[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 30588-30589]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    BYRD-McCONNELL MINING AMENDMENT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we all owe a tremendous debt of 
gratitude to the senior Senator from West Virginia.
  What we have now is a situation concerning mining in the U.S. where a 
crucial decision is either going to be made to maintain an atmosphere 
where mining can continue or through the prevailing attitude within the 
Clinton administration to simply drive this industry offshore.
  The Clinton administration, by its actions, evidently opposes the 
working people of America who are involved in mining.
  Those opposing Senator Byrd's proposal basically are destroying the 
entire coal industry which exists west of the Mississippi--the mine 
workers whose jobs depend on that industry, the railroad workers, the 
barge men, and the truck drivers.
  I think it is important to note that Senator Byrd's amendment directs 
the application of the Clean Water Act to be returned to the way it was 
at the beginning of October of this year.
  Senator Byrd's amendment does not change the law. It does not change 
any practice that has been followed over the years. It is our job to 
change the law--not the White House and not the courts.
  Senator Byrd's amendment gives the Congress and the Federal agencies 
time to apply existing law without destroying the coal mining industry 
of this country--time to apply the law, or make such adjustments that 
are necessary in a way that protects the environment, the coal mining 
industry, and all those who depend upon that industry for their well-
being.
  We are looking for a balance. The administration's proposal throws 
this out of balance.
  The amendment goes further. There are two additional issues involved.
  One deals with the recent Solicitor's opinion that would throw out 
127 years of precedent on the size of mill sites--only 5 acres per 
claim, if followed through with, this would make mining on public lands 
absolutely impossible.
  I do not know how many Members have an idea about what it takes to 
make up a mine. The mine needs a mill site, grinding and crushing 
facilities, shops, processing plants, tailings disposal, headquarters, 
a water plant, parking lots, and roads. This simply cannot fit on the 
space provided within the 5-acre mill site per claim. It simply can't 
be done. This is how they propose to eliminate mining. In my State of 
Alaska, we would not have a new mine developed, nor could we.
  You are depriving us and this country the right to produce minerals 
from the rich resources we have.
  Make no mistake; the Solicitor wrote the opinion to end mining in the 
West, to drive mining offshore, to drive the jobs offshore, and to 
drive the dollars offshore.
  The provision in this amendment would allow mining operations that 
have been submitting plans prior to a recent Solicitor's opinion to 
continue under the law and the precedent that was relied on the 
developed plan.
  The second issue is also a simple provision that would require the 
administration to follow sound science for a change--not emotion.
  The provision would limit the ability of the Secretary of the 
Interior to propose new hard rock mining regulations for those areas 
where the National Academy of Science found that there were 
deficiencies. Why not give science a chance instead of emotion?
  Finally, the National Academy of Science found that State and current 
Federal regulations on hard rock mining sufficiently protected the 
environment and needed only a few changes to bring it up to current 
standards.
  What is wrong with the objective of the National Academy of Science?
  There are two simple provisions: One that provides fundamental 
fairness by allowing companies that have relied on 127 years of 
interpretation to continue while the courts sort out whether this new 
interpretation is legal; and one that requires the administration to 
follow and comply with sound science.
  We are calling for fundamental fairness and sound science. But the 
White House, in its single-minded determination to end the domestic 
mining industry, seems to have denied us both.
  I certainly appreciate the support of the senior Senator from West 
Virginia. He has a sympathy and an understanding for the needs of the 
mining industry.
  Unfortunately, we have seen these differences of opinion between the 
West and the East. But we certainly now have a common interest.
  There is going to be little for the domestic mining industry to 
celebrate this Thanksgiving.
  The White House, to serve its environmental constituency and the 
aspirations of, I guess, the Vice President, has abandoned the call for 
sound science. They are appealing to emotion.
  We need fairness. We need to meet the needs of the men and women who 
labor in our mines.
  This Nation will pay the price as coal mines in West Virginia, mining 
sites throughout the West, and in my State of Alaska close. Good, 
honest jobs that

[[Page 30589]]

built this Nation will be lost. Union and nonunion workers will join 
the bread line that this administration will leave as its legacy for 
the mining industry.
  I yield the floor.
  I thank the President for his patience and perseverance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator Kohl 
was seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be 
allowed to speak for 5 minutes after Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak with some mixed feelings 
because I have heard several of my colleagues, and I specifically want 
to talk about the remarks of Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller for 
whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I know when they speak 
about miners, they speak from their hearts, and they speak from their 
souls.
  I haven't looked at the specific wording of the amendment. But I want 
to raise some questions, if this amendment comes to a vote. I will look 
at the amendment and then decide.
  But I think I heard some of my colleagues trivialize this question. 
Just looking at it from another very important point of view, I can say 
that I have spent a considerable amount of time in eastern Kentucky. 
That is where my wife's family is from. I spent some time years ago 
with an organization called ``Save Our Cumberland Mountains'' in east 
Tennessee.
  When my colleagues come to the floor and talk about this as saving 
some exotic species, they are not talking about what I have seen with 
strip mining. What I have seen with strip mining in east Tennessee and 
east Kentucky is a situation where, first of all, the coal mining 
companies came to the region and took an awful lot of the wealth, and 
then they left an awful lot of the people poor.
  But one of the things people had was their streams, rivers, and their 
creeks. They had the outdoors, and the land that they loved.
  I want to say to my colleagues that when you take the tops off these 
mountains with the strip mining as opposed to deep mining, and you let 
the left-over rock and earth get dumped into the adjacent valleys and 
bury or pollute streams, it raises a big question.
  Again, I say, in deference to my colleagues, that I know what they 
are saying. We will have a chance to analyze this and then decide how 
to vote.
  But I do not believe this is a trivial question at all. I have seen 
communities ravaged by this strip mining. I have seen courageous people 
who have lived in the mountains their whole lives speak up. So I want 
to speak up by raising this question on the floor of the Senate.
  I also want to say to my colleague, Senator Byrd--and others--who, as 
I said, from his heart cares about the miners, that when I hear some of 
my colleagues talk about the miners, I hope there will be equal concern 
for the miners in east Kentucky when they don't have the unions. Right 
now, they can't see 6 inches in front of them because of the coal dust 
level. I hope we will have the concern for the health and safety of the 
miners. When I hear speakers on the floor, I hope we will have the 
concern on raising wages; I hope we will have concern for civilized 
working conditions; and I hope we will have a concern for the right of 
miners and other people to be able to organize and bargain 
collectively.
  When I hear about the President's trip to Hazard, KY, where is the 
concern for poverty? I hope we will also see the same kind of 
commitment to health care, to education, to affordable child care, to 
economic development, and all of the rest.
  It is a little bit too much to hear some colleagues frame this debate 
in these terms given this broader context.
  It is a difficult question. I said to Senator Byrd earlier I have not 
looked at the specific amendment yet. I will do that. But I don't want 
any Senator to come to the floor and act as if there isn't some 
question--again, the Senator can clear this up for me--as to whether or 
not, given section 404 of the Clean Water Act, we are or are not 
creating a loophole. That is a terribly important question for me to 
resolve before a final vote on the issue.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator has mentioned my name. The word 
``waste'' has been used. The newspapers have repeatedly used the word 
``waste,'' saying this amendment that I am sponsoring is to let coal 
companies continue to dump their waste into the streams.
  As to the use of the term ``waste,'' the Clean Water Act, section 
404, governs the disposal of ``dredged and fill'' materials into waters 
of the United States. Excess material from coal mines has always been 
regulated in this fashion as ``dredged and fill'' material under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
  Judge Hayden in West Virginia, however, determined that excess 
material from coal mines is ``waste'' and, as such, could not be 
disposed of in valley fills.
  For 20 years, the stream buffer zone regulation has not been 
interpreted as preventing the disposal of excess material from coal 
mines into streams. Rather, Congress relied on the Clean Water Act to 
govern this activity.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent Mr. Shelby be added as a cosponsor to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Minnesota has 
expired. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

                          ____________________