[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9348-S9370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by Title.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1357

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1357.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2000. The bill totals $13.924 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, an amount that is $1.125 billion below the President's 
budget request and $19 million below the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level. The bill fully complies with the spending limits established in 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and the amount provided is right at 
the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  As is always the case, putting this bill together has been a 
tremendous challenge. While I am extremely grateful that Senator 
Stevens, in consultation with Senator Byrd, was able to provide the 
subcommittee with an increase over its original 302(b) allocation, the 
amount contained in this bill is still slightly below the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level. I wish to point out to my colleagues, however, that 
this does not mean that delivery of programs can be continued at the 
current level simply by holding appropriations even with last year.
  The programs funded in this appropriations bill are highly personnel-
intensive, supporting tens of thousands of park rangers, foresters, and 
Indian Health Service doctors. As such, mandated pay and benefit 
increases for Federal personnel and increases in rent charged by the 
General Services Administration--increases over which the subcommittee 
has no control--place a significant burden on Interior bill agencies. 
The committee must choose either to provide funds to cover these costs, 
or require agencies to absorb them by reducing services or finding more 
efficient ways of delivering programs. For fiscal year 2000, these 
fixed costs amount to more than $300 million. While the committee has 
provided increases to cover a majority of this amount by drawing on 
carryover balances and reducing low priority programs, some agencies 
will be forced to absorb a portion of their fixed costs.
  Given the necessity of funding most fixed costs increases within an 
allocation that is slightly below the current year level, there is 
little room in this bill for new programs, increases in existing 
programs, or additional projects of interest to individual Members. But 
by terminating low priority programs and making selective reductions in 
others, we have been able to provide targeted increases for certain 
high priority programs.
  The committee has provided a $70 million increase for the operation 
of the national park system, including $27 million to increase the base 
operating budgets of 100 park units. This increase is further 
indication of the Senate's commitment to preserving and enhancing our 
national park system while remaining within the fiscal constraints of 
the balanced budget agreement. The Senate bill puts funding for the 
operation of our parks at a level fully $277 million higher than the 
fiscal year 1995 level, and 82 percent over the amount provided a 
decade ago.
  For the other land management agencies, the bill provides an increase 
of $27 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, including more than 
$13 million for the operation of the national wildlife refuge system. 
The bill increases the Forest Service operating account by $17 million, 
including significant increases for recreation management, forest 
ecosystem restoration, and road maintenance. A $22 million increase is 
provided for management of lands by the Bureau of Land Management, as 
well as another $5 million increase for payments in lieu of taxes. The 
amount provided for PILT reflects a continued effort to steadily 
increase appropriations for this program without harming the core 
operating programs funded in this bill. Though appropriations for PILT 
were stagnant throughout the first half of this decade, the amount 
provided in this bill represents a 28 percent increase over the amount 
provided in fiscal year 1995.
  Among the programs in this bill that are specifically for the benefit 
of Native Americans, the committee's top priority has been to provide 
the Secretary of the Interior with the resources necessary to fix the 
Indian trust fund management system. Indian land and trust fund records 
have been allowed to deteriorate to a deplorable state, and the 
Department of the Interior now finds itself scrambling to reconcile 
thousands upon thousands of trust records that are scattered across the 
country. Many of these records are located in cardboard boxes that have 
not been touched for years, or in ancient computer systems that are 
incompatible with one another. The Department is performing this task 
under the watchful eye of the court, having been sued by those whose 
trust accounts it is supposed to be managing.
  I believe that Secretary Babbitt is making a good faith effort to 
address this problem, and as such have recommended a funding level for 
the Office of the Special Trustee that is $39 million over the amount 
originally provided for fiscal year 1999. This amount will provide for 
both the manpower and the trust management systems necessary to fix the 
problem. I will note, however, that the Federal track record in 
managing large system procurements is spotty at best. As such, I hope 
to continue to work closely with the Committee on Indian Affairs and 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to ensure that these 
funds are expended wisely, and that we will not regret our decision to 
provide such a considerable amount for this purpose. I plead with my 
colleagues, however, to refrain from offering amendments to this bill 
that would radically change the course of action for trust management 
that has been laid out by the administration. Any such changes should 
be carefully considered and have the benefit of hearings by the 
authorizing committees.

[[Page S9349]]

  With regard to other Indian programs, I will quickly note that the 
bill provides an $83 million increase for the Indian Health Service, as 
well as significant increases for both Indian law enforcement and 
Indian school construction and repair. Funding for Indian schools 
continues to be among the highest programmatic priorities expressed by 
members of the Interior Subcommittee.
  The Interior bill also funds a myriad of programs that preserve and 
enhance our nation's cultural heritage. Perhaps the most visible of 
these programs are the National Endowments for the Arts and the 
Humanities. While the subcommittee's allocation did not allow us to 
increase these accounts by large amounts as would be the desire of many 
Senators, the bill does provide a $1 million increase for each program. 
These increases will not allow for any dramatic expansion the 
Endowments' ongoing programs, but do indicate the committee's general 
support for the Endowments and the efforts they have made to respond to 
the various criticisms that have been leveled at them. I hope that we 
may able to do even better next year.
  The bill also includes the full $19 million required to complete the 
Federal commitment to the construction of the National Museum of the 
American Indian on The Mall, and $20 million to continue phase two of 
the comprehensive building rehabilitation project at the Kennedy 
Center.
  The final grouping of agencies in this bill that I will mention at 
this time are the energy programs. The bill provides funding for both 
fossil energy R&D and energy conservation R&D at roughly the current 
year level. These programs are vital if we hope to stem our increasing 
dependence on foreign oil, to preserve the country's leadership in the 
manufacture of energy technologies, and to enable our economy to 
achieve reductions in energy use and emissions in ways that will not 
cripple economic growth. The bill also preserves funding for the 
weatherization and state grant programs at the fiscal year 1999 level. 
Maintaining current funding levels for these programs is made possible 
in part by the absence of any new appropriations for the naval 
petroleum and oil shale reserves, and a deferral of appropriations 
previously made for the Clean Coal Technology Program.
  Mr. President, I would like to touch on two more issues that may be 
of particular interest to members. The first is funding for land 
acquisition. Many Senators are aware that the President's budget 
request included some $1 billion for a ``lands legacy'' initiative. 
This initiative is an amalgamation of programs, some of which the 
committee has been funding for years, some of which are entirely new. 
Many of the programs included in the initiative lack authorization 
entirely. While the committee may well have chosen to provide many of 
these increases if it were allowed to distribute a $1.1 billion 
increase in spending, the lands legacy initiative is absurd in the 
context of any overall budget that adheres to the terms of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997--the very act that has helped produce the budget 
surplus that the President is so anxious to spend.
  To be clear, this bill does include large amounts of funding for a 
variety of land protection programs. The bill provides about the same 
amount of funding for Federal land acquisition as was included in the 
Senate reported bill last year. It also includes significant increases 
for other land protection programs such as the Cooperative Endangered 
Species Fund and the Forest Legacy program. The bill does not, however, 
include funds for the new and unauthorized grant programs requested by 
the administration, and does not include funds for the Stateside grant 
program that is authorized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act. While I am sympathetic in concept to the Stateside program, the 
subcommittee's allocation does not provide the room necessary to 
restart the program.
  Finally, I would like to take a moment to discuss the issue of 
appropriations ``riders.'' This administration has leveled much 
criticism at this Congress for including legislative provisions in 
appropriations bills. This criticism is disingenuous in at least two 
ways. First, there are without question legislative provisions in this 
very bill that, if removed, would prompt loud objections from the 
administration itself. Among these are provisions well known to my 
colleagues, such as moratoria on offshore oil and gas development and a 
moratorium on new mining patent applications. There are also some less 
well-known provisions that have been carried in this bill for years, 
the subjects of which range from clearcutting on the Shawnee National 
Forest to the testing of nuclear explosives for oil and gas 
exploration. Nearly all of these provisions are included in the bill 
because Congress at some point felt that the Executive branch was 
tampling on the prerogatives of the legislative branch.
  This leads to my second point. It should be well apparent to my 
colleagues that this administration long ago made a conscious decision 
not to engage Congress in productive discussions on a wide array of 
natural resource issues. Most of these issues are driven by statutes 
that most reasonable people admit are in dire need of updating, 
streamlining or reform. Instead, the administration has chosen to 
implement its own version of these laws through expansive regulatory 
actions, far-reaching Executive orders and creative legal opinions. 
When the administration overreaches in this fashion, concerned Senators 
are compelled to respond. The administration knows this, and has 
clearly made a political calculation that it is in its interest to 
invite these riders every year. For the administration to criticize the 
very practice that it deliberately provokes is, as I have said 
disingenuous at best.
  If the administration wishes to take issue with the substance of 
these provisions rather than hide behind a criticism of the process, it 
is welcome to do so. Consideration of this bill is an open process. It 
is not done ``in the dark of night,'' as we so often read. The bill has 
moved through subcommittee and full committee, and is open for 
amendment by the full Senate. I expect that we will discuss some of 
these provisions during the coming debate, and hope that Senators will 
carefully consider the arguments made on both sides. What I hope 
Senators will not do, is vote to abdicate the Senate's responsibility 
to oversee the actions of the executive branch, or sacrifice the power 
of the purse that is granted to the Congress by the Constitution.
  With that admonition, Mr. President, it is probably an appropriate 
time to turn to Senator Byrd and thank him for his assistance in 
drafting this bill. He has been an invaluable resource as I have tried 
to be responsive to the priorities of Members on that side of the 
aisle, and has been particularly helpful in securing an allocation for 
the subcommittee that enables us to report a bill that is deserving of 
the Senate's support. I thank Senator Byrd's staff as well--Kurt Dodd, 
Liz Gelfer, a detailee, and Carole Geagley for all the hard work they 
have done on this bill. I also want to thank my subcommittee staff for 
the long hours and hard work they have put in on this bill--Bruce 
Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Joe Norrell, and 
our detailee Sean Marsan. Kari Vanderstoep of my personal staff and 
Chuck Berwick--who has now departed my office for business school--have 
also done a great job of coordinating the many parts of this bill that 
have a direct impact on the State of Washington.
  Once again, I think this is a good bill that balances the competing 
needs of the agencies it funds against the broader fiscal constraints 
that we have imposed upon ourselves. I hope my colleagues will support 
the bill.
  There is one final point I want to make, Mr. President, and emphasize 
to all the Members and their staffs who are within hearing.
  This is a bill created by many individual Senators' requests for 
projects in their home States, and sometimes for projects that are 
regional and national in scope. This year, at least during my tenure, 
we set another new record. One hundred Senators made more than 2,400 
requests for specific provisions in this bill. Obviously, we could not 
grant all of the requests that are valid. I must say most of them were, 
in the sense they were for projects that would increase the ambience of 
the park system, the national historic system of the country as a 
whole.

[[Page S9350]]

  Senator Byrd and I, working together, have done the best job we 
possibly could in setting priorities for those programs, within the 
constraints of a bill I have already said is very limited in the total 
amount of money we have.
  So Members' requests that are not included in the bill were not 
ignored; they were simply omitted either because the given individual 
had higher priorities within his or her own State or because other 
priorities intervened in their way.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the fiscal year 
2000 Interior and Related Agencies appropriation bill. This is an 
important bill which provides for the management of our Nation's 
natural resources, funds research critical to our energy future, 
supports the well-being of our Indian populations, and protects the 
historical and cultural heritage of our country. I urge the Senate to 
move swiftly in its consideration of this appropriation bill.
  It has been my privilege to serve as the ranking member for this bill 
at the side of our very able chairman, the senior Senator from 
Washington. Senator Gorton has done an outstanding job in crafting the 
bill and balancing its many competing interests, a particularly 
daunting challenge this year in light of the spending caps within which 
the Appropriations Committee must operate. Even in the best of years, 
crafting the Interior bill is not an easy task.
  The Interior bill remains one of the most popular appropriation 
bills, funding a diverse set of very worthy programs and projects. The 
bill is full of thousands of relatively small, yet very meaningful 
details. Our chairman is a master of the complexities of the Interior 
bill. It is a pleasure to work on this appropriations bill with Senator 
Gorton at the helm. He has treated the Senators fairly and openly. This 
bill was put together in a bipartisan manner, and it reflects 
priorities identified by Senators, by the public, and by the agencies 
which are charged with carrying out the programs and projects funded in 
the bill.
  The breadth of the activities covered by the Interior bill is vast--
ranging from museums to parks to hospitals to resources to research--
with most of the funds being spent far away from the capital. This bill 
funds hundreds of national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, 
and other land management units. This bill supports more than 400 
Indian hospitals and clinics and thousands of Indian students. A wide 
variety of natural science and energy research and technology 
development are funded through this bill, providing immediate and far-
reaching benefits to all parts of our Nation and to our society as a 
whole.
  This bill makes its presence known in every State--from the rocky 
coasts of Maine to the mountains of California, from the coral reefs of 
Florida to the far flung island territories of the Pacific, from the 
Aleutian Islands in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. And 
the number of requests Senator Gorton and I have received from Senators 
for project funding in the Interior bill--more than 2,400 requests for 
specific items--reflects its broad impact. While it is impossible to 
include every request, Senator Gorton has done an admirable job of 
accommodating high-priority items within the allocation, an allocation 
that is $1.13 billion below the President's budget request and nearly 
$20 million below last year's enacted level of $13.94 billion in new 
discretionary spending authority.
  Highlights of this bill include:
  A total of $234 million for federal land acquisition, which is $178 
million below the President's fiscal year 2000 request (with 
reprogrammings) and $94 million below the level of funding included in 
the fiscal year 1999 act for land acquisition.
  A continuing emphasis on operating and protecting our national parks. 
Park operation funds are increased by $70 million, including increases 
of $19 million for resource stewardship, $16 million for visitor 
services, and $20 million for park maintenance.
  A continuing focus on the operational needs of the other land 
management agencies. The bill contains an increase of $24 million for 
the operating accounts of the Bureau of Land Management, including a $9 
million increase for range management. The bill also provides an 
increase of $22 million for the resource management account of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, including an increase of $13 million for refuge 
operations and maintenance.
  The bill contains $159 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
allowing operation of the reserve without selling any of its oil.
  Fossil energy research and development is funded at $395 million 
(with use of transfers and prior year balances), which is an increase 
above both the enacted level (by $11 million) and the request level (by 
$27 million). Specific increases also are provided for select energy 
conservation programs in building research and standards, 
transportation technology and specific industries of the future 
activities.
  While this bill provides needed resources for protecting some of our 
nation's most valuable treasures, we still have a long way to go. The 
agencies funded through this bill are starting to make progress towards 
addressing their operational and maintenance issues, thanks to the 
leadership of the Congress. But we are by no means out of the woods. 
Many deplorable conditions remain; many important resource and research 
needs are unmet. We must continue our vigilance towards unnecessary new 
initiatives as well as unwise decreases, our support for the basic 
programs that provide the foundation of the Interior bill, and our 
careful stewardship of the resources and assets placed in our trust.
  Lastly, I extend a warm word of appreciation to the staff that have 
assisted the Chairman and myself in our work on this bill. They work as 
a team and serve both of us, as well as all Senators, in a very 
effective and dedicated manner. On the majority side, the staff members 
are Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Joseph 
Norrell, and Sean Marsan. On my staff, Kurt Dodd, Carole Geagley, and 
Liz Gelfer have worked on the Interior Bill this year. This team works 
under the tutelage of the staff directors of the full committee--Steve 
Cortese for the majority and Jim English for the minority.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill, and I urge the Senate to complete 
its action promptly.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending legislative business?
  Mr. GORTON. I believe I have not abandoned the floor at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian 
that the floor was open.
  Mr. GORTON. Then I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Point of order, Mr. President. You recognized the Senator 
from Washington, Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair for that clarification.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about some legislative 
language that is in the Interior bill, on which I will be offering an 
amendment shortly, which is going to give away more of our public lands 
for the benefit of a few and at a tremendous cost to all the rest of 
us. This is a cost to the American taxpayer and to our environment.
  I want to begin, as I talk about this, by expressing that I am not 
going to be attacking the mining industry, which this amendment will be 
speaking to. I believe mining is an important industry in our 
country. While most of us don't think about it a lot, mining does 
produce some important minerals that are vital in every one of our 
lives. Mining is not only important in individual routines, but it is 
vital to our industrial base and rural economies. We need an active 
mining industry in our country. Like all of my colleagues, I support a 
responsible mining act, but we, as citizens of this country, need a 
fair deal.

  Today the mining industry is treated exceptionally well by our very 
old laws. Unfortunately, the American taxpayers are not treated well. 
They receive next to nothing from this industry, and our public lands 
suffer as well.
  A fact that should both amaze and really appall the American public 
is that mining in this country is controlled by a law that was written 
in

[[Page S9351]]

1872. That law was written just a few short years after the Civil War, 
when Ulysses S. Grant was still President of the United States. The law 
of 1872 allows mining interests to buy our Federal lands for between 
$2.50 and $5 per acre. Guess what they are paying for that now, 130 
years later. They are paying between $2.50 and $5 per acre. That is 
quite a bargain.
  And what does the hard rock mining industry pay in royalties back to 
us for using our land, for what they pull out of our land? Nothing, 
zero, zilch. The hard rock mining industry is the only extractive 
industry in this country that pays absolutely no royalties to the 
taxpayers for minerals that are coming from our public lands.
  In addition, over the course of these past 130 years since this law 
was written, the mining industry has caused tremendous environmental 
damage throughout the West. Mining waste dumps are responsible for 
poisoning streams, lakes, and ground water with toxic minerals such as 
lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Mining in the United States has left a 
legacy of 12,000 miles of polluted streams and 180,000 acres of 
polluted lakes. There are 500,000-plus abandoned mines in this country. 
Guess who pays for the cleanup. The taxpayers. That bill is estimated 
to be between $32 and $72 billion. We, the taxpayers, pay for the 
cleanup of these mines.
  The 1872 mining law did make sense when it was written 130 years ago. 
I think everybody here agrees that a lot has changed in 130 years. Our 
Nation is very different. The value of our public lands has increased 
dramatically, far more than $2.50 an acre. We no longer need incentives 
to get people to move out west, which is why that mining law was 
written. The West, I think, has been settled. Our commitment in this 
country to protect the environment is now extremely intense. It was 
nonexistent 130 years ago when this law was written, in part because 
our natural resources seemed unlimited 130 years ago. I think all of us 
know that is not true anymore.
  Mining technology has changed radically in 130 years. Today a lot 
more land is needed for every ounce of mineral that is extracted. When 
this law was written, an old man with a pony or a mule would ride up 
with his pickax and do his mining on his claim. Today we extract 
hundreds of pounds of rock that is waste. They use cyanide to leach 
through it to get just a tiny amount of gold. Technology has changed 
dramatically.
  No one can stand up and say we should continue to regulate the mining 
industry under the law that was written 130 years ago. Everyone knows 
it is time to make changes. The question is how and when. Do we engage 
in a comprehensive overhaul, or do we do as we have done in this bill 
and just fix the section of the 1872 law that offends the mining 
industry? Do we try to move forward with the 1872 mining law, or do we 
move backwards?

  There is one provision in the 1872 mining law that provides minimal 
protection for the environment and for the taxpayers. When someone 
stakes a mining claim, the law provides that that person can obtain up 
to, but no more than, 5 acres of additional nonmineral land for the 
purpose of dumping mining waste. You would think, given the incredible 
deal that the mining industry is getting on access to public lands, the 
industry would be more than willing to comply with that provision.
  Yet when the mining industry was faced with having to comply with the 
one and only environmental provision of the 1872 mining law, it went 
running to its champions in Congress to change that provision. The 
mining industry says it cannot mine if it is only given 5 acres of 
public land on which to dump its waste. Indeed, it argues, and Senator 
Craig's amendment in this Interior appropriation bill guarantees, the 
mining industry should get as much public land as it desires to dump 
its waste. The contention of the industry as well as the language in 
this bill is that the 5-acre limitation in the 1872 mining law is 
without meaning. They are wrong. The 5-acre provision provides a small 
amount of protection for our public lands, and this Senate should 
retain it.
  The Senate has already done some work on this issue. Senator Gorton 
amended the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that we passed a 
few months ago to exclude a mine in my home State of Washington from 
this 5-acre mill site limitation. Of course, other mining industries 
now want the same good deal. So Senator Craig put a rider on the 
Interior appropriations bill we are now considering, in full committee, 
that completely voids any limitation on mill sites for all current and 
future mining operations.
  We have to ask: Where is the balance? Where is the fairness in this 
limited approach? Where is the fix for the public and their lands to 
this outdated mining law? It is absolutely absent. The sort of reform 
to the 1872 mining law that we are witnessing in this bill is not 
taking us forward but it is taking us backwards.
  The environmental provisions in the mining law should be 
strengthened, not eliminated. Taxpayers should be compensated much more 
by the mining industry rather than being asked to expand the giveaway 
of public lands that we are doing in this bill.
  Senator Gorton's amendment on the supplemental appropriations bill 
and Senator Craig's amendment on the Interior bill give the mining 
industry everything it wants and give the American public larger dumps. 
Companies that paid next to nothing for the public land they are 
mining, $2.50 an acre, are still paying absolutely no royalties and 
dumping more waste rock than ever on our precious public lands.
  I am not going to stand by and let this industry dump waste rock on 
our public lands without limitation and without true compensation. We 
do need comprehensive mining law reform, but until then I am going to 
fight this effort to piecemeal reform, especially piecemeal reform that 
benefits the one side that already enjoys tremendous advantages under 
the current system.
  Let me show Senators a photo of Buckhorn Mountain in Washington 
State. This is the area in Washington State. It is a gorgeous piece of 
public land, our land. This is what it will look like once a mill moves 
forward, from this to this. What does it cost the mining industry to go 
from this to this? Mr. President, $2.50 an acre. They won't have to pay 
for the extra land to dump their rock, the cyanide-leached rock that 
they put there. They won't pay the taxpayers anything, and this is our 
public land. We know we need a mining industry, but if the mining 
industry wants to continue to make profits in this country, then they 
should at least compensate the public for what they are going to do.
  Let me show my colleagues what this area will look like in a few 
years. What will the mining industry pay us for changing it from the 
beautiful photo I showed to this? Just $2.50 an acre. Under this bill 
and under the bill that passed recently, they are going to get as much 
acreage as they want to dump their rocks onto our public lands.
  I want to make some points that I think are worth remembering. The 
mining industry has been very slow to embrace any mining law reform. 
Now that it has encountered a part of the law it doesn't like, it is 
trying to eliminate the one provision that can limit some of the damage 
that has been caused by the mining.
  The mining law permits mining companies to extract gold, silver, 
copper, and other hard rock minerals without paying a cent in royalties 
to the taxpayer. Hard rock mining is the only extractive industry to 
get this benefit. I will show this to my colleagues. Coal pays 8-
percent royalties for underground mining. Hard rock mining, none; they 
pay nothing.
  As we look at this chart, we see that hard rock mining clearly has 
been given a great gift by the taxpayers of this country, and now in 
this bill, we see them wanting more and more public lands. Have they 
negotiated a change to the 1872 mining law in exchange for the more 
land on which they want to dump? No. They are not going to be paying 
any more royalties. They are not going to be paying any more for the 
land. We have simply given it away to all current and future mines in 
this bill.
  Coal, oil, and gas miners all pay 12.5-percent royalties from what 
they take from public lands. Since 1872, taxpayers have given away $240 
billion worth of minerals to the hard rock mining industry. By 
contrast, all Western States collect a royalty or production fee for 
minerals removed from State lands. We are talking Federal lands in this 
bill.

[[Page S9352]]

 Western States collect a royalty or production fee on State lands, 
collecting between 2 and 10 percent on the gross income of mineral 
production. We collect nothing for Federal lands.
  The 1872 mining law is in need of environmental and fiscal reform. 
Congress should not overturn the mill site decision and expand it to 
allow more dumping of mining waste on public lands without getting 
something back. The mill site decision does not halt hard rock mining 
on public lands. I want to make that clear. The mill site decision does 
not halt hard rock mining. Don't believe the false rhetoric you will 
hear about the Solicitor's opinion enforcing a provision of the 1872 
mining law, at the expense of millions of dollars and thousands of 
jobs. That is simply not true. They can pay for it as everybody else 
does if they need more land.
  The Department of the Interior will not enforce the mill site waste 
limitation retroactively. For future mine proposals and mine expansion, 
the limitation will apply. The industry says the mill site decision is 
not consistent with existing law and instead is policy advocacy by the 
Interior Department. I am sure we will hear that from our colleagues. 
That is incorrect. The 1872 mining law clearly limits mill site claims 
to 5 acres for each lode or placer claim. If the industry is so sure of 
its legal position, it can fight the Solicitor's opinion in court.
  For the Record, let me show my colleagues what the law actually says. 
The mill site statute we referred to throughout this debate is right 
here. It says:

       Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is 
     used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for 
     mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground 
     may be embraced and included in an application for a patent 
     for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented 
     therewith.

  And it goes on and it says:
       Such land may be included in application for a patent for 
     such claim, and may be patented therewith subject to the same 
     requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to 
     placers. No location made of such nonmineral land shall 
     exceed five acres.

  That was the law written back in 1872. It is very clear. Five acres. 
It says so right here. If the industry doesn't agree with the 
Solicitor's opinion that this law doesn't say exactly what we have just 
read, they can go to court and fight it. But to come and give this huge 
giveaway to an industry that already receives an awful lot from the 
taxpayers I believe is wrong.
  Clearly, we need to reform the mining law of 1872 and maybe, in fact, 
the mill site limitation needs revision, but not here, not in this way. 
We need to hold hearings and mark up an authorization bill. We ought to 
give the American public time to learn of the issue and revise input. 
If we are going to revise the 1872 law--and we should--we, the 
taxpayers, ought to give something back.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am glad I can join the Senator in her effort to oppose 
section 336. This is an environmental rider that is part of the 
Interior appropriations bill. The administration said that it is 1 of 
the 13 riders--I think there are 9 remaining--which would be the basis 
of a veto of the legislation. I want to make sure the Record is clear 
and ask the Senator from Washington several questions.
  In every instance when she referred to mining, are we talking about 
mining on public land?
  Mrs. MURRAY. We are absolutely referring to mining on our public 
land.
  Mr. DURBIN. So this is land that is owned by all of us, all American 
taxpayers, land that has been purchased or obtained and supervised over 
the years at the expense of Federal taxpayers?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. In 
order to have a claim, you stake your claim on our public lands, lands 
owned by the taxpayers, and then you have the right to go ahead and 
move forward and dig your hard rock, and all you have to pay is $2.50 
an acre.
  Mr. DURBIN. So for $2.50 an acre, these companies--even foreign 
companies--can go to our federally owned, publicly owned lands and they 
can start mining for various minerals of value, is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Now, as I understand the Senator from Washington, you can 
take up to 20 acres for the actual mining of the mineral, and then you 
can use 5 acres under the law, nonadjacent, not connected, for the so-
called mill site.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. That is where they dump the rock they 
have extracted.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator show us the photo of what the mill site 
dumping ground looks like for those who have decided to mine on land 
owned by taxpayers? If you could show us as an example----
  Mrs. MURRAY. This would be one example, I say to the Senator from 
Illinois, of what a dump site looks like. Here is another one we have. 
I will put this up as well. This shows where we have an open pit mine, 
which is what we are talking about, and where the rock is dumped.

  Mr. DURBIN. Let me ask the Senator from Washington, if some company--
and it could be a foreign company--pays $2.50 an acre, they can start 
mining these minerals, and then they can take 5 acres of public land 
and dump all of the rock and waste that is left over after they have 
mined, is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does that company have an obligation under the law, or 
otherwise, to clean up the mess they have left behind?
  Mrs. MURRAY. No, they do not.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is an important point. After they have gotten this 
wonderful deal--$2.50--to go ahead and mine for valuable minerals, they 
then dump on the mill site all of their waste and rock and leave it for 
generations to come--some of those pictures look like a lunar 
landscape--if I understand what the Senator from Washington is saying.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Well, the Senator from Illinois is correct. Currently, 
there are 500,000 more abandoned mines in this country today, and the 
cleanup for that is estimated to be between $32 billion and $72 
billion. That is our money.
  Mr. DURBIN. Do they monitor the dump sites, mill sites, for these 
mines to make sure they don't have at least any environmental danger? 
They are ugly, but are they environmentally dangerous?
  Mrs. MURRAY. In the permanent thinking of mining, those decisions are 
looked at. But once this is there, it becomes abandoned. It falls to 
the taxpayers to have to clean it up.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me ask the Senator from Washington, section 336 of 
this bill, the so-called environmental rider, called a prohibition on 
mill site limitations, if I read this correctly--I would like to read 
it to the Senator from Washington for her response--says:

       The Department of Interior and the Department of 
     Agriculture, and other departments, shall not limit the 
     number or acreage of mill sites based on the ratio between 
     the number or acreage of mill sites and the number or acreage 
     of associated load or placer claims for any fiscal year.

  I want to ask the Senator from Washington, as I read this, the 1872 
mining law put a limitation of five acres on those who mine on our 
Federal lands to use as a dump site for their mill tailings. If I 
understand this environmental rider, this says there is no limitation 
whatsoever--that if this is enacted, these mining companies paying 
$2.50 an acre and literally taking millions of dollars of minerals out 
of our land and not paying us for it can then turn around and dump 
their waste in every direction with no limitation on the number of 
acres they can cover with this waste.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is exactly correct. If we 
allow the language that is in the Interior bill to move through and to 
become law, that is exactly correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Washington the following question. 
It almost boggles the mind that we would be so insensitive to the 
legacy of our generation that we would take beautiful land owned by our 
country which could be visited and used by future generations and turn 
it into a landscape dump site of these mill tailings with absolutely no 
obligation by the company that has made the mess.

  Is that the outcome of this amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The outcome of this amendment is that we will have 
hundreds of acres in this country--maybe thousands of acres--with 
tailings on

[[Page S9353]]

them and cyanide-leached rock left on them, and it will be our 
responsibility to clean it up. And the mining industry will not have 
given us a dime for that.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I understand, if I might ask the Senator from 
Washington, this so-called cyanide leach process--I am not an expert, 
but as I understand it, those who are able to mine on Federal public 
lands bring up the dirt and the rock and then pour some form of cyanide 
over it hoping they will derive down at the bottom of this heap some 
handful of gold, for example.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct. The technology 
that is available today allows mining companies to haul out rock, pour 
cyanide through it, and come up with an ounce of gold. The price of 
gold today allows them to do that. It has been profitable for them. 
Therefore, they take tons of rock, and they are claiming of course that 
they need more acreage for mill sites because it takes so much more 
rock to get a small amount of gold.
  Mr. DURBIN. Am I correct that the Senator from Washington is saying 
that after they have poured the cyanide over the rock and the dirt is 
taken away, they have a handful of gold, and they walk away from the 
mess that is left behind?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. This is 
what it would look like.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me ask the Senator, if we are dealing with a law that 
was written 127 years ago, the obvious question is, Why would they want 
to amend one section to allow these mining companies to befoul so much 
more public land and leave the mess behind after they have taken the 
profits? Why aren't we addressing a wholesale reform or change of this 
mining law so that taxpayers have a fighting chance?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I respond to the Senator from Illinois, I am as baffled 
as he is, that every Senator knows the 1872 mining law needs to be 
reformed. It needs to be reformed in a fair and responsible manner. If, 
indeed, the mining companies need more mill sites, then the taxpayers 
ought to get something in return. In fact, the mill site limitation is 
truly the only part of this law that allows us some control over what 
is left behind because the mining industry did not want to give and 
take, they just took, and got their rider put into this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington to 
compare--I think this really tells an interesting story, too--the 
difference in standards that we apply for those who want to use Federal 
public lands owned by the taxpayers to mine coal and those who want to 
use them for hard rock mining or for other minerals. I am amazed. I 
would like to ask the Senator from Washington if she can tell me why. 
It is my understanding that when it comes to the selection of the 
mining site, there has to be approval by the Bureau of Land Management 
through a leasing process for the mining of coal on Federal lands.
  Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield, I have a chart that shows 
what you do if you are going to mine coal and what you do if you are 
going to mine hard rock. On the selection of the coal mining site, you 
have to get approval through a leasing process under the Mineral 
Leasing Act. In comparison, if you are going to do hard rock mining, 
which we are talking about in this bill, it is self-initiation on the 
location. In the mining law based in 1872, there is no BLM approval 
that is required.

  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator a second point. What a 
giveaway this is--$2.50 an acre. They can literally mine millions of 
dollars' worth of minerals. The amazing thing is, they do not pay the 
taxpayers of this country any percentage for what they bring out.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Washington to compare the mining 
of coal on Federal lands when it comes to royalties to mining under the 
hard rock provisions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct. Coal miners have 
to pay 8 percent for underground mining and 12\1/2\ percent for surface 
mining where hard rock pays none.
  I would think the Senators from States who have coal miners who are 
paying 8 percent would be rushing to the floor and saying: Where is the 
fairness here where you can mine hard rock for gold and pay not one 
dime back to the taxpayers for the use of that public land and for what 
you have extracted from that public land, and yet coal is 12\1/2\ 
percent?
  Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator from Washington aware of the fact that in 
1959 a Danish mining company--not an American company--successfully 
patented public lands in Idaho containing over $1 billion worth of 
minerals and paid the Federal taxpayers $275?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would say to the Senator from Illinois that there are 
a lot of taxpayers out there who would like to earn $1 million and only 
pay $275.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator aware as well that since 1872 there has 
been more than $240 billion of taxpayer subsidies to this mining 
industry?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I was unaware of the figure, but $240 billion in 
subsidies does not surprise me.
  We are saying that if we are going to hand you another giveaway, 
which this bill does, what are you going to give us back? In this bill, 
they give nothing back.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is my understanding correct, I ask the Senator from 
Washington, if you are going to mine coal on public lands, you have to 
have a detailed permitting and reclamation standard filed which says 
you are going to clean up your own mess, but when it comes to hard-rock 
mining you can literally leave your mess behind, from what appears to 
be a very weak standard?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The standard criterion is absolutely correct. If you are 
going to dig coal, you have to have a detailed permitting and 
reclamation standard. But if you are going to mine hard rock, which we 
are talking about in this bill, this giveaway in this bill, you have to 
show reasonable measures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of 
the public land. It is very minimal.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Washington, I am happy to join 
her in this effort. This debate will continue. I am happy to say that 
when she has completed her statement on the subject, I will have some 
other things I would like to add.
  I see the Senator from California on her feet to ask another 
question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. Thank you very much. I ask the Senator from 
Washington to yield for a few questions.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from 
Washington and Senator Durbin from Illinois on the Appropriations 
Committee fighting this antienvironmental rider all the way from the 
day they heard about it. I am just pleased to be here in a supportive 
role.
  The reason I came to the floor is that the Senator from Washington 
has spoken in depth about a particular mine in her State. I want to ask 
her a few questions about a mine in my State, not that I expect her to 
be aware of all of this, but to see if she agrees with some of my 
conclusions on this.
  First, I want to underscore through some questions what the Senator 
from Illinois asked; that is, I say to the Senator from Washington, I 
have learned by listening to this debate that when one mines for coal, 
there is in fact a royalty payment due to the Federal taxpayer. Is that 
correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. If you are 
mining for coal, you have to pay 8 percent for underground mining and 
12\1/2\ percent for surface mining. That is royalty that you pay back 
to the taxpayers for the use of that land.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it kind of like a rent payment? You go onto Federal 
land, and for that privilege you pay a percentage of the value of the 
coal that is mined and extracted from that land. Is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. If the Senator from California 
had a mine and wanted to go in and dig coal out of our public lands, 
she would have to pay the public back something for that coal. It is 
ours, after all. But if you are going to dig for gold, hard rock 
mining, you do not have to give us anything back.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is the Senator aware--I know she is because she is 
working with me on this issue, too--that if an oil company finds oil on 
Federal land, they must pay a royalty payment as well? Is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is well aware that when you

[[Page S9354]]

extract oil, you pay a royalty; you pay us, the public, who owns the 
lands, something back.
  Mrs. BOXER. As a matter of fact, the Senator knows, because she is 
helping me on this, as is the Senator from Illinois, we have problems 
with some of the large oil companies. We don't believe they are paying 
their fair share of oil royalties, but at least they are paying some 
royalties.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. She may not 
agree they are paying enough, but they are paying something. Under the 
current mining laws in this country, hardrock mining pays nothing back 
to the taxpayers.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it not further the case the Senator from Washington is 
not suggesting that there be any royalty payment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am only suggesting, I say to my colleague, that if in 
this bill we are blatantly going to give them use of our public lands 
far in addition to what they have had before, they give the public 
something back. Maybe we should negotiate that in terms of royalties; 
maybe it should be in a higher percentage that they pay the public; 
maybe it should be in the requirement that they clean up the land that 
they have left behind.
  Certainly we should get something back for our public lands rather 
than what we have done in this bill, which is to just give them more of 
our land.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right now, what these hardrock miners want to do is 
ignore the 1872 mining law. Is it not a fact that in this bill we agree 
with those mining companies that they can use as much land as they may 
choose for the waste that comes out of these mines?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I say to my colleague, what has occurred is that the 
technology for taking rock out and getting just a little bit of gold 
has changed dramatically. The mining companies who used to be able to 
get by on five acres can no longer get by on five acres. They want a 
lot more. Instead of negotiating with Congress to pay something back 
for additional shares, they are saying, no, in this provision in this 
bill, we have given it away to them for nothing else.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend, because she is the expert on this, if 
she thinks my description is a good description of why they seem to 
need so much more land for their waste. From the cyanide leach mine 
pits, piled hundreds of feet high, over an area of several football 
fields, is a cyanide solution that is sprinkled over the piles. The 
cyanide, which is poison, trickles down through the ore, chemically 
combines with the gold and ore, and collects and pools at the base of 
the piles. The gold is stripped from the cyanide solution, but the 
cyanide solution is left on the site.
  That is what is so contentious. We have poisoned and dumped on 
beautiful Federal lands. In this bill, we say: Amen; continue to do it. 
My friend from Washington is trying to say no to that environmental 
degradation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California gives a very accurate 
description. Yes, maybe we need gold. We all know there are reasons to 
have gold. But if the mining companies are going to extract that rock 
and use cyanide leach, and need more acreage for the dumped rock with 
cyanide on it, they should pay something back. We should not give it 
away in the bill. That is what we have done.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a last question, and I don't expect the Senator to 
know about this particular proposal, but hopefully she can respond to 
this. In southern Imperial County, CA, a Canadian mining company called 
Glamis Imperial proposes to build a massive, open pit, cyanide heap 
leach mine, the kind I have described in my question to the Senator 
from Washington.

  I want the Senator to know how much the people of California treasure 
their environment, particularly in these areas where we have Native 
Americans who have very serious tribal concerns over this area. When 
she fights for the environment in this way, it is not just for the 
precious State she represents so well, but it is for many other States, 
including California.
  My question is, is my friend aware at the reach and breadth of the 
fight she is waging?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the comments from the Senator from 
California. There are mines in her State as well as many other States 
where this amendment will simply allow acres and acres of mill site 
waste to be dumped, with nothing back to the taxpayers.
  I hope my colleagues will support me when I offer the amendment to 
strike the language in this bill, and I hope, as a Congress, we do what 
we should have done so long ago, which is to look at the 1872 mining 
law. If the mining companies, indeed, do need more dump sites, ask what 
we get in return. We should have a fair debate on the mining law. It 
should not just be in this Interior bill which comes to us at 5 
o'clock, when we need to pass a tax bill that we want to start on 
tomorrow and everybody wants to finish tomorrow, forcing a bill to pass 
with a huge giveaway. Let's give something back, make sure we have 
responsible mining reform, and make sure we do it right for the 
taxpayers who deserve a lot better.
  I appreciate the questions from the Senator from California. I will 
be offering my amendment in a short while. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment on behalf of the environment, on behalf of the 
taxpayers, on behalf of what is right and fair for people who pay their 
taxes every day, for other industries to pay their royalties, to pay a 
fair share. Let's do the mining reform law correctly.
  I thank my colleagues. I know the Senator from Illinois wants to 
discuss this, and I see the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1359

  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], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1359.

  Mr. GORTON. 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 79, line 19 of the bill, strike ``under this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following: ``under this or any other Act.''

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is merely a technical amendment sent 
up simply so Members proposing amendments should ask to have it set 
aside. We will proceed in a more orderly manner in that fashion.
  I expected the Senator from Washington to make a motion to strike. If 
she wishes to do so now, there will be an amendment to that, and we can 
complete this debate. If she does not wish to do so, the Senator from 
New Hampshire is prepared to offer an amendment on which there could be 
a vote probably in an hour or so.
  Does the Senator from Washington wish to make a motion to strike or 
some other motion at the present time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do intend to offer this amendment. My 
colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, desires to speak first and 
then I will.
  Mr. GORTON. There is plenty of time to speak after the amendments are 
before the Senate. If the Senator, my colleague from Washington, wishes 
to make a motion to strike now, I will yield the floor for her to do 
so. If she does not, I suggest we go on to an amendment we can deal 
with right away.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if my colleague from Washington State 
will yield for a question.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We want to make sure that all the Members on the other 
side who wish to speak on this are ready to do so.
  Mr. GORTON. There will be no limitation on debate until the amendment 
is agreed on both sides.
  Mrs. MURRAY. With that understanding, I am happy to offer my 
amendment at this time.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1360

  (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to millsite limitations)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside.

[[Page S9355]]

  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Durbin, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 1360.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 122, strike lines 1 through 15.


                           Amendment No. 1361

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Craig, 
     and Mr. Bryan, propose an amendment numbered 1361 to the 
     language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 1360.

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

       In lieu of the language proposed to be stricken, insert:

     SEC.   . MILLSITES OPINION.

       (a) Prohibition on Millsite Limitations.--Notwithstanding 
     the opinion dated November 7, 1997, by the Solicitor of the 
     Department of the Interior concerning millsites under the 
     general mining law (referred to in this section as the 
     ``opinion''), in accordance with the millsite provisions of 
     the Bureau of Land Management's Manual Sec. 3864.1.B (dated 
     1991), the Bureau of Land Management Handbook for Mineral 
     Examiners H-3890-1, page III-8 (dated 1989), and section 
     2811.33 of the Forest Service Manual (dated 1990), the 
     Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture 
     shall not, for any fiscal year, limit the number or acreage 
     of millsites based on the ratio between the number or acreage 
     of millsites and the number or acreage of associated lode or 
     placer claims with respect to any patent application 
     grandfathered pursuant to Section 312 of this Interior 
     Appropriations Act of __; any operation or property for which 
     a plan of operations has been previously approved; any 
     operation or property for which a plan of operations has been 
     submitted to the Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service 
     prior to October 1, 2000; or any subsequent amendment or 
     modification to such approved or submitted plans.
       (b) No Ratification.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     constructed as an explicit or tacit adoption, ratification, 
     endorsement or approval of the opinion.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I simply want to say I have every 
understanding of the consternation and the concern of my friends from 
Washington, California, and Illinois about the state of mining in 
America. They have concerns that should be raised. They have concerns 
that have been raised. However, this very narrow issue is being talked 
around.
  The fact of the matter is, the picture that my friend from Washington 
held up, a beautiful mountain area in Washington, has nothing to do 
with what we are talking about tonight.
  The fact is the pictures she showed were pictures from some other 
mining operation that probably took place at least 60 years ago.
  Let's take, for example, a mine that is right over the Nevada border 
in California. It is called Viceroy Gold. It is in the State of the 
Senator from California, but it is a mine that is very close to the 
people of the State of Nevada. It is a short distance from the place I 
was born, Searchlight, NV. It took $80 million to get that operation in 
a situation where it could be mined. It started out as an old mine and 
was originally called Big Chief Mine around the turn of the century. 
After spending $80 million, this mine was developed. It is an open-pit 
mine.
  I invite everyone to look at that mine because part of the 
requirements of being allowed to mine there is the land has to be 
reclaimed. This is an area where they have Joshua trees and some small 
cedar trees, lots of sagebrush. They have a nursery. When they decide 
to take some ore, some muck, some dirt out of the ground, they take the 
trees that are where this open-pit mine is going to be, and they save 
them. When that area is mined out, they have to reclaim the land. They 
fill it up and replant these trees. That is going on right now.
  That mine only has about a 2-year life left. When the mine is 
finished, the land will look like it did before. That is one of the 
requirements. They put up a big bond which makes that necessary. It is 
not a question of they do it because they like to do it; they do it 
because that is a requirement of the State of California that they 
replace the land the way it used to be.
  It is good to do all these scary pictures about mining. My father was 
a miner, and if my father thought there was gold under my desk, he 
would dig a hole. That is the way he used to do things. But you cannot 
do that anymore. There are requirements that say you cannot do that.

  I say to my friends from the State of Illinois, from the State of 
California, and the State of Washington, I have tried to change the 
1872 mining law. We have been trying to do that for 10 or 12 years. We 
offered legislation to change that. We have been as far as conference 
to change it, but it is never quite good enough. No one is willing to 
go 50 yards; they want to go 100 yards.
  I have always said: Let's change it; let's do it incrementally. It is 
similar to the Endangered Species Act in which I believe. People want 
to rewrite the Endangered Species Act totally. It will never happen. We 
are going to have to do it piece by piece.
  Superfund legislation: I believe in the Superfund legislation. We are 
never going to reauthorize Superfund totally. We need to do it piece by 
piece. That is what we need to do with this mining law.
  What are we talking about? Secretary Bruce Babbitt is only going to 
be Secretary of the Interior for another year and a half. He is not 
willing to go through the legislative process. What he wants to do is 
legislate at the Department of Interior, down at 16th Street or 14th 
Street, wherever it is. He is legislating down there, and he has 
admitted it.
  Secretary Babbitt has indicated he is proud of his procedure and 
proud of the way he is doing it. This is what he has said:

       . . . We've switched the rules of the game. We're not 
     trying to do anything legislatively.

  Here is what else he says:

       One of the hardest things to divine is the intent of 
     Congress because most of the time . . . legislation is put 
     together usually in a kind of a House/Senate kind of thing 
     where it's [a bunch of] munchkins . . .

  The munchkins, Mr. President, are you and me. He may not like that, 
but I think rather than taking an appointment from the President, he 
should do as the First Lady and run for the Senate and see if he can 
get it changed faster.
  Our country is set up with three separate but equal branches of 
Government. The executive branch of Government does not have the right 
to legislate. It is as simple as that. What has been done in this 
instance is legislating. That is wrong.
  What we are doing--and that is what this debate is all about--is not 
changing anything. We are putting it back the way it was before he 
wrote this opinion--he did not write it; some lawyer in his office 
wrote it--overturning a law of more than 100 years.
  All these pictures are not the issue at point. I do not think any of 
my colleagues will agree that President Clinton or any of his Cabinet 
officers or anybody in the executive branch of Government have the 
legal ability to write laws. That is our responsibility, and that is 
what this debate is about today.
  I recognize the 1872 mining law needs to be changed. Let's do it. I 
am not debating the fact that it needs to be changed. I have offered 
legislation at the committee level and the conference level to change 
the amount of money that mining companies pay when they get a patent. 
We all agree that should be done, but they do not want to do it because 
it takes away a great piece of argument they have: You can get land for 
$5 an acre.

  We have agreed to change it. It has been in conference where we said: 
If you go through all the procedures to get a patent, then you should 
pay fair market value for the land. We agree. Let's do it.
  They keep berating these mining companies. Mining is in a very 
difficult time right now. The price of gold is around $250. Yesterday, 
the press reported that a company from a little town in Nevada called 
Battle Mountain in Lander County laid off 200 more workers. That little 
community has had a little bar and casino for some 60 years. That just 
closed. Mining is in very difficult shape.

[[Page S9356]]

  I say to my friends who care about working men and women in this 
country, the highest paid blue collar workers in America are miners. I 
repeat: The highest paid blue collar workers in America are miners. 
They are being laid off because mining companies cannot proceed as they 
have with these jobs when the gold price has dropped $150 an ounce. It 
went from almost $400 to $250. They are really struggling. England just 
sold I do not know how many tons of gold. The IMF is threatening to 
sell gold. Switzerland is talking about selling gold.
  Mining companies are having a difficult time maintaining. One of the 
largest mining companies in Nevada--the State of Nevada is the third 
largest producer of gold in the world. South Africa and Australia lead 
Nevada. We produce a lot of gold, but the confidence of the mining 
industry has been shaken tremendously. It is getting more and more 
difficult to make these mines profitable.
  One mining company in Nevada, a very large company, has had two 
successive years of tremendous losses. We have one mining company that 
still has some profits, the reason being that they sold into the 
future. They are still being paid on a high price of gold which the 
free market does not support.
  I say to my friends, let's change the mining law. All we are trying 
to do, I repeat, is not let Secretary Bruce Babbitt legislate. That is 
what he did. All this does is take the law back to the way it existed.
  I heard my friend from Washington say: Why don't the mining 
companies--I may have the wrong word; ``dialog'' is not the word she 
used--have some dealings with Congress? They have tried. We are trying 
to come up with legislation on which we should all agree.
  I hope my friends, for whom I have the deepest respect, understand 
this is a very narrow issue. I do not mind all the speeches. My friend 
from California, my friend from Washington, and my friend from Illinois 
are some of the most articulate people in the Senate. They have great 
records on the environment. My record on the environment is second to 
no one. I acknowledge I have defended the mining industry in this 
Chamber for many years, and I will continue to do so. I want everyone 
to understand I have tried to be reasonable on this issue, at least 
that is according to through whose eyes you look. I have tried to be 
reasonable on this issue before us today.
  Also, I have tried to be reasonable on the mining issue generally. As 
my friends will acknowledge, in the subcommittee I offered a very 
minimal amendment. It was broadened in the full committee, which is 
fine. But what I have done, along with Senators Bryan and Craig, is 
tried to change what was done in the full committee.
  I think what we have done is reasonable. I tell my friends, 
basically, here is what it says. It says Babbitt's opinion does not 
apply to mining operations that are now ongoing and mining operations 
that are ongoing that need additional mill sites. It does not apply to 
new applications. I think that is fair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. In a second.
  I think it is fair. I say to my friends, I think it should not apply 
to anything because I think the opinion is worthless and does not have 
any meat on its bones. I do not think the Solicitor has any right to 
offer the opinion that he did. But I think this amendment is an effort 
to kind of calm things down, to compromise things. I say to my friends, 
if you want the law changed, let's change it. I am happy to work with 
you.
  I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the Senator yielding for a question because 
the Senator has a second-degree to my amendment that strikes the 
language. I understand the Senator from Nevada would like to find a 
compromise, but the language of the second-degree says that:

       . . .any operation or property for which a plan of 
     operations has been previously approved; any operation or 
     property for which a plan of operations has been submitted to 
     the Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service prior to 
     October 1, 2000; or any subsequent amendment or modification 
     to such approved or submitted plans.

  To me, it says that leaves the door open for any future, not just 
current, mine.
  Mr. REID. We can even talk about the effective date of this 
legislation. But the intent of the amendment is to protect those 
operations that are now ongoing. Secretary Babbitt has written a letter 
to me--that is part of the record of the committee--saying that mining 
operations that are now in effect would not be harmed by his 
Solicitor's opinion. What this amendment does is go one step further 
and say, not only the mining operations that are now in effect but 
those that are ever in effect that have filed a plan of operation to 
expand would also be protected.
  So that is really the intent of the amendment.
  I say to my friends, don't beat up on the mining industry. They 
supply good jobs. We are willing to change the law. I do not know if 
any of my friends are on the committee of jurisdiction, the Natural 
Resources Committee. I am not. I would be happy to work with you in any 
way I can, as I have indicated on at least one other occasion tonight.
  We have tried. We have had legislation that dramatically changes the 
1872 mining law that has gotten as far as the conference between the 
House and Senate, but it was not good enough. We have made absolutely 
no changes in the law since I have been in the Senate, going on 13 
years. I want to make changes. There aren't too many people who are not 
willing to make changes.

  So I would hope we could tone down the bashing of the mining 
companies. They supply jobs. They are not trying to rape the 
environment. Under the rules that are now in effect, if they wanted to, 
it would be very hard to do.
  In the place where I was raised, we have hundreds of holes in the 
ground, created in the years when mining took place there. There are a 
lot of abandoned mines we need to take care of. There are laws in 
effect.
  In the State of Nevada you have to have fences around some of the 
holes so people do not ride motorcycles into them or do things of that 
nature. Abandoned mines that create a harm to the environment, we need 
to clean them up. I am willing to work harder to have money to do that. 
But let's limit what we are talking about to the harm that has already 
been done. Certainly we have a right to do anything legislatively we 
need to do to protect harm from happening in the future. That is what I 
am willing to do.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  I ask unanimous consent that Mike Haske, a congressional fellow in my 
office, be granted privileges of the floor during the pendency of S. 
1292.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Chair would indulge me for a second.
  I apologize to my friend from Illinois who I understand wants the 
floor.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to make a quick unanimous consent 
request.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  I ask unanimous consent that Sean Marsan and Liz Gelfer, both on 
detail to the Appropriations Committee staff, and Kari Vander Stoep of 
my personal staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 
debate on the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Clarifications To Senate Committee Report No. 106-99

  Mr. GORTON. I note for the Record technical clarifications to the 
committee report:
  On page 37 of the report, the section of the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act that is cited should be section 1306(a), not 
section 1307(a).
  In the last paragraph on page 13 of the report, the reference to the 
``Las Vegas Water Authority'' is an error. The language should have 
referred to the ``Las Vegas Valley Water District.''
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I rise in opposition to the motion that has been filed by 
the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, on behalf of himself, Senator Craig, 
and Senator Bryan.

[[Page S9357]]

  As I read the amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from 
Nevada, there is virtually no change in the original language offered 
by Senator Craig.

  What the Senator from Nevada seeks to do is to say those mining 
operations currently in operation, those which have the plans of 
operations submitted to the Bureau of Land Management prior to October 
1 of the year 2000, will not be subject to limitation on the acreage 
that can be used for their dumping of their mill site. I would suggest 
to the Senator from Nevada it is a slightly different approach, but the 
net impact is the same.
  I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Nevada. I understand 
his knowledge and familiarity with this subject is certainly far better 
than my own. But I can tell the Senator, if he drives across my home 
area in down State Illinois, he will see the legacy of mining which we 
continue to live with.
  In years gone by, in the State of Illinois, and many other States, 
mining companies literally took to the land, extracted whatever was 
valuable, and left the mess behind for future generations. You can see 
it, not only in the areas where we had shaft mining, but you have on 
our prairies small mountains of what was left behind, often toxic in 
nature, that now have to be reclaimed by today's taxpayers. Or you 
might visit Fulton County or southern Illinois and find areas that were 
strip mined. What is left behind is horrible. It is scrub trees, 
standing lakes, but, frankly, uninhabitable and unusable--left behind 
by a mining industry that had one motive: Profit.
  It is interesting to me this debate really focuses on a law which was 
written 127 years ago. Not a single Member of the Senate would suggest 
that our sensitivity to environmental issues is the same today as it 
was 127 years ago. We know better. If you want to mine coal in Illinois 
today, you are held to high standards. The same is true in virtually 
every State in the Union. You can no longer come in and plunder the 
land, take out the wealth from it, and leave behind this legacy of 
rubbish and waste, this lunar landscape. That is today. That is the 
20th century. That is 1999.
  But when it comes to hard rock mining, we are driven and guided by a 
law that is 127 years old. It is interesting that the hard rock mining 
industry has not really worked hard to bring about a real reform of the 
law. I think that has a lot to do with the fact they have a pretty 
sweet deal.
  For $2.50 an acre, they can take taxpayers' land--owned by 
Americans--and use it for their own profit, leaving their waste and 
mess behind, and move on.
  For hundreds of dollars, they can extract millions of dollars of 
minerals and not pay the taxpayers a penny.
  The Senator from Nevada says: Don't beat up on the mining industry. I 
think that is a fair admonition. I don't believe we should beat up on 
the environment either. We certainly shouldn't beat up on taxpayers. 
The 1872 mining law does just that.

  What is this all about? You will undoubtedly hear in a few minutes 
from the Senator from Idaho and others that some bureaucrat in the 
Department of the Interior in November of 1997 took it upon himself to 
decide what the law would be and all this amendment is about is to try 
to say to that bureaucrat: It is none of your business. We will decide 
how many acres you can use to dump your waste after you have mined on 
Federal land.
  What is it all about? On November 7, 1997, the solicitor of the 
Department of Interior, Mr. Leshy, issued an opinion enforcing a 
provision of the 1872 mining law which restricts the amount of public 
land that can be used to dump waste from hard rock mines.
  Now, some of those who support this amendment believe that the 1872 
mining law is open to interpretation. Interestingly enough, the other 
body, the House of Representatives, by a margin of almost 100 Members, 
said that that interpretation is wrong. They go along with the position 
supported by the Senator from Washington and myself. With respect to 
mill site claims, the law states: ``No location made on and after May 
10, 1872, shall exceed 5 acres.'' The law allows one 5-acre mill site 
claim per mineral claim. It means that if you buy, at $2.50 an acre or 
$5 an acre, the right to mine for these minerals, you can only use a 5-
acre plot to dump your waste on the so-called mill site.
  The effect of the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada and 
the Senator from Idaho is to say: No, you can dump on as many acres as 
you want to, unlimited. Go ahead and leave the waste behind. Let the 
taxpayers in future generations worry about the environmental impact 
and what it does visually to America's landscape.
  The Leshy opinion in 1997 simply reaffirms the plain language of the 
law and prior interpretations by Congress and by the mining industry.
  I have in my hand citations of the mill site limitations under the 
1872 mining law. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed as part 
of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Millsite Limits Under the 1872 Mining Law

       1872--Mining Law enacted, stating: ``no location [of a 
     millsite] shall exceed five acres.'' 30 U.S.C. Sec. 42(a).
       1872--One month later, General Land Office issues 
     regulation stating: ``The law expressly limits mill-site 
     locations made from and after its passage to five acres .  .  
     .'' Mining Regulations Sec. 91, June 10, 1872, Copp, U.S. 
     Mining Decisions 270, 292 (1874) (emphasis in original).
       1884--Secretary of the Interior rules in J.B. Hoggin, 2 
     L.D. 755, that more than one millsite may be patented with a 
     lode claim, provided that the aggregate is not more than five 
     acres.
       1891--Secretary of the Interior rules in Hecla Consolidated 
     Mining, 12 L.D. 75, that the Mining Law ``expressly limits 
     the amount of land to be taken in connection with a mill to 
     five acres.''
       1891--Acting Secretary of the Interior rules in Mint Lode 
     and Mill Site, 12 L.D. 624, that the Mining Law ``evidently 
     intends to give to each operator of a lode claim, a tract of 
     land, not exceeding five acres in extent, for the purpose of 
     conducting mining or milling operations thereon, in 
     connection with such lode.''
       1903--Acting Secretary of the Interior rules in Alaska 
     Copper Co., 32 L.D. 128, that the ``manifest purpose [of the 
     millsite provision of the Mining Law] is to permit the 
     proprietor of a lode mining claim to acquire a small tract of 
     . . . land as directly auxiliary to the prosecution of active 
     mining operations upon his lode claim, or for the erection of 
     a quartz mill. . . . The area of such additional tract is by 
     the terms of the statute restricted to five acres as 
     obviously ample for either purpose.''
       1914--Curtis H. Lindley writes in the third edition of his 
     oft-cited treatise Lindley on Mines, Sec. 520, that a ``lode 
     proprietor may select more than one tract [for a millsite] if 
     the aggregate does not exceed five acres.''
       1955--Denver mining attorney John W. Shireman writes in the 
     First Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute that ``Each 
     lode claim is entitled to one mill site for use in connection 
     therewith . . .'' Shireman, ``Mining Location Procedures,'' 1 
     Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 307, 321 (1955).
       1960--Congress amends the Mining Law to allow location of 
     millsites in connection with placer claims. In its report on 
     the bill, the Senate Interior Committee explained that it had 
     modified the language of the bill ``so as to impose a limit 
     of one 5-acre millsite in any individual case preventing the 
     location of a series of 5-acre millsites in cases where a 
     single claim is jointly owned by several persons. . . . In 
     essence, [the bill] merely grants to holders of placer claims 
     the same rights to locate a 5-acre millsite as has been the 
     case since 1872 in respect to holders of lode claims . . .'' 
     S. Rep. No. 904, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2.
       1960--The first edition of American Law of Mining (which is 
     written primarily by attorneys for the mining industry) 
     states: ``A mill site may, if necessary for the claimant's 
     mining or milling purposes, consist of more than one tract of 
     land, provided that it does not exceed five acres in the 
     aggregate.'' 1 Am. L. Mining Sec. 5.35 (1960).
       1968--The American Mining Congress (the leading trade 
     association for the mining industry) presents the following 
     argument for mining law reform to the Public Land Law Review 
     Commission:
       ``When the mining laws were enacted in 1872, provision was 
     made for the acquisition of five-acre millsites to be used 
     for plant facilities on mining claims. The typical mine then 
     was a high-grade lode or vein deposit from which ores were 
     removed by underground mining. The surface plant was usually 
     relatively small, and acquisition of five-acre millsites in 
     addition to the surface of mining clams . . . adequately 
     served the needs of the mines. . . .
       ``Today, the situation is frequently different. . . . A 
     mine having 500 acres of mining claims may, for example, 
     require 5000 acres for surface plant facilities and waste 
     disposal areas. It is obvious that such activities may not be 
     acquired through five-acre millsites.''--American Mining 
     Congress, The Mining Law and Public Lands, at 29 January 11, 
     1968).
       1970--An analysis of the Mining Law prepared for the Public 
     Land Law Review Commission by Twitty, Sievwright & Mills (a 
     Phoenix, Ariz. law firm that represents the mining industry) 
     closely tracked the argument by the American Mining Congress 
     two years earlier:

[[Page S9358]]

       ``When the mining laws were enacted in 1872, provision was 
     made for the acquisition of five-acre mill sites to be used 
     for mining or milling purposes. The typical mine then was a 
     high-grade lode or vein deposit from which ore was removed by 
     underground mining. The surface plant was usually relatively 
     small, and the surface of the mining claims together with the 
     incident mill sites adequately served the needs of the mines 
     for plant facilities and waste disposal areas.
       ``Today, the situation is frequently different. The high-
     grade underground mines have, for the most part, been mined 
     out. Open pit rather than underground mining is, with 
     increasing frequency, the most economical way to mine the 
     low-grade deposits which now comprise a major portion of 
     the reserves of many minerals. The mining industry now 
     relies on mechanization, the handling of large tonnages of 
     overburden and ores and the utilization of large surface 
     plants in order to keep costs down so that these low-grade 
     deposits may be mined and treated at a profit. Such mining 
     operations require not only substantial areas for plant 
     facilities, but much larger ares than formerly for the 
     disposal of overburden and mill tailings. The surface 
     areas of mining claims and mill sites are no longer 
     adequate for such purposes. * * *
       ``If a mineral deposit is partially or entirely surrounded 
     by the public domain, the acquisition of adjacent nonmineral 
     land from the United States for necessary facilities is now 
     frequently extremely difficult because the laws do not 
     provide a satisfactory way to make these acquisitions. Small 
     areas may be acquired as mill sites, and in certain 
     instances, if the lands meet the statutory requirement as 
     isolated or disconnected tracts, larger acreages may be 
     acquired at public auction. Mining companies planning large 
     mining operations have been obliged to meet their needs for 
     nonmineral lands by obtaining the necessary lands by other 
     means.''
       Twitty, Sievwright & Mills, ``Nonfuel Mineral Resources of 
     the Public Lands; A Study Prepared for the Public Land Law 
     Review Commission,'' (Dec. 1970), at vol. 3, pp. 1047-48 
     (emphasis added).
       The Twitty, Sievwright study also states: ``Under the first 
     clause of subsection (a) of [30 U.S.C. Sec. 42], each lode 
     claimant is allowed, in addition to his lode claim, five 
     acres of land to be used for mining or milling purposes.'' 
     Id. at vol. 2, p. 323.
       1974--the Interior Board of Land Appeals rules in United 
     States v. Swanson, 14 IBLA 158, 173-74, that:
  [A millsite] claimant is entitled to receive only that amount of land 
needed for his mining and milling operations, and this amount can 
embrace a tract of less than five acres. The statute states that the 
location shall not ``exceed five acres.'' . . . The reference to five 
acres in the statute is clearly a ceiling measure, not an absolute, 
automatic grant.''
       1977--Salt Lake City mining attorneys Clayton J. Parr and 
     Dale A. Kimball write that ``Theoretically, one five-acre 
     millsite can be acquired for each valid mining claim.'' Parr 
     & Kimball, ``Acquisition of Non-Mineral Land for Mine Related 
     Purposes,'' 23 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 595, 641-42 (1977).
       1979--In an analysis of federal mining law, the 
     Congressional Office of Technology Assessment states:
       ``[I]t is highly doubtful that [millsites] could satisfy 
     all the demands for surface space.There could be at most as 
     many millsites as there are mining claims, and each milliste 
     would be at most one-fourth the size of the typical 20-acre 
     claim, so that the millsites, in the aggregate, would be one-
     fourth the size of the ore body encompassed by the claims.''
       Office of Technology Assessment, Management of Fuel and 
     Nonfuel Minerals in Federal Land, at 127 (April 1979).
       1984--In the second edition of American Law of Mining, 
     Patrick J. Garver of the Salt Lake City law firm Parsons, 
     Behle & Latimer (Mr. Garver is now executive vice-president 
     of Barrick Gold Corp.) writes: ``Uncertainty also surrounds 
     the issue of the amount of land that may be used by millsite 
     claimants.'' 4 Am. L. Mining, Sec. 110.03[4] (2d ed. 1984).
       1984--Salt Lake City mining attorneys Clayton J. Parr and 
     Robert G. Holt write in the second edition of American Law of 
     Mining: ``Because of the relatively uncertain tenure of mill 
     site claims, few miners choose mill sites as a location for 
     permanent mining support facilities.'' 4 Am L. Mining 
     Sec. 110.03[1].
       1987--In the revised second edition of American Law of 
     Mining, Phoenix mining attorneys Jerry L. Haggard and Daniel 
     L. Muchow write:
       ``The acquisition of federal lands or interests therein by 
     means other than the locating of mining claims or mill sites 
     is sometimes necessary to provide the additional ground 
     needed for a planned mining operation. The restraints on the 
     number and sizes of mill site claims can limit their 
     usefulness as a land acquisition method.''--4 Am. L. Mining, 
     Sec. 111.01 (2d ed. rev. 1987).
       1997--Solicitor of the Department of the Interior John D. 
     Leshy issues opinion titled ``Limitations on Patenting 
     Millsites Under the Mining Law of 1872.''

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  I have quoted the specific words from the mining law of 1872. I can 
tell Senators that year after year, the 5-acre limitation was restated. 
There is nothing new about it. In 1872, again, the General Land Office 
refers to the law expressly limiting mill site locations made from and 
after its passage to 5 acres.
  Twelve years later, in 1884, Secretary of the Interior J.B. Hoggin 
provided that the aggregate for lode claims is not more than 5 acres. 
In 1891, similar references; 1903, the same reference is made by the 
Acting Secretary of the Interior; the area of such additional tract is, 
by the terms of the statute, restricted to 5 acres. He goes on. In 
1914, a treatise on mining by a gentleman named Curtis Lindley:

       Lode proprietors may select one tract per mill site if the 
     aggregate does not exceed 5 acres.

  In 1955, Denver mining attorney John Shireman writes in the First 
Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute:

       Each lode claim is entitled to 1 mill site for use in 
     connection therewith.

  In 1960, Congress amended the mining law to allow location of mill 
sites in connection with placer claims. In its report on the bill, the 
Senate Interior Committee explained that it modified the language of 
the bill ``so as to impose a limit of one 5-acre mill site in any 
individual case, preventing the location of a series of 5-acre mill 
sites.''
  The references go on and on. The American Mining Congress has 
acknowledged the 5-acre limitation, and of course the branches of 
government have done the same.
  What is in dispute here is, in the minds of a few Senators and the 
mining industry, the mining process has changed. They want to be able 
to use more acreage to dump what is left over from this mining process.
  It is interesting that the mining industry is so confident that a 
court would hold up the 5-acre limitation that they have not in any way 
tested the solicitor's decision in court. They would rather find their 
friends here in the Senate. That opinion was issued by the solicitor 
almost 2 years ago.
  You will hear a lot of comment--I have heard it in committee--that 
what Mr. Leshy did in this situation was unfair, illegal, and we are 
going to stop this bureaucrat from overreaching.
  The obvious question is, If it is so unfair and illegal on its face, 
why didn't the mining industry go to court? They didn't go to court. 
They went to Congress because they know that their interpretation, 
their opposition to Mr. Leshy, can't stand up in court.
  The Craig rider and now the Reid amendment will allow more dumping of 
toxic mining waste on public lands and undermine efforts to reform the 
last American dinosaur, the 1872 mining law.
  What can we find in this mined waste? Lead, arsenic, cadmium, in 
addition to heavy metals. Because of irresponsible mining practices and 
poor regulation, the mining industry has left behind a legacy of 
557,000 abandoned mines in 32 different States. The cost of cleaning up 
these sites is estimated to be between $32 billion and $72 billion. 
According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, mining has contaminated more 
than 12,000 miles of rivers and streams and 180,000 acres of lakes in 
the United States.
  Let me speak for a moment about the environmental damage. For those 
who say this is an industry which, frankly, may not cause environmental 
damage, I hope they will listen closely to what I am about to say: 
16,000 abandoned hard rock mine sites have surface and ground water 
contamination problems that seriously degrade the water around them--
16,000 of them. Over 60 of these abandoned hard rock mines pose such 
severe threats to public health and safety that the EPA has listed them 
as Superfund priority sites.
  There are two or three things that I found incredible that I want to 
share and make a part of the Record.
  Each year the mining industry creates nine times more waste than all 
of the municipal solid waste generated and discarded by all of the 
cities in the United States of America. In 1987, mines in the United 
States dumped 1.7 billion tons of solid waste onto our land while the 
total municipal solid waste from all cities in America totaled 180 
million tons.
  The second point--and this is hard to believe--each year the hard 
rock mining industry generates approximately

[[Page S9359]]

the same amount of hazardous waste as all other U.S. industries 
combined --one industry, hard rock mining, generating the same amount 
of hazardous waste as all other U.S. industries combined. You would 
think when you listen to the arguments from those who would make this 
dumping unlimited that this is somehow a passive thing, that it is no 
threat to the environment.
  According to the EPA, the U.S. hard rock mining industry generated 
approximately 61 million tons of hazardous waste in 1985 compared to 61 
million metric tons for all other American industries. And what the 
Craig and Reid amendment says is, for this dangerous waste, we will now 
give to the mining companies an unlimited landscape of taxpayer-owned 
land to dump it.
  Although the mining industry claims that modern mines employ state-
of-the-art technology that prevents contamination, it is not 
consistently used or managed properly. Some have said our references to 
contamination are ancient. In 1995, reporting to Congress on mine 
waste, the EPA stated not only had past mining activities created a 
major waste problem, but some of the very waste practices that 
contributed to these problems were still being used by the mining 
industry.
  What kind of mining pollution? Acid mine drainage generated when rock 
which contains sulfide minerals reacts with water and oxygen to create 
sulfuric acid. Iron pyrite, fool's gold, is the most common rock type 
that reacts to form acid mine drainage. Acid leached from the rock 
severely degrades water quality, killing aquatic life and making water 
virtually unusable.
  Second, heavy metal contamination is caused when metals such as 
arsenic, cobalt, copper, cadmium, lead, silver, or zinc contained in 
excavated rock or exposed in an underground mine come in contact with 
water. Heavy metals, even in trace amounts, can be toxic to humans and 
wildlife. When consumed, the metals can bio-accumulate.

  Processing chemical pollution occurs when chemical agents used by 
mining companies to separate the target mineral from the ore--cyanide, 
sulfuric acid, or liquid metal mercury--spill, leak, or leach from the 
mine site into nearby waters. These chemicals can be highly toxic to 
humans and wildlife.
  The purpose of the amendment before us now is to expand the 
opportunity for dumping this kind of waste on public land, creating the 
opportunities for more environmental disasters and hazards to wildlife 
and humans as well.
  A teaspoon of 2 percent cyanide solution can be lethal to humans; 
over 200 million pounds of cyanide is used in U.S. mining each year.
  I have a lengthy list of examples here.

       Gilt Edge Gold and Silver Mine, South Dakota: Shortly after 
     opening in 1988, the Gild Edge gold and silver mine cyanide 
     leaked into the groundwater and nearby streams as a result of 
     torn containment liners, poor mine design, and sloppy 
     management practices. Beginning in 1992 the mine began 
     generating acid mine drainage. As a result of acid drainage 
     from Gilt Edge waste piles, pH measurements in nearby steams 
     in 1994 and 1995 were as low as 2.1 (battery acid has a pH of 
     approximately 1; pure water has a pH of approximately 7.0). 
     Due to pollution from the Gilt Edge Mine, area streams are 
     unable to support viable populations of fish and bottom 
     dwelling invertebrates
       Summitville Gold Mine, Colorado: In 1986 Canadian based 
     Galactic Resources opened the Summitville Gold Mine in 
     Colorado. The company characterized the mine as a ``state-of-
     the-art'' cyanide heap leach gold mine. Immediately after 
     gold production began, the protective lining under the 
     massive heap of ore being treated with a cyanide solution 
     tore, allowing cyanide to leak into the surface and 
     groundwater. The cyanide, acid, and metal pollution from the 
     mine contaminated 17 miles of the Alamosa River. Galactic 
     declared bankruptcy and abandoned the site in 1992. The State 
     of Colorado which had provide scant regulation of the mine 
     asked the Environmental Protection Agency to take over the 
     site under the Superfund program. As of 1996 taxpayers had 
     spent over $100 million to clean up the site.
       Iron Mountain, California: Until production was halted in 
     1963, the Iron Mountain mine produced a wealth of iron, 
     silver, gold, copper and zinc. It also left a mountain of 
     chemically-reactive ore and waste rock that continues to 
     leach enormous amounts of acid and heavy metals pollution 
     into nearby streams and the Sacramento River.
       Despite expensive efforts to reduce pollution--Iron 
     Mountain is now on the Superfund National Priority List--
     enormous amounts of contaminants continue to wash off the 
     site. Each day Iron Mountain discharges huge quantities of 
     heavy metals including 425 pounds of copper, 1,466 pounds of 
     zinc, and 10 pounds of cadmium. Acid waters draining from the 
     site have decimated streams, where the acidity in the water 
     has been measured as low as minus 3 on the pH scale--10,000 
     times more acidic than battery acid. Streams downstream from 
     the mine are nearly devoid of life. Experts have estimated 
     that at present pollution rates the Iron Mountain site can be 
     expected to leach acid for at least 3,000 years before the 
     pollution source is exhausted.
       Oronogo Duenweg Superfund Site, Missouri: Drinking wells 
     near this sprawling complex of lead and zinc mines in 
     Southwestern Missouri have been contaminated by past mining 
     activities.
       Chino Copper Mine, New Mexico: The mine has been plagued by 
     spills, leaks and discharges of contaminated mine waste 
     material. Much of the pollution has spilled into Whitewater 
     Creek which runs through densely populated communities. In 
     several incidents in 1987, the mine spilled more than 327,000 
     gallons of mine wastewater off the site. In 1988 another 
     spill discharged more than 180 million gallons of mine 
     wastewater. More than 90,000 gallons of wastewater were 
     spilled in 1990, and another 120,000 gallons were spilled in 
     1992.
       Brewer Gold Mine, South Carolina: Nearly 11,000 fish were 
     killed in 1990 when heavy rains cause a containment pond to 
     breach, dumping more than 10,000 million gallons of cyanide-
     laden water into the Lynches River.
       DeLamar Mine, Idaho: The DeLalmar silver and gold mine in 
     Idaho has repeatedly dumped heavy metal laced wastewater into 
     nearby streams. Migratory waterfowl have been poisoned by 
     cyanide from its ponds.
       Stibnite Mine, Idaho: The Stibnite gold mine has leaked 
     cyanide into nearby groundwater and the East Fork of the 
     Salmon River, an important salmon spawning run.
       Ray Mine, Arizona: The Ray Mine was polluted nearby 
     groundwater with toxic levels of copper and Beryllium. In 
     1990, rainwater washed more than 324,000 gallons of copper-
     sulfite contaminated wastewater from the mine into the Gila 
     River.

  Mr. President, what we are doing today--and I am supporting the 
amendment of the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray--is asking the 
mining industry to take responsibility for their actions, to follow the 
law as it is clearly written, which limits to 5 acres the mill site, or 
dump site, they can use for their mining activities. Some of the 
pictures here--I am sure the Senator from Nevada and others think this 
picture, as graphic as it is, is ancient. I don't know. There is no 
date on it, and I won't represent that it is a modern scene, but it 
shows what unregulated mining has led to. It is a clear indication of a 
stream that is still in danger because of the pollution from the mining 
activities.
  Modern mining techniques are represented in these photographs, and 
although they are hard for those following the debate to see, they 
suggest that when we get into hard-rock mining, we are talking about 
literally hundreds, if not thousands, of acres that become part of the 
dump site of this activity. A mining operation, after it has derived 
the valuable minerals from this Federal public land owned by taxpayers, 
got out of town and left this behind. So for generations to come, if 
they fly over, they will look down and say: I wonder who made that 
mess.
  That is as good as it gets under the 1872 mining law. That is a sad 
commentary. Those who support the Craig-Reid amendment would like us to 
expand the possibility that these dump sites near the mines would 
basically be unlimited. They could go on for miles and miles, and we, 
as taxpayers, would inherit this headache in years to come. There is 
clearly a need for comprehensive mining reform.
  About $4 billion worth of hard-rock minerals--gold, copper, silver, 
and others--are taken annually from public lands by mining companies 
without a penny paid to the U.S. taxpayer in royalties--not one cent. 
That is $4 billion each year out of our land, and not a penny is paid 
back to the taxpayers.
  What would you think about it if your next-door neighbor knocked on 
the door and said he would like to cut down the trees in your back 
yard, incidentally, and said he will give you $2.50, and I am sure that 
is no problem. Of course, it is a problem. It is our property. On that 
property are treasures of value to us. We are talking about public 
lands that are our property as American citizens. Those who live in 
some States believe that that land belongs to them, for whatever they 
want to use it for. Some of us, as part of the United States of 
America--``E. Pluribus Unum,'' as it says above the chair of the 
Presiding Officer, ``of many one''--believe that as one Nation we have 
an interest in this public land,

[[Page S9360]]

an interest that goes beyond giving somebody an opportunity to profit 
and leave a shameful environmental legacy.
  Since 1872, there has been more than $240 billion of taxpayer 
subsidies to the mining industry.
  In 1993, the Stillwater Mining Company paid $5 an acre for 2,000 
acres of national forest lands containing minerals with an estimated 
value of $35 billion. I will repeat that. They gave us, as taxpayers, 
$10,000 for access to $35 billion worth of minerals. Pretty sweet deal 
for the mining company. Not for the taxpayers.
  In 1994, American Barrick Corporation gained title to approximately a 
thousand acres of public land in Nevada that contained over $10 billion 
in recoverable gold reserves. Now, for access to $10 billion on Federal 
public lands, America's lands, how much did they pay? Five thousand 
one-hundred and forty dollars. A pretty sweet deal.

  In 1995, a Danish mining company--not an American company--
successfully patented public lands in Idaho containing over $1 billion 
worth of minerals, and this Danish company paid the American treasury 
$275--for $1 billion in minerals.
  Due to irresponsible mining practices and poor regulation, the mining 
industry has left behind a legacy of 557,000 hard-rock abandoned mines 
in 32 States. As the Senator from Washington said earlier, the 
estimated cost of cleanup is $32 billion to $72 billion.
  If this amendment passes that is being pushed on us today, it means 
there will be more land to be cleaned up. The estimate of $32 billion 
to $72 billion will grow as the profits are taken out of America's 
public lands.
  There is one case I would like to tell you about: the Zortman-
Landuski Mine. The Pegasus Gold Corporation operated these mines for 
years using Federal and private lands for mining and waste dumping, 
accumulating numerous citations for water quality violations. In 
January of 1998, Pegasus Gold Corporation filed for bankruptcy. The 
mines are now in the hands of a court-appointed judge. But the story 
gets better. Cost estimates for reclamation of these lands range from 
$9 million to $120 million. In other words, if we want to clean up the 
mess they left behind, it will cost taxpayers $9 million to $120 
million.
  Keep in mind, the amendment before us wants to expand the opportunity 
to leave that waste behind. More bills for future taxpayers to pay.
  I know you are going to like this part. There are questions about 
whether the mine's reclamation bonds will be sufficient to pay for the 
cleanup. Here is where it gets good. In the meantime, Pegasus Gold 
Corporation has petitioned the bankruptcy court to provide $5 million 
in golden parachutes for departing executives. The same executives who 
left this trail of contamination now want to take out of the bankrupt 
corporation $5 million in golden parachutes because they have done such 
a fine job for the shareholders. They certainly didn't do a fine job 
for the taxpayers. They didn't do a fine job when it came to the 
environment.
  If this amendment in the Interior Appropriation bill passes, it is an 
invitation for more greed and more environmental disasters. The mining 
industry has to accept the responsibility to come to Washington, deal 
across the table in a fair manner and in good faith to revise this law 
so they can pay royalties to the taxpayers for what they draw from this 
land. Instead, what they have done is try to force-feed through the 
Interior Appropriations bill a change in the law that will say that the 
number of acres used for disposal of waste and tailings is unlimited--
unlimited.
  So we will see further environmental disasters which undoubtedly will 
occur as a result of it.
  The Senator from Washington started with the right amendment, an 
amendment which recognizes our obligation to future generations. It is 
not enough to make a fast buck or even to create a job today and leave 
behind a legacy for which future generations will have to pay. We don't 
accept that in virtually anything. Businesses across America understand 
that they have an obligation to not only make a profit, to not only 
employ those who work there, but to also clean up the mess and not 
contaminate the environment.
  We have said that in a civilized nation it is too high a price to pay 
for those who just want to glean profits and to leave behind pollution 
of our air and water and other natural resources. For some reason, many 
people in the mining industry haven't received that message. They 
believe they can take the minerals from public lands and leave the 
environmental contamination behind.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I said in my statement that since I have been here, the 
1872 mining law hasn't changed. I meant it had not changed in its 
entirety. The fact is that we in the Senate and in the House changed 
the 1872 mining law. It was changed in significant ways, such as 
passage of the moratorium on patents and a number of things. I didn't 
want the Senator to think the law hasn't been changed.
  I ask my friend from Illinois, what does he think the mining 
companies should do? Does he think there should be mining to some 
degree? Can he tell me? I would be happy to translate the message to 
them. What more does the Senator think can be done than they have done 
in the past few years?
  Let me tell the Senator what they have done. They met with us when we 
were in the majority. They met with us when we were in the minority. 
They met with the other side of the aisle when they were in the 
minority and in the majority. They have agreed to bills. They have 
agreed to pay royalties.
  I say to my friend, what more can they do? They want to be good 
citizens. They help with things. I can only speak for the State of 
Nevada. I think around the country they are good corporate citizens. 
They help with the schools. They pay their taxes. What more should they 
do?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say in response to the Senator from Nevada that I think 
there is a good starting point. It is existing law that has been there 
for a long time. They should look at the current law as it applies to 
those who would mine coal on Federal public lands. If they would follow 
the standards that apply to the mining of coal, here is the difference. 
We would have approval by the BLM through a leasing process for the 
selection of mining sites.
  Mr. REID. Could I say to my friend that we have that now?
  Mr. DURBIN. What we have now is self-initiation and location under 
the mining law of 1872 with no BLM approval required.
  Mr. REID. That simply isn't true. In fact, I say to my friend from 
Illinois, the cost of patenting a claim is in the multimillions of 
dollars now. It is not easy to get through the process that has been 
set up.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator that I stand by my remarks. We could 
certainly resolve this later when we look more closely at the law.

  The second thing I would suggest is they pay a royalty. I think it is 
an outrage that they would pay $2.50 or $5 an acre and not pay a 
royalty to the taxpayers when they take millions, if not billions, of 
dollars worth of recoverable minerals out of our federally owned public 
lands.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend that there is general agreement. The 
mining companies agree. Eight years ago, we went to conference and 
agreed to change the amount they paid when a patent is issued.
  I also say to my friend that the mining companies signed off on a 
royalty. That was something initiated here. I have to ask someone here. 
It passed. I can't tell you that it passed. But it was on the Senate 
floor that a royalty was agreed to.
  I say to my friend that I hope this is the beginning of a dialogue 
where we can really get something done. There is nobody that I have 
more respect for than the Senator from Arkansas, who was the 
spokesperson against mining companies for all the years I was here--the 
greatest respect in the world. But I say to my friend that he wanted 
all or nothing, and we kept getting nothing.
  I hope my friends will allow us to improve something. We have made 
very small improvements. I say to my friend that those of us who 
support mining and the mining companies want changes. They know it 
doesn't look good, from a public relations standpoint, for them to pay 
$2.50 or $5 for a

[[Page S9361]]

piece of land. They know that. But there was something that passed the 
Senate which allowed the payment of fair market value. That was turned 
down in conference.
  I say to my friend that I know how sincerely he believes in this. I 
will give him the line and verse. In fact, the Forest Service handbook 
talks about this very thing. In effect, the solicitor's opinion 
overruled their own handbook. I hope this will lead to improvement of 
the law. We all recognize it needs changing. I am willing to work with 
the Senator in that regard.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator for allowing me to interrupt. I 
appreciate it very much.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada, because I believe the 
statements he made are in good faith and reflect where we should be. We 
should be sitting down and rewriting this law that is 127 years old 
instead of having other environmental riders in an Interior 
appropriations bill. We should be looking to the royalty question, 
which is a legitimate question that every taxpayer should be interested 
in instead of saying we are going to take the limitation of the acreage 
used by mining companies that dump their waste.
  I think that is a legitimate concern. Maybe 5 acres isn't enough. But 
I also think it wouldn't be unreasonable to say to the mining 
companies: If we give you additional acres for mill sites, we will also 
require you to reclaim the land so that you can't leave the mess 
behind.
  That is part of the law when it comes to coal mining on Federal 
public lands. Why shouldn't it be the case when it comes to hard-rock 
mining?
  How can they step away from this mess and say: Frankly, future 
generations will have to worry about it, and we will not. Mandatory 
bonding, detailed permitting reclamation, mandated inspections--things 
that are part of the law when it comes to mining coal--should be part 
of the law when it comes to hardrock mining.

  I reject the idea that we will come in with this bill and make 
amendments friendly to the mining industry but not hold them to any new 
standard when it comes to reclamation or royalties. I think the 
taxpayers deserve better. I think the environment deserves better.
  That is what is necessary in this debate. We have seen it, first, on 
the emergency appropriations bill, where a similar provision was put 
forward for one mining operation in the State of Washington. Now, if 
this amendment goes through, we have literally opened the door for 
mining operations across the United States to literally use as much 
acreage as they want for their mill sites.
  Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BURNS. I ask my good friend from Illinois, what environmental 
law? What environmental law are we talking about here?
  Mr. DURBIN. We are talking about the 1872 Mining Act.
  Mr. BURNS. That is not an environmental law.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would suggest to the Senator that it has an impact on 
the environment.
  Mr. BURNS. What environmental law are we talking about here?
  Mr. DURBIN. I have responded to the Senator. If he has another 
question, I will be happy to answer it.
  Mr. BURNS. What environmental law? Is it the Clean Water Act? Is it 
the Clean Air Act? Is it the National Environmental Policy Act? Is it 
the National Federal Lands Management Act? What environmental law is 
the Senator talking about when he refers to environmental law?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am talking about the 1872 Mining Act.
  Mr. BURNS. I suggest to the Senator that is a land tenure law and 
subject to all of the environmental laws. The miners are not exempt 
from them.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Montana, I think he knows well 
the environmental laws which we mentioned are not applied seriatim to 
all of these mining claims, and that is why we have the environmental 
contamination which we have today. That is one of the reasons why it is 
there. If we are going to have a mining law, I think we need one that 
talks not only about the profitability of the venture but about the 
environmental acceptability of this venture. That is the difficulty we 
run into.
  I suspect that the mining industry may want to talk about more 
acreage for mill sites and dumping but may not be as excited about an 
environmental response bill. That is part of the discussion, as I see 
it. Sadly enough, this amendment, which has been added to the Interior 
appropriations bill, addresses the profit side of the picture and 
ignores the environmental and taxpayer side of the picture. That, to 
me, is shortsighted and something that should be defeated.
  The fact that this was done in committee and has at least been 
attempted in the past is a suggestion to me that the mining industry, 
even with the Republican majority in the House and the Senate, really 
hasn't gone to the authorizing committees for the changes which have 
been suggested on the floor. I think they should. I think it is 
certainly time, after 127 years, to update this law.
  In closing, if we are going to change this law and change it in a 
comprehensive and responsible way, let us do it through the regular 
authorizing process.
  It is interesting to me that yesterday we had a fierce debate on the 
floor about rule XVI, and we said of rule XVI: We will not legislate on 
appropriations bills. Of course, there are always exceptions to every 
rule.

  In this case, because there was a reference to the mining act in the 
bill coming over from the House, they were allowed to offer this 
amendment. As Members may glean from the length and breadth of this 
debate and its complexity, we should not be putting this environmental 
rider on an appropriations bill at the expense of the environment and 
the taxpayers.
  I say to the mining industry, a legitimate industry employing many 
hard-working people, certainly the things which are done are important 
to America's economy and its future, but it is not unreasonable for 
Americans to think that we have a vested interest in our own public 
lands. Companies cannot leave behind this legacy of waste. Unlimited 
acreage being used for dump sites is not being held accountable.
  This amendment, if it passes, will say to these mining companies: 
These hard rock mining companies will not be held accountable. Use as 
much of America's land that is needed to dump your waste after you have 
mined the minerals. As taxpayers, we will accept it.
  For this Senator from Illinois, the Senators from Washington and 
California and many others, that is unacceptable.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak directly to the Senator from 
Illinois, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the Senator from 
Washington. I have heard statements from the Senator from Illinois that 
I know he means in good faith but I think are wrong. The record must be 
corrected in that regard. The law does not allow many of the things he 
has suggested might happen.
  For example, tonight he suggested that the Craig-Reid amendment would 
allow unlimited surface land domain. That is simply not true. Let me 
repeat for the record, that is an inaccurate statement.
  Here is what the law allows today and what the Reid-Craig amendment 
does: It simply reinstates the law as it exists today. The Senator from 
Illinois is absolutely right as to what the 1872 mining law says as to 
the 5 acres per claim. However, what attorneys have said who were 
brought before the subcommittee that I chair, while that was the law, 
it was based on the concept of the Comstock Lode, which was the mining 
activity in the State of Nevada that generated the 1872 mining law. 
From that time forward to today, it was viewed in the law as a minimum 
necessary requirement.
  What the Senator from Illinois did not say, which refutes the idea 
that this is some kind of unlimited land surface grab, is the BLM, the 
administrator of claims on public land, in the

[[Page S9362]]

process of working with a mining company that is establishing a mining 
operation establishes the 5 acres and additional acres as is necessary 
to conduct that mining operation.
  What does that mean? That does not mean unlimited acreages. It means 
exactly what I said it means. It means that the Bureau of Land 
Management develops a mining plan consistent with the mining operation 
all inclusively consistent with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water 
Act for a mining company to effectively mine the mineral estate they 
have established under the mine plan and with their permit. That is not 
unlimited. It is our Federal Government. The BLM under the law 
establishes the surface domain that a mining company can have for the 
purpose of operations.

  Is that unlimited? I repeat to the Senator from Illinois, no, it is 
not. It is restricted by the character of the process and by 127 years 
of operation. That is what it is. That is what we are attempting to 
reinstate.
  The Senator from Illinois went on to say: Why didn't they go to the 
courts? Why have they come to Congress? The reason they have come to 
Congress is because the act of the Solicitor would be automatic and 
immediate. The Senator from Nevada earlier spoke to the consequence of 
this decision.
  Mining stock in this country dropped by a substantial percentage 
point on the stock exchange because the Solicitor's opinion was saying 
if it were fully implemented both prospectively and retroactively, it 
would dramatically halt existing mining operations and cost mining 
companies that were operating under good faith, the law, and the 
historic practice as prescribed by the Forest Service and the BLM, by 
their manual, and by their current handbooks, it would have simply 
stopped them, and they would have waved literally hundreds of millions 
of dollars in the process of developing a mining plan that was 
environmentally accurate and environmentally sound.
  I know the Senator from the State of Washington is upset because the 
crown jewel mine in her State was, by her own State's environment 
director, announced to be the best ever; that they had met all of the 
environmental standards; they were complying with all the Clean Air and 
Water Act and somehow the Solicitor stepped in and stopped the process.
  The senior Senator from the State of Washington and the supplemental 
appropriations bill this year said it is just blatantly unfair for a 
company to operate in good faith under the law and under the 
environmental laws of our country. For the Solicitor, an appointed 
bureaucrat, to step in and stop them without any public process is 
against the very character of the law we create on this floor.
  So the senior Senator from the State of Washington was right in doing 
what he did. At that supplemental appropriations conference, while I 
was trying to do exactly what the Senator from Nevada and I have just 
done with this amendment, we said: No, let's not do that.
  I chair the Public Land Subcommittee, the mining subcommittee. Let's 
hold hearings on this issue. Let's see if the Solicitor is right in 
doing what he has done. We brought in mining authorities, lawyers who 
practice this law professionally full time before the committee, asking 
if the Solicitor was right in doing what he did. Their answer was 
absolutely not; 127 years of practice would argue that the Solicitor 
reached out in thin air and grabbed an opinion that he knew would bring 
the mining industry to its knees.
  Why would he know it? Surely, he wouldn't do it arbitrarily or 
capriciously. Surely, he wouldn't do that for political purposes. Want 
to bet? Let me state why he did it. Let me speak to Members in Mr. 
Leshy's own words, words written in his own book, called ``Reforming 
the Mining Law: Problems and Prospects.'' This Solicitor knew exactly 
what he was doing. He did it for political purposes. He did not do it 
for the kind of benevolent, benign, environmentally sound reasons that 
the Senator from Illinois suggested.
  The Solicitor said:

       A hoary maxim of life on Capitol Hill is that Congress acts 
     only when there is either a crisis or a consensus.

  The Solicitor at the Department of Interior attempted to establish a 
crisis in the mining industry with the mining law.
  He went on to say:

       Currently there is no genuine crisis involving hardrock 
     mining--

  although the Senator from Illinois worked for about an hour to gin 
one up--

       but with a little effort crises sufficient to bring about 
     reform might be imagined.

  That is what the Solicitor said when he was a private citizen 
environmental advocate against mining.
  So then he went on to say:

       At the extreme, it might even be appropriate for the 
     Interior Department and the courts to consciously reach 
     results that make the statute unworkable.

  The Solicitor himself in a former life, in 1988, said: You know what 
we could do? We could create a crisis and make the statute unworkable, 
and we would force the Congress to change the law. And then all of a 
sudden John Leshy was no longer private citizen, environmental 
advocate; he was public citizen appointed Solicitor of the Department 
of Interior. And what did he do? He followed his own words and his own 
edicts. He attempted to create a crisis. And a crisis it was, and we 
have spoken to it already, the crisis that tumbled mining stock 
dramatically in the stock markets of this country.
  A message went out to the mining industry: You are not only unwelcome 
on public lands, we are going to try to run you off from them. That is 
a hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars industry, with tens of thousands of 
employees across this country, yet the Solicitor, a nonelected public 
official with no public process, did this. The Solicitor's opinion was 
not subject to public comment or review. The Department of Interior 
failed to provide a forum for interested parties to express their 
views. The Solicitor's opinion is a change in the law that the 
administration made without any kind of review. It just simply said: 
That's the new law. And I say ``new law'' because for 127 years the 
Department of Interior, the BLM, and the Forest Service operated under 
the law that Senator Reid of Nevada and I are attempting to reinstate 
this evening. That is what the Solicitor did.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague how long he will be 
going, just so I can plan accordingly?

  Mr. CRAIG. Probably for about another 10 or 15 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Solicitor went on to say:

       Some particularly dramatic episode that highlights the 
     particular anachronisms of the Mining law might also 
     encourage Congress to perform surgery on the Law.

  That is what the Solicitor said, and that is what the Solicitor did.
  What John Leshy failed to say is that over the years he and I have 
met around the country, debating, and he has wanted to change the 
mining law in such a dramatic way that the mining industry of this 
country simply could not operate.
  The Senator from Illinois suggested we ought to change the law. You 
know, he is right. As chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee and as 
chairman of the mining committee for the last 5 years, I say to the 
Senator from Illinois, we have tried to change the law. We even brought 
it to the floor once, passed it in a supplemental, and guess what 
happened. President Clinton vetoed a major change in the 1872 mining 
law. What did that law have in it? Major reclamation reform. It had 
within it a hard rock mining royalty that would have funded that 
reclamation reform so if mine industries went bankrupt, there was a 
public trust provided by the mining companies to do that kind of 
reclamation reform. But this President and his Solicitor will not allow 
that kind of reform to happen.
  I have worked in good faith, and, I must say, the Senator from Nevada 
has, for the last 5 to 6 years to make significant change in the 1872 
law. We recognize the need for its modernization. That is not denied 
here. But what you do not do is the very backdoor, unparticipatory, 
nonpublic effort of the kind the Solicitor did.
  The Senator from Illinois talked about the degradation that happened 
in his State. What the Senator did not say is, it does not happen 
anymore. The reason it does not happen anymore, and the reason he 
should not use it as an example, is that there is a law that disallows 
it today. There is full mine reclamation on surface mining, especially 
in the coal industry.

[[Page S9363]]

  So let me suggest to the Senator from Illinois, let's talk today and 
not 50 years ago, when he and I would both agree those kinds of 
practices now are unacceptable. They may have been acceptable then, but 
they are not acceptable now. In fact, the Senator from Illinois held up 
a picture. He did not quite know where it was. I will tell him where it 
was. It was in the State of Montana. I have been to that site. I have 
traveled and seen these problems. Three times we tried to get that 
issue in Montana cleaned up. Environmental groups stepped in and sued.
  You kind of wonder if they do not want the issue instead of a 
resolution to the problem. We have worked progressively with them to 
try to reform the 1872 mining law, and in all instances they have said 
no. Here is why they said no. They said: We don't want you to have the 
right to go find the mineral if you find it in a place in which we 
don't want you to mine.
  That is an interesting thesis because gold is, in fact, where you 
find it. It is not where you might like to have it for environmental 
reasons. What do we do with a thesis like that? We say OK, gold is 
where you find it, silver is where you find it, but because of our 
environmental ethics and standards today, you have to do it in an 
environmentally sound way.

  That is what you have to do. You have to comply with the Clean Air 
Act. They did in the State of Washington. You have to comply with the 
Clean Water Act. They did in the State of Washington. You have to meet 
all the State standards--tough standards in the State of Washington. 
You have to meet all the Federal standards--tough standards in the 
State of Washington.
  That is what the Crown Jewel Mine did. And yet, at the last moment, 
in the 12th hour, by pressure from environmental groups, Mr. Leshy came 
out of his closet and said: No, you can't. And the senior Senator from 
the State of Washington said: Wrong, Mr. Leshy. That is not the way a 
democracy works. That is not the way a representative republic works. 
If they played by the rules and they played by the law, then they must 
have the right to continue. That is the issue we are talking about. We 
are talking about dealing fairly and appropriately with the law.
  Let me go ahead and talk about Mr. Leshy some more because he is 
being talked about tonight as the savior of the environment. Let me 
tell you what he is really out to do. It is not to save the environment 
but to destroy the mining industry. He has worked for decades with this 
goal in mind. What did he say in this book he wrote in 1988? What he 
said was:

       Bold administrative actions, like major new withdrawals, 
     creative rulemaking or aggressive environmental enforcement, 
     could force the hand of Congress.

  Mr. Leshy is right. He forced the hand of Congress. The Senator from 
Washington and I discussed this briefly in the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I do not stand tonight to impugn the integrity or the beliefs of the 
Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Washington or the Senator 
from Massachusetts. But it is important that when you say unlimited 
withdrawal of surface, I say it is wrong, because it is not right; that 
is not what the law allows. The Department of Interior does not allow 
that unless it is within the plan, unless it is bonded, unless it meets 
all the environmental standards, and it is proven to be required by the 
mining operation as appropriate and necessary.
  Those are the laws as we deal with them today.
  I suggest the Senator from Montana was absolutely right. I am talking 
about reforming the 1872 mining law. It is a location and a withdrawal 
law. It is not an environmental law. Modern mining companies must 
adhere to the law, and that is the Clean Air Act, and that is the Clean 
Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and all of those that 
are tremendously important. That is what we debate here this evening, 
and that is why it is critically important that we deal with it in an 
upfront and necessary manner.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield in a moment.
  I would like to reform the 1872 mining law, and I would like the 
Senator from Illinois to help me. The Senator from Nevada has stood 
ready with me for now well over 5 years for that purpose, only to be 
denied it by this administration. They kept walking away from the 
table. They would very seldom come and sit down with us. I must tell 
you, I do not know why. I ultimately had to draw the conclusion that 
they preferred the issue over the solution because it was our effort in 
the State of Nevada, a very important mining State for our country, and 
my State of Idaho, a very important mining State, that we resolve this 
issue. That, of course, is why I think it is necessary.
  A mining claim is a parcel of land containing precious metal in the 
soil or the rock. That is what a claim is.
  A mill site is a plot of ground necessary to support the operations 
of a mine. That is what a mill site is.
  Mill sites are critical to mining because, amongst many uses, they 
hold the rock extract, that which is brought up out of the ground from 
the diggings of the mine, containing milling facilities that extract 
valuable minerals from the ore and provide a location to house 
administration and equipment and repair and storage facilities.
  Let me suggest a comparative to the Senator from Illinois. If I 
bought a half acre of ground in downtown Chicago for the purpose of 
building a 50-story building, and they said I could go down 50 feet and 
establish parking, but I could not go up any, and I was not given any 
air rights, then I could not build the building. I could acquire the 
property and I could dig down, but I could not go up.
  That is exactly what the Senator is suggesting tonight, that you can 
gain a mining claim under the law but you cannot build a mill site 
because 5 acres, I think as most of us know, is a fairly limited amount 
of ground, and that is exactly what the Federal Government has 
recognized for 127 years.
  As a result of that, what the Government has said is, if you meet 
these standards and you incorporate it in a mining plan, you can have 
additional acres we will permit you for that purpose. Is that 
unlimited? I say to the Senator from Illinois, it is not. To suggest to 
anybody in the BLM, including this administration's BLM, that they give 
carte blanche acreages of land to mining companies is, in fact, not 
true. That is the reality of working with the BLM. Whether it is a 
Republican BLM or a Democrat BLM, both administrations, all 
administrations, have adhered to the law. It is important that the law 
not be misrepresented.
  I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that mining is not necessarily 
a clean business. Digging in the ground is not necessarily a clean 
business. It is not environmentally pristine. That is the character of 
it. There are few businesses where you disturb or disrupt the ground 
that are. It is how you handle them after the fact with which I think 
the Senator from Illinois, the Senator from Washington, the Senator 
from Massachusetts, and I would agree. I hope they do not want to run 
the mining industry out of our country. We already have substantial 
exodus from our country because of costs of mining based on certain 
standards. They all attempt to comply.
  The greatest problem today is access to the land. The Senator from 
Illinois does not have any public land in his State, or very limited 
amounts. My State is 63 percent federally owned land--your land and my 
land. I am not suggesting that it is Idaho's lands, nor would the 
Senator from Nevada suggest that only Nevadans ought to determine the 
surface domain of the State of Nevada. We understand it is Federal 
land.
  Nevadans and Idahoans and Americans all must gain from the value of 
those resources, but we also understand that they must be gained in an 
environmentally sound way. We have worked mightily so to build and 
transform a mining law for that purpose. I must tell you that the 
Solicitor, both as a private citizen environmental advocate and now as 
a public citizen Solicitor, has fought us all the way, because he 
wanted a law that fundamentally denied a mining company the right of 
discovery, location, and development unless it was phenomenally 
limited. Those are the issues that clearly we deal with when we are on 
the floor.
  Let me say in closing, Mr. President--and it is very important for 
the Senators to hear this--we are not

[[Page S9364]]

changing the law. We are simply saying: Mr. Leshy, you do not have it 
your way until policymakers--the Senator from Illinois and the Senator 
from Idaho--agree on what the law ought to be. That is our job; that is 
not John Leshy's job. Ours will be done in a public process with public 
hearings and public input and not in the private office of a Solicitor 
down at the Department of Interior who, in the dark of night, slips out 
and passes a rule and the stock market crashes on mining stock.

  I do not think the Senator from Illinois would like that any more 
than we would if we did it to major industries in his State, because he 
and I are policymakers and we should come to a meeting of the minds 
when it comes to crafting reform of the 1872 mining law. That is what I 
want to do. I hope that is what he wants to do.
  Are we legislating on an appropriations bill? No. We are saying: Mr. 
Solicitor, you do not have the right to change the law. We will leave 
the law as it is, as the current 1999 or 1998 handbook at BLM says it 
is, as the current handbook down at the Forest Service says it is, and 
that is the handbook a mining company uses to build a mining plan, to 
build a mining operation. He said at the last hour: The handbook is no 
good even though we wrote it, even though we OK'd it, and even though 
that is the way we operate.
  I do not think so. We now know why. Because, for goodness sake, we 
read his book, the book he crafted in 1988 saying: Let's create a 
crisis, let's bring the mining industry to its knees, and just maybe 
then we will get the Congress to move.
  I heard John Leshy in 1988 and again in 1990, as did the Senator from 
Nevada. We worked mightily to change the law, and we are still working 
to do it. We have not been able to accomplish that. I hope we can, and 
we will work hard in the future to do that. But I hope my colleagues 
and fellow Senators will support us tonight in leaving the current law 
intact and not allowing this administration, or any other one, through 
their attorneys, to arbitrarily change a law without the public process 
and the public input that the Senator from Illinois and I are obligated 
to make, and yet tonight he defends the opposite. I do not think he 
wants that. I do not think any of us want a private process that will 
deny the right of public input.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The reason I ask the Senator to yield is, the two leaders, 
I am sure, are curious as to how long we are going to go with this. 
There are a number of people who wish to speak. I am wondering if there 
is any chance we can work out some kind of time agreement on this on 
the minority side and majority side.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, I am ready to 
relinquish the floor. The Senator from Massachusetts has been waiting a 
good long while. I will work with the Senator from Washington. It is 
certainly her amendment. We have second-degreed it. If we can arrive at 
a time agreement, I would like to do so to accommodate all who have 
come to speak on this issue. It is important that they have that 
opportunity.
  At the same time, we want to finish this before the wee hours of the 
morning, and we want to conclude it either with a vote on the second 
degree, or, if that is not going to happen, if we cannot arrive at 
something, we will want to look at finalizing this by a tabling motion. 
Let me work with the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. STEVENS. Before the Senator yields the floor, will he yield for a 
question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have been listening to the debate, and it has 
primarily been proponents of the amendment. I am willing to have some 
time. We should have a time certain to vote. I hope there is going to 
be some accommodation for those who have been waiting for these opening 
speeches to end. I will be more than willing to set a time, such as 8 
o'clock, to vote, provided we get some time to respond to the 
statements that have already been made.
  Mr. CRAIG. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I am going to relinquish 
the floor and sit down with the Senator from Washington to see if we 
can work out a time agreement to accommodate the Senator's concern. I 
hope we can shoot for the 8 o'clock hour or somewhere near that, 
recognizing everyone's right.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Idaho and to the Senator from 
Alaska, there has been a debate on both sides. It has not been 
dominated by the proponents of the underlying amendment. There has been 
a good discussion here.
  Mr. STEVENS. Maybe I was just listening at the wrong time.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I can propound a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege 
of the floor be granted to Terry L. Grindstaff, a legislative fellow in 
my office, during the debate of the Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the debate for some 
time now, and I listened with great interest to the Senator from Idaho. 
After listening to the Senator from Idaho, I really believe the 
fundamental confrontation here was not addressed by the Senator in his 
comments. He made a lot of references to the Solicitor of the 
Department of the Interior and to the decision that he alleges was made 
in the dead of night and that we should not rush forward with a sudden 
decision by a bureaucrat to change the how we regulate mining on public 
lands and the relationship between mining companies and the Bureau of 
Land Management and the Congress.
  Let's try to deal with facts. Let's try to deal with the reality of 
the situation rather than obfuscating and avoiding the confrontation 
that has been going on in the Congress for a long period of time.
  This is not something that is happening just at the whim of a 
bureaucrat. This is not something that is happening this year, now, 
suddenly for the first time. There has been a 10-year effort to try to 
change how we regulate mining in this country, and every time we get 
close to accomplishing that, some argument or another is used to try to 
avoid making the right choice--the choice that is part of the original 
law itself on which all of this is based.
  That law is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 by 
which the BLM published its current regulations in 1980. Those 
regulations are required under the law. It is the law of the land that 
the Secretary of the Interior must take any action necessary, by 
regulation or otherwise, to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of 
public lands. That is the law.
  The Secretary is required to take action to prevent undue or 
unnecessary degradation of the public lands. We have been debating in 
the Congress, as long as I have been here, the level of degradation 
that is taking place, and its impacts, as a result of the hard rock 
mining.
  The BLM published regulations in 1980. They became effective in 1981. 
That was the first attempt of the BLM to try to provide some kind of 
effective management ever since the mining law of 1872. A review was 
supposed to take place 3 years later. That review never took place. But 
in 1989 a task force was created, and a rulemaking was begun in the 
Bush administration to consider amendments of the 3809 regulations. The 
fact is, there was a failure to enact that. Why? Specifically, to give 
Congress the opportunity to develop its own reform and pass it.
  Contrary to what the Senator from Idaho said about secret, last-
minute meetings, the fact is that in the 103rd Congress Senator Bumpers 
introduced

[[Page S9365]]

legislation. Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia introduced 
legislation, and the House passed his legislation by 316-108. One of 
the major concerns of those who opposed the measure was that it 
included an 8-percent royalty on net smelter returns, which would have, 
according to the arguments of some, and I suspect that includes Western 
Senators and Representatives, made some mines uneconomic.
  So we go back to 1993 when legislation was introduced that would have 
instituted the very royalties that we were just heard the opponents of 
the Murray amendment tell us they would accept. But they fought the 
royalties, and they fought the bill, and the bill died.
  Two less comprehensive and almost identical bills were introduced in 
April of 1993. In those, patents were to continue to be an option, but 
patent fees were going to reflect the fair market value of the surface 
estates. A 2-percent net value mine mouth royalty was going to be 
imposed. In the Senate that year, there was an industry-backed bill. 
That was passed by the Senate in May of 1993, but once again it was 
stopped dead because the House and Senate conferees could not bridge 
the gap between the industry-backed legislation and the 
environmentally-backed legislation. It died.
  In the 104th Congress the Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 
1995 was introduced by, again, Representative Rahall and others to 
overhaul the mining law. That was almost identical to the bill the 
House passed in the 103rd Congress.
  Three mining reform bills were introduced in the Senate. One was 
introduced by Senator Craig. It was supported by the mining industry. 
Another was introduced by Senator Bumpers. The one introduced by 
Senator Craig more closely resembled the Rahall bill. The bill Senator 
Bumpers introduced was supported by most of the environmental and 
conservation community. And a third bill was introduced by Senators 
Johnston and Campbell that resembled a later version of what then-
Chairman Johnston incorporated into the conference debate.

  But again no further action was taken. Why? Because once again the 
industry refused to accept some of the provisions that included to 
protect the land adequately, including clean up, holding sufficient 
bonding, do the things necessary which the Senator from Nevada has 
offered to do on the floor tonight. But there is a long legislative 
history of the opponents of the amendment refusing to do that. That is 
why the Bureau of Land Management has finally come to the point of 
saying we have to do something. And what they are doing is justified.
  Since 1980, the gold mining industry in the United States has 
undergone a 10-fold expansion. I know it is now on facing many 
challenges as the world market for gold has pushed prices down, but 
nevertheless, it has grown substantially over the past two decades. 
Many of those gold mines are located on the public lands that we are 
suppose to be protecting. Much of this increased production comes from 
the fact that, as a result of new discoveries and technologies, you can 
mine ore of a much lower grade. Mine operations are able to move 
millions of tons of material and move it around the landscape to 
produce just ounces of gold. The new techniques use cyanide and other 
toxic chemicals for processing.
  In short, even though I agree that we are more environmentally 
concern today than in years past, the fact is that today's mines have 
an even greater capacity to cause environmentally negative impacts. We 
did not hear the Senator from Idaho talk about how we are going to 
ensure that these mine clean up. Of course, there is an economic impact 
in trying to clean up a mine. But, I respectively as my colleagues that 
they don't come to the floor of the Senate and start complaining that 
suddenly a bureaucrat is coming in the dead of night to do what we have 
been fighting to do for 10 years in the Senate, and what I think most 
people understand is a huge struggle between those who want to protect 
the lands adequately and those who want to continue the practices that 
are endangering them.
  The fact is--and this is a fact--this provision is simply the latest 
addition in a series of riders that have prevented the Clinton 
Administration from enforcing the 1872 mining law and reforming the 
sale of our Nation's mineral assets.
  Coal does not get the privileges of hard rock mining. Oil and gas do 
not get the privileges of hard rock mining. It is absolutely 
extraordinary that at a time when Senators will come to the floor of 
the Senate and talk about giving money back, in tax cuts, to the 
citizens of this country, who deserve the money, that they will vote 
against giving them the money they deserve from the land that they own. 
This land belongs to the American citizens, and it is nearly being 
given away, without royalties, to mining companies that leave behind 
devastation. The are not paying their fair share, not just for cleaning 
it up, but also on the gold, silver and other minerals that they profit 
from, and that Americans own. I think it is the wrong way to legislate 
the priorities of our lands and the protection of them.
  The Bureau of Land Management tried to update environmental 
protections in 1997. Respectfully, I ask that my colleagues not come to 
the floor and tell us that this all of this happened in the dead of 
night or some secret effort. The Clinton Administration tried to enact 
some reforms in 1997, and they were blocked by a rider on an 
appropriations bill. It was stopped again by a rider in the 1998 
Interior appropriations bill that prohibited them from issuing proposed 
rules until the Western Governors were consulted and, then, until after 
November of 1998.
  Here we are in July of 1999. The BLM satisfied the requirements of 
that rider of 1998.
  They then resumed the rulemaking process. It wasn't in the dead of 
night. It wasn't a surprise. The Clinton Administration, again, took up 
the rulemaking after they had been required to consult with the western 
Governors. The BLM satisfied that. But then they were stopped again by 
a rider in the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill calling for 
a study by the National Academy of Sciences and delaying the rules at 
least until July, which is where we are right now. However, not even 
that was enough. In February of this year, the BLM issued proposed 
rules, and it entered a public comment period, not the dead of night, 
not some surprise effort by the rulemakers. They were proceeding 
according to how Congress had told them to proceed. And then another 
rider was inserted into the year 2000 supplemental appropriations bill 
so that we could further delay the rulemaking process.
  Now we are considering a fourth rider, the fourth rider for the 
mining industry since 1997 in the fiscal year 2000 Interior 
appropriations.
  While these riders are slightly different legislatively, they have 
all protected a flawed system that continues to allow us to sell an 
acre of land for as little as $2.50; $2.50 for an acre of land to go in 
and mine thousands of dollars of worth minerals and possibly cause 
excessive environmental damage, certainly alter the landscape in a 
dramatic way.
  I am as strong an admirer of the Senator from Nevada as anybody in 
the Senate. He is a friend, a good friend. He is representing his State 
and he has to. He has 13,000 miners there. But one has to wonder about 
the cost of reclaiming the land and who will pay it. At some point we 
may find cheaper for the United States of America to pay those miners 
not to mine than to pay for the kind of environmental damage that has 
been presented here today by the Senators from Washington and Illinois. 
Rivers have been ruined, the toxics spilled into the environment. What 
is it, $32 billion to $72 billion is the estimated cost of cleaning up 
chemicals that have been released in these operations and other 
environmental damage to drinking water and water systems. It is cheaper 
to tell them not to do it than to continue to do this.
  What are we doing? Well, we have a law, the 1872 Mining Law, that 
restricts each mine claim of up to 20 acres to a mill site of 5 acres 
to dump waste and process material.
  In his decision, the Solicitor did not amend, he did not reinterpret 
the law. Even the mining industry has agreed that the 5-acre mill site 
limit is the law, I point to an article from 1970 when a law firm 
representing the industry openly concede that point. They may argue a 
different case now, but before this opportunity presented itself,

[[Page S9366]]

the mining industry agreed. All the Solicitor did was recommend that 
the BLM start enforcing this provision again. That is all. Enforce the 
provision.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. KERRY. I will for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, we have talked, and we would like to 
vote at 7:35 or 7:40. What we are going to do is divide the time 
between now and then between the proponents and the opponents of this 
particular amendment. There will be, near that time, a motion to table 
that will be initiated. Could the Senator indicate about how much 
longer he wishes to speak?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I can't. I want to speak my mind on this 
issue. Although I am one of the original cosponsors, I can't speak for 
the lead sponsor. I don't know if there are other Senators on our side 
who would like to speak. You have the right to table.
  Mr. REID. We know the Senator from Washington wishes to. We want to 
try to be fair.
  Mr. KERRY. I don't imagine I will go more than 10 minutes or so. I 
don't know what the Senator from Washington needs.
  Mr. REID. We could go until 7:40, which leaves 35 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts 
has the floor, but if I may clarify, is the Senator asking to divide 
the time equally between now and 7:40?

  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will not object to that.
  Mr. REID. Divided equally. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Just a minute. I don't understand the division of time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving my right to reclaim the floor.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has the floor. I say to my friend from Alaska, 
we would divide the next 35 minutes between the proponents and 
opponents. There would be equal time. I checked with the other Senator 
from Alaska and he thinks that is okay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  The BLM is simply seeking to enforce the existing law once again. No 
reinterpretation, no change. This is not a far reach. This is existing 
law, which, as I say, very clearly in 1970 and in other times has been 
acknowledged as the law even by the mining industry itself.
  It was likely under pressure from the mining industry in the 1960s 
and 1970s that the Federal Government started to overlook the provision 
and permitted mining operations to use more than the single 5-acre mill 
site. What we are saying is that was a mistake of enormous 
environmental and fiscal consequences.
  The BLM ought to enforce the law. It is one of the few protections 
that we have.
  Let me try to share with colleagues what the consequences of the 
current law are, why it needs reform and why it should be enforced. 
According to an editorial in the USA Today newspaper, in 1994, a 
Canadian company called American Barrick Resources purchased 2,000 
acres of public land in Nevada that contained $10 billion in gold. How 
much do you think they paid for the 2,000 acres and the $10 billion of 
gold? They paid $10,000.
  Every time in the last few years that we have tried to have a fair 
meeting of the minds on the subject of what is an appropriate royalty 
or what is an appropriate bonding, it hasn't worked. It is public land. 
There ought to be requirements, more than we have now, for a mining 
company that wants to mine public land, take out billions of dollars of 
gold, and pay the taxpayers only $10,000. They don't say to you: We are 
going to degrade the land, damage rivers and leave the place unusable 
for other purposes.
  If they said that, do you think anybody in the Senate would stand up 
and vote for it up front? No. But you are voting for it. That is the 
effect of what happens here, unless we turn around and say, no, we are 
going to enforce the law.
  I understand the economics of this, but one of the problems we have 
across the board nationally and globally is that we don't value the 
environmental impact on the cost of goods. Nobody wants to be 
responsible for doing that, for incorporating in the cost of a product 
the cost reducing our national resources. So we keep doing things that 
actually cost us an awful lot more, but it is never reflected in the 
cost of the product. But we pay for it; the American taxpayer pays for 
it.
  The environmental toll is high. Over 12,000 miles of streams have 
been destroyed, according to the Mineral Policy Center, which is group 
expert in the impacts of mining. I don't understand how we can risk, 
especially in the West where water availability is a problem, polluting 
our watersheds this way. We have one major, enormous reservoir for 
water for the United States under most of the mid-central section of 
the nation. We are increasingly depleting that reservoir of water. And 
we are currently, mainly through agriculture, using that water at a 
rate exceeding its resupply. We can't afford to destroy 12,000 miles of 
streams.
  What is the economic value of those streams? Has anybody calculated 
that?
  Has anybody calculated the economic value in the cost of lost 
drinking water because of chemical that contaminated it? This is a 
matter of common sense, and we are not exhibiting that kind of common 
sense as we approach it. The fact is that there are almost 300,000 
acres of land owned by the citizens of the United States of America, 
public land that has been mined and left unreclaimed. Abandoned mines 
account for 59 Superfund sites. There are over 2,000 abandoned mines in 
our national parks. The Mineral Policy Center estimates the cleanup 
cost for abandoned mines, as we mentioned earlier, is at the high end, 
$72 billion, and at the low end, $32 billion.
  Will the Senators from the West come forward with that $32 billion? 
Where is the offer by those who want to continue these practices and 
run that bill up even higher to pay the bill? Is there an offer to pay 
the bill?
  I think the Senate ought to put an end to this process, to protecting 
a flawed policy, by supporting the Murray amendment, by opposing rider 
or provision of Senator Craig and Senator Reid. I will, if for no other 
reason so I can simply represent the taxpayers in good conscience. The 
costs of continuing this program are far greater than the costs of 
enforcing the law and doing what is required. The Senator from Nevada 
asked, a moment ago, of the Senator from Illinois: What would you like 
us to do? He said: What do you think the mining companies ought to do?
  Let me respectfully share with you what the Bureau of Land Management 
wants them to do, which the mining companies and these constant riders 
are blocking us from doing. Here it is very simply: Protect water 
quality from impacts caused by the use of cyanide leaching, thereby 
safeguarding human environmental health in the arid West. Second, 
protect wetlands in riparian areas, which provide essential wildlife 
habitat in arid regions, as well as promoting long-term environmental 
health, and sharply limit or eliminate any loopholes to the requirement 
to get advance approval of mining and reclamation plans.
  Moreover, there are significant things that could be done. Require 
financial guarantees for all hard rock mining operations; base the 
financial guarantee amount on the estimated reclamation costs; require 
the miner to establish a trust fund to pay for long-term water 
treatment, if necessary. Is that asking too much? If you come in and 
use the land and you degrade the water, shouldn't you be required to 
provide water treatment in order to protect the water?
  Is it asking too much that you should post a bond in order to 
guarantee that once you strip the mine of all of its economic value and 
have taken out billions of dollars and walked away with your profits, 
that you should have some requirement for reclamation, and that there 
is a sufficient bonding from those profits. Even if you don't pay 
royalties, shouldn't you pay to guarantee the land is going to be 
cleaned up?
  So they ask what should we be able to do. The things they should do 
are clear as a bell, and they have been blocked. Blocked for the 10 
years that I have watched this being fought here. I watched Senator 
Bumpers from Arkansas pace up and down there with

[[Page S9367]]

these arguments year in and year out. And year in and year out, 
unfortunately, the industry works its will against the better common 
sense of true conservationists, against the better common sense of 
those whom I believe care deeply about the land.
  It is incredible to me that we of good conscience can't find adequate 
language and compromise to protect this land, to be able to do this 
properly. We require more of coal miners, and we require more of oil 
and gas than we do of hard rock mining, and it is public land.
  So I say to my colleagues we have an opportunity to do what we have 
been trying to do as a matter of common sense, which is enforce the law 
of the land. That is all we are asking--enforce the current law of the 
land as it was before, as it should have been, and as it must be now, 
in order to adequately protect the interest of the citizens.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I have 8 minutes?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I find myself in a strange position 
because I was Solicitor of the Interior Department. At the time, I 
followed the law and I interpreted the law; I did not make law. The BLM 
manual, in case you are interested, says specifically:

       A mill site cannot exceed 5 acres in size. There is no 
     limit to the number of mill sites that can be held by a 
     single claimant.

  Now, that is a regulation made pursuant to the law that was in 
existence at the time the Solicitor rendered his opinion. He ignored 
that. But the main thing is, I am hearing things on the floor that 
amaze me. The Senator from Illinois says that, apparently, the 
environmental laws don't apply to mining claims. Why is it, then, that 
there is a requirement for mill sites? The mill sites are there 
primarily for the purpose of the tailings disposal of the ponds that 
must be built to provide protection under the Clean Water Act. Many of 
them are enormous in size and require several mill sites in order to 
have one disposal site. Those environmental laws are there to 
protect the public lands. But the Solicitor's opinion says you can only 
have up to 5 acres, which is the Catch-22. This opinion was not 
intended to validate the mining law. It was made to invalidate the 
mining law of 1872.

  In my State--and, after all, my State has primarily half of the 
Federal lands in the United States--the mining law is working. Our 
State has a small mining law that is compatible in terms of requiring 
claims to be pursued by production of minerals to take actions to 
protect the lands. In Alaska, it is our fourth largest industry. The 
Greens Creek Mine has twice as many mill sites as does active claims 
under a plan filed with and approved by the Federal Government. As a 
matter of fact, it is mandated by the Federal Government that such 
lands be used for specific environmental purposes to protect the lands 
that are being mined and protect the waters, in particular. The Clean 
Water Act applies.
  I am appalled--and I wish my friend from Massachusetts had stayed 
here--at his comments. I would like to take you to Alaska. Come up to 
Alaska and I will show you mining claims, and I will show you the 
extent to which we require them to comply with the environmental laws. 
As a matter of fact, we have enormous mining claims. The Kensington, 
Donlin Creek--they would never get off the ground if this amendment 
were passed.
  Currently, there are 235 jobs on one mine alone. This is going to put 
thousands of people out of work in my State. The fourth largest 
industry will go out of existence if this passes, because you cannot 
mine in Alaska with just 5 acres to comply with the mining laws and the 
environmental laws.
  The other thing is, I want to make sure you understand mill sites 
cannot be on mineral land. Under the law, they cannot be on mineral 
land. They are lands that are located somewhere in connection with the 
mining activities, and they have mining operations on them. So most of 
this entirely misses me. I don't understand what is going on. As a 
matter of fact, we have had fights over mining claims for years. My 
good friend from Arkansas is not with us anymore, but we had fights 
over mining claims. This is the first time people have attacked mill 
sites. The amendment of the Senator from Washington attacks mill sites 
under the Solicitor's opinion--a misguided opinion at that--with regard 
to the number of mill sites. The Forest Service manual states:

       The number of mill sites that may legally be located is 
     based specifically on the need for mining and milling 
     purposes irrespective of the types or number of mining claims 
     involved.

  That has been a regulation issued by the Forest Service pursuant to 
the mining law, and it has been valid for years. Suddenly, the 
Solicitor's opinion says all that is nonsense; you can only have one 
mill site per mining claim. I am at a loss to understand why all of 
this rhetoric is coming at us with regard to the sins of the past.
  Why don't we talk about the tremendous destruction in the East? Why 
is this all about the West? As a matter of fact, as the companies from 
the East moved into the West, they laid the West to waste, and that is 
what led to the environmental laws that we have and live by. We abide 
by them, particularly the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the 
basic Environmental Protection Act.
  Every one of these mining claims must have a mining plan approved by 
the agency that is managing the Federal lands for the Federal 
Government. Those agencies approved those plans. To suddenly come in 
and to say there is something wrong about this, I don't understand the 
Senators from the East, nor do I understand the Senator from the West, 
raising this kind of an objection to the lands that are necessary for 
environmental purposes. If this mining claims decision is upheld, that 
decision made by the Solicitor, every mine in my State must close. 
Every mine must close. That is nonsense.
  Senator Murray's amendment merely states that the Solicitor is not 
going to make law. If you want to bring the law in and change the law 
of 1872, bring in the bill. We will debate it, as we did Senator 
Bumpers' bills. But don't come in and try to validate a Solicitor's 
opinion which is erroneous, and it is not good law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 27 seconds on the Senator's 
side, and 10 minutes 5 seconds on the majority side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her leadership on this important issue.
  I have listened carefully to this debate. I will gladly acknowledge 
that many of the Senators, including the Senator from Alaska, have more 
personal knowledge of the mining industry than I do. But I believe that 
the environmental issues here are clear-cut issues, whether you live in 
the East, West, North, or South.
  What we are talking about here is public land--land owned by every 
taxpayer. The people in a certain State with public land have no more 
claim to it than those in every other State. That is why this is a 
national issue.
  Allow me, if I may, to put this in a political context. It is my 
understanding that this was based on a decision in 1991--I underline 
1991--in a manual that was issued by the Department of the Interior, 
which has now become the handbook, or so-called ``manual,'' which has 
now become the basis of this debate. This so-called manual, or 
handbook, was neither a regulation nor a law. It was an interpretation 
which varied from interpretations which had been in existence since 
1872.
  For the first time since 1872, in 1991 in the closing days of the 
Bush administration, someone working in the Department of the Interior 
raised a question as to whether we would limit these mill sites to 5 
acres. That limitation had not been questioned seriously at any point 
in the promulgation of the Surface Mining Act or in any other law until 
that date.
  The mining industry seized that interpretation in 1991, in the 
closing hours of the Bush administration, and said: Now the lid is off. 
We can use as many acres as we want to dump next to our mining sites.
  When Mr. Leshy came back in 1997 and said there is no basis in law 
for

[[Page S9368]]

that handbook decision, that is when the industry went wild, came to 
Capitol Hill, and said what we cannot overturn it in the courts and we 
want you to overturn it with riders on appropriations bills.
  Those who talk about the sacred law in this handbook, let me tell 
you, one person in 1991, and one variation on the 5-acre limitation, 
and that is the basis for all of the argument that is being made by the 
other side.
  Let me raise a second point. The Senator from Alaska, as well as the 
Senator from Idaho, said that the Clean Water Act applies to those who 
are involved in hard rock mining.
  For the Record, I would like to make this clear. The Clean Water 
Act--I quote from ``Golden Dreams, Poisoned Streams'' by the Mineral 
Policy Center, certainly an organization which has an environmental 
interest in this, and I am proud to quote it as a source. If there are 
those who can find them wrong, make it a part of the Record. But I 
would gladly quote them as they say:

       The Clean Water Act, for instance, only partially addresses 
     oversight surface water discharge. While the act sets limits 
     on pollutants which can be discharged from surface waters 
     from fixed point sources, like pipes and other outlets, it 
     fails to directly regulate discharge to ground water, though 
     ground water contamination is a problem at many mine sites. 
     The Clean Water Act does not set any operational or 
     reclamation standard for a mine to assure that sites will not 
     continue to pollute water sources when they are abandoned.

  So for those who are arguing on the side of the mining industry to 
come to this floor and argue that the Clean Water Act will guarantee no 
environmental problems, let me tell you, it does not do it.

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds on our time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Great Malinda Mine in southeast Alaska never opened 
because of the Clean Water Act. The Senator and his source could not be 
further wrong.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Alaska that I have no idea 
about that particular mine. But it could be that they couldn't meet the 
Clean Water Act test, the fixed-point source test, because if it came 
to ground water contamination, there is no regulation under the Clean 
Water Act on mining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington State. 
I thank the Chair.
  There are a couple of points I would like to make. I know we are 
winding up this debate.
  No. 1, I think it is important for the public to understand that this 
industry faces a very dire financial situation.
  In Nevada, we have witnessed in the last decade the third renaissance 
of mining activity. It has employed thousands and thousands of people 
in my State with an average salary about $49,000 a year with a full 
range of benefits. These are good jobs.
  Because of the declining price of gold on the world market, we have 
lost more than 2,000 jobs in the last 6 months alone, and more are 
scheduled to be laid off. In part, this is because of some proposals by 
the British Government and the IMF gold sales. It is a separate issue 
for us. But we are facing a very difficult time.
  The second point I would like to make is that this has been framed as 
an environmental issue. It is not. The full panoply of all of the 
environmental laws enacted since the late 1960s applies to this 
industry. So they are not exempt from any of these provisions.
  Finally, the point needs to be made that with respect to the 
reclamation, or lack thereof, we are frequently invited to the specter 
of what happened decades ago. I don't defend that. This is a new era, 
and every mine application for a permit requires a reclamation process 
and the posting of the bond to make sure these kinds of problems do not 
develop.
  Why are we so upset about the Solicitor's opinion? For more than a 
century unchallenged, the interpretation given by the Solicitor's 
office was never viewed as the law. In this current administration, 
when the Clinton administration came into office, at no time during the 
early years was this kind of interpretation attached.
  All of those in this industry relying upon the law as it is--I agree 
with my colleagues who point out that the law of 1872 needs to be 
changed. I support those provisions. I think there should be a fair 
market value for the surface that is taken. There should be a royalty 
provision. There should be a reverter if the land is no longer used for 
mining purposes. I agree that there should be a reclamation process 
that is required. The devil has been in the details. Unfortunately, we 
have not been able to reach an agreement on that.
  But those who have sought and applied for the permits have done so 
based upon the law as it is today, and the regulations and the manual 
passed along to us by the Bureau of Land Management say nothing about 
one mill site for every mining claim--not a word, not a jot, not a 
title.
  This is a new development. It is unfair. I urge my colleagues to 
reject the proposal.
  Mr. GORTON. How much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opposition has 4 minutes 13 seconds and 
the proponents have 6 minutes 56 seconds.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is deja vu all over again, with 
the exception of the former Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, who 
obviously led this charge before.
  I have heard things on the floor of the Senate tonight that are so 
inaccurate that I am surprised. Some have suggested that cyanide is 
poured on the grounds of our mines in this country, that there are 
12,000 streams that have been polluted and damaged from our mining 
industry--and ruined, I think was the terminology used. These are 
totally inaccurate, false statements.
  They are rock. There is no cyanide from the mining industry leaching 
out in the area where mining has occurred. They are all closed systems.
  These are emotional appeals based not on fact but on fiction. They 
are directed by misleading environmentalists who have decided the 
mining industry and America's can-do spirit and technology can't take 
resources from the ground and do it properly.
  We are not talking about a mining bill. We are talking about the 
proposal of the Senator from Washington which would limit what the 
Solicitor has proposed--one site, one mill site in a mining claim.
  The reality is we will shut down the industry. That is all there is 
to it. Companies cannot operate the industry on that kind of a land 
availability.
  They generalize in their criticism. They talk about Superfund, the 
ground water contamination. There are 55,650 sites. These are sites 
where mining has occurred. Let's look at their record. Reclaimed or 
benign, 34 percent, 194,000; landscaped disturbances, the landscape 
retakes its ability for regeneration, 41 percent; safety hazard, 
116,000, 20 percent; surface water contamination, 2.6 percent; ground 
water contamination, eighty-nine one-hundredths; Superfund, eighty-nine 
one-hundredths.
  My point is this is not a crass dereliction of responsibility. This 
is the mining industry's history as evaluated by the U.S. Abandoned 
Mines. Certainly we have exceptions on past practices.
  To suggest cyanide is leaching out, to suggest we have an 
irresponsible industry, to suggest the States are not doing their 
jobs--and the States obviously oversee reclamation; they oversee the 
mining permits--and to try to kill the industry with a proposal that is 
absolutely inaccurate, impractical, and unrealistic is beyond me. I 
don't think it deserves the time of the Senate today.
  Nevertheless, that is where we are. This creates an impossible 
situation. If we want to run the mining industry offshore, this is the 
way to do it. Canada did it by a gross royalty. Mexico did it by taxing 
them.
  What is the matter with this body? There are 58,000 U.S. jobs, good 
paying jobs. We need to be a resource-developed country. Otherwise, we 
will bring them in from South Africa.
  What happened in South Africa? It speaks for itself. I hope my 
colleagues recognize what this does. This kills the

[[Page S9369]]

mining industry and exports the jobs offshore.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes twelve seconds and three minutes 
on the other side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of this debate.
  Obviously, there will be a tabling motion on my amendment. We have 
heard a lot on both sides. The one thing we all share is the 
understanding that the mining industry is an important industry in this 
country. We understand it provides jobs in many of our communities. We 
want to make sure that is retained in a fair way. The mining industry 
did not like the position of the mining law. Instead of allowing reform 
of a law that was written almost 130 years ago in a give-and-take 
fashion, they have come sweeping into the Interior bill, and in that 
bill the proponents have changed that portion of the law that the 
mining industry does not like.
  Maybe that portion of the law needs to be changed because of current 
technology that is out there. However, they should give something back. 
They already have an incredible deal. They pay $2.50 to $5 an acre for 
the land they use. They pay no royalties and now in this Interior bill 
they are allowed incredible mass use of our public lands.
  We have heard a lot about the law and the BLM manual. Let me show 
Members what the statute says. This is the 1872 law. It is very clear. 
It says:

       Such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and 
     included in at application for patent for such vein or lode, 
     and the same may be patented therewith . . . on no location 
     made on or after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall 
     exceed five acres.

  And for placer claims:

       Such land may be included in an application for a patent 
     for such claim and may be patented therewith subject to the 
     same requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable 
     to the placers. No location made of such nonmineral land 
     shall exceed five acres.

  The law is clear. The BLM manual from 1976 to 1991 was also very 
clear and talked about 5 acres. This was changed in 1991 at the end of 
the Bush era. It was changed to read:

       A mill site cannot exceed five acres in size. There is no 
     limit to the number of mill sites that can be held by a 
     single claimant.

  We are not here to debate the BLM manual. We are here to say: Should 
the law that was written in 1872 be changed to favor one side of this 
debate in this Interior bill before the Senate right now? We are saying 
if we are going to change a part of the law, this law, then we should 
ask the industry what they will give us in return. Will it be royalty 
that other industries have to pay? Is it more per acre? Should 
environmental law apply? Should they clean it up?
  We should debate it. It should be part of the 1872 Mining Act reform. 
I think this Congress ought to get into this debate. To do it blatantly 
for one side in this bill, this night, is not the way to do it. That is 
why we are debating this issue. I hope many of our colleagues will 
understand this is a giveaway to an industry that does not pay 
royalties, that only pays between $2.50 and $5 an acre, less than any 
Member would pay to go camping on our public lands.
  I think it needs to be done in a fair way. I urge my colleagues to 
step back. What are we doing for the taxpayers of this country? Let's 
be fair to them. Let's be fair to our public lands. Let's be fair to 
the law and do it right and not do it in a rider on the Interior 
appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to 
table.
  I thank all of our colleagues who came to the floor to help with this 
debate.
  Mr. GORTON. Rarely has a debate on an amendment had less to do with 
the content of the amendment itself. This debate is not about past 
mining practices or the leftovers from those practices or who will pay 
for them. The passage of the amendment will not affect that whatever, 
nor will the passage of the motion to table.
  Royalties for mining on public lands is not a part of this debate. 
Passing the Murray amendment will not change those royalties. Passing a 
motion to table won't change those royalties. The past simply is not 
involved in this matter. The way in which mining claims are patented is 
not involved in this matter, nor does this debate involve the 
environmental laws of the United States. Every plan of operation of a 
mine must meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, must meet the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, must meet the 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. You don't get the permit 
unless you have met all of those requirements. The mine in the State of 
Washington that was the subject of the earlier amendment in this body 
met all those requirements, got all those permits, and won tests 
against them in courts of the United States. And every other mining 
claim that will come up, if this motion to table is agreed to, will 
have to meet the same environmental laws.
  What this debate is about is whether or not the laws of the United 
States are to be amended by the Congress of the United States or by an 
employee of the Department of the Interior. This 1872 law has been 
amended by the Department of the Interior's ruling. No Member of 
Congress, whatever his or her views of the Mining Act of 1872, should 
favor the proposition that a bureaucrat can amend the laws of the 
United States. Of course, we ought to debate the 1872 Mining Act. Of 
course, we ought to vote on it. We have in fact debated and voted on it 
here in the Congress. But the fact that the changes have not taken 
place to the satisfaction of some does not delegate the authority to 
change the laws of the United States to the Department of the Interior.
  The subject here is simply that. If this motion to table is agreed 
to, as the person who will probably chair the conference committee on 
this subject, I assure you that no final provision will be any stronger 
than the Craig-Reid amendment because of what the House has done and 
may well be less sweeping even than that. So at the most, Members, by 
voting for this motion to table, are voting for the Craig-Reid 
amendment and probably for something somewhat less stringent.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from 
Nevada, Mr. Reid, I move to table the Murray amendment, No. 1360.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1360. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware Mr. (Biden), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced, yeas 55, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Biden
     Kennedy
     Lott
     Moynihan
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S9370]]

                     Amendment No. 1361, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reid 
amendment No. 1361 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________