1999CRS9348A DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,, Part 1/4
no...@senate.gov
Message-ID: <1999CR...@us.govnews.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
[Congressional Record: July 27, 1999 (Senate)]
[Page S9348-S9370]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27jy99-138]
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.
no...@senate.gov
[[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