[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23762-23769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2466, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the 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,

[[Page 23763]]

with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Dicks

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dicks moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2466, be instructed: (1) to insist on 
     disagreement with the provisions of Section 336 of the Senate 
     amendment and insist on the provisions of Section 334 of the 
     House bill; (2) to agree with the higher funding levels 
     recommended in the Senate amendment for the National 
     Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities; and (3) to disagree with the provisions in the 
     Senate amendment which will undermine efforts to protect and 
     restore our cultural and natural resources.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the first part of my motion deals with the issues of the 
number of millsites allowed under the interpretation of the provisions 
of the Mining Law of 1872.
  Members will recall that this matter has been a contentious issue 
twice this year, both on the 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill and on the 2000 Interior appropriations bill. Both the House and 
Senate versions of the Interior bill contain provisions relating to the 
permissible level for millsites for mining activities on Federal lands.
  The House provision was included as a floor amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for himself and for the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and for the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was adopted by a vote of 273-151. That amendment upheld 
the opinion of the Department of Interior that the correct 
interpretation of the 1872 Mining Law is that only one 5-acre millsite 
for mine and tailings is allowed for each claim or patent for mining 
activities on Federal land. The Senate provision is 180 degrees on the 
other side of the issue.
  The Senate provision sets aside the Department of the Interior's 
legal ruling and directs that the Interior and Agriculture Departments 
cannot limit the number or size of areas for mine waste. Furthermore, 
their provision is not just applicable for fiscal year 2000. The 
language of the amendment applies for any fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate provision has no place in the Interior 
appropriations bill. If the supporters of that provision want to amend 
the 1872 Mining Law, let them do it through the normal legislative 
process. The law allows mining operations on Federal land to proceed 
after payment of only $2.50 to $5 per acre. That may have made sense 
125 years ago when the Nation was settling the West, but it certainly 
makes no sense today.
  Practically the only provision yielding any environmental protection 
at all in the 1872 law is the provision that only one 5-acre millsite 
per claim is allowed. To weaken that provision may benefit the mining 
industry, but it is bad public policy and will almost certainly result 
in the veto of the Interior Appropriations act.
  Unfortunately, during extended debate on this issue, some have 
resorted to ad hominem attacks on the Solicitor of the Department of 
Interior. Most often, such attacks are resorted to when the 
preponderance of evidence does not support the position of the persons 
making the attacks. And that is precisely the situation here.
  While there may have been some confusion due to administrative 
guidance issued in the past, as courts have stated, administrative 
practice cannot supersede the plain words of the statute. And here is 
what the law says from, 30 U.S.C., 42, page 804 of the 1994 edition of 
the United States Code:

       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, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to 
     survey and notice as are applicable to veins or lodes; but no 
     location made on or after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent 
     land shall exceed five acres.

  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for the environment and 
for our publicly owned lands and reaffirm their support for the Rahall 
amendment.
  The second part of the motion merely instructs the House conferees to 
agree with the slightly higher funding levels that the other body 
recommended for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities. 
For each Endowment, the Senate recommendation is $5 million higher than 
the amount contained in the House bill. Both of these important 
organizations have received virtually flat funding for the past 4 
years. And that flat funding level has been approximately 40 percent 
below the amounts provided prior to 1995.
  Both organizations, but especially the National Endowment for the 
Arts, have substantially changed their operations and procedures in 
response to Congressional criticism. The message has been received, and 
it is time to move on. Both organizations have an impact far beyond 
just the level of funding provided. They both level their Federal 
funding with State, local, and private resources so that the impact of 
each appropriated dollar is magnified.
  We have had the debate on the merits of these agencies time and time 
again during the past 5 years. Every time the House has been permitted 
to speak its will on the NEA and the NEH, the result has been 
supported. During consideration of this year's Interior bill on the 
House floor, an amendment to reduce the funding level for the National 
Endowment for the Arts by just $2 million was defeated by a vote of 
124-300.
  I realize an amendment to increase NEA and NEH funding by $10 million 
each was nearly defeated, but this was solely due to concern about the 
proposed offsets. The Senate was able to find additional funding for 
the Endowments without the objectionable offsets, and I believe the 
House conferees should go along with their recommendations.
  The final part of this motion concerns the several new provisions 
added during Senate consideration of the bill that are generally 
regarded as assisting the special interest to the detriment of our 
public land. I will not itemize all the provisions. That has been done 
repeatedly by the administration, the press, and concerned individuals 
and groups. I believe if most of these provisions are included in a 
bill sent to the President, a veto will result and we will have to 
negotiate the measure again.
  I urge my colleagues to avoid that unnecessary confrontation by 
stripping the anti-environmental provisions out of the bill in the 
conference.
  I hope my colleagues will demonstrate their support for the 
environment and for the Endowments of the Arts and Humanities. Support 
the motion to instruct the Interior conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly address a few of the points made by 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  First of all, on the matter of amending the Mining Act of 1872, that 
is a policy change; and I think that correctly it should be done by the 
Congress in the normal legislative process. I do not believe that a 
Solicitor General should exercise a privilege of amending a policy 
matter that has been adopted by the Congress. That would, to me, be bad 
public policy.
  I think, obviously, something we need to address is the Mining Act. 
1872 is a long time ago and many things have changed since then, but it 
should be done in an orderly way rather than to delegate legislative 
responsibility to the Solicitor General.

[[Page 23764]]

  I might mention on the matter of the arts, since there has been a 
rather lively discussion prior to this on the Brooklyn Museum of Art, 
and that is that we maintain in this bill the Congressional reforms: 15 
percent cap on the amount of funds any one State can receive; State 
grant programs and State set-asides are increased 40 percent of total 
grants; anti-obscenity requirements for grants, and this is supported 
by the Supreme Court decision in 1998, as was stated in the previous 
debate, puts six Members of Congress on the National Council on the 
Arts, three from the House, three from the Senate; reduce the 
presidentially appointed council to 14 from 26; prohibited grants to 
individuals except for literature fellowships or National Heritage 
fellowship or American Jazz Masters fellowship; prohibited subgranting 
of four full seasonal support grants; allows NEA and NEH to solicit and 
invest private funds to support the agencies; provided a grant priority 
for projects in underserved populations; provided a grant priority for 
education, understanding, and appreciation of the arts; and provided 
emphasis for grants to community music programs.
  These changes were incorporated in prior Interior bills limiting the 
NEA. I think they worked extremely well, and that has been evident by 
the fact that we have not had some of the problems that were prevalent 
in the past. I think these conditions are an important element in 
congressional responsibility or congressional oversight, as my 
colleagues may choose to define it.
  That is one of the issues, of course, in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, 
and that is what oversight does Government have on the way in which 
funds are expended. We have tried to do a responsible piece of work on 
this issue, and I think it has been a great help in keeping support for 
the NEA and the NEH, and particularly the NEA, in our bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the chairman. I had the privilege 
of working with him a few years ago in drafting language that, as he 
suggested, was tested by the Supreme Court of the United States. That 
rule tried to emphasize quality in making these grant awards. Because, 
obviously, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, neither 
one of them can fund every single grant application that comes in.

                              {time}  1715

  We worked on language that talked about funding those applications 
that had the highest quality, that represented the finest in the arts. 
I believe that a lot of the success in recent years of both the 
Endowment for the Arts and Humanities is because we did give some 
guidance. I think the gentleman from Ohio deserves a great deal of 
credit for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairman of the Arts Caucus who has been 
a real leader on these issues.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
for their extraordinary work and how wonderful it is to work with both 
of them.
  The first thing I want to say today is we have just had the 
resolution on the Brooklyn Museum of Art. I want to put everybody's 
minds at rest, there is no NEA money in that exhibition.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on 
the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill. As most of my 
colleagues will attest, I have long stood at the well of this Chamber 
to advocate for the strongest level of support possible for the arts 
and humanities.
  For the past 4 years, this body has passed up the opportunity to 
benefit millions of Americans by choosing to level-fund the National 
Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities. Year after year, I have 
joined with other members in a bipartisan way, members of the 
Congressional Arts Caucus, to show our support for our Nation's 
cultural institutions, and to fight back against the political rhetoric 
and campaigns of misinformation that have long been used against these 
vital agencies.
  So today I say with great enthusiasm that we are finally beginning to 
reap the benefits of these efforts. This motion to instruct provides 
badly needed relief to the NEA and the NEH by directing the conferees 
to accept the $5 million funding increases that were responsibly added 
to this bill by the other body. These small increases will permit the 
NEA to broaden its reach to all Americans through its Challenge America 
initiative. It will give the Endowment the resources to undertake the 
job that we in Congress have asked of it, to make more grants to small 
and medium-sized communities that have not been the beneficiaries of 
Federal arts funding in the past. From the fields of rural America to 
the streets of our inner cities, the NEA has a plan to expose all 
Americans to the arts and this money would help them to do exactly 
that.
  In addition, the NEH plays an equally important role in our society. 
It is at the forefront of efforts to improve and promote education in 
the humanities. NEH funding is well spent to ensure that teachers, 
restricted by scarce funding, are well-trained in history, civics, 
literature and social studies. Through the use of computers, 
educational software and the Internet, the NEH is also using its 
Teaching with Technology initiative to bring the humanities to life in 
the information age.
  Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans and a majority of this House 
support the arts and humanities. In addition, these institutions are 
supported by such entities as the United States Conference of Mayors, 
the National Association of Counties, and by such corporations as CBS, 
Coca-Cola, Mobil, Westinghouse and Boeing, to name just a few. These 
organizations support the arts because they provide economic benefits 
to our communities. Last year, the $98 million allocated to the NEA 
provided the leadership and backbone for a $37 billion industry. For 
the price of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget, we 
helped create a system that supports 1.3 million full-time jobs in 
States, cities, towns and villages across the country, providing $3.4 
billion back to the Federal Treasury in income taxes. I think that is a 
good investment.
  As we head into a new millennium, these modest increases will allow 
the NEA and the NEH to spread the wonderful work that they do to every 
city, town and village in America. Federal support for the arts and 
humanities is an incredibly worthwhile investment and these increases 
would take a small but important step toward revitalizing two agencies 
that we have neglected for too many years.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee for yielding me this time here to address some of these 
issues.
  I am not sure whether we are here arguing about the mill site 
provision on the basis of science or emotion. I rise in strong 
opposition to the motion to instruct conferees because this amendment, 
this provision on the mill site is nothing but a rider which we 
constantly hear, it is a rider on an appropriations bill, it is 
legislating on an appropriations bill, and it is not necessary. Members 
start talking about the sound science, as I hear from the previous 
speakers who are in support of this motion, on the basis that it is 
needed to protect our land and protect our environment. I refer them 
directly to the publication which was just printed, in fact it was 
released September 29, 1999, from the National Research Council titled 
``Hard Rock Mining on Federal Lands.'' The number one issue in this 
200-page report that was paid for and authorized to study this issue 
says that the existing array of Federal and State laws regulating 
mining in general are effective in protecting the environment.
  There is no reason that we have to sit here and talk about 
restricting mill

[[Page 23765]]

sites to protect the environment. I would agree with my colleague from 
Washington that the 1872 law says that it is a five-acre mill site. 
That is for one reason, because we permit and we stake out or locate 
mill sites in five-acre increments. But when we restrict this five 
acres to a 20-acre claim, it does not allow for the administration, the 
milling, as well as the overburden and tailings that come from a 20-
acre mine. You cannot take 20 acres of overburden rock, move them off 
of 20 acres and stack them on five acres and put your administration 
there, put your mill site there, as well as the tailings that are off 
of this mine.
  So I would suggest that this is really a poor interpretation of the 
current mining practices that have not been challenged even by this 
administration until this recent Solicitor General's opinion that was 
put in simply to stop the Crown Jewel mine in Washington State.
  For the past practices of this industry, the administration through 
the Bureau of Land Management has permitted numerous mill site 
applications per mining claim, not restricting them to numbers but only 
to five acres in size and increment, so that you could get more than 
one 5-acre mill site per mining claim. This is necessary because of the 
current practices of mining. Unlike underground mining which is in my 
colleague's State of West Virginia here, most of the mining out West is 
done in open pit style mining where it takes a great deal of 
overburden, removes that off of the ore deposit and then mines the ore 
body. It takes a requirement of acreage larger than five acres to put 
an overburden that comes from a 20-acre mill site.
  What we would be doing here in effect by passing this motion to 
instruct conferees and restricting them to a five-acre limitation would 
be to effectively and retroactively go back and shut down these mines. 
I think that is in the wrong direction that we would be taking this 
industry, and so I would suggest to my colleagues that we oppose this, 
because there is no real need for this provision.
  We are able to go back through the permitting process, through all of 
the environmental agencies, through all of the agencies that oversee 
mining and actually look and review the requirements for more than a 
single five-acre mill site with some of these mines. And in doing that 
process, we have then protected the environment. We have looked at it 
from all angles. But to restrict them on an arbitrary basis that you 
only get five acres is totally unfounded in the science and is 
supported by this recent publication here that we have in our hands 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
leadership in this area. I do rise in opposition to this motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Motion to Instruct Conferees on 
H.R. 2466, the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Act. This motion will 
allow the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to amend the 
existing mining law without congressional authorization.
  In March of this year, the Solicitor at the Department of the 
Interior reinterpreted a longstanding provision of law and then relied 
on his new interpretation to stop a proposed gold mine in Washington 
State.
  This proposed mine (Crown Jewel) had gone through a comprehensive 
environmental review by Federal and State regulators, which was upheld 
by a federal district court. They had met every environmental standard 
required and secured over 50 permits. The mine qualified for their 
Federal permit after spending $80 million and waiting over 7 years. The 
local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service officials informed 
the mine sponsors that they qualified for the permit and they should 
come to their office to receive it. It was then that the Solicitor in 
Washington D.C. intervened and used his novel interpretation of the law 
to reject the project.
  This Motion is cleverly designed to codify this administrative 
reinterpretation. This interpretation has been implemented without any 
congressional oversight or rulemaking which would be open to public 
review and comment. This was a calculated effort to give broad 
discretion to the Solicitor to stop mining projects that met all 
environmental standards yet were still opposed by special interest 
groups. The Motion should be defeated and the Solicitor should be 
required to seek a congressional change to the law of enter a formal 
rulemaking giving the impacted parties an opportunity to comment on the 
change.
  If allowed to stand, the Interior Department's ruling will render the 
Mining Law virtually meaningless and shut down all hard rock mining 
operations and projects representing thousands of jobs and billions of 
dollars of investment throughout the West.
  This Motion would destroy the domestic mining industry and with the 
price of gold at a new 30-year low, the second largest industry in 
Nevada will cease to exist. Pay attention Congress, mining will no 
longer exist in Nevada.
  If the Secretary or his solicitor has problems with the United States 
mining law then he should take these problems to Congress, to be 
debated in the light of day, before the American public. Laws are not 
made by unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrats administer the laws Congress 
approves whether or not they agree with those laws. It is the duty of 
government in a democracy to deal honestly with its citizens and not to 
cheat them.
  As the Wall Street Journal stated, ``if the Solicitor's millsite 
opinion is allowed to stand, investment in the U.S. will be as risky as 
third world nations.'' The International Union of Operating Engineers 
opposed the Rahall amendment on the basis that if passed it will force 
the continued loss of high paying U.S. direct and indirect blue-collar 
jobs in every congressional district. The Constitution gives the people 
control over the laws that govern them by requiring that statutes be 
affirmed personally by legislators and a president elected by the 
people.
  Majorities in the House and Senate must enact laws and constituents 
can refuse to re-elect a legislator who has voted for a bad law. Many 
Americans no longer believe that they have a government by and for the 
people. They see government unresponsive to their concerns, beyond 
their control and view regulators as a class apart, serving themselves 
in the complete guise of serving the public.
  When regulators take it upon themselves to legislate through the 
regulatory process the people lose control over the laws that govern 
them. No defensible claim can be made that regulators possess superior 
knowledge of what constitutes the public good. Nor to take it upon 
themselves to create laws they want because of congressional gridlock--
the value laden word for a decision not to make law. The so-called 
gridlock that the policy elites view as to unconscionable was and is no 
problem for people who believe in the separation of powers doctrine 
contained in the Constitution which holds that laws indeed should not 
be made unless the broad support exists to get those laws through the 
Article I process of the Constitution, i.e., ``All legislative powers 
herein granted shall be bested in Congress.''
  Let us debate the merits of the proposal, do not destroy the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of miners just to appease special interest groups 
whose entire agenda is to rid our public lands of mining. If you have 
problems with mining on our public lands come and see me, together we 
can make positive changes but do not destroy the lives of my 
constituents today by supporting this Motion!
  Without mining none of us would have been able to get to work today, 
we would not have a house over our heads--because without mining we 
have nothing. Give our mining families a chance to earn a living, to 
work to provide the very necessities that you require. Oppose the 
devastating riders in the Motion to Instruct Conferees and uphold your 
constitutional oath to your constituents.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) who was the author of this 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill and who is an expert on 
this subject here in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking minority 
member for yielding me the time and commend him for the motion that he 
has brought. I support all three points of his motion to instruct but 
would like to narrow my remarks to the mill site provisions portion of 
these instructions.
  As has been referred to, Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly in a 
bipartisan vote on July 14 adopted my amendment offered along with the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to uphold the Interior Department's lawfully 
constructed position on the ratio of mill sites which may be located in 
association with mining claims on western Federal lands. This amendment 
was adopted 273-151, so a vote today in support of

[[Page 23766]]

this motion to instruct would be consistent with the vote of last July 
14.
  This issue is about protecting the American taxpayers and the 
environment against abuses which occur under that Mining Law of 1872 
under which there is overwhelming support for some type of reform. 
Simply put, if Members voted ``aye'' on July 14, they vote ``aye'' 
today as well. As for the 151 Members who voted ``no'' at that time, 
perhaps they will see the light, have the opportunity to make amends, 
and today is the opportunity to do the right thing.
  We have had debate on this issue during the course of many years. 
Since our last debate, however, on July 14, new information has come to 
light. Under a directive that was included in the supplemental 
appropriation enacted last May, the Interior Department has now 
completed a report on the number of pending plans of operation and 
patent applications, which under the Solicitor's opinion, contain a 
ratio of mill sites to mining claims in excess of legal requirements. 
The results of this report clearly illustrate that the Solicitor's 
opinion will not lead to the end of all hard rock mining on western 
Federal lands as some would have us believe.
  In response to the gentleman from Nevada who just said that what we 
are doing by these instructions is retroactively going back and 
shutting down mines, that statement is certainly not substantiated by 
the facts of what I am about to present to the body. There are 338 
pending plans of operations affecting BLM, National Forest System and 
National Park System lands. Three hundred thirty-eight pending plans of 
operations. Twenty-seven were found to include a ratio of mill sites to 
mining claims in excess of the legal requirement. Twenty-seven of those 
338 would be affected by these instructions. That is only about 8 
percent.
  Pending patent applications that could be affected, here the 
Department found that of the 304 grandfathered patent applications, 
only 20, that is about 7 percent, are estimated to have excess mill 
sites. It is clear, then, that the vast majority of the hard rock 
mining industry in this respect has chosen to abide by the legal 
requirements of the law. The vast majority of the hard rock mining 
industry abides by the legal requirements of the law. So I find it 
difficult to believe that the Congress would now penalize this majority 
of law-abiding operations and award the contrary minority as they 
relate to the mill site to mining claim ratio by rejecting the 
Solicitor's opinion.
  So let us go along with these instructions, with the vote we had last 
July 14, an ``aye'' vote to instruct the conferees to uphold the House 
position as well as the majority law-abiding portions of the hard rock 
mining industry.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have many times in this Congress seen committee 
chairs of authorizing committees complain about the fact that the 
Committee on Appropriations has added amendment after amendment to 
appropriations bills which they feel are legislative amendments rather 
than appropriating amendments and therefore do not belong on 
appropriations bills.
  Just last week we were treated to the concerns that one chairman of 
an authorizing committee had on two appropriations bills that were on 
the floor. Because of that, I find it ironic that in this case what we 
are trying to do today is to tell the other body that they should strip 
from the Interior and HUD appropriation bills a whole range of 
amendments that do not belong on the bill.
  Three years ago on the HUD bill, we had a fight over 13 anti-
environmental riders that were added to that bill, and it took three 
votes before we finally were able to strip those off. Now we have well 
over a dozen major anti-environmental riders added by the other body, 
if we take the administration's count, and well over that number if we 
take other outside observers' count.

                              {time}  1730

  In many instances the people who have been offering these amendments 
are authorizing committee chairs who cannot get those amendments added 
to authorizing legislation and so are now trying to use the 
appropriations bills as vehicles to accomplish their own ends.
  So we see the spectacle of amendments being added to satisfy the 
mining industry, amendments being added to satisfy the logging 
industry, amendments are offered to satisfy the grazing interests, and 
we see amendments being offered to satisfy the oil industry.
  The problem is that in each instance those amendments are against the 
public interests. They may be perfect, a perfect fit with private 
interests, but they are certainly the antithesis of what we would do if 
what we were doing is focusing on the public interests; and to me what 
the gentleman is simply suggesting is that enough is enough, we ought 
to instruct the conferees to eliminate these nonappropriation 
provisions. It seems to me, if we do that, we will be protecting the 
taxpayers' interests as well as the public interest; and once in a 
while just for the heck of it that is what we ought to be seen as 
doing.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion 
to instruct, specifically on the issues regarding the NEA and the NEH. 
I will not deal with the issue of mining and the policy issues, but the 
increase in funding for NEA and NEH. I rise because we just debated an 
issue similar to this, of course, just a few minutes ago, about a half 
hour ago I suppose.
  And I rose on that occasion to support an amendment that would 
clearly identify the sense of the Congress about the expenditure of tax 
money on an, I guess I will have to say, an art exhibit, although it is 
certainly hard to qualify it as such, in New York City, in Brooklyn. 
And the gentleman opposing us on that indicated that he really did not 
understand the gist of my point, so I am happy to once again stand up 
here and get a few more minutes, a bit longer time, to say what I want 
to say about this and explain my concern about it and do so a little 
slower because I have a little more time to do it. Maybe it will be 
better understood.
  But the fact is that the problem we see both in Brooklyn, the problem 
with increasing money to the NEA, is endemic to this whole question of 
whether or not we should be asking taxpayers of the United States to 
fund any project of art because we are always going to have these kinds 
of debates because there will always be people who will push the kind 
of stuff that we are talking about in Brooklyn and will do other kinds 
of things in order to get the attention of either the Congress or any 
other appropriating body that is giving money to the arts in order to 
eliminate any sort of criteria whatsoever in the decision-making 
process as to what should be publicly funded, because they do not want 
it, they do not want that kind of restriction. So they are always going 
to be pushing the envelope and will always be here talking about 
whether or not it is appropriate.
  My point is that I agree that I wish we were not here doing that 
because I wish we were not appropriating money for the arts, period. It 
is not the responsibility of the Government to determine what is and 
what is not art.
  We can certainly, and there was a robust debate about what exactly is 
and is not art in Brooklyn, and I wish we were not here doing it; but 
as long as we are going to tax Americans for this purpose, as long as 
we are going to take money out of their pockets and distribute it to 
individuals, then we are going to be here determining what is what, 
what is and what is not art, what should be and what should not be 
funded. And that is why I certainly rise in opposition to any increase 
whatsoever in appropriations to the NEA, and I certainly would rise, if 
I had the opportunity, to strike all funding for it for this very 
reason. It always creates this kind of confrontation, and it should 
not. We should not be funding it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)

[[Page 23767]]

who has been a leading defender and protector of the environment in 
Washington State and throughout the country.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I will speak in strong support of this 
motion, and I think this motion supports two values that we ought to 
hold, and the first is the value of respect, respect for the law, and 
the second value is respect for this House and our interests in 
protecting the public interests, not the special interests; but first, 
respect for the law.
  We have got to understand that all this motion does is simply say 
that we are going to respect, we are going to follow, we are going to 
honor the pre-existing and existent law of the United States of America 
today. And I would like to refer my colleagues to 30 U.S.C., Section 
42, in the language specifically previously adopted by Congress, not by 
some bureaucrat, not by some middle-level agency official. By the 
United States Congress the law specifically says that such patents and 
mining claims on nonadjacent land shall not exceed 5 acres, shall not 
exceed 5 acres. It is the law today, and we are not amending the law, 
we are preventing an amendment of law in the appropriations process.
  Now it is beyond my imagination when the U.S. Congress says, If 
you're going to have a place to put your cyanide-laced rock on the 
public's land, you can only do it, but it won't exceed 5 acres, how 
folks can turn around and say, Well, sure, you can only do it 5 acres, 
but you can do it as many times as you want on 5 acres.
  That does not wash. We should have respect for the law and pass this 
amendment.
  But secondly, I think there is maybe a more important issue here, and 
that is respect for this House and this Houses's obligation to protect 
the general public interest.
  As my colleagues know, it has been a sad fact that this other 
chamber, which we dearly respect, has sent us over anti-environmental 
riders after anti-environmental riders, and those riders protect the 
special interests, not the general public interest; and if we ask why 
there has been such an interest in some of our States in independent 
politics and reform-minded politics, it is because the other chamber 
has sent us sometimes fleas on the backs of some of these laws, and we 
have got to delouse some of these appropriation bills. We ought to 
start right here with this motion.
  We should stand up for our vote and the 273 Members that stood up for 
the general interest and pass this motion.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for 
following the Udall rule, that when all else fails, read the statute. 
The gentleman clearly has done that, and the statute is pretty clear; 
and I urge the other side to take a look at it at their leisure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), a member of our subcommittee, a valued member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Washington, our 
very valued ranking member on our subcommittee, and I want to thank the 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Interior for his very fine work; and I 
am just up here to support this instruction because I know it is wholly 
consistent with what our chairman would want, as would all the 
enlightened Members of this body. Sometimes the Senate gets away with 
things, and we just have to try to set them straight.
  So I support this because not only would I like to see a little extra 
money for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, but 
certainly we ought not allow mining operators to claim at taxpayer 
expense as much acreage as the operators deem necessary for these waste 
piles that pose significant environmental problems. So the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) won that issue on a 273 to 151 vote; we 
certainly ought to stand firm on it.
  But perhaps the most important thing that we could do in conference 
would be to prevent the Senate from adding any number, a host of anti-
environmental riders that they slipped in. They slipped them in without 
public review, overriding existing environmental protections, limited 
tribal sovereignty, and imposed unjustified micro-management 
restrictions on agency activities.
  To think that this bill permanently extends expiring grazing permits 
nationwide on Bureau of Land Management lands without the environmental 
review required by current law, it delays the forest plans until final 
planning regulation of the public, thus preventing new science and 
sustainable forest practices from being incorporated into expiring 
forest plans.
  It has a limitation on tribal self-determination; there is a 
permanent prohibition on grizzly bear reintroduction on Federal lands 
in Idaho and Montana that overturns a recent Federal Circuit Court of 
Appeals decision requiring Federal land management agencies to conduct 
wildlife surveys before amending land management plans; there is a 
limitation on the receipt of fair market value for oil from Federal 
lands; it delays for the fourth time the publication of final rules to 
establish fair market value.
  Mr. Speaker, that alone costs the taxpayers $68 million, and the 
Senate just slips it in. There is a limitation on energy efficiency 
regulations in the Federal Government. These have been praised by 
everyone, and yet this Senate provision stops us from implementing that 
Federal energy efficiency regulation. There is delays for the Columbia 
Basin ecosystem plan, the Columbia River Gorge plan, mineral 
development in the Mark Twain National Forest that overrides Federal 
land managers' ability to act responsibly there.
  There is a host of environmental riders. They are all anti-
environmental riders. None of them should have been slipped in. We 
would not have allowed them on the House floor; we should not allow 
them in the conference.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Baldacci), a very valued Member of this House.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time and his leadership on the committee, and in these efforts I 
request that we do vote yes on the Dicks motion to instruct the 
Interior conferees.
  I would just like to take a moment to underline the importance of the 
arts and the humanities. There are a lot of parts of America and rural 
America and rural Maine that cannot afford some of the luxuries in 
major urban areas and throughout this country, and to have an 
organization like the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities to 
be able to provide resources to rural communities so that he can have 
an advantage of the arts programs.
  Arts education is shown to increase the SAT scores of young people by 
50 to 60 points, and what people are finding out, that the arts are not 
just a side dish or an appetizer; but they are part of the main course 
and the main course of people throughout this country.
  I would like to further underscore the importance of this instruction 
of conferees as it pertains to mining waste and on Federal lands and 
also in rejection of these anti-environmental riders that have been put 
forth.
  We must approve this, must approve this now.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this motion, and I applaud the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
for offering it and for his successful efforts here in the House and 
then keeping the anti-environmental riders out of the House version of 
this bill.
  I would like to speak about one specific rider that would prohibit 
the past in the Senate, that would prohibit the Department of Interior 
from implementing new rules to require oil companies to pay market 
price royalties to the American taxpayer on oil they drill on publicly 
owned Federal lands. Now they keep two sets of books, one that they pay 
each other market price, but

[[Page 23768]]

when it comes to paying the Nation's school teachers, Indian tribes, 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, they want to pay less. Interior says 
this costs the American public $66 million a year, and I say let us let 
the money that is rightfully due America's schoolchildren and the 
public school system, let us let them pay the market price and not hurt 
the schoolchildren and pay themselves more. It is unfair; it is wrong.
  Vote against the oil companies and for schoolchildren.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), who has been one of the leaders on 
environmental issues in the House and a former chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time and appreciate his bringing this motion to 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we should clearly adopt the House position as reflected 
in the July vote earlier this year on the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment 
to the bill. House Members voted 273 to 151 in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, those opposed would suggest somehow the solicitor in the 
Department of Interior simply woke up one day and tried to redefine an 
1872 mining law to limit the number of acres that mining operations can 
claim as waste disposal. Nothing can be further from the truth.
  The fact of the matter is that the law and the record on the law is 
replete with example after example, dealing from 1872 to 1891 to 1903 
to 1940 to 1955 to 1960 to 1970 to 1974, time and again, time and 
again, in the writings of both people from the mining industry, from 
the government, and from interested parties, time and again the law is 
very clear on its face that the solicitor in his 1977 analysis is quite 
correct on mill-site provisions; and, in fact, that they were not to be 
allowed to be given additional land.
  The reason they should not is that is we should not sponsor without 
very careful consideration the expansion of mill waste. This country is 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and is yet to spend 
additional hundreds of millions of dollars, cleaning up after the waste 
product of mines that have been developed across the country.
  No longer is this some miner and his pick and shovel and his mule 
going out across the country. These are some of the biggest earth 
movers on the face of the earth that move hundreds and hundreds of tons 
of earth to get a single ounce, a single ounce, of gold. The mining 
that is done with the cyanide heap leaching must be carefully 
controlled, and those leach piles are there for the foreseeable future. 
Before we make a decision that they can simply spread those across all 
of the claims, this law ought to be upheld and we ought to continue to 
support the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this proposal to the 
House and ask for strong support of it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just have one comment: The ranking minority member 
talked about the Congressional reforms, and I want to compliment Mr. 
Ivy and Mr. Ferris. I think they have tried to live up to these 
standards in the administration of their two agencies.
  I would say to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), you mentioned 
about the areas of lesser population, and we did recognize that in 
these standards, to get grants into the smaller communities across this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


              Modification to Motion Offered by Mr. Dicks

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the first 
section number in my motion read ``section 335'', not ``section 336.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members who spoke today. I think 
this was a spirited debate. I know the chairman and I both want to see 
us get a bill in a timely way that the President of the United States 
can sign. That means we are going to deal with these riders.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand how strongly people feel about these 
issues. I have had problems with these in my own State. But I do 
believe that unless we narrow these dramatically, we are going to have 
a hard time getting this bill enacted.
  I also rise in strong support of the National Endowment of the Arts 
and Humanities. I believe that they deserve this extra support. By the 
way, this very controversial project in Brooklyn has not received any 
funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. The museum has 
received support on other projects, but one of the things that the 
chairman, and I supported him on this, insisted on was a very specific 
description of what the money from the endowment is going to be used 
for. The money is not being used for this controversial project in New 
York. That shows that the reforms that we have put into place, in fact, 
are working.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion 
to instruct conferees, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks.
  By adopting this motion, the House will be giving its conferees a 
simple instruction--to do the right thing.
  It is the right thing to reject the attempt of the other body to use 
the appropriations process to rewrite the mining laws in a piecemeal 
and unbalanced way, for the special benefit of certain interests. We do 
need to revise the 1872 mining law. But we shouldn't do it in a 
backdoor way that addresses only one aspect of the law and not the 
larger issues, including the basic question of whether the American 
people are receiving an adequate return for the development of minerals 
from our public lands.
  It is also the right thing to adequately support the arts and 
humanities that are so important to the cultural life of our nation.
  And it definitely is the right thing to reject attempts to use the 
appropriations process to undermine the protection of our environment.
  So, I urge the adoption of this motion to instruct the conferees.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the motion 
to instruct conferees for the Interior Appropriations Bill. Earlier 
this summer, I offered my general support of H.R. 2466. H.R. 2466 
appropriates a total of $14.1 billion in FY 2000 for Interior 
Appropriations. It is an overall fair and balanced bill and though it 
falls short of the administration's request it takes care of the 
national parks, Native Americans, cultural institutions, and museums. 
This bill is truly about preserving the legacy of this great land for 
America's children.
  However, I want to voice my disappointment in the Appropriations 
Committee's funding recommendation for the National Endowment for the 
Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH). I do 
appreciate the fact that the Committee tagged $98,000,000 for the 
National Endowment for the Arts. However, I still find the 
recommendation insufficient. The Administration requested $150,000,000, 
a full $52,000,000 more than the Appropriations' recommendation. This 
number is unsatisfactory given the importance of the arts. The NEA 
remains the single largest source of funding for the nonprofit arts in 
the United States, and this agency provides quality programs for 
families and children. Insufficient funding to the NEA results in 
collateral damage to praiseworthy arts, as well as to theaters such as 
the Alley Theater in Houston, Texas.
  The Committee also underfunds the National Endowment for the 
Humanities at $110,700,000. At $39,300,000 below the Administration's 
request, the agency cannot continue to support education, research, 
document and artifact preservation, and public service to the 
humanities.
  We spent much of this afternoon discussing federal funding for art. 
This debate was a waste of our time and a waste of our taxpayers time. 
We have a long tradition of support for the arts, beginning in 1817. 
The very art that adorns the U.S. Capitol came from federal funding. 
The private sector simply cannot provide adequate funding for our arts 
endeavor if enough federal funding is not established. Underfunding the 
arts would result in the loss of programs that have national purposes 
such as touring theater and dance companies, travelling museum 
exhibitions, and radio and television productions.
  The NEA, in particular, also seeks to provide a new program, 
Challenge America, that

[[Page 23769]]

establishes arts education, youth-at-risk programs, and community arts 
partnerships. Inner-city areas, especially minority groups and their 
children, would greatly benefit from this program, but the program is 
based upon the $150 million Administration request. Art is something 
that all can enjoy, and by providing adequate federal funding we can 
increase access to the arts for those who desire it the most.
  I will note that the committee justly prioritized the needs of 
America's national parks, Native Americans, cultural institutions, and 
museums in this appropriations bill. I am pleased that this bill 
remains free of the environmental riders, which has plagued this 
process in the past.
  This bill continues the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 
allowing public lands to keep 100% of the fees. This will result in 
over $400 million of added revenue over the life of the demo program 
spent at collections sites. This revenue will address maintenance 
backlogs at several of America's historical locations.
  One of America's greatest treasures is it cultural gifts provided to 
our nation by the diverse American melting pot. This bill begins 
continues our efforts at preservation and education by providing $26 
million to the Smithsonian and $3.5 million to our National Gallery.
  In addition Mr. Chairman this bill address America's commitment to 
the Native American population. American Indian program increases 
include an additional $28.7 million for the Office of Special Trustee 
to begin to fix the long-standing problems with the management of 
Indian trust funds. It also provides an additional $13 million for 
operation of Indian schools and Tribal Community Colleges.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleagues concerning the 
Department of Energy's Oil/Gas R&D Program. This program oversees some 
600 active research and development projects. Many of these projects 
are high risk and long range in scope and many are beyond the 
capabilities of the private sector. Without the government's commitment 
to sharing the risk it would be impossible for private companies to 
invest.
  This program is the catalyst for the government's partnership with 
private industry. An investment in Fossil Energy R&D is truly an 
investment in America's future. This program has become the convenient 
whipping post when it is clear that this program is necessary to 
protect America's energy security.
  I am also disappointed with the funding of the arts and humanities. I 
do appreciate the fact that the Committee tagged $98,000,000 for the 
National Endowment for the arts. Obviously, this amount of funding is a 
vast improvement over the $0 recommended prior to Committee 
recommendation. However, I still find the recommendation insufficient. 
The Administration requested $136,000,000, a full $38,000,000 more than 
the Appropriations recommendation. This number is unsatisfactory given 
the important of the arts. The NEA remains the single largest source of 
funding for the nonprofit arts in the United States, and this agency 
provides quality programs for families and children. Insufficient 
funding to the NEA results in collateral damage to praiseworthy arts, 
as well as to theaters such as the Alley Theater in Houston, Texas.
  The Committee also underfunds the National Endowment for Humanities 
at $96,800,000. At $25,200,000 below the Administration's request, the 
agency cannot continue to support education, research, document and 
artifact preservation, and public service to the humanities.
  I encourage my colleague to support H.R. 2466 a balanced 
appropriations bill for America's treasure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  The question was taken.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________