[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.
____________________