That reconstruction of the facility is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment on behalf of the two 
Senators from Oregon for repair of the Oakridge Ranger Station. It has 
been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1234) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1235

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture to submit to Congress a report on properties proposed to be 
 acquired or exchanged with funds appropriated from the Land and Water 
                          Conservation Fund.)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1235.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 134, beginning on line 2, strike ``Provided'' and 
     all that follows through ``heading'' on line 8 and insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the 
     heads of the National Park Service, the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the 
     Forest Service, shall jointly submit to Congress a report 
     listing the lands and interests in land, in order of 
     priority, that the Secretaries propose for acquisition or 
     exchange using funds provided under this heading: Provided 
     further, That in determining the order of priority, the 
     Secretaries shall consider with respect to each property the 
     following: the natural resources located on the property; the 
     degree to which a natural resource on the property is 
     threatened; the length of time required to consummate the 
     acquisition or exchange; the extent to which an increase in 
     the cost of the property makes timely completion of the 
     acquisition or exchange advisable; the extent of public 
     support for the acquisition or exchange (including support of 
     local governments and members of the public); the total 
     estimated costs associated with the acquisition or exchange, 
     including the costs of managing the lands to be acquired; the 
     extent of current Federal ownership of property in the 
     region; and such other factors as the Secretaries consider 
     appropriate, which factors shall be described in the report 
     in detail: Provided further, That the report shall describe 
     the relative weight accorded to each such factor in 
     determining the priority of acquisitions and exchanges''.
       On page 134, line 12, strike ``a project list to be 
     submitted by the Secretary'' and insert ``the report of the 
     Secretaries''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would require 
the Administration to utilize certain criteria in preparing the 
prioritized list of land acquisitions and exchanges that would be 
conducted using the $700 million increase recommended in this bill for 
federal land acquisitions and exchanges. This amendment places primary 
responsibility for determining the priority of land acquisitions in the 
hands of the federal land management agencies charged with preserving, 
protecting, and managing our nation's natural resources. At the same 
time, the amendment preserves the prerogative of Congress to approve or 
disapprove the Administration's recommendations prior to making any of 
these additional funds available.
  The amendment establishes seven specific criteria to be used by the 
National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management in assessing proposed 
acquisitions and exchanges:
  (1) the natural resources located on the land,
  (2) the degree to which those natural resources are threatened,
  (3) the length of time required for acquisition of the land,
  (4) the extent, if any, to which an increase in land cost makes 
timely completion of the acquisition advisable,
  (5) the extent of public and local government support for the 
acquisition,
  (6) the amount of federal lands already in the region, and
  (7) the total estimated costs of the acquisition.
  In addition, the amendment permits the Secretaries of Interior and 
Agriculture to consider additional matters in their assessments, but 
they must explain to Congress in a report what those additional 
considerations were and how they were weighted in the prioritization of 
land proposals.
  Over the years, Congress has wisely taken steps to preserve our 
natural heritage. We have protected many remarkable natural areas 
through the establishment of national parks, monuments, wilderness 
areas, wildlife refuges, national scenic areas, and other conservation 
efforts.
  While this nation has no shortage of beautiful country to be 
preserved and protected, there is a limited amount of funding available 
to accomplish these goals. As a result, our nation has a multi-billion 
dollar backlog in land acquisitions at both the Department of Interior 
and the Department of Agriculture. Because of this enormous backlog, I 
support the recommendation in this bill to make available an additional 
$700 million for the land acquisitions and exchanges, consistent with 
the budget agreement.
  What this amendment would require the Administration to do is not 
new. The agencies already produce these types of rankings when 
developing the President's budget request. The Bureau of Land 
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, 
and the Forest Service all compose priority based lists. In this case, 
we will be requiring the agencies to perform the same sort of priority 
assessments on projects that would be funded with these additional 
funds, to ensure that Congress has all the information necessary to 
review the Administration's proposal.

[[Page S9597]]

  The amendment includes a requirement for the agencies to consider the 
extent of local support for an acquisition proposal, as well as the 
amount of land in the area already owned by the federal government. 
Preservation of our natural resources is a high priority, but it must 
be balanced with an awareness of the economic needs of local 
communities and their ability to plan for future growth and 
development. These two criteria will ensure that a community will not 
be harmed unnecessarily by the removal of preservation lands from its 
tax base or by undue restrictions on development and economic growth.
  I understand the concerns expressed by the Committee in the report 
language about the costs of managing and maintaining current federally 
owned lands, and I believe the agencies should focus on acquisition and 
exchange proposals that would consolidate federal land holdings and 
eliminate inholdings to lessen these costs. However, I think it would 
be a mistake to fail to consider funding new acquisitions and exchanges 
that would protect and preserve resources that might otherwise be lost 
to development in the near future.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned that the Committee has earmarked 
$315 million of the additional funding for two specific projects--the 
Headwaters Forest and New World Mines acquisitions. I am not seeking to 
strike those earmarks in this amendment, although I understand an 
amendment may be offered to do so, which I would support. 
Unfortunately, these earmarks make clear the need for established 
criteria for prioritizing the many pending acquisition requests at our 
land management agencies. My amendment would ensure that all funds 
which are available for pending land acquisitions and exchanges are 
used prudently and for the highest priority projects identified by 
federal land management agencies.
  Let me stress that I understand the right of Congress to review and 
revise the President's budget request, as we see fit. My amendment is 
simply intended to help us make those decisions by requiring input from 
the federal land management agencies on the expenditure of the $700 
million we are adding to this appropriations bill for land acquisitions 
and exchanges. Congress will still have the last word.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment requires the administration 
to submit to Congress a priority list for lands to be acquired with 
moneys appropriated in title V. Congress will make the ultimate 
determination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1235) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1236

   (Purpose: To settle certain Miccosukee Indian land takings claims 
                      within the State of Florida)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Mack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Mack, for 
     himself and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 1236.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 152, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

                    TITLE VII--MICCOSUKEE SETTLEMENT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Miccosukee Settlement Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 702. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) There is pending before the United States District 
     Court for the Southern District of Florida a lawsuit by the 
     Miccosukee Tribe that involves the taking of certain tribal 
     lands in connection with the construction of highway 
     Interstate 75 by the Florida Department of Transportation.
       (2) The pendency of the lawsuit referred to in paragraph 
     (1) clouds title of certain lands used in the maintenance and 
     operation of the highway and hinders proper planning for 
     future maintenance and operations.
       (3) The Florida Department of Transportation, with the 
     concurrence of the Board of Trustees of the Internal 
     Improvements Trust Fund of the State of Florida, and the 
     Miccosukee Tribe have executed an agreement for the purpose 
     of resolving the dispute and settling the lawsuit.
       (4) The agreement referred to in paragraph (3) requires the 
     consent of Congress in connection with contemplated land 
     transfers.
       (5) The Settlement Agreement is in the interest of the 
     Miccosukee Tribe, as the Tribe will receive certain monetary 
     payments, new reservation lands to be held in trust by the 
     United States, and other benefits.
       (6) Land received by the United States pursuant to the 
     Settlement Agreement is in consideration of Miccosukee Indian 
     Reservation lands lost by the Miccosukee Tribe by virtue of 
     transfer to the Florida Department of Transportation under 
     the Settlement Agreement.
       (7) The United States lands referred to in paragraph (6) 
     will be held in trust by the United States for the use and 
     benefit of the Miccosukee Tribe as Miccosukee Indian 
     Reservation lands in compensation for the consideration given 
     by the Tribe in the Settlement Agreement.
       (8) Congress shares with the parties to the Settlement 
     Agreement a desire to resolve the dispute and settle the 
     lawsuit.

     SEC. 703. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Board of trustees of the internal improvements trust 
     fund.--The term ``Board of Trustees of the Internal 
     Improvements Trust Fund'' means the agency of the State of 
     Florida holding legal title to and responsible for trust 
     administration of certain lands of the State of Florida, 
     consisting of the Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of 
     Agriculture, Commissioner of Education, Controller, Secretary 
     of State, and Treasurer of the State of Florida, who are 
     Trustees of the Board.
       (2) Florida department of transportation.--The term 
     ``Florida Department of Transportation'' means the executive 
     branch department and agency of the State of Florida that--
       (A) is responsible for the construction and maintenance of 
     surface vehicle roads, existing pursuant to section 20.23, 
     Florida Statutes; and
       (B) has the authority to execute the Settlement Agreement 
     pursuant to section 334.044, Florida Statutes.
       (3) Lawsuit.--The term ``lawsuit'' means the action in the 
     United States District Court for the Southern District of 
     Florida, entitled Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. 
     State of Florida and Florida Department of Transportation. 
     et. al., docket No. 91-285-Civ-Paine.
       (4) Miccosukee lands.--The term ``Miccosukee lands'' means 
     lands that are--
       (A) held in trust by the United States for the use and 
     benefit of the Miccosukee Tribe as Miccosukee Indian 
     Reservation lands; and
       (B) identified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement for 
     transfer to the Florida Department of Transportation.
       (5) Miccosukee tribe; tribe.--The terms ``Miccosukee 
     Tribe'' and ``Tribe'' mean the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 
     Florida, a tribe of American Indians recognized by the United 
     States and organized under section 16 of the Act of June 18, 
     1934 (48 Stat. 987, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 476) and 
     recognized by the State of Florida pursuant to chapter 285, 
     Florida Statutes.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) Settlement agreement; agreement.--The terms 
     ``Settlement Agreement'' and ``Agreement'' mean the 
     assemblage of documents entitled ``Settlement Agreement'' 
     (with incorporated exhibits) that--
       (A) addresses the lawsuit; and
       (B)(i) was signed on August 28, 1996, by Ben G. Watts 
     (Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation) and 
     Billy Cypress (Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe); and
       (ii) after being signed, as described in clause (i), was 
     concurred in by the Board of Trustees of the Internal 
     Improvements Trust Fund of the State of Florida.
       (8) State of florida.--The term ``State of Florida'' 
     means--
       (A) all agencies or departments of the State of Florida, 
     including the Florida Department of Transportation and the 
     Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvements Trust Fund; 
     and
       (B) the State of Florida as governmental entity.

     SEC. 704. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.

       As Trustee of the Miccosukee Tribe, the Secretary shall--
       (1)(A) aid and assist in the fulfillment of the Settlement 
     Agreement at all times and in a reasonable manner; and
       (B) to accomplish the fulfillment of the Settlement 
     Agreement in accordance with subparagraph (A), cooperate with 
     and assist the Miccosukee Tribe;
       (2) upon finding that the Settlement Agreement is legally 
     sufficient and that the State of Florida has the necessary 
     authority to fulfill the Agreement--
       (A) sign the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the United 
     States; and
       (B) ensure that an individual other than the Secretary who 
     is a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs also 
     signs the Settlement Agreement;
       (3) upon finding that all necessary conditions precedent to 
     the transfer of Miccosukee land to the Florida Department

[[Page S9598]]

     of Transportation as provided in the Settlement Agreement 
     have been or will be met so that the Agreement has been or 
     will be fulfilled, but for the execution of that land 
     transfer and related land transfers--
       (A) transfer ownership of the Miccosukee land to the 
     Florida Department of Transportation in accordance with the 
     Settlement Agreement, including in the transfer solely and 
     exclusively that Miccosukee land identified in the Settlement 
     Agreement for transfer to the Florida Department of 
     Transportation; and
       (B) in conjunction with the land transfer referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), transfer no land other than the land 
     referred to in that subparagraph to the Florida Department of 
     Transportation; and
       (4) upon finding that all necessary conditions precedent to 
     the transfer of Florida lands from the State of Florida to 
     the United States have been or will be met so that the 
     Agreement has been or will be fulfilled but for the execution 
     of that land transfer and related land transfers, receive and 
     accept in trust for the use and benefit of the Miccosukee 
     Tribe ownership of all land identified in the Settlement 
     Agreement for transfer to the United States.

     SEC. 705. MICCOSUKEE INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS.

       The lands transferred and held in trust for the Miccosukee 
     Tribe under section 704(4) shall be Miccosukee Indian 
     Reservation lands.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment is sponsored jointly by the 
two Senators from Florida, Senators Mack and Graham.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the authorizing 
committee of jurisdiction, I call upon my colleague from Florida to 
allow this settlement to have the benefit of a hearing in the 
committee.
  In the absence of a hearing in the Senate, there will be absolutely 
no legislative history associated with the action that the Senate would 
be taking in approving this settlement.
  I know of no other Indian settlement that has been ratified without 
full consideration in the authorizing committees.
  As you well know, the Congress is vested with plenary authority in 
the field of Indian affairs.
  We have always taken our responsibilities in this area very 
seriously--and I believe that it is incumbent upon us to have the 
benefit of a record upon which we can base a ratification of this 
settlement agreement.
  If the hearing schedule that the chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs has established is full, I would be pleased to chair a hearing 
on this settlement in the very near future, and you can be assured of 
my personal commitment that committee action on the settlement will be 
expedited.
  With these commitments in mind, I ask the Senator from Florida to 
withdraw his amendment and allow the authorizing committee to do its 
work.
  Mr. GORTON. The Miccosukee Settlement Act of 1997 brings closure to 
disputes between the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the 
Florida Department of Transportation in connection with the 
construction of Interstate 75. It has been cleared on all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1236) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1237

 (Purpose: To provide support for the Office of Navajo Uranium Workers 
 to establish a diagnostic program for uranium miners and mill workers)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Bingaman and Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     for himself and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1237.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 86, line 11, insert before the period, ``: Provided 
     further, That an amount not to exceed $200,000 shall be 
     available to fund the Office of Navajo Uranium Workers for 
     health screening and epidemiologic followup of uranium miners 
     and mill workers, to be derived from funds otherwise 
     available for administrative and travel expenses''.

  Mr. GORTON. This amendment has to be with providing screening to 
certain Navajo Indians for certain, I believe, uranium-related 
diseases.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1237) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1238

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the U-505 National Historic Landmark 
  by reprogramming funds previously made available for the Jefferson 
                      National Expansion Memorial)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Moseley-Braun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Ms. Moseley-
     Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 1238.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 17, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:

                            (Reprogramming)

       Of unobligated amounts previously made available for the 
     Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, $838,000 shall be made 
     available for the U-505 National Historic Landmark.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this transfers money from one Illinois 
project to another for the restoration of a World War II submarine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1238) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              grand staircase-escalante national monument

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to praise my good friend 
Senator Slade Gorton for his efforts in putting together this important 
legislation. It is particularly important to my state, where over 70 
percent of our land is owned or managed by the Federal government.
  My colleagues will recall that one year ago, President Clinton stood 
on the edge of the Grand Canyon in Arizona and designated 1.7 million 
acres of Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Since 
that time, we have been discussing the future of this monument and what 
the short and long term impacts will be to my state and the surrounding 
communities. There are many questions and concerns that remain to be 
addressed. But, I am confident that during the next two years, the 
Bureau of Land Management will develop a management plan which properly 
and effectively addresses these matters. For this reason, I am pleased 
that H.R. 2107, the Interior Appropriations bill, includes $6.4 million 
for the planning, management, and operation of the new monument.
  Mr. President, regardless of where public opinion eventually comes 
down on this new monument and the controversial way in which it was 
created, we should not forget the important lessons we have learned 
from the experience. When citizens are deliberately excluded from 
government deliberations that so directly impact their homes, 
communities, schools, and families,

[[Page S9599]]

damage is done to the very institution of democracy. This is what 
happened prior to last September 18. Unfortunately, the message 
received by the people of Southern Utah last year was that the federal 
government knows best and has the right to impose its narrow vision 
without regard to those most affected.
  I am confident that we can go forward from here and begin the process 
of rebuilding the trust we lost one year ago. A vital part of this 
rebuilding process is the inclusion of those parties directly affected 
from the monument's designation in the development of the monument's 
management plan. The Committee Report accompanying H.R. 2107 directs 
the BLM to continue its cooperative efforts with state and local 
governments and the citizens of Utah in the plan's development. While 
the Report gives specific and practical direction to the BLM, the 
language also provides the agency with the flexibility its needs to 
address the unknowns that will invariably arise in the early stages of 
this sweeping process to develop a management plan.
  I would like to state for the record that I am pleased with the 
progress made so far by the BLM in working with the local communities. 
I am particularly glad to see that collaborative efforts have been 
formed between the federal agencies and the local communities involved, 
specifically Kane and Garfield counties, where the monument is located. 
The cooperative agreements that we renegotiated earlier this year are a 
good start. They provide for continued local participation in the 
development of the monument's management plan as well as in the actual 
delivery of visitor services.
  Mr. President, we have learned in the West that the best manner to 
implement successful land policies is to involve the communities that 
are directly affected by them. Wherever possible, we should proceed in 
the spirit of a partnership between the affected local governments and 
the national government. This is especially true with the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, where many of the local citizens 
have their entire lives invested in this region. They want to see the 
Monument developed; they want to see it succeed. They deserve a seat at 
the planning table, and I am pleased the BLM is sensitive to this 
issue. In the end, the residents of the area will be providing the 
necessary services to visitors.
  In closing, I would like to commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee, 
Senator Gorton, and especially my colleague, Senator Bennett, for their 
diligent efforts on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the 
necessary funding and direction will be there to help make the monument 
a success for all involved.
  I yield the floor.


                   coal in the kaiparowits coal basin

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a matter related to 
the pending legislation in that it concerns a study commissioned by the 
Bureau of Land Management.
  As my colleagues know, last September, President Clinton invoked the 
authority granted under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. The total 
acreage contained within the new monument is 1.7 million acres, or 
approximately an area the size of the states of Connecticut, Delaware 
and Rhode Island combined. This action, undertaken behind closed doors 
and without any input from the public, including the Utah congressional 
delegation or Utah's governor, has caused considerable upheaval 
throughout my state. I say this not because we are opposed to the 
designation of national monuments, but because of the process utilized 
to designate the monument and because of the short and long term 
impacts to the local communities and their economies which, 
unfortunately, are currently unknown.
  Those of us in Congress are working with the State of Utah and the 
Clinton Administration to develop a management plan for the monument 
that meets the needs of the managing agent--the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM)--the state, and the surrounding communities. I am 
grateful that the report accompanying this year's Interior 
appropriations bill includes language to address these needs, and I 
wish to publicly thank Senator Gorton for his efforts.
  At the same time, I am concerned about the atmosphere existing in my 
state as it relates to the new monument. The manner in which the 
monument has been designated has created a high level of mistrust among 
certain parties. Unfortunately, there is considerable disinformation 
circulating throughout the affected areas that compounds this problem 
and fans the fire of antifederal sentiment. To be honest, I can hardly 
blame them. A major torpedo was launched directly at these rural 
communities. If such an abuse of federal executive power ever occurs 
again, it will be too soon.
  Yet, while the citizens of my state remain angry and disillusioned 
regarding this entire episode, they understand it is fait accompli. As 
I anticipate the planning for the future of this new monument, 
including the preservation of Utah's existing rights as promised last 
year by the President and the equitable exchange of state trust lands 
captured within the monument's boundaries, it is critical that an 
environment of trust be created among all parties involved in this 
process. That environment must be established first by ensuring that 
the basis for decisionmaking is accurate and comprehensive.
  Earlier this year, the BLM released a study prepared by BXG, Inc., a 
private contractor, entitled ``Kaiparowits Plateau--Coal Supply and 
Demand.'' This study discussed the marketability of the coal reserves 
of the Kaiparowits Plateau, which are located entirely within the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante Monument, and which are technically unreachable 
because of the monument's existence. Personally, I believe it is an 
abuse of the Antiquities Act to designate a monument simply to prevent 
a coal mine from being developed, but that is what has happened in this 
case and one of the primary reasons why the President signed this order 
acted in the fashion he did almost one year ago. Several pending 
lawsuits will determine if, indeed, this has been an unwarranted 
extension of the Antiquity Act's authority.
  In the meantime, the BXG study concludes that the Kaiparowits coal is 
of poorer quality and higher cost than current reserves located in the 
Wasatch Plateau and the Book Cliffs. As a result, they conclude that 
Kaiparowits coal will have little or no demand until at least the year 
2020. These conclusions by BXG, and as far as I know, supported by the 
BLM, are erroneous and cannot go unchallenged.
  The Director of the Utah Geological Survey recently analyzed this 
study and found that BXG used numerous invalid assumptions as it 
prepared its study.
  For example, estimates of recoverable coal reserves in the 
Kaiparowits Plateau were based on recovery amounts in the Appalachian 
coalfield, a region with vastly different geology and history of 
operation. Kaiparowits coal recovery would be at least twice that of 
the Appalachian region.
  Also, the study assumes an average coal quality for Kaiparowits coal 
instead of the quality of the coal that would actually be mined. The 
quality of coal produced from Kaiparowits would be comparable to 
compliance coal currently mined in central Utah.
  And, the productivity for a Kaiparowits mine was based on the average 
productivity rate for all western long wall mines during 1990-95. 
Historically, Utah underground mines are the most productive mines in 
the U.S., and the nature of the Kaiparowits deposits would likely make 
the new mines more productive than any others in the region.
  Finally, the thick flat nature of Kaiparowits coal seams and their 
shallow overburden would lower costs for development, not increase 
them, as assumed by BXG.
  There are other deficiencies in the BXG study that have been 
identified which I will refrain from mentioning here.
  In sum, energy experts for the State of Utah using assumptions that 
are more appropriate for the resource characteristics and market 
conditions of the Kaiparowits Plateau coal fields have demonstrated 
that coal mined from the Kaiparowits Plateau is of sufficient quantity 
and quality, and would likely have production costs that would make it 
an economically viable source of future supply for many utility and 
industrial markets in the West.

[[Page S9600]]

What we have here may be a disagreement of what the facts mean among 
experts.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1239

    (Purpose: To ensure an orderly transition to newly implemented 
       guidelines on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any pending 
amendment be set aside and that I be able to present an amendment on 
behalf of Senators Domenici and Kyl to ensure an orderly transition to 
newly implemented guidelines on National Forests in Arizona and New 
Mexico. And I assure Members that the other Senators from the States 
agree and the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Domenici, 
     for himself and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 1239.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.  . IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW GUIDELINES ON NATIONAL FORESTS 
                   IN ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds made available under this or any other Act may be used 
     for the purposes of executing any adjustments to annual 
     operating plans, allotment management plans, or terms and 
     conditions of existing grazing permits on National Forests in 
     Arizona and New Mexico, which are or may be deemed necessary 
     to achieve compliance with 1996 amendments to the applicable 
     forest plans, until March 1, 1998, or such time as the Forest 
     Service publishes a schedule for implementing proposed 
     changes, whichever occurs first.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to 
     preclude the expenditure of funds for the development of 
     annual operating plans, allotment management plans, or in 
     developing modifications to grazing permits in cooperation 
     with the permittee.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to change 
     authority or preclude the expenditure of funds pursuant to 
     section 504 of the 1995 Rescissions Act (Public Law 104-19).

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to 
ensure that the Forest Service can implement changes to the grazing 
program in the Southwest region in an orderly fashion.
  Currently the Southwest Region of the Forest Service is working to 
implement amendments it has made to the land use plans on all of its 11 
National Forests.
  These amendments were made in response to litigation over threatened 
and endangered species habitat, and were adopted in June, 1996.
  Since the amendments were adopted, the Forest Service has been taken 
back to court, because some groups believed that the they were not 
acting fast enough to implement the plans.
  The Forest Service is now under a court order to maintain the status 
quo.
  This has allowed them to continue working toward compliance with the 
forest plan amendments while the Appeals Court decides the case.
  Since late July, when the injunction was issued, the Forest Service 
has completed a review of over 1,300 grazing allotments in the two 
states.
  The review indicates that more than half do not fully comply, and 
over 250 have been determined to be of a ``high priority.''
  Under the Forest Service's stated plan of action, they will study and 
determine the best way to bring these allotments into compliance with 
the forest plans in priority order.
  Once this is determined, the Forest Service will begin implementing 
changes that are needed at the beginning of the next grazing season in 
March.
  The plaintiffs in this case, however, have long been opposed to 
livestock grazing on public lands.
  This amendment does not preclude the Forest Service from taking 
appropriate and timely action to protect the threatened and endangered 
species.
  It simply provides time for the agency to implement changes in a 
thoughtful and orderly manner, without the pressure from further 
litigation.
  This time will allow the Forest Service to work with those who to 
date have been completely left out of this process.
  These are the same people who are most likely to be adversely 
affected by implementation of the amendments.
  I hope the Senate will support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1239) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                  unanimous-consent agreement--s. 830

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to put in a unanimous-consent request to 
yield the hour of time that I have to Senator Kennedy on the cloture 
vote on S. 830.
  Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I did not hear the request 
of the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have an hour reserved on the cloture motion on S. 
830.
  Mr. GORTON. No objection.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able 
to yield that hour to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. GORTON. 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, when the Senate turns to S. 830, I yield my 
1 hour to the minority leader under the cloture rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________