[Pages S10335-S10354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report.

A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:

Daschle amendment No. 3581, to provide emergency assistance
to agricultural producers.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Arkansas is recognized to offer an amendment relating to mining with
the time until 12:30 p.m. to be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, my colleagues will be greatly relieved
with my departure at the end of this year because they won't have to
listen to this debate anymore. They may have to listen to it again, but
not from me.
This amendment arises from a situation which really began last year,
Madam President. In order to set the stage for it, I direct my
colleagues' attention to this chart here. But before doing so, let me
just say that we had what I thought was a solemn agreement last year on
this same issue. I won't say it was a handshake contract, but last year
the Interior appropriations bill contained a provision that was added
in the committee markup, which said the Secretary of the Interior may
not promulgate new regulations for the mining of hard rock minerals on
Federal lands until every Governor of 11 Western States had
individually agreed to it.
In 1976 we passed FLPMA, an acronym for Federal Lands Policy
Management Act, it was my second year in the Senate when we passed
that, but I was very active in the negotiations and passage of that
bill. It was a comprehensive bill that determined how all Bureau of
Land Management lands would be handled. In it we said that the
Secretary of the Interior is charged with the responsibility of
ensuring that on Bureau lands, no unnecessary and undue degradation
would occur.
Now, as my friend, the Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, who used
to be our colleague, used to say on this floor, ``The mother tongue is
English.'' You cannot say it any better in English than to say the
Secretary is hereby charged with the responsibility for making certain
that there is no undue, unnecessary degradation of Federal lands.
We have about 450 million acres of Federal lands, and an awful lot of
it is eligible to be mined for various hardrock minerals, notably gold,
platinum, silver, zinc, lead, you name it. So in 1980, the Secretary
issued regulations to comply with FLPMA and in 1981 they were finalized
and went into effect. Everybody applauded and said it is wonderful. Now
we have regulations in place that will govern mining companies.
What brought these regulations about? It was the first time we had
ever tried to regulate mining on Federal lands. Why did we do it?
Because at that very moment, there were 557,000 abandoned mines in this
country. Who do you think had been left with the pleasure of cleaning
up those 557,000 abandoned mines? You guessed it--``Uncle Sucker.'' The
cleanup costs, according to the Mineral Policy Center,

[[Page S10336]]

for those 557,000 mine sites is calculated to be between $32.7 billion
and $71.5 billion. Within the 557,000 abandoned mines, 59 of those are
now Superfund sites. We don't put things on the Superfund list just for
fun. That is a big-time environmental disaster. In addition to 59
Superfund sites, we have 12,000 miles of rivers that have been polluted
by mining waste, and we have 2,000 national park sites in need of
reclamation.
Now, think of that. We have 2,000 mine sites within the national
parks that have to be reclaimed. And because it took the Nation too
long to wake up to the environmental damage that was being done by
mining in this country, this damage had already occurred when we passed
FLPMA in 1976 saying the Secretary will promulgate regulations to make
sure that not only this comes to an end, but that it never happens
again. So we gave the Secretary regulatory authority.
In 1981, those rules went into effect. Let me make one point, and I
will make it more than once in this debate. The mining of gold in this
country is done nowadays primarily with the use of cyanide. Cyanide is
a lethal chemical.
Now, Madam President, in 1991, George Bush was President, a
conservative Republican administration. Because this new technique of
mining with cyanide had gone into effect and there were several mines
which had caused cyanide to leak into the streams and rivers around it
and into the underground water supply, the environmentalists were
squealing like pigs under a gate.
So, in 1991, the Bush administration, through Secretary Lujan, came
out with a study to develop new regulations to take care of these new
environmental problems. But because in 1993 we were trying to reform
the whole mining law, everybody said, ``Well, we have got this whole
law we are going to reform,'' so the Interior Department decided to
suspend the work on revising the regulations. Unfortunately, in 1994,
the Western Senators were able to kill the mining law reform
legislation that was pending in Congress.
As a result, last year, Bruce Babbitt, the all-time favorite whipping
boy of the West, said he, as Secretary of the Interior, was going to
honor FLPMA as it was written, and that is to make sure there is no
unnecessary and undue degradation of the public lands. So he
reinitiated the process begun in the Bush Administration to revise the
mining regulations in order to attempt to prevent environmental
disasters, such as the leak of cyanide into the rivers, streams and
underground water supplies. So Senator Reid of Nevada, in the
appropriations subcommittee last year added a provision which would
have prohibited the Secretary from promulgating these rules unless all
of the Western Governors consented.
The provision, as it was drafted, was patently clear. It simply meant
that each Western Governors had veto power over the revised
regulations. That was, obviously, a little too much, even for some of
my friends in the West, to stomach.
So Senator Reid and I worked together in good faith and mutual
friendship and respect on both sides. We amended that language to say
that the Secretary will consult with all the Governors of the West.
After he has done so, he will certify to the Congress that he has
consulted with all of the Western Governors. He maintained that he had
already done that, but they disagreed with that. So we required
consultation in the amendment. That is the path we adopted last year.
We also put a time schedule in there so that the Secretary could
continue to work on the regulations, and he could promulgate the
regulations after November 15. The deal was done. It will be done after
the election. Nobody will be hurt politically. The only thing wrong
with that is this year--1998--when the bill comes out of the
appropriations subcommittee, the deal was reneged upon.
What is the new requirement? The new provision states that the
Secretary could not promulgate these regulations until the National
Academy of Sciences has studied it for 27 months. Next year, it will be
the National Institutes of Health. God knows, the next year it will
probably be the National Organization for Women--anything to keep these
regulations from going into effect.
Make no mistake about what we are talking about. Everybody
understands it. Under the provision that is in the bill this year,
which I am proposing with this amendment to strike, guess what the
timetable is. It will now take 27 months for the National Academy of
Sciences to study it and to report it and the Secretary to consider it
and do whatever he is going to do--27 more months, over 2 years, of
continuing to sock the taxpayers of America with the foibles of the
mining industry. I will come back to some of those foibles in just a
moment and tell the American taxpayers what they are paying for right
now.
Why 27 months? You know, if you are a U.S. Senator, and if you paid
any attention at all--you don't have to have a picture drawn for you--
27 months takes us past the year 2000. So we go past the election in
the year 2000, and all of my friends who are going to come in here and
vote against my proposal today hopefully will elect a President of a
different persuasion who will bring James Watt back as our Secretary of
the Interior.
That is the politics of the issue. It is not pleasant to talk about
things like that on the floor of the Senate. But there isn't a single
Senator here today who is going to vote who doesn't understand
precisely what it is about. Every Senator who votes against my
amendment is going to know in spades that he is voting to continue to
allow mining companies to mine on Federal lands with virtually no
regulations to guide them, being able to put up an insufficient bond,
and when they take bankruptcy and go south again, will leave the
taxpayers of America to pick up the tab. I don't know how I can put it
any plainer than that.
Madam President, let me be just a little bit more dramatic, a little
bit more graphic about why the anti-environmental rider in this bill
should be taken out.
I want you to bear in mind, last year we postponed it until November
15. If my amendment is not adopted, that takes us down well past
November. It takes us into about January 2001; and more and more
environmental degradation, more rivers and streams polluted, more
mining companies taking bankruptcy and heading south with an
insufficient bond.
That is for what you are going to be voting. For all of those who are
running for reelection this year, when you go home and your opponent
says, ``Why did you vote against putting some regulations in to
regulate the use of cyanide to keep it from going into our underground
aquifers and our rivers and streams; why did you vote to continue
that,'' I would like to hear your answer.
But just to give the taxpayers of America some information, if not my
colleagues who are not here this morning, in 1992, Galactic Resources,
the owner of the Summitville Mine in Colorado, took bankruptcy. They
left cyanide, acid, and metal runoff going into the underground
aquifers and the Alamosa River. Do you know what has happened since
then? The taxpayers of this country are paying over $1 million a year
to try to contain cyanide and acid runoff from that mine, not Galactic
Resources.
The Summitville mine took bankruptcy and went south. That was in
1992. The reason they were able to create an environmental disaster in
the State of Colorado is because Colorado's bonding regulations were
insufficient. Federal regulations are similarly flawed. We have
constantly postponed new regulations, and the regulations we were
operating with were promulgated in 1981, and in 1981 we didn't even
know about cyanide poison being used in the mining process. Secretary
Babbitt is trying his best to promulgate rules and regulations to make
sure there will be no more Summitville mines.
So when people come walking onto the Senate floor to vote on this
amendment, remember, you get to go home and tell your constituents that
they are picking up a million-dollar tab a year because we do not have
regulations to control gold mining in this country.
Now we have a brand new one in Montana. Pegasus Gold Company, which
has filed for bankruptcy recently closed the Zortman-Landusky mine on
BLM and private land in Montana.

[[Page S10337]]

They have filed for bankruptcy. Cyanide spills all over the place. And
who do you think is going to get to pick up the shortage on their bond?
The taxpayers of America.
And here is one, to be totally fair about it, that is not on Federal
land, the Gilt Edge mine in South Dakota, another 1998 matter. They had
cyanide leaks in the ground water, acid mine drainage, and they are in
financial difficulty. And if they take bankruptcy, it is estimated that
their bond will pay about 50 percent of the cost of cleaning up that
mess.
The regulations that we are talking about trying to get promulgated
to stop this outrage are not just to stop the use of cyanide. We are
not trying to stop the use of cyanide. We are trying to make them use
it in a way that we know the plastic cover on the ground is strong
enough to not break and leak. But the second thing we are talking about
is making them put up a sufficient bond; in case they do have a
spillage, in case they do go broke, the taxpayers will not be left with
it.
The reason I use Gilt Edge is not because they are mining on Federal
lands but because they are proposing to extend their operations onto
National Forest land.
So since 1976 we have been trying to stop mining companies from
mining in an improper way, leaving the taxpayers with the tab. We have
been trying a lot of other things without success. But if I were
speaking on national television to 268 million people in America and
all the adults were listening, how many votes do you think I would get?
About 90 percent of the American people. But, unhappily, I am not
speaking to 268 million Americans. Lord, how I wish I were; I feel
supremely confident as to how the American people would feel about
this.
So, Madam President, let me go back and make one other point and then
I will allow some of my adversaries to have their say.
Let me describe for you how gold is mined today under modern methods.
First of all, you have to dig up the earth. You dig up huge, cavernous
amounts of soil that supposedly has gold in it. You bring the soil into
the mine site, where huge plastic covers have been laid out on the
ground, and you dump this soil on this plastic cover that covers the
ground and presumably will hold any fluid or liquids that you put
through this dirt. Huge pits. You ought to see them. They look like
abandoned strip mining sites. But this modern method that I talked
about is new, brand new, and is causing all the damage that we need
regulations to control.
Then they use a drip process along the top of this big mound of dirt
where this cyanide drips through, and it seeps down through this huge
pile of dirt. The gold is attracted to this cyanide solution. Then it
pours out on the side into sort of a gutter, where the gold is strained
out of it and the cyanide is recycled and once again put through this
drip process. It is like a drip irrigation system.
Now, the first thing you have to do is understand how lethal cyanide
is, and the second thing you have to understand is that the reason some
of these spills occur is that the plastic liners leak. Think about how
ominous it is. How would you like to live in the vicinity where you
knew your underground water supply had cyanide leaking into it?
Mr. President, I have nothing against the National Academy of
Sciences, it is a fine organization. But we don't need another Academy
study. The National Academy of Sciences has already examined the
matter. In 1978, when we enacted SMCRA, governing the regulation of
coal mining, a provision was included in the bill to require the
National Academy of Sciences to study the regulatory requirements
needed to address the environmental impact of hard rock mining. That
study was completed in 1979. That same study found a need for a Federal
regulatory framework.

In 1996, the Environmental Law Institute studied hard rock mining
programs and said the current regulations were insufficient. That was
in 1996. In 1992, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
prepared a study that found significant gaps in environmental
regulation of mining. The GAO has studied this issue to death and has
found flaws in the administration of our mining laws.
The question then becomes, When you consider all the studies that
have been done and the damage that has occurred while we have been
doing studies, why in the name of all that is good and holy do we need
another study? I repeat, do we need another study to postpone this
until after the year 2000, when a new Secretary, presumably, will take
office who does not even believe in studies, let alone environmental
regulation? This is all a ploy. Everybody in the Senate knows that.
When they vote today, they are going to think, ``Now, what kind of a
30-second spot can somebody make out of me voting to continue mining
gold with cyanide when the regulations were written before cyanide was
even used in gold mining?'' And they think about it and they put it
through this little filter, this little political filter in their ear,
and say, ``Well, on the other side it says the National Academy of
Sciences. Who can object to the National Academy of Sciences studying
something? It is a very prestigious organization.'' And they can
probably try to convince their constituents that they are trying to
protect them by having the National Academy of Sciences do a study
when, in fact, the National Academy of Sciences could do what they need
to do on their own in 2 months. But the list I just gave you shows this
has been studied and studied and postponed and postponed, until now we
have these environmental disasters on our hands that cost the taxpayers
``gazillions.'' It is going to cost them a fortune.
And don't anybody make any mistake in your judgment about how this is
going to play out. As I said, we had a solemn agreement last year.
Everybody understood exactly what we were agreeing to. And,
incidentally, we said the Secretary had to consult with all the Western
Governors. He has done that. Governor Miller, I think, is president of
the Western Governors' Association; he has notified Members of Congress
that they have been consulted with. Everything we agreed to last year
has taken place, and we come back here today and industry says, ``No,
we have to have one more study.''
I have said most of what I want to say. I just ask, what is the
objection, even of the Western Senators? What is their objection to the
Interior Department, that they want to prohibit any update of the
regulations? Nobody has cited a single objection to the drafts of the
Secretary of Interior that were going to go into effect, that were
going to be promulgated November 15 of this year. Do they object to
mining companies having to file a plan before they start mining? Do
they object to requiring mining companies to post a bond sufficient to
take care of the devastation that they may cause? Do they object to a
regulation that says they must reclaim the land when they finish mining
it? What is the objection? Is it that they have to minimize the adverse
impact on the environment, if at all economically and technically
possible? It does not say they have to. It says they have to minimize
adverse impacts if at all technically and economically possible. Who
could object to that?
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the amendment is up, isn't it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has not called up his amendment.

Amendment No. 3591

(Purpose: To remove an anti-environmental rider)

Mr. BUMPERS. I now call up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 3591.
Strike line 19 on page 55 through line 6 on page 58.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me wish you a good morning as we
proceed with the Interior appropriations process. I would like my
colleagues to note that I stand in strong opposition to Senator
Bumpers' amendment to strike the National Academy of Science study.
What we have here is an organization of scientists that are objective.
They have a reputation of making decisions based on sound science and
not rhetoric. We

[[Page S10338]]

have a good deal of rhetoric here in this body.
The language that Senator Bumpers would propose to strike is as
simple and straightforward as any legislative language can be. In spite
of all words to the contrary, it does nothing more than direct the
National Academy of Sciences to review existing State and Federal
environmental regulations dealing with the hard rock mining industry to
determine the adequacy of these laws and those regulations to prevent
unnecessary and undue degradation, and how to better coordinate Federal
and State regulatory programs to ensure environmental protection. It is
short, it is sweet, and it is to the point.
The Senator from Arkansas has a long history in opposition to mining.
It is interesting to note that the State of Arkansas has a relatively
small amount of mining activity, most of which is either on private or
patented land, unlike the western part of the United States, Nevada,
California, Idaho, my State of Alaska. I do not have a constituency in
the poultry industry. I could, perhaps, claim ``fowl,'' relative to the
constant objection from my good friend from Arkansas who clearly has no
constituency in the mining industry. But the point is, the mining
industry in the United States has been able to survive in an
international marketplace, unlike the poultry industry which has a
domestic market and domestic concerns. My point is that the economy of
a good portion of the Western United States is dependent on the mining
industry.
It needs fixing, but it is not broke. It is rather interesting to
note that the reason we are here today, to a large degree, is that we
have yet to pass a mining law reform package in the U.S. Senate. It is
fair to ask why. Let me tell you why, Madam President.
The Senator from Arkansas specifically asked the Senator from Alaska,
who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, not to mark up
the mining legislation because he was working diligently with me and
others to try to put together a compromise that he could support.
But the point is, he asked and I put off Senator Craig's and my
mining bill while he negotiated with industry on a comprehensive reform
package. I hope that effort is not over. But we would not be here today
or have to go through this debate if our reform bill had come to this
floor for a vote, which I hope within the timeframe remaining it still
might. It was an effort to provide a balanced package that contained a
host of surface management protections along with royalty, but it was
because he asked us to put off the mining law package that we are here
today debating only a portion of the reforms envisioned in my mining
bill.
Let me remind you, Madam President, the reform of mining law is
complex. There are different minerals. It is not like the coal industry
where you are dealing with one particular mine product. You are dealing
with gold, you are dealing with silver, you are dealing with copper,
all of which have different complexities in the mining and, more so,
the refining process, different costs, and the realization that you may
be mining rich gold in one mine and much lower grade gold in another,
yet the costs are significant. When you try to have uniformity in
application of mining law, it becomes very complex and often an
impossible task.
What we are proposing in our mining bill, as the Senator from
Arkansas knows, is a pattern similar to what is working in the State of
Nevada. My colleagues from Nevada will be addressing that. But that is
basically the application of a net royalty.
Madam President, hard as it is to believe that we agree on anything,
I do agree with Senator Bumpers that it is an absolute shame that the
Congress has been forced to intercede in what should be the Department
of Interior's routine rulemaking process. This has been addressed by my
friend from Arkansas, but if we look back historically, we have been
able to count on administration agencies to do an evaluation of needs
that is objective and straightforward before launching off and writing
new regulations. Sadly, under the current Office of the Secretary of
the Interior, this has not been the case. Let me tell you why.
The entire rulemaking effort for mining is rooted in a Secretarial
directive to the Bureau of Land Management in which he concludes that
since the Congress has not acted on mining reform, it is his intention
to do so through the regulatory process. So here is the Secretary of
the Interior circumventing the will of Congress.
Why don't we have a bill here? We accommodated the Senator from
Arkansas in withholding on the markup so we could negotiate. Yet, he
wants to move in and strike the involvement on a portion--a portion,
Madam President--of the reform from having the independent study done
by the National Academy of Sciences.
I am sure my colleagues understand what we have going on here. As we
look at giving the Secretary of the Interior the right to initiate
rulemaking, circumventing the role of Congress, I think on most issues,
my friend will agree with me, there is no justification for it. There
is a mining bill before this Congress. We would like to have it passed,
but we are waiting for a resolve by the Senator from Arkansas to
negotiate something that is satisfactory to him, as well as us. We have
a bill before this body, as I promised many of my colleagues after the
last vote on this issue that we would.
Let's go back to the proposed rulemaking, which the Senator from
Arkansas has referred to, at the Department of Interior. It is
interesting to note that no assessment of existing Federal laws and
regulations, no assessment of existing State laws and regulations--
simply put, the result so far from the Department of Interior is, no
determination of need whatsoever has come out of this process.
Governor Miller of Nevada perhaps put it best when he said the
current Department of Interior mining regulation effort is a solution
looking for a problem, and my good friend from Arkansas is here with
his continuation of his objection to this particular industry.
During the last appropriations cycle, we attempted to temper the
Secretary's driving impulse to regulate with an amendment which would
have forced--forced--the Department of Interior to at least coordinate
its efforts with the Governors of the affected States. My friend from
Arkansas said they met that obligation. The only difference is, the
Governors of the affected States didn't agree with the Department of
Interior.
It was our hope through this coordinated effort the new regulations
would not drop a monkey wrench into the existing State-Federal
regulatory network. Anyone, Madam President, with even a rudimentary
understanding of how the mining industry is regulated understands that
the State governments play by far the largest role in oversight and
enforcement of environmental regulations on the industry.
What is wrong with that? The Senator from Arkansas seems to put
little credence in the oversight capability of the States. What is
wrong with the States, the most concerned group with regard to their
responsibility concerning environmental oversight on the mining
industry? Is it better to have a faceless bureaucrat in Washington, DC,
dictating what goes on in Nevada, California, Idaho, dictating to the
people of Idaho, the people of Alaska who live with the mining
industry, who take pride in their State, who take pride in the
reclamation process to meet their obligations?
The reason for this is simple. Over time, the States have been
delegated Federal responsibilities for water quality, air quality,
solid waste management, and mine reclamation. These laws are the 800-
pound gorillas when it comes to mining.
Over time, these Federal programs have been fully integrated into
State environmental protection laws. These interwoven laws form a
complete and balanced net of environmental regulations that cover
almost every aspect of mining activity. And if they don't cover some,
they will, without so much as a thought given to the impact their
rulemaking efforts would have upon existing Federal and State programs
that the Department of Interior took upon itself to launch into a major
rewrite effort.
What is their agenda? Is it to run the domestic mining industry
offshore? We have learned from what happened in Mexico and Canada when
the industry basically ceased to exist at its previous level because of
restrictions. And, remember, unlike the poultry industry,

[[Page S10339]]

which is a domestic industry and with which my colleague from Arkansas
is familiar, the mining industry has to operate internationally. It
either competes on an international basis or it doesn't. It is much
more complex.
Last year, at the request of Governor Miller of Nevada, Senator Reid
put on an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would
have made it mandatory that the Interior Department at least coordinate
efforts with the States--at least coordinate them. He did this only
after the Governor made it clear that coordination was not taking
place.
So I take issue with the general statement of my friend from
Arkansas. We were prepared last year to make Interior Department
coordination with the States mandatory. Senator Bumpers, however, saw
fit to intercede on behalf of the Department of Interior with an
amendment which removed mandatory coordination with States and put in
place a requirement that the Secretary certify to the Congress that the
coordination had occurred, and the Secretary has done that. But the
States didn't agree. They didn't agree, Madam President.
While I have had doubts about this, I supported the approach. I was
hopeful that the amendment would be received in good faith by the
Interior Department and that they would make sure that the States
interested were factored into their mining regulation effort. What
followed was the most, I think, disrespectful, in-your-face response I
have ever seen from the Department of Interior and any other agency of
the Federal Government.
In the Interior appropriations bill, when it was signed by the
President November 11, 1997, a letter certifying that coordination with
the Governors had taken place was signed on Monday, November 14. Well,
they didn't agree. The cavalier attitude of the Interior Department is
the sole reason we are back here again this year. At this time, I urge
my colleagues not to be taken in by the rhetoric. Fool me once, shame
on you; fool me twice, why, shame on me.
It is obvious to me that we have seen examples that the Department of
Interior is simply unwilling and incapable of following good government
practice when it comes to regulating the industry. They have so
completely lost their objectivity and become so biased against this
industry that they appear completely incapable of making objective and
fair decisions.
It is just not the mining industry. Grazing on public land falls into
the same category; oil and gas exploration, same category; access to
public land; the administration talks about global warming and that gas
is the answer--where are you going to get the gas if they won't allow
exploration on public lands; timbering, Forest Service lands, and, of
course, mining on western public land.
Our amendment does not make a finding one way or the other regarding
the ultimate needs for new regulations. It does direct an ``unbaised''
assessment of the need for new regulations be completed before--and
that is the whole purpose of the National Academy of Sciences--before
the Interior Department can finalize mining regulations.
With diminished budgets, increased need and the growing complexity of
State, Federal and environmental protection laws, why on Earth would
any responsible government manager propose a large-scale rulemaking
effort without first establishing a solid and specific need?
Since it has become obvious that the Interior Department is either
unwilling or incapable of accomplishing this assessment, then it is
imperative that the Congress now step in and assume the responsibility.
They leave us with no other choice. Once the National Academy of
Sciences completes its assessment, the Interior Department will be free
to proceed with its regulatory efforts. At that point, they will have
the information they need to rewrite the regulations in a way that
fixes problems, if there are any, but not create problems.
The citizens of this Nation are entitled to a Department of Interior
that determines need before it acts, that doesn't waste money that it
sorely needs in other places, a department that doesn't unnecessarily
disrupt a system of State and Federal regulations laboriously
constructed over decades to complement and enhance environmental
protection at the lowest possible cost.
The time has come to draw a line in the sand with this
administration. It is simply not in their purview to regulate an
industry out of existence without first establishing a need for that
regulation. It cannot simply dismiss input from the affected States,
which they have done. These States truly are our partners, not our
enemies.
I have communications from the Governors of Nevada, Arizona, Idaho,
Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, asking Congress to protect their
interests, asking us to support retention of the National Academy of
Sciences' objective study. Like us, they simply want the Interior
Department to demonstrate a need for regulation before they step up on
the effort.
By voting to table Senator Bumpers' amendment we will certainly set
in motion this study. It is my understanding it will be Senator
Bumpers' motion to strike.
Now, I am sure all of you will hear a great deal of verbiage about
this issue, but when the dust settles and the smoke has blown away, you
only have to ask yourself one question: Do we want to start a massive,
potentially disruptive rulemaking effort before the need for the effort
has been established?
There you have it--short, simple and to the point. I urge my
colleagues to join me in a vote against Senator Bumpers' amendment. In
so doing, we will be sending a clear message to the administration that
good government is still important government, and the government that
is best is the government that is close to the people. The State's
voice should be heard. The States play a critical role in environmental
protection. Their partnership and input is important. Let's have a
fair, objective, qualified, scientific group, the National Academy of
Sciences, make the call.
How much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 57 minutes; the
Senator from Arkansas has 38 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield up to 15 minutes to my friend from the State
of Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, this Senator from Nevada would like 20
minutes, and the junior Senator from Nevada would like 10 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is quite satisfactory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, let's put this in proper perspective. Gold
prices are at the lowest level in 19 years as of just last week. The
mining industry has seen layoffs. Some of the companies have filed
bankruptcy. This seems like a very inopportune time to come in and
attack the mining industry. It is an industry which creates the best
blue-collar jobs in America. I repeat, the best blue-collar jobs in
America come from mining.
Here is the Senator from Arkansas, again, as he does every year,
attacking the mining industry. This year the attack is at a very
inopportune time. I repeat, the mining industry is going through some
very difficult times.
In spite of paying the highest wages in blue-collar industry in
America, the mining industry in America is the best in the world. The
costs of production are extremely low. They are lower than Australia or
any other country. We are competitive. But it has been very difficult.
Now, having said that, we also have to recognize that the gold
industry is a very important industry for the United States. We are a
net exporter of gold. It is one of the few things that we do that
creates a favorable balance of trade in America.
With that as the setting for this amendment, let me say this
amendment is attempting to strike from the bill language that is very,
very reasonable. The Secretary of Interior is attempting to do by
regulation what he can't do by legislation. What right does he have to
overrule what the will of the Congress is? He has no right to do that.
He has tried very hard. I am not making this up. He said in 1994 when
his legislative efforts failed,

We will explore the full range of regulatory authority we
now possess.

Since that comment, with a vengeance, the Secretary has gotten busy
on

[[Page S10340]]

the regulatory side while making no attempt to work with Congress to
reform the mining law bill. If we had had support from the Secretary's
office in the past 2 months, we may be here today talking about mining
law reform rather than hacking away at this Interior bill.
The Governors, at their meeting in Medora, ND, in June of 1997,
pointed out in a resolution that the current State programs, as far as
they are concerned, are working well, and attempts to duplicate them
should be avoided.
What we have here is, again, something we like to talk about, but not
do much about, and that is talk about States rights. States rights are
very important to our framework of government. We have here a number of
States which are saying we are willing to work within the Federal
concept and all the laws that we pass in Washington that affect mining,
but let us regulate from the State level. This amendment is attempting
to take that away.
The Secretary of Interior has proceeded undaunted with his rulemaking
in spite of how the Governors feel. This led to language being included
in last year's Interior bill that precluded the Secretary from
expending funds to rewrite 309. As the chairman of the full committee
said a few minutes ago, showing absolute disrespect for Congress, the
Secretary, 3 days after the President signed the Interior bill--we
stuck language in the bill saying he had to confer with Governors--3
days after signing that bill, he sent a letter saying that they had
conferred and complied with the requirement to consult with the
Governors. Let's be realistic--within 3 days? This was, as chairman of
the full committee said, an in-your-face remark to Congress from the
Secretary of Interior's office saying, ``We don't have to consult with
you.''
After numerous Governors, both individually and collectively, pleaded
with the Department not to forge ahead on rulemaking without bringing
them in the process, he continued. Only after months of letterwriting
and handwringing did the Secretary send his task force out with a draft
proposal. After the draft proposal was received, the Governor said,
``We have seen it; we have looked at it. What are you trying to
do?'' It doesn't make any sense. The chairman of the full committee,
the junior Senator from Alaska, held a hearing. At the hearing, the
Governors testified, ``Where is the demonstrated need to rewrite the
309 service management regulations?'' There was no response as to why
it was necessary.

Madam President, understand that this isn't something that we have
dreamed up. This isn't some anti-environmental piece of the Interior
bill. In fact, what this is, is a clear demonstration that the mining
industry, the Governors from the States where mining is important, and
the rest of the country where mining is important, are simply saying
what they want to do is have an independent, unbiased, competent body
take a look at the present regulations to see if they are OK. We have
assigned the National Academy of Sciences, one of the foremost
scientific bodies in the world, to take a look at this. That doesn't
sound unreasonable to any reasonable person.
This language is not an anti-environmental rider that would somehow
gut existing regulations. We don't touch existing regulations. We are
simply saying that it is within the purview and jurisdiction of
Congress because it is something that we feel will add to a good
resolution of this issue.
The Secretary has proceeded in a cavalier fashion for an outcome that
would seriously jeopardize the State's role as coregulators with the
Federal Government in mining. There is talk about the atrocities toward
the environment in mining. I come from a family where my father was a
hard rock miner. I have worked in the mines. I went with my dad when I
was a little boy into the mines. I have to acknowledge that many years
ago there were a lot of environmental degradations as a result of
mining. The tailings from the mill just ran out wherever, and the dumps
were just not located in any specific place.
In short, the legacy that went on before bears no resemblance to the
current practices in the mining industry, nor the States' ability to
regulate mining. They do a good job now. In the past two, two and a
half decades, tremendous work has been done. I am really tired of
hearing all the time that the 1872 mining law needs to be revamped. It
has been over 100 years and we have done nothing. That is a bunch of
hogwash.
(Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the Chair.)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, here are the pieces of legislation, the
laws, that have been passed that now govern mining: Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Historic Buildings and
Sites, Fish and Wildlife, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air
Amendments, Federal Water Pollution Control, Endangered Species Act,
Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substance Control Act, Resource
Conservation, National Forest Management, Clean Air Act, Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act, Clean Water Act, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Act, Archaeological and Historical Preservation, Comprehensive
Environmental Compensation Liability Act, Superfund, Clean Air
Amendments of 1990. And there are more.
The 1872 mining law has been affected numerous times by Federal laws
that we have passed back here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the Record a list of all the different amendments to
the 1872 mining law.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Amendments to 1872, Mining Law

Federal Laws

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4341-4370a: Requires federal agencies to take
interdisciplinary approach to environmental decision-making;
and requires consideration of environmental impacts for all
federal actions (environmental assessments/environmental
impact statements).
2. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43
U.S.C. 1701-1784: Directs Department of Interior to prevent
undue and unnecessary degradation of federal lands.
3. Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642: Requires EPA
to designate criteria pollutants and set ambient air quality
standards; requires states to develop State Implementation
Plans (SIP) to achieve federal ambient air quality standards;
requires EPA to set new source performance standards for
categories of air pollution sources; requires EPA to set
emission standards for sources of hazardous air pollutants;
establishes additional level of control to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in certain areas and
for certain sources; and allows EPA enforcement of state
permits issued under approved SIP.
4. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act,
CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387: Requires States to Set and
Implement Surface Water Quality Standards; requires EPA to
Establish Effluent Limitations and Standards of Performance
for Categories of Facilities Discharging to Surface Waters;
establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) for Permitting of Point Source Discharges to
Surface Waters; requires States to Develop Management Plans
for Control of Non-Point Sources of Surface Water Pollution
and to Submit Them to EPA for Approval; establishes Programs
for protection of Surface Waters from Dredge and Fill
Activities; and establishes a Program for Designation of
Reportable Quantities of Oil and Hazardous Substances and
Reporting of Releases to Navigable Waters.
5. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26:
Requires EPA to Set Standards for Quality of Drinking Water
Supplied to the Public and Allows States to be Delegated
Primary Enforcement Authority; and establishes a Program to
Regulate Underground Injection Operations (Including Sand
Backfill of Underground Mines) and Allows Delegation of
Program to the States.
6. Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k:
Requires EPA to Establish a Program for Regulating the
Generation, Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Waste and
Allows Delegation to the States; requires EPA to Establish
Guidelines for State Management of Solid, Non-Hazardous
Waste; and requires EPA to Establish a Program for Regulating
Underground Storage Tanks Containing Petroleum Products and
Hazardous Substances and Allows Delegation to the States.
7. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA, Superfund), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675:
Requires Owners/Operators to Report Releases of Hazardous
Substances to the Environment; requires Owners/Operators to
Inventory Chemicals Handled and Report to EPA and the Public;
establishes Owners/Operators Liability for Remedial Actions
Necessitated by Releases of Hazardous Substance4s; and
requires EPA to Establish System of Ranking Relative Hazards
at Sites, Create a List of Sites Requiring Remediation and
Develop Response and Remediation Plans for Such Sites.
8. Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601-2671:
Requires EPA to Establish

[[Page S10341]]

Regulations for Specific Chemicals in Commerce Which Present
an Unreasonable Risk to Health or the Environment.
9. Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544: Requires
Departments of Interior and Commerce to List species of
Plants and Animals Which are Threatened with or in Danger of
Extinction; requires Department of Interior to Develop
Regulations for Protection of Listed Species; and requires
Consideration of Requirements of the Act in All Other Federal
Actions (Including Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service Approvals to Operate on Public Land).
10. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-715s:
Prohibits the Killing of Nearly All Bird Species.
11. Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401-467e: Prohibits
Disposal of Refuse into Navigable Water.
12. Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 22-48: Establishes
Procedures for Filing Mining Claims on Public Lands.
13. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470:
Requires Consideration of Cultural Resource Preservation in
Federal Actions.
14. Law Authorizing Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms to Regulate Sale, Transport and Storage of
Explosives, 18 U.S.C. 841-848: Requires Secretary of the
Treasury to Establish Regulations for the Sale, Transport and
Storage of Explosives.
15. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.S.C. 801-962:
Authorizes Mine Safety and Health Administration to Set
Standards for Protection of Worker Health and Safety at
Mining Operations.

Federal regulations

1. Procedures for Implementing National Environmental
Policy Act, 40 CFR 6: Establishes EPA Procedures for
Complying with NEPA; and establishes Requirements for
Contents of Environmental Impact Statement.
2. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Surface Management
Regulations, 43 CFR 3802, 3809: Establishes Requirements for
Approval of Activities Including Exploration, Mining,
Construction of Access Roads and Power Lines on Public Lands
Under BLM Jurisdiction; requires Environmental Assessment/
Environmental Impact Statement to Address Existing Physical,
Biological, Visual, Cultural and Socio-Economic Resources,
Impacts on Proposed Activity on These Resources, and
Mitigative Measures; requires Activities to be Conducted to
Prevent Unnecessary and Undue Degradation; and generally
Requires Plans of Operation and Reclamation and Financial
Assurance for Reclamation.
3. Forest Service (FS) Regulations, 36 CFR 228: Establishes
Requirements for Approval of Activities Including
Exploration, Mining, Construction of Access Roads and Power
Lines on Public Lands Under FS Jurisdiction; requires
Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement to
Address Existing Physical, Biological, Cultural and Socio-
Economic Resources, Impacts on Proposed Activity on These
Resources, and Mitigative Measures; requires Activities to be
Conducted to Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts Where
Feasible; and generally Requires Plans of Operation and
Reclamation and Financial Assurance for Reclamation.
4. Federal Air Quality Regulations, 40 CFR 50-54, 56, 58,
60, 66: Establishes Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Monitoring Procedures for Criteria Pollutants; establishes
New Source Performance Standards and Point Source Monitoring
Procedures; and establishes Criteria for Approval of State
Implementation Plans.
5. Federal Water Quality Regulations, 40 CFR 110, 112, 114,
116, 117, 122, 123, 125, 130, 136, 230, 232, 401, 421, 436,
471, 33 CFR 320-330: Establishes Regulations for Prevention
of Discharge of Oil to Surface Waters; establishes Effluent
Limitations and a Permit System for Point Source Discharges
to Surface Waters (NPDES Program); establishes Requirements
for State Surface Water Quality Standard Setting; establishes
Effluent Limitations Guidelines Materials in Surface Waters
and Wetlands; establishes Requirements for Reporting of
Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances to Navigable Waters;
establishes Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants; and
establishes EPA and Army Corp of Engineers Requirements for
Disposal of Dredge and Fill.
6. Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations, 40 CFR 141-147:
Establishes Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Quality
Standards; establishes Procedures for State/Federal
Implementation of Drinking Water Standards; and establishes
Requirements for Operation of Underground Injection Wells and
Procedures for Delegation to the States.
7. Solid Waste Disposal Act Regulations, 40 CFR 240, 241,
243-246, 255-257, 260-268, 280: Establishes Requirements for
Management of Hazardous Waste, Including Standards for
Generator, Storers, Transporters and Disposers; establishes
Requirements for Owners of Underground Tanks Storing
Petroleum Products and Hazardous Substances; and establishes
Procedures for Delegation of Programs to the States.
8. Superfund Regulations, 40 CFR 300, 302, 310, 355, 370,
372: Establishes the National Contingency Plan for Addressing
Remediation of Releases of Hazardous Substances to the
Environment, Including the Hazard Ranking System for
Determining Which Sites Require Remediation and the National
Priorities List of Such Sites; requires Reporting of Releases
of Hazardous Substances to the Environment; and establishes
Procedures for Owners/Operators to Inventory Chemicals
Handled and Report to EPA and the Public.
9. Toxic Substances Control Act Regulations, 40 CFR 761:
Establishes Requirements for Use and Disposal of Asbestos and
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
10. Endangered Species Act List, 50 CFR 17, 222, 226, 227:
Lists of all Threatened and Endangered Species of Plants and
Animals Subject to Protection Under the Act; establishes
Special Rules for Protection of Some Listed Species; and
lists Critical Habitat for Some Species.
11. Historic Preservation Regulations, 36 CFR 800:
Establishes Procedures for Federal Actions Regarding
Preservation of Cultural Resources.
12. Explosives Regulation, 27 CFR 55: Establishes
requirements for sale, transport and storage of explosives.
13. Mine Health and Safety Standards, 30 CFR 56, 57:
Establishes Standards for Open Pit and Underground Mines for
Protection Of Worker Health and Safety.

state laws

1. Nevada Air Pollution Control Law, N.R.S. 445.401-
445.710: Establishes Authority for Implementing Federal
Ambient Air Quality Standards and other Clean Air Act
Requirements; and creates State Environmental Commission.
2. Nevada Water Pollution Control Law, N.R.S. 445.131-
445.354: Establishes Authority to Control Sources and Ground
Water Pollution Including Point and Non-Point Sources and
Underground Injection; requires Setting of Surface Water
Quality Standards; and establishes Authority for Regulation
of Public Drinking Water Supplies.
3. Nevada Hazardous Waste Disposal Law, N.R.S. 459.400-
459.600: Establishes Authority for Regulation of Hazardous
Waste Management; and establishes Authority to be Delegated
Federal Program Under RCRA.
4. Nevada Solid Waste Disposal Law, N.R.S. 444.440-459.600:
Establishes Authority for Regulation of Solid Waste
Management; and prohibits Discharge of Sewage Except as
Authorized by Appropriate Governing Body.
5. Nevada Reclamation Law, N.R.S 519A.010-519A.290:
Establishes Authority for Reclamation Regulations Applicable
on Public and Private Land; and requires Posting of Financial
Assurance to Complete Reclamation.
6. Nevada Underground Storage Tank Laws, N.R.S. 459.800-
459.856 and N.R.S. 590.700-590.920; Establishes Authority to
be Delegated RCRA Program for Management of Underground
Storage Tanks; and imposes Fees on Owners/Operator of
Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks.
7. Nevada Wildlife Protection Law, N.R.S. 502.390:
Establishes Authority for Regulation of Ponds Containing
Chemicals by Nevada Department of Wildlife.
8. Nevada Water Resources Law, N.R.S. 533.010-533.540,
534.010-534.190 and 535.010-535.110: establishes Authority
for Designation of Surface and Ground Water Rights;
establishes Authority and Procedures for Permitting
Construction Of Dams and Impoundments; and establishes
Authority to Regulate Drilling, Construction and Abandonment
of Water Wells.
9. Nevada Dredging Law, N.R.S. 503.425: Requires Permit
Prior to In-Stream Mining by Dredging.
10. Nevada Historic Preservation Laws, N.R.S. 381.001-
381.445, 383.001-383.121 and 384.005-384.210: Establishes
Requirements for Mining Operations in State Historic Mining
Districts; and establishes Requirements Regarding
Disturbances to Native American Burial Grounds.
11. Nevada Geothermal Resources Law, N.R.S. 534A.010-
534A.090: Establishes Authority to Regulate Geothermal Wells.
12. Nevada Mineral Resources Law, N.R.S. 513.011-513.113:
Establishes Authority for Regulation of Radioactive
Materials.
13. Nevada Radioactive Materials Law, N.R.S. 459.001-
459.600: Establishes Authority for Regulation of Radioactive
Materials.
14. Nevada Occupational Health and Safety Law, N.R.S.
618.005-618.720: Establishes Authority for Regulation of
Boilers and Pressure Vessels.
15. Nevada Mine Inspection and Safety Law, N.R.S. 512.002-
512.270: Requires Operator to Provide Notice to State Mine
Inspector of Opening and Closing a Mine; requires Operator to
Report Production, Mine Activity and Status, Accidents,
Injuries, Loss of Life and Occupational Illnesses at Least
Annually; and requires Division of Mine Inspection to
Annually Inspect All Mines for Health and Safety Concerns.
16. Nevada Contractor's Law, N.R.S. 624.010-624.360:
Requires Contractor's License Prior to Facility Construction.

state regulations

1. Nevada Air Quality Regulations, N.A.C. 445.430-445.944:
Sets Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria and Toxic
Pollutants; and contains Permitting Procedures for Sources of
Criteria and Toxic Pollutants.
2. Nevada Water Pollution Control Regulations, N.A.C.
445.070-445.174: Establishes Permit Program for Point Source
Discharges to Surface Water; and establishes Permit Program
for Construction, Operation and Closure of Mining Facilities
(Not Yet Codified in N.A.C.).
3. Nevada Water Quality Standards, N.A.C. 445.117-445.1395:
Establishes Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Standards for
All Surface Water Bodies in the State.
4. Nevada Drinking Water Regulations, N.A.C. 445.244-
445.262: Establishes Regulations for Quality of Public
Drinking Water

[[Page S10342]]

Supplies (Including Non-Community, Non-Transient Systems Such
as Newmont Gold's).
5. Nevada Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, N.A.C.
444.8500-444.9335: Establishes Requirements For Management of
Hazardous Waste, Including Standards for Generators, Storers,
Transporters and Disposers.
6. Nevada Solid Waste Disposal Regulations, N.A.C. 444.570-
444.748: Establishes Standards for Management of Solid, Non-
Hazardous Waste.
7. Nevada Underground Injection Control Regulations, N.A.C.
445.422-445.4278: Establishes Regulations for Underground
Injection Wells (Including Sand Backfill of Underground
Mines).
8. Nevada Sewage Disposal Regulations, N.A.C. 444.750-
444.840: Establishes Requirements for Disposal of Sewage.
9. Nevada Reclamation Regulations: Will Require Reclamation
of Surface Disturbances Due to Exploration and Mining on
Public and Private Lands; and will Require Posting of
Financial Assurance to Complete Reclamation.
10. Nevada Wildlife Protection Regulations N.A.C. 502.460-
502.495: Requires Permits for Ponds Containing Chemicals
Toxic to Wildlife; and requires Owner/Operators to Take
Measures to Preclude Wildlife Mortality.
11. Nevada Geothermal Regulations, N.A.C. 534A.010-
534A.690: Establishes Requirements for Design and Operation
of Geothermal Wells.
12. Nevada Mineral Resources Regulations, N.A.C. 513.010-
513.390: Requires Mine Owners/Operators to Annually Report
Their Production.
13. Nevada Radioactive Health Regulations, N.A.C. 459.180-
459-374: Requires License for Uses of Radioactive Materials
(i.e. Densiometers).
14. Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations,
N.A.C. 618.010-618.334: Requires Registration of Boilers and
Pressure Vessels Prior to Operation.
15. Nevada Health and Safety Standards for Open Pits and
Underground Mines, N.A.C. 512.010-512.178: Establishes
Standards in Addition to Federal Ones for Open Pit and
Underground Mining Operations Regarding Protection of Worker
Health and Safety.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise the Senator when
he has 5 minutes left of his 20 minutes.
There has been a lot of talk about how terrible things are in the
mining industry. Yet, the Bureau of Land Management, a Government
agency that I have great respect for, that is doing its best, controls
most of the Federal lands in the State of Nevada.
The Bureau of Land Management has put out a brochure. This isn't from
the State of Nevada, the State of Alaska, or the State of Colorado.
This is from the Federal Government. This applies to Nevada. It says on
the front, ``BLM, Mining Reclamation, You'd Be Surprised.'' My friend
from Arkansas talked at great length about how bad cyanide is. Let me
read from this brochure that is now being put out to everybody who
wants a copy in the State of Nevada and the other Western States:

Cyanide is a toxic chemical which is used in most gold and
silver mining operations. BLM, again in cooperation with
Nevada's State agencies, such as Nevada Department of
Wildlife and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection,
require that mining operations using cyanide do so in an
environmentally sound manner.
All new ponds containing lethal concentrations of cyanide
must be netted or detoxified to prevent wildlife deaths.

Birds do not die as a result of cyanide:

All operations using cyanide are inspected at least
quarterly by BLM reclamation/compliance specialists.
Gold or silver ore leached with cyanide must be rinsed to
reduce levels to safe standards upon abandonment. Leach
facilities are engineered to prevent any ground or surface
water contamination.
All exploration, mine and reclamation plans must be
reviewed under the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act.

This brochure goes on to show the great things done with reclamation
in mining. It shows the equipment that is doing this. It is amazing
what they have done to reclaim the land to its former state.
There is a mine near my hometown of Searchlight, NV, that is desert.
When they pull out the Joshua trees, yuccas, and all the others, they
have a nursery for those. And when that land is reclaimed, they have
all those plants that they have taken out of the land and they put them
back in. These aren't a bunch of environmental bandits out there
tearing up the land.
The Federal Government agrees. My friend from Arkansas should read
what the Federal Government wants. I suggest that my friend, the
Secretary of the Interior, read the publication put out by his own
agency. I say that about the Secretary of the Interior. He hasn't been
fair to mining. I respect the work he has done as Secretary of the
Interior in all areas except for mining, where he hasn't done a very
good job. He is opposed to mining. He makes big shows when a land
patent is issued and issues a big check saying it is not fair that we
have to give this land to some miner. Remember these mining companies
pay an average of a quarter of a million dollars every time a patent is
issued. In short, the Secretary should read his own literature. The BLM
and mining operations are continually looking for the best way to
revegetate and reclaim mining lands. It shows pictures of it. It shows
final reclamation at the Pinson Mine.
I ask unanimous consent that this brochure be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Bureau of Land Management,

Nevada State Office,

Reno, NV.

Mining Reclamation--You'd Be Surprised

You may not know that on public lands in Nevada: All mining
and exploration projects on public lands must be reclaimed.
All new mining operations greater than five acres, on
public and private lands in Nevada, must submit a detailed
mining and reclamation plan, must be bonded to ensure
compliance, and must protect the environment.
Under the State of Nevada's new mining reclamation law, all
operations must comply with numerous environmental protection
programs. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State
of Nevada have developed a cooperative mine plan review
process which streamlines the approval process.

BLM and mining operators are continually looking for the best way to
revegetate and reclaim mined lands.

Revegetation test plots at Cominco American's mine in Elko
County, Nevada, help to determine what combination of seed,
fertilizer, mulch and topsoil create the best revegetation
results. BLM requires test plots at many mines in Nevada to
evaluate local growing and rainfall conditions. These test
plots enable mining operators and BLM to determine the most
successful revegetation methods.
You might be surprised to learn that Nevada produced over
60% of the Nation's gold in 1990!

Cooperative efforts enhance Riparian Areas.

Mining companies are working with the public to restore and
revitalize public lands--those affected by old mining
operations and even lands not in mining areas. The Sonoma
Creek stream bank stability project near Winnemucca
demonstrates how cooperation among the various users of
public lands can enhance riparian areas in Nevada. Mining
industry, ranching and government people all volunteered,
with BLM, to build gabions and stream structures to improve
the aquatic habitat of Sonoma Creek.
BLM, public land user groups and the mining industry plan
more cooperative efforts in the future. BLM invites the
public to help identify and participate in these activities.

cyanide management

Cyanide is a toxic chemical which is used in most gold and
silver mining operations. BLM, again in cooperation with
Nevada's state agencies, such as the Nevada Department of
Wildlife and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection,
require that mining operations using cyanide, do so in an
environmentally sound manner.
All new ponds containing lethal concentrations of cyanide
must be netted or detoxified to prevent wildlife deaths. All
operations using cyanide are inspected at least quarterly by
BLM reclamation/compliance specialists.
Gold or silver ore leached with cyanide must be rinsed to
reduce cyanide levels to safe standards upon abandonment.
Leach facilities are engineered to prevent any ground or
surface water contamination.
All exploration, mine and reclamation plans must be
reviewed under the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act.

excellence in mining reclamation

In 1990, Governor Bob Miller of Nevada awarded three
``Excellence in Mining Reclamation'' awards to exploration
and mining operations in Nevada.
Pinson Mine, Borealis Mine and Independence Mining Co. were
recognized for outstanding and unique practices and projects.

Mr. REID. This brochure indicates also that mining companies, one of
which is pictured here, have received an award for excellence in mining
reclamation.
Mr. President, the State of Nevada is totally different from the
State of Alaska. The State of Nevada is the most mountainous State in
the Union, except for Alaska. We have lots of mountains, over 11,000
feet high--32 to be exact. Alaska has a lot of water. We don't have a
lot of water. Mining regulations in the State of Alaska should be
different than those in the State of

[[Page S10343]]

Nevada. The State of Alaska should have some control in setting the
standards for mining reclamation, mining bonding and other such things.
The State of Nevada should have different standards because we live in
a desert in Nevada. That is the point.
Each State is subject to different water quality conditions, air-
related issues, issues that stem from local climate conditions,
disposal criteria, and other issues that are distinct from State to
State. That is something the Federal Government must recognize, and the
agency does. The BLM recognizes that because they have different
standards in each State. That is why the present regulations are
working pretty well.
Also, Mr. President, understand this. We have asked the National
Academy of Sciences to study this. We don't tell them what result to
reach. We will accept what they come up with. Why shouldn't those who
want these regulations changed not accept it also? We are not asking
for some predisposed venue. We are not asking for some agency that is
going to rule in a certain way. We have asked the finest science body
in the world to look at these regulations and find out if they make
sense.
Mr. President, I will offer a number of exhibits here. One is a
Western Governors' Conference resolution that indicates there is no
need for what the Secretary of the Interior is trying to do.
We have a series of letters from Governors from all over the United
States talking about why the Secretary is wrong.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Western Governors' Association,

Medora, ND, June 24, 1997.

Policy Resolution 97-006

Sponsors: Governors Miller, Leavitt, and Symington.
Subject: Regulation of mining.

a. background

1. Federal lands account for as much as 86 percent of the
lands in certain western states. Most of these lands are
``public lands,'' under the stewardship of the Bureau of Land
Mangement (BLM).
2. The western states have legal jurisdiction over the
public lands, and have a strong interest in seeing that the
environment is protected on public and private lands within
state boundaries. While the BLM manages public lands
throughout the country, laws, policies and management
decisions for public lands have the most direct impacts on
the lives of the citizens of the western states where the
greatest amount of public lands are located.
3. Mining operations on public lands are an important part
of the economy of the West. They provide thousands of high-
paying jobs in predominately rural areas of the West and they
provide important revenues to states. The mining industry
also continues to play an important role in the nation's
economy and security.
4. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), the BLM has authority to regulate mining and other
activities on public lands to ``prevent unnecessary or undue
degradation of the lands.'' The BLM adopted rules in 1981--
known as the 3809 rules--controlling impacts of mining
activities on the public lands. These rules contain narrative
reclamation standards, require operators to submit a plan of
operations for approval including a reclamation plan, and
require compliance with federal and state environmental,
wildlife protection, cultural resources and reclamation laws.
5. The Secretary of Interior announced earlier this year
his intention to revise the 3809 rules, and appointed a BLM
Task Force to explore changes that should be made to the
existing rules. The Secretary has directed the Task Force to
consider numerous changes to the 3809 rules, including the
adoption of significant new environmental regulatory
requirements in the form of performance standards.
6. The BLM 3809 regulations do not exist in a regulatory
vacuum. There exists today a large body of federal, state,
and local environmental laws and regulations that govern
mineral exploration, development and reclamation. This
includes Federal laws delegated to the states, such as the
Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. The existing 3809
rules are an important part of the regulation of mining on
the public lands.
7. Western states also have comprehensive state mining
regulatory programs, enforced in coordination with federal
land management agencies. These state programs set criteria
for permitting exploration, development and reclamation of
mining operations, with provisions for financial assurance,
protection of surface and ground water, designation of post-
mining land use, and public notice and review.

b. governors' policy statement

1. The Western Governors believe that responsible mining
activity on the public lands is important and states have a
vital interest in assuring that the environment is protected
and that mining sites are reclaimed for productive post-
mining uses.
2. Effective regulation of hard rock mining and reclamation
operations should continue to utilize and build on existing
state programs, state and federal laws and cooperative
agreements between state and federal agencies. Because of the
geographic and climatic diversity of the states and the
location of many mines on a combination of public and
adjacent private lands, the states are the most appropriate
and sensible level of environmental regulation for mining
which occurs on the public lands.
3. Revisions to 3809 regulations may not be necessary. More
consideration should be given to compliance with existing
regulations. States have filled and should continue to fill
any deficiencies identified in the statutory and regulatory
framework and its enforcement. Establishing burdensome or
duplicative new BLM regulatory requirements for mining is not
in the best interest of states or the nation.
4. Any new BLM regulations must recognize the dramatic
improvements since 1981 in state and federal environmental
regulation of mining on public lands and must not duplicate
or be inconsistent with those requirements.
5. The States have concurrent jurisdiction with the BLM
over public lands and should therefore be included as
partners in any effort to amend the 3809 regulations.
6. The bonding requirements of the BLM, as published in the
Federal Register dated February 28, 1997, should be revisited
as part of the effort to amend the 3809 regulations due to
the integral nature of bonding with the entire regulatory and
reclamation process.
7. The BLM time frame for regulatory review is too short to
provide sufficient review and comment by stakeholders.

c. governors' management directive

1. Direct staff to work with the WGA Mine Waste Task Force
to participate in the ongoing effort by the Bureau of Land
Management to revise the 3809 regulations, emphasizing the
states' interest in avoiding duplication, needless regulatory
burdens and in preserving primacy of state regulation in the
environmental area.
2. The Task Force should provide assistance and support to
the BLM Task Force on the status and efficacy of state
regulatory programs, the status of memoranda of agreement
with the BLM, and should make recommendations for how current
state programs may be improved where applicable.
3. This resolution is to be transmitted to the President of
the United States, the Vice-President, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Department
of Agriculture, all appropriate committees of jurisdiction in
the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and
the western states' congressional delegation.
____

State of Arizona,

Phoenix, AZ, June 19, 1998.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: In January 1996, Secretary Babbitt
announced that it was the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
intent to rewrite the 3809 surface management regulations for
hardrock mining. I have followed that process intently and
with great concern that such a rewrite of current regulations
might produce duplicatory, burdensome and costly new
regulations that would place a hardship on states that
currently regulate hardrock mining.
Recently, one of my colleagues, Governor Bob Miller of
Nevada, testified at a hearing in the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee in Washington, D.C. that there
had been no demonstrated need to proceed with a rewrite of
the 3809 surface management regulations. Further, that an
independent reviewer, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, should evaluate the current federal and state
regulatory regime to determine if there are deficiencies that
need to be addressed.
I strongly support the approach set forth by my colleague,
Governor Miller, and it is my hope that Congress will take
action to initiate such a study. Over the past two decades,
much has happened at both the state and federal levels to
provide for effective surface management of the hardrock
mining industry. I believe that the states have an excellent
cooperative working relationship with the federal land
managers and together are currently doing a good job
regulating the mining industry.
I will continue to work diligently and at every opportunity
with all parties on this issue of great importance to my
state. I appreciate Congress' continuing interest in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Jane Dee Hull,
Governor.
____

State of Utah,

Salt Lake City, UT, July 8, 1998.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Orrin: In January 1996, Secretary Babbitt announced
that it was the Department of the Interior's (DOI) intent to
rewrite the 3809 surface management regulations for

[[Page S10344]]

hardrock mining. I have followed that process intently and
with great concern that such a rewrite of current regulations
might produce redundant, burdensome and costly new
regulations that would place a hardship on states that
currently regulate hardrock mining.
Recently, one of my colleagues, Governor Bob Miller of
Nevada, testified at a hearing in the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee in Washington, D.C. that there
had been no demonstrated need to proceed with a rewrite of
the 3809 surface management regulations and that an
independent reviewer, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, should evaluate the current federal and state
regulatory regime to determine if there are deficiencies that
needed to be addressed.
I support the approach set forth by my colleague, Governor
Miller, and it is my hope that Congress will take action to
initiate such a study. Over the past two decades, much has
happened at both the state and federal levels to provide for
effective surface management of the hardrock mining industry.
I believe that the states have an excellent working
relationship with the federal land managers and together are
currently doing a good job regulating the mining industry.
I will continue to work diligently and at every opportunity
with all parties on this issue of great importance to our
states. I appreciate Congress' continuing interest in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Michael O. Leavitt,
Governor.
____

State of Wyoming,

Office of the Governor,

Cheyenne, WY, July 8, 1998.
Hon. Slade Gorton,
U.S. Senate, Chairman, Interior Appropriations Subcommittee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: In January 1996, Secretary Babbitt
announced that it was the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
intent to rewrite the 3809 surface management regulations for
hard rock mining. I have followed that process intently and
with great concern that such a rewrite of current regulations
might produce redundant, burdensome, and costly new
regulations that would place a hardship on states that
currently regulate hard rock mining. Recently, one of my
colleagues, Governor Bob Miller of Nevada, testified at a
hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
in Washington, D.C. that there had been no demonstrated need
to proceed with a rewrite of the 3809 surface management
regulations and that an independent reviewer, such as the
National Academy of Sciences, should evaluate the current and
state regulatory regime to determine if there are
deficiencies that need to be addressed.
I strongly support the approach set forth by my colleague,
Governor Miller. It is my hope that Congress will take action
to initiate such a study. Over the past two decades, much has
happened at both the state and federal levels to provide for
effective surface management of the hard rock mining
industry. I believe that the states have an excellent working
relationship with the federal land managers and together are
currently doing a good job of regulation of the mining
industry.
I will continue to work diligently and at every opportunity
with all parties on this issue of great importance to our
states. I appreciate Congress' continuing interest in this
matter.
Best regards,
Jim Geringer,
Governor.
____

Office of the Governor,

Boise, ID, June 24, 1998.
Hon. Slade Gorton,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: The Bureau of Land Management has
proposed significant revisions to its 3809 surface management
regulations for hardrock mining. I have followed this process
closely and believe the proposed changes are redundant,
burdensome and costly. These revisions, as currently written,
would place a hardship on our efforts to regulate mining in
Idaho.
Governor Bob Miller of Nevada has suggested that an
independent reviewer, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, evaluate the current federal and state regulatory
regimes to determine if there are problems that need to be
addressed. I support Governor Miller's suggestion and urge
you to support efforts to initiate and fund such a study.
Very truly yours,
Philip E. Batt,
Governor.
____

Office of the Governor,

State Capitol,

Santa Fe, NM, July 2, 1998.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: In January 1996, Secretary Babbitt
announced that it was the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
intent to rewrite the 3809 surface management regulations for
hard rock mining. I have followed the process of regulatory
development, and am greatly concerned that this rewrite is an
attempt by DOI to interfere with and override state
regulatory programs that currently have jurisdiction over
hard rock mines.
New Mexico's hard rock mining law is one of the best in the
country, and has jurisdiction over mines on federal, state,
and private lands. The draft regulations DOI has proposed are
not more stringent than those of New Mexico, but they could
create significant problems for our program and our mines by
imposing conflicting requirements, and establishing an
unnecessary process for oversight and program certification.
Recently, one of my colleagues, Governor Bob Miller of
Nevada testified at a hearing in the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee in Washington, D.C. that there
had been no demonstrated need to proceed with a rewrite of
the 3809 surface management regulations. He suggested further
that an independent reviewer, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, should evaluate the current federal and state
regulatory regime to determine if there are deficiencies that
need to be addressed.
Despite frequent requests from the concerned states, DOI
has not provided any evidence that the current 3809
regulatory structure is not working. Problems with 3809 are
largely anecdotal, and commonly related to abandoned mines,
which would not be addressed by the proposed rewrite. New
Mexico and other western states have filled in the gaps they
perceived in 3809 with state laws. New Mexico has an
excellent working relationship with the federal land
managers, and together we are doing a good job regulating the
mining industry. The evidence is before us daily. It appears
most appropriate that DOI should assemble this evidence,
present it to your committee and allow our elected
representatives to decide what is best for the states they
represent.
This process of regulatory development cries out for a
concrete foundation to justify the time and expense that all
parties are committing to it. I appreciate your continuing
interest in this matter, and hope you will consider
requesting DOI or another reviewer to provide that foundation
before the process moves any further.
Sincerely,
Gary E. Johnson,
Governor.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we had testimony taken at Chairman
Murkowski's hearing in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
a number of different people. I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record, together with a letter from the Western
Governors.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Excerpt From a Hearing Held by the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Tuesday,
April 28, 1998

statement of hon. bob miller, governor of nevada

Governor Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In many
respects, I can just say ``ditto.'' In any case, I do
appreciate the opportunity to join Nevada's two Senators,
Harry Reid and Dick Bryan, to testify today on this
legislation.
This is not the first time I have spoken to this committee
about the need to bring reform to the Nation's mining law, a
law that was enacted 125 years ago, in 1872. For example, in
1993, I expressed my opposition to Senate bill 257, the
Mineral Exploration and Development Act. Since then, there
have been several attempts to resolve the debates regarding
the reform of the 1872 mining law.
While reform measures are never easy, I appreciate this
committee's persistence in trying to find common ground.
I opposed S. 257 for the same reason that I oppose S. 326
and S. 327 today. These bills threaten the survival of one of
Nevada's mainstay industries, an industry which is critical
to the economic health of many rural communities.
It is well known that Nevada was founded on mining. What
may not be as well known is that Nevada continues to be a
world leader in gold production and produces the most silver,
magnesite, and barite in the Nation. Remarkably, Nevada has
achieved these production levels and is arguably the most
environmentally responsible mining region in the world. Yet,
I do not advocate the status quo.
Congress and the States should continue to work with the
industry and the environmental community to minimize mining's
effects on the land and on other land users.
All of us here today are concerned about mining reform, the
industry, and the environment. The questions of a fair patent
law to the taxpayers, mining contribution to the Federal
Treasury through a royalty and the environmental
responsibility of mining operations are all legitimate
concerns.
We must weigh these concerns with the knowledge that the
mining industry is an important contributor to the Nation's
economy, and to my State's economy in particular.
Nevada's mining renaissance has created approximately
13,000 jobs directly related to mining, with an additional
45,000 jobs indirectly related to the industry. These are
high paying jobs that average close to $50,000 per year.
Rural communities, such as Austin, Carlin, Elko, and
Winnemucca, are all dependent on a vibrant mining industry.
As all of you wrestle with these issues, I would hope that
you would keep in mind those communities

[[Page S10345]]

and those families who built a future around a moderate,
environmentally sensitive mining industry.
I believe that S. 1102, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997,
shows significant progress toward resolving the debates about
mining law. While minimal change could be made to the
bill, it is time to reach finality.
For too long, the mining industry has operated with
uncertainty about the future of mining law. The industry must
account for many variables that have profound effects on our
communities. The price of gold, for instance, is testament to
the vulnerability of this industry in an ever changing global
market.
Since July of 1997, the U.S. has lost 2,200 operational
jobs from the mining industry as a result of the drop of the
price of gold. Over the past 4 months, approximately 680 jobs
have been lost in Nevada.
To illustrate the point, the market value of gold is
hovering at around $300 per ounce. In comparison, production
costs per ounce of gold average at best in Nevada between
$260 to $280 per ounce. Many mines throughout the Nation
operate at well over $300 per ounce. It is imperative that we
minimize the variables and eliminate the uncertainty about
mining reform.
While I am familiar with the contents of each of these
bills, I will confine my comments to some of the broader
aspects of each as they relate to the reform of mining law.
There are mining law experts here today, obviously, who can
go into much greater depth.
First, I would like to make some brief remarks about the
Department of Interior initiative to amend its reclamation
regulations, termed the 3809 regulations, which I am sure the
Secretary will address in a few moments.
Since the beginning of this initiative, I have questioned
the legitimacy of, in essence, changing mining law through an
administrative process. I not only have had questions about
the motivations, but, moreover, I have had concerns about the
process by which the Department of Interior is amending these
regulations. But after repeated complaints about the process
through the Western Governor's Association, where we have a
nearly unanimous vote on this issue, the issue of process has
been dealt with.
However, I continue to have substantive concerns with
regard to the direction in which the proposed amendments are
going. In short, Interior is moving the responsibility for
environmental oversight of mining operations in my State and
other States to here in Washington, D.C.
This attempt at seizure of control by Interior is
particularly perplexing in view of the fact that many States,
especially Nevada, have moved aggressively to address the
environmental concerns of mining operations.
To date, there has been no real justification offered by
the department regarding the need to make changes other
than--and I quote a memo of January 6, 1997--directing the
department to begin the process of drafting such
regulations. It states: ``It is plainly no longer in the
public interest to wait for Congress to enact legislation
that corrects the remaining shortcomings of the 3809
regulations. Instead, the time has come to resume the
process of modernizing the 3809 regulations first promised
at the end of the Carter Administration and begun at the
end of the Reagan Administration. To that end, I direct
you to restart this rulemaking process by preparing and
publishing proposed regulations.''
During my tenure as Governor, I have overseen the adoption
of Nevada's State law requiring reclamation of all lands
disturbed by mining. My State has also developed
comprehensive regulations governing water quality standards
of mining operations. These requirements are working well
because they were crafted with a great deal of cooperative
effort by the environmental community, the mining industry,
and State and Federal regulators.
Instead of proposing changes without sufficient
justification, Interior should work with the States, the
industry, and the environmental community to pinpoint the
possible needed modifications regarding reclamation.
Or perhaps Congress could help us with this impasse by
requesting an independent evaluation of the 3809 regulations
by a third party, such as the National Academy of Sciences.
I believe that this type of study would determine that
Nevada's reclamation law could serve as the model for the
rest of the States.
On two separate occasions, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency has praised Nevada for its hardrock mining
regulatory program, declaring that, ``Nevada's regulations
are considered to be among the best, the most comprehensive,
and several gold mining States now have or are developing
similar requirements.''
The preferable solution to the 3809 debate is the passage,
in my opinion, of S. 1102. The sponsors of this bill wisely
propose a comprehensive approach to mining reform which
offers reasonable answers to all of the major issues,
including permitting and surface management, royalties,
patents, and abandoned mines.
On the other hand, S. 326 and the Abandoned Hardrock Mines
Reclamation Act and S. 327, the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act
are piecemeal remedies that resemble previously proposed
legislation which Nevada and this committee have consistently
found unacceptable.
The mine permitting and surface management provisions
within S. 1102 will conform to those activities already being
conducted by our State regulators, as well as the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management. S. 1102 defers to existing State
reclamations and bonding requirements where they meet the
intentions of the Federal act. And the bill references
the other State and Federal acts already used to regulate
mining activities with respect to the environment.
One of the most widespread criticisms of the 1872 mining
law is its lack of royalty. S. 1102 details a methodology to
collect a 5 percent net royalty proceeds that is fair to the
public and the industry. This royalty, as you stated, Mr.
Chairman, closely resembles the State of Nevada's net
proceeds system, which has proven to be highly effective.
Nevada's system generates millions of dollars annually,
approximately $29 million during Fiscal Year 1997 alone. The
administrative cost of our program is about $200,000
annually, or \1/2\ of 1 percent of the revenue.
S. 327's 5 percent net smelter royalty return would cripple
the production of minerals by taxing anywhere from estimates
of 92 percent to 98 percent of a mine's gross income. In
addition to the serious, immediate negative impact, the long-
term effects are significant because the growth of the
industry would likely halt or be limited due to the high
royalty level.
Congress should focus on placing royalty on the value of
Federal mines after costs associated with finding and
producing those minerals are subtracted. Such royalty would
be on the value of the mineral in the ground, before any
additional value was added.
A royalty has to be found that does not close mines and
stop new development. I believe that S. 1102 passes that
test.
While S. 326 has no royalty provisions, it would charge a
reclamation fee which would be in addition to other
royalties, such as proposed in S. 327, thereby creating an
even greater burden on miners. The appropriate vehicle to
fund abandoned mine clean-up is found also in S. 1102.
The patenting is an essential means to insure the
production of minerals. Patenting mitigates the risk of
losing the substantial financial investments taken by mining
operations during the often long permitting periods.
While S. 327 would abolish this necessary security process,
S. 1102 would change the patent prices to reflect the value
of today's public land. It would wisely halt the $2.50 to $5
per acre fee and sell the patent for the surface land's fair
market value, which I think you addressed also.
Reclaiming Nevada's abandoned mines is a tall task, one
which the State has aggressively worked to address. With
funding through modest assessments on the industry which have
been supported by the industry, Nevada has been able to
secure over 4,000 abandoned mine sites. Yet there are
thousands more sites that need attention to prevent risk to
public health.
S. 1102 establishes an acceptable funding mechanism to
continue this effort and to secure dangerous sites.
Senator Craig has addressed the major issues pertaining to
mining law reform in a way that is good for the public, the
environment, and the industry, and I compliment him and all
of the other sponsors for their work in support of reasonable
mining reform.
As this committee and the Senate further address this
issue, I hope that you keep in mind, as I said previously,
the communities that rely on mining. This industry has built
towns and communities throughout the West which need to be
kept at the forefront of the thought process as you proceed
with this issue.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear, Mr.
Chairman.
____

Western Governors' Association,

Denver, CO, September 15, 1997.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senator, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: We, the undersigned, thank you for your
efforts and support to include states with hard rock mining
on public lands as co-regulators in the Bureau of Land
Management's current 3809 rulemaking process. We commend you
for highlighting that states have legal jurisdiction,
concurrent with the Secretary of the Interior's jurisdiction,
to regulate activities on the public lands.
As you know, the states impose strict controls on mining
activities on both public and private lands within their
borders. Our states work closely with federal land management
agencies--often through cooperative agreements--to ensure
that mining activities are comprehensively regulated to
control environmental impacts. These federal-state
partnerships should be preserved not disrupted by new federal
regulations adopted without the appropriate justification or
state input.
Representatives of the Bureau of Land Management and the
Department of Interior did consult with western state mining
regulatory staff prior to the formal scoping meetings for
developing an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
rulemaking. However, it became clear during that meeting that
BLM's rulemaking was undertaken not because of identified
problems on-the-ground but because there was direction to do
so from the Department of Interior. It appears that direction
essentially is framing the rulemaking rather than a
conclusive study such as that called for in your amendment.
Attached for your information is a

[[Page S10346]]

copy of state comments to the Department summarizing the
issues raised at that meeting and a copy of a resolution
western governors adopted on the subject in June.
We want to bring to your attention the fact that the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 exempted from FACA
consultations between state and federal governments that
involve their intergovernmental responsibilities and
administration. We support that exemption. Your amendment's
creation of a unique advisory committee for the purpose of a
joint study, however, does not appear to undermine the
exemption created by the Act.
In closing, we support your amendment because it recognizes
our concerns about the states' role as co-regulator and it
stresses the need to avoid regulatory duplication. We will
make our staff available to the Department of the Interior as
well as committees of Congress to ensure that we work
together to protect the environment in a coordinated, cost-
effective manner.
Thank you, again, for the interest you have shown in the
states' role in environmental management and regulation.
Sincrely,
Bob Miller,
Governor, State of Nevada.
Phil Batt,
Governor, State of Idaho.
Gary Johnson,
Governor, State of New Mexico.
Jane Dee Hull,
Governor, State of Arizona.
Mike Leavitt,
Governor, State of Utah.
Marc Racicot,
Governor, State of Montana.
Ed Schafer,
Governor, State of North Dakota.
Jim Geringer,
Governor, State of Wyoming.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, what we have to realize here is that this is
an effort to be fair. The language in the bill calls for a study by the
National Academy of Sciences. I repeat. We have not asked them to find
in any certain way. Whatever they come up with is what we will go along
with.
I think that we owe the American people an honest debate about the
current regulations for hard rock mining and all the disasters that
have gone on in the past. There are a number of Superfund sites. That
is one reason Superfund was passed--because of environmental
degradation that had taken place in the years gone by. Mining was part
of that. We are not part of that anymore. I think that is good.
We owe the American people an honest debate about the current
regulations of hard rock mining. We owe them the opportunity to know
about mining, and for the first time the truth about the environmental
practices employed by modern-day mining--not what went on 30 years, 40
years, 50 years, or 100 years ago. We owe the tens of thousands of
Americans who make a living at mining--or some occupation that relies
on mining--to know that certainly their jobs will be there when they
show up in the morning.
I say to everyone within the sound of my voice mining affects more
than the people that go down in the Earth or into the open pits. It
affects more than them because we have industries all over America that
rely on mining. These huge trucks that haul the ore out of the open pit
operations cost over $2 million. To replace the tires on one of those
trucks costs over $25,000 each. Underground operations are very
expensive. That equipment comes from other parts of the United States
other than the western part of the United States.
This industry is important to the economic viability of this country.
There is no one in this body, the Department of the Interior, or the
mining industry that can predict the outcome of the review conducted by
the National Academy of Sciences. I can almost assure you the results
will be fair. That is all we are asking.
But let me say that I think we should approach this on a nonemotional
basis. When the study is completed, we will go forward as indicated in
the language that is in this bill with whatever they recommend.
Mr. President, it is important that this amendment fail. It is not
good legislation. It is something we have debated time and time again--
just in a different setting.
I ask my colleagues to join in doing what is right for an industry
that is very important to the economic viability of this country.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, might I ask what time remains on either
side? Senator Bumpers is controlling the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side has approximately 38\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Nevada. I yield
time to Senator Bryan.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bumpers amendment.
This past summer, as I have each summer since being a Member of the
Senate, I spent most of my time in what we in Nevada refer to as ``cow
county'' in rural Nevada. Most of that time I spent in places that are
not widely known outside of Nevada. I was in Wells, Wendover, Elko,
Battle Mountain, Winnemucca, Lovelock, Ely --some of the smaller
communities in our State, but communities that are very dependent upon
mining as the principal base of their economy.
In the northeastern part of our State, as a result of the situation
that relates to the international pricing of gold at or near record
levels over the last 20 years, these communities are hurt. These are
good-paying jobs of $46,000 or $47,000 a year with the full range of
health benefits. They are premier jobs. These communities are hurting.
Sales tax collections are down.
So this is a major concern about what is happening to the principal
economic base in the northeastern part of our State, which is a mining
industry.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and
colleague from Arkansas that would prevent the National Academy of
Sciences from studying Federal and State environmental regulations
applicable to hard rock mining on Federal lands.
As many of my colleagues from the West are aware, the Interior
Department is proposing major revisions of the regulations that govern
hard rock mining on public lands known as 3809 regulations. The
regulations were originally promulgated in 1980 and require miners to
submit plans for operations for approval by the BLM. The existing
regulations require mine operators to comply with all Federal and State
environmental laws and regulations, require that lands disturbed by
mining be reclaimed, and require that bonds be posted to assure that
reclamation is complete.
The State of Nevada has one of the toughest--if not the toughest--
State reclamation programs in America. Nevada mining companies are
subject to a myriad of Federal and State environmental laws and
regulations, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the
Endangered Species Act, among many others.

Mining companies must secure literally dozens of environmental
permits prior to commencing mining activities, including a reclamation
permit, which must be obtained before a mineral exploration project or
mining operation can be conducted.
Companies must also file a surety or a bond with the State and the
Federal land manager in an amount to ensure the reclamation of the
entire site prior to receiving a reclamation permit.
Let me just say parenthetically that both as Governor and Senator I
have been to these mining locations for many, many years. Mining today
is much different than mining was even a generation ago, and much, much
different than it was a century ago.
Some of the well-advertised misdeeds of mines in the past have to be
freely acknowledged as something that is a source of major concern in
terms of its environmental impact. I think it is an embarrassment to
the modern-day mine manager whose philosophy and approach is much
different and who is sensitive to the concerns as to the environmental
impact. That represents the new Nevada and the mining operations that
exist in my State with which I have firsthand familiarity.
A number of the Western Governors, including our own Governor of
Nevada, Governor Bob Miller, have expressed genuine concern about the
3809 rulemaking--that it will unnecessarily duplicate existing Federal
and State regulatory programs. Governor Miller, in his testimony before
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year,
suggested that Congress call for an independent evaluation of the need
to revive the 3809 regulations, and made the suggestion that

[[Page S10347]]

the National Academy of Sciences would be an appropriate organization
to conduct a sufficient study. I concur. The academy has a preeminent
reputation for fairness and balance. This is not a committee that is
associated with the mining industry, nor controlled directly or
indirectly by them.
I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee saw fit to follow the
suggestion of Governor Miller, because I must express that I, too, have
serious questions concerning the need for the Interior Department's
proposed regulations and revisions. The current 3809 regulations
require compliance with all existing Federal and State environmental
standards and requirements, including the Clean Water Act, the State
water quality standards in particular.
The Interior Department proposes to add a new layer of requirements
on top of existing laws for both surface and ground water which extends
beyond the agency's regulatory reach--far beyond management and
protection of Federal lands. These proposed rules, if adopted, would
result in inconsistent or duplicative water quality standards or
technology requirements because BLM can no longer accept State or EPA
determinations as compliance with the 3809 regulations. I must say it
is somewhat ironic that the duplication of existing Federal and State
water quality programs resulting from this proposal will, in my
judgment, impose substantial additional costs on the Bureau of Land
Management without any corresponding environmental benefits.
The proposed regulations allow States to continue the common practice
of joint administration of mine regulation--and this is significant--
but impose unrealistic demands for Federal approval of State programs.
The Interior regulations will effectively federalize reclamation laws
in all of the Western States even on non-Federal land because the
States must amend their laws and regulations to comply with the Federal
model in order to enter into an agreement for joint administration.
Interior has proposed this requirement without any showing that
existing State reclamation laws and programs are inadequate.
And finally, the proposed regulations include numerous additional
procedural and substantive requirements that will encourage delay in
mine permitting and appeals and litigation over permitting decisions.
It is clear that the Secretary of Interior is attempting to rewrite the
mining law through the regulatory process. I share the Secretary's
desire to update the mining law, and I would say for the record that
Nevada's mining industry is in the forefront of recognizing that the
mining law of 1872 needs to be updated. But that is a job for Congress,
not unelected bureaucrats. I am hopeful that the discussions that have
been occurring between my colleague, Senator Bumpers, and the mining
industry will lead to an agreement on mining law. In the interim,
however, I think it is important that we allow the National Academy of
Sciences to assess the need for the Interior Department's proposed
regulations, and for that reason I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Bumpers amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 30 minutes 20
seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. And remaining on the other side is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-eight minutes 35 seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I will accommodate the Senator from
Arkansas if he desires to speak at this time.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. My good friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator
Murkowski, mentioned the fact that I come from a State where poultry is
a big industry, which, indeed, it is. And they have been taking a lot
of hits lately. Tyson Foods, which is by far the biggest poultry
company in the United States, has been fined by the State of Maryland,
been made to change their operations. The Secretary of Agriculture
announced last week that we need a totally new set of regulations
dealing with animal waste, including poultry. They are subject to all
kinds of regulations. I have been here for 24 years now, and I defy any
Senator to tell me one time I ever objected to a regulation that dealt
with the environment where the poultry industry was involved. I wonder
if the Senator from Alaska would tell us how he would feel if I came in
here knowing that the poultry industry was creating an environmental
disaster and said, well, I want 27 more months to study it--if last
year I came here with a proposal saying you can't do anything to the
poultry industry until every Governor in the country or every Governor
whose State has poultry signs off on it, and, once you get that in
place, say, well, all the Governors have to be consulted, and you get
that in place, and then I come back and say, no, we need 27 more months
to study it.
I don't know how people would react to that. I expect rather
severely. But I will tell you one of the differences. Very few States
have hard rock mining on Federal lands.
Incidentally, I might just at this point say, Mr. President, there
was an editorial a couple weeks ago in the New York Times entitled
``Time for Mining Law Reform.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial is ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Time for Mining Law Reform

With very little fanfare, the White House recently released
a three-paragraph statement announcing the formal transfer of
the New World Mine site to the United States Forest Service.
Thus ended, officially and happily, a four-year struggle to
prevent a Canadian mining company and its American subsidiary
from building an environmentally treacherous gold mine near
the border of Yellowstone National Park. But the forces that
defeated the mine, including the Clinton Administration, have
one more task ahead of them. That is to overhaul the 1872
Mining Law, the antiquated Federal statute that made it so
easy for the company to acquire the mine site in the first
place.
Signed by Ulysses S. Grant to encourage Western
development, the law gives mining companies virtually
automatic access to Federal land and allows them to take
title to that land for a few dollars an acre--a process know
as patenting. The law does not provide for ``suitability''
review to determine whether the mining operation could cause
unacceptable environmental damage. It also allows companies
that mine hard-rock minerals like gold and platinum to escape
any royalties similar to those paid by companies that extract
oil and coal from Federal lands. Finally, the law does not
require companies to clean up abandoned sites. According to
the Mineral Policy Center, an environmental group, a century
of unregulated mining has left behind 557,000 abandoned
mines, 50 billion tons of waste and 10,000 miles of dead
streams.
Powerful Western senators have always managed to block
reform. Nevertheless, Senator Dale Bumpers, long a champion
of reform, plans to use his final months in office before he
retires to push for something meaningful on the books. The
Arkansas Democrat has offered three related bills that would
end the patenting system, impose a royalty on the minerals
the mining companies extract and use that money to begin
cleaning up old mine sites.
The proposed environmental safeguards could be stronger.
There is, for example, no suitability provision that would
allow the Government to insulate certain lands from any
mining at all. This is a serious flaw, but years of
legislative futility have persuaded Mr. Bumpers that to
insist on such safeguards would doom even the modest reforms
he has proposed. He also believes that ending the patenting
system--which effectively allows mining companies to
privatize public lands--would make a big difference because
it would expose the companies to Federal environmental
regulations they can now safely ignore.
Mr. Bumpers concedes that those regulations need to be made
stronger, a task that Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the
Interior, has pledged to undertake. The ever-resourceful
Western Republicans have also anticipated that threat,
saddling this year's Interior appropriations bill with a
rider blocking Mr. Babbitt from issuing stronger rules for at
least two years--at which point they hope to have a less
conservation-minded secretary running Interior. That is one
more reason for President Clinton to veto that bill, which is
loaded with other destructive riders. Meanwhile, the Senate
should approve the Bumpers proposal, which, despite its
flaws, represents real progress. Its passage would give the
victory at Yellowstone lasting resonance.

Mr. BUMPERS. This says exactly what I have been saying, and that is,
the President ought to veto the Interior Appropriations bill if my
amendment is defeated. And I personally think he will.
With all these disasters which I have addressed, all we have had is
one delay

[[Page S10348]]

after another. In 1993 they said, ``Well, we are working on a mining
bill,'' and in 1994 the same people who said we are working on a mining
bill and we should not deal with these regulations did everything they
could to stall until 2 weeks before we were to go home to make sure
there was no mining bill.
And then last year they said, ``We want all the Governors to have a
say in this. Don't put a regulation into effect that prohibits the
leakage of cyanide from a gold mining site unless all the Governors
have signed off on it.'' They backed off that and they said, ``Well,
they have to be consulted.'' We said, ``Fine, they ought to be
consulted.'' So they were consulted. And the president of the Western
Governors' Association told the Senate Energy Committee that ``We have
been consulted.'' So what do they do then? They come back and say,
``Well, now we want the National Academy of Sciences to study the
regulations''--anything under God's sun to keep from dealing with an
unmitigated disaster.
Why are the people of America indifferent? They don't even know about
it. There is no hard rock mining in my State. I am not running for
reelection, but if I were running for reelection I wouldn't get any
votes in my State out of this issue. As Gilda Radner used to say--``if
its not one thing, its another.'' And the Senator from Alaska alluded
to the fact that I had, indeed, been working with the National Mining
Association trying to craft something to reform the 1872 law that
Ulysses Grant passed and has been such an unmitigated disaster for this
Nation. Think about a law still on the books that Ulysses Grant signed
to encourage people to go West. Is that a legitimate reason for
allowing this 126-year-old bill to stay on the books--encourage people
to go West? That is what we are dealing with.
And the Senator from Alaska said he and Senator Craig had a bill, and
I asked them not to bring it up. That is true. I did that because I
thought we were going to make a deal. The Chairman of the National
Mining Association--who is a very fine, honorable man, in my opinion, a
man of immense integrity--and I worked extremely well together. We were
honest with each other, and our staffs developed a draft proposal.
Unfortunately, that was before we ran it by the Western Senators. Two
Western Senators said we can't do this. And the Senator from Alaska
said the reason they didn't bring up the bill he and Senator Craig
crafted was because he thought we had a deal. I thought I had a deal,
too.
The bill they wanted to bring up, the bill they crafted and they said
it was too late to bring up, let me tell you what it would do. It says,
first, that environmental regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Interior cannot be stronger than the State where the mine is located.
Think of that. There is no point in even having a Federal regulation.
Each State would be a king with regard to mining on Federal land. Every
State would determine what the environmental regulations would be,
because the Federal regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Interior could be no stronger than the State regulations of a
particular State where a mine was located.
How foolish can you get? And, when it came to the royalty, they would
grandfather every mining company holding a valid claim. There are
300,000 claims in this country. If you grandfather everybody who has a
valid claim, you would not collect enough royalties in the next 30
years to buy a ham sandwich. There is nobody to pay it. After all,
people have been buying Federal lands for $2.50 an acre for the last
130 years. You cannot charge them a royalty because they own the land.
We sold it to them for the princely sum of $2.50. So when you take all
of them and everybody else who turns up with a valid claim, there is
nobody left to pay a royalty.
Mr. President, let me make a philosophical point. I am an unabashed,
card-carrying, hardened environmentalist. In 1970, when I ran for
Governor in my State the first time, the environment was just then
becoming an issue in this Nation, albeit a fairly low key one. But it
made a lot of sense to me, based on what I had read, and so I began to
talk about the environment. I began to talk about Arkansas' magnificent
rivers and streams and how they were being polluted. I began to think.
In 1966, I went fishing on the Buffalo River, the most beautiful
river in America. It was so magnificent. I had no idea that my own
State had such a treasure. Two nights we camped out on a sandbar. We
ate and we drank and we created a lot of garbage, and the tour guide
took all the garbage that we created and put it in a plastic bag, waded
out as far as he could into the river, and tossed it. And nobody
thought a thing in the world about it. Finally, after a little bit of
that, somebody began to raise the question about the Buffalo River
being polluted.
To shorten the story, we made it a national scenic river. It is a
pristine, clean river. People come from all over the world just to camp
out on the banks of the Buffalo or to fish the Buffalo. It was not even
popular with the local people when we made the Buffalo River a national
treasure, and today there is not anybody up there who would go back to
the old ways. So, yes, you are being addressed by a card-carrying
environmentalist.
Do you know the other reason? I have three children and six
grandchildren. We talk about how much we love them, how they are our
most precious possession, how our whole life is calculated to make life
more pleasant for them, and then we come in here to vote for trash like
this.
We only have one planet. God, in his infinite wisdom and in the
heavens, gave us one planet to sustain us forever. Not next week, not
next year--forever. We say, ``Well, God certainly didn't mean to stop
putting cyanide poison into our underground aquifers and our streams
and rivers, because there are jobs involved in this. God didn't intend
that.'' No--that is how specious the arguments are that I have been
listening to this morning. So you only get one chance to preserve the
planet.
You can buy these arguments about, well, what is wrong with the
National Academy of Sciences studying the rules for mining? Nothing,
except they have already studied it. Everybody studied it. There are
GAO reports galore. If the National Academy of Sciences is so important
to us, why was it not mentioned last year, and the year before and the
year before that? It is a nicely crafted idea, because at the
fundraisers, if anybody raises the question, you can say, ``What is the
problem with the National Academy of Sciences--it is a very prestigious
organization--studying the rules on how we are going to mine?''
It would not take 27 months. Mr. President, 27 months is carefully
calculated to take us past the Presidential election of the year 2000.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Wisconsin,
Mr. Feingold, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, be added as
cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, Bill Clinton, my friend from my home
State of Arkansas, has been taking a lot of trashing lately, a lot of
it richly deserved. I am not here to defend the President. But I will
tell you one thing. You can say a lot of things about him but you
cannot say he is not an environmental President. I will tell you what I
think he will do. I think he will follow the advice of Dale Bumpers and
the New York Times and veto this bill if this amendment is defeated. I
can tell you I don't care how weak he is, I don't care how disturbed he
is about all of this, I don't care how disturbed the American people
are, I promise you there is one thing about him that he will not yield
on and that is the environment; and for the very same reason nobody in
the U.S. Senate ought to yield on it.
I know it is painful. I know companies are put upon because of the
environment. But, when you think about what has happened to the
environment over the past 300 years of history in this country, it is
time we implement strong measures.
Did you know that the rules right now say that you cannot even
regulate a mine of 5 acres or less, you can go out and create all the
damage you want to on 5 acres? That is a pretty good spread for some
mines. In the State of Nevada, there are 2,400 mines of 5 acres or
less. Here is a letter from the BLM office in Reno, NV, to an
assemblywoman in Nevada, about these 5-acre mine sites. The BLM says:

[[Page S10349]]

Since enactment of BLM's surface management regulations in
1981 [that's the one we are still trying to live with, put in
effect in 1981, since the regulations in 1981] the BLM in
Nevada has processed nearly 10,000 notices. Currently, there
are approximately 2,400 active notice-level operations in
Nevada. There have been many environmental and operational
problems associated with the smaller operations in Nevada.

We aren't talking about 1872. We are talking about May 1, 1997. Let
me repeat that.

There have been many environmental and operational problems
associated with the smaller operations in Nevada.
In summary, there are 90 exploration or mining sites of
five acres or less in Nevada where a reclamation bond would
have either probably prevented a new modern-day problem from
developing or would have been used to reclaim an
environmental problem.

You can defend that if you want to if you are from Nevada. That is
your privilege. Do you know something else? The Federal regs of 1981
are just like the Nevada law. We exempt all mines of 5 acres or less.
Thousands and thousands of them are exempt under Federal regulations.
And you think that doesn't create environmental havoc?
Mr. President, I am not terribly optimistic about my chances of
succeeding today. Last year, happily, we were able to work out an
arrangement where we said we will consult with the Western Governors.
Nobody mentioned the National Academy of Sciences last year. I have
been in the Senate 24 years and ever since I have been on this issue,
nobody has ever mentioned the National Academy of Sciences. But
somebody cleverly came up with the idea and said, ``At your
fundraisers, you can always defend yourself; you can say, `The National
Academy of Sciences did a study on that.' '' I sure hope they come up
with a good set of regulations. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 30 minutes
remaining, and the Senator from Arkansas has 19 minutes 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield such time as my friend and
colleague from the State of Idaho might need, reserving at least 5
minutes for myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska, the
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first of all,
for the leadership role he has taken over the last good number of years
to try to bring reform to the 1872 mining laws.
For some reason, the Senator from Arkansas would like to portray that
mining is a rogue industry in our Nation that goes unregulated, outside
environmental regulations, and he cited today 5-acre mine sites. They
are not outside the environment, they are simply outside a plan of
operation. My guess is, one could find piles of chicken manure in that
State that violate environmental laws that are less than 5 acres that
are not controlled. Does that sound silly and facetious on my part?
Yes, it does, and I apologize to the Senator from Arkansas for saying
it, but I want him to understand that when he makes a statement like
``5 acres, rogue, out of control,'' it is not true. It is not true in
my State that has very tight environmental laws, and it is not true in
other mining States.
What the Senator from Arkansas would like to have you believe in his
compassionate statements about mining is that somehow these impact his
State. His State is not a mining State, per se. Mine is. The Senator
from Alaska has a mining State. The Senators from Nevada have a mining
State. Those States have had mining for over 100 years, and some of
that mining they are not proud of, or I should say, were not proud of.
In the sixties and the seventies and the eighties and the nineties,
those States began to take control of their own environmental destiny,
in part urged by the Senator from Arkansas, no question about it; in
part, a product of the National Environmental Policy Act; in part a
product of the Clean Air Act; in part a product of the Clean Water Act.
All of those came together to shape plans of operation and new mining
strategies for this country. I will tell you what it did in my State.
It cleaned up a lot of messes, messes by the definition of today's
environmental standards and ethics, not definitions by mining and
environmental standards of 70 or 80 years ago.
Why is the Senator standing up here this morning painting the world
as if it were black, most importantly, painting the world of mining as
if it were a disaster? The Senator from Arkansas knows it just
``ain't'' so, but this is one of his causes celebres which you and I
have heard on this floor--and I serve with him on the committee--for a
long, long while.
What is the essence of this administration's attempt to rewrite the
3809 regulations? My guess is that Secretary Babbitt and Solicitor
Leshy are creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, or more
importantly, creating a solution that plays to their political base and
hoping there is a problem out there to which they can attach it. I have
a feeling that down underneath all of this, this is just about the
whole of the problem that we are attempting to debate on the floor
today.
There is no question that this Senator, the Senator from Alaska and a
good many other Senators want responsible mining law and we think, in
large part, we have it, because the old 1872 mining law in one court
case after another, after another, after another, after another, after
another, piled up over 100-plus years, has transformed the world of
mining in this country into not only the significant industry it is,
but the environmental-sensitive industry that it is today.
Yet, the Senator from Arkansas and others love to drag out 20-year-
old pictures and 20-year-old stories as if they had just happened
yesterday and say, ``Oh, look at these pictures and read this story;
isn't it terrible what the world of mining is doing to the clear and
pristine lakes and rivers of our country?''
Let me tell you the mining story, the pictures and the story today
about those clear and pristine rivers. They were not once clear and
pristine. Mining tailings were dumped into them, and the rivers in my
State, in one instance, ran murky the year round. But today the Coeur
d'Alene River, flowing down through the major mining district of my
State, runs clean. Fish propagate in it. Kids swim in it.
That wasn't true 20 years ago. It was a combination of Federal and
State effort that produced that. But most importantly, it was the
ethics of the citizens and the government of the State of Idaho that
said as a mining State, we have to do it right, and that is what
Western Governors are saying today to this administration and to the
Senator from Arkansas and to a lot of others who like to use this as
their political base.
Look at the politics of it, sure, but look at the reality of what we
are doing. All of these States have very tight laws and regulations
today. You heard it from the Senators from Nevada, one of the top
mining States in the Nation today, employing tens of thousands of
people and bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into our economy.
They are doing it right. They are doing it under all of those
environmental laws that were passed on this floor in the sixties and
the seventies and the eighties, and they are not backing away from them
or trying to shrink from those laws. They are trying to improve them
and better them.
So why is the Secretary of Interior and his Solicitor and the Senator
from Arkansas looking for a solution to fit a problem that doesn't
exist? I am not sure. I already suggested it does identify with their
political base, but I am not so sure it identifies with the real world,
especially if a former Governor, who talks about how his State has done
so well, believes that States ought to have powers and rights in these
areas.
He and I have worked very closely together over the last several
years to reform the 1872 mining law and to attempt to empower those
States in cooperation with the Federal Government to assure that that
relationship and those kind of dynamics continue. On that I don't
disagree with the Senator from Arkansas, but I do disagree with the
Federal Government and its heavy hand ignoring the States' Governors
until we shove them into beginning dialog with them on the reform of
these rules.
Most of the Western Governors, however, who have problems, who are
working well with respect to mining operations within their boundaries,

[[Page S10350]]

want the BLM to do a couple of things with any modification in
regulation; and yet most Governors say they have not been worked with
well, they have not been listened to, and if you do not do major
things, that it will not happen.
Again, the heavy arm of the Federal Government will come down against
States. Once again, we violate or at least we ignore the Constitution
of our country, all in the name of a current political cause that does
not seem to exist much more today because we addressed it a long time
ago. That is the essence of the amendment to the Interior
appropriations bill by the Senator from Arkansas.
What did we do this year? Because of the difference between the
Department of Interior and the Governors--the Western States Governors
primarily--we have said, ``Let's get the National Academy of Sciences,
an impartial group, to step in between and examine this solution
looking for a problem.''
They are impartial. Both sides, I think, would respect their
integrity. And let us see how much of a problem there is out there. Let
us scope the magnitude of it before we bring down the heavy hand of
Government and put thousands of people out of work or risk putting
thousands of people out of work and destroying some significant
economies in many of our Western States.
That is really the essence of what we do here today. It isn't that
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has not been diligent. The
Senator from Arkansas has been diligent. We just cannot agree. We have
fundamental disagreements. I want mining. I want it alive and well and
creating jobs in my State--minerals and metals for the economy. And I
am not so sure that that is what he wants. Or at least he wants it in a
way that largely causes the investors in my State to go offshore to
make those investments--under the same environmental standards that
they would make in this country except they avoid the burdensome
multiyear regulatory process of a Government that really does not care
about the economies of investment and jobs because the cause they lift
themselves to is a cause higher.
That is the issue of this amendment. When you have a dispute between
two concerned parties--and we do here; the Senator from Arkansas and I
and others just fundamentally disagree--what is wrong with bringing an
impartial body in between us to examine the problem that by my
estimation does not exist and by the estimation of the Senator from
Arkansas does exist?
What is wrong with bringing an impartial body to the fore for that
purpose? That is exactly what the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
thought ought to be done, in consultation with the chairman of the full
authorizing committee, the Senator from Alaska. That is what we are
doing. And that is why the Senator from Arkansas is trying to stop it,
because it might bring about a solution that works. And it would deny
this administration the right to slash and burn and destroy a mining
industry that they did not like out there on the public lands to begin
with.
Secretary Babbitt has not been bashful. Every time he has to comply
with the law, he gets on a soap box and degrades it and says that he is
being forced to do certain things. Well, it is terrible when you are
forced to abide by the law. Why should you shun it? But then again, I,
as chairman of a subcommittee, the Senator of a full committee, and the
Senator from Arkansas have invited Secretary Babbitt to the table for
the last 6 years to work out these problems. And their answer is, ``No.
It's to our advantage to have the politics of it, not the solution to
it.''
That is the essence of the debate here on the floor. It really is, in
my opinion, that clear and that simple. You cannot talk about modern
mining today and use 20-year-old examples, because most of those were
created 20 years before they became a problem. Yet, that is the basis
of the argument. That is the strength of any argument that they attempt
to produce.
So I hope that my colleagues will stand with us today in opposing the
Bumpers amendment--that we should table that amendment--because while
it can be partisan at times, this is not a partisan issue. The Senators
from Nevada are Democrats, and I am a Republican, and we are from
neighboring States.
Mining has been for 100 years a major part of our economy and yet
today remains an important part of our economy. My State is touted as
being one of the most beautiful, mountainous, high-desert States in the
Nation, with clear flowing streams, pristine mountain meadows. And 100
years of a mining legacy? Yes. It seems like Idahoans did it right.
Then while they were doing it right, they learned to do it better. And
there is no question that the environmental laws we passed here in the
1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s helped them do it better.
But just a few years ago our reclamation laws, our mining laws as a
State, were the example for the rest of the Western States to follow,
and many of them did. Many of my miners have received national
environmental awards for their productions, for their operations, for
their facilities, and they are very, very proud of it.
So what is the advantage of standing here on the floor today and
pounding the podium and talking about the evil mining industry and the
environmental problems it creates? Well, if you are an echo of the
past, maybe there is value there. Or if you are the politics of
yesterday, maybe there is value there. But if you really want to work
with our Western Governors, and solve a problem, and bring two divided
sides together, then you do exactly what this bill does--you employ a
neutral party, the National Academy of Sciences, to analyze at least
the proposed problem that Messrs. Leshy and Babbitt suggest exists, and
examine the solution that they have out there, searching for and coming
up with a resolution.
I am quite confident that if the National Academy of Sciences
proposes, that we will take a very, very serious look at disposing with
that. That is the issue here. Let us proceed in that manner. Let us not
divide the Federal Government and State governments any more. Let us
build a working partnership, as we have had in the past, that will
project us, I think, into a productive future so that mining can remain
a strong part of our economy, as it should, and, in my opinion, as it
must if we are going to continue to have a free flow, an important
flow, of minerals and metals to the critical economies of this country.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Might I ask how much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 13 minutes 20
seconds remaining; the Senator from Arkansas controls 19 minutes 27
seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Senator from Arkansas if he would care to go
next since we spoke last on the issue.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want to make one point
that perhaps has not been made, and that is that this amendment only
applies on Federal lands. Bear in mind, all mining does not occur on
Federal lands. There are all kinds of mines in this country on private
lands. There are some on State lands.
I might also say that we have given away 3.2 million acres of land in
the past 126 years. Well, we did not give it away; we charged $2.50 an
acre for it. Lands the size of the State of Connecticut we have given
to the mining industry in the past 126 years to mine on. Do you know
what else? They own it. We gave them a deed for $2.50 an acre, and they
own it. And these regulations do not apply to people who own their own
land. The States regulate that.

One other point I want to make is that I believe the Senator from
Idaho indicated something about my political position, my political
base. No. 1, there is no political base on mining in my State. There is
a political base for being on the side of keeping the environment as
clean as possible, but that is not unique to my State. I assume that
there are some people even in Idaho and Alaska who want to keep the
environment as clean as possible.
Let me say, as the Senators tick off all the laws that the mining
industry has to comply with--clean air, clean water, reclamation--tell
us which one of those you want to repeal.

[[Page S10351]]

In the 1970's when a number of environmental laws were passed, go
back and look at the speeches that were given, and given again today,
about what a terrible disaster this would be if we passed this bill and
made people comply with these nonsensical, crazy regulations. It is
just another case where the old Federal Government is trying to tell us
how to run our lives.
Do you know the reason the Coeur d'Alene River is now a clean,
pristine river? Because of the Clean Water Act. I applaud the people of
Idaho who I assume didn't want that river to be polluted any further. I
can tell you, it may or may not have happened if it hadn't been for the
Federal Government's intervention. I don't know where that beautiful
river in my State, the Buffalo, would be right now if we hadn't made it
a wild and scenic river and stopped the disastrous pollution of the
river.
In the 1970's 65 percent of the streams, rivers and lakes in this
country were neither fishable nor swimmable. And because of the
terrible old Federal Government and all their regulations imposing on
the business community of this country, today it is reversed--65
percent of the streams, lakes, and rivers of this country are fishable
and swimmable. How I wish I could live long enough to see that figure
at 100 percent.
It is expensive. It is expensive to undo a mess. As I said on the
Senate floor last week in a different context but it bears repeating
here, as the English philosopher said, there is nothing more utterly
impossible than undoing what has already been done. Do you think Bill
Clinton wouldn't like to undo some of his past? Do you think people in
my State wouldn't like to undo some of the surface mining, the strip
mining, that we allowed to take place? They just dug out the earth,
piled it up in big layers, took the coal, and left it.
It is not even half over. When you consider the fact that mines of 5
acres and less aren't even regulated, when you think of all the 3.2
million acres of lands we have given to the mining industry, these
lands are not included.
So what do we have? The Senator from Idaho said Senator Bumpers is up
there talking about what happened years ago. In 1992, in Colorado,
Summitville's actions cost the taxpayers $30,000 a day; 6 years ago
that disaster occurred. What did they do? They polluted 17 miles of a
river. It is now a Superfund site.
Zortman-Landusky, 1998, in Montana--going broke. Taxpayers will get
to pick up the tab while we do another study by the National Academy of
Sciences. Then you can go home and say, ``Yes, I'm for the
environment.'' I think the National Academy of Sciences ought to study
these things as the disasters pile up. In 1998, in South Dakota, they
are not quite broke yet, they are in financial difficulties. They had a
$6 million bond, and the cleanup figure is now estimated at $10
million. Who picks up the difference? You know who picks up the
difference.
There are 557,000 hardrock mine sites that are abandoned. Today, 59
of them are on the Superfund list. The cost to the poor taxpayers: $34
to $71 billion, because the U.S. Congress engaged in sophistry,
specious arguments, as the pollution went on, as the unreclaimed mines
were left for the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
Think about 2,000 sites in our national parks that have to be
reclaimed. Twelve thousand miles of rivers are polluted, and they say
we need another 27 months to study it.
I don't know much of anything else I can say about this. I will have
a lot more to say tomorrow when I offer yet another amendment on
mining. Then the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Idaho can
have a big party and say, ``That mean old Senator from Arkansas, we
have heard the last of him,'' because you will have. I have been on
this subject now for 10 years, with just a few marginal successes. As I
pick up the paper in a few years and watch how things have gone, I will
be a detached taxpayer, still with strong feelings about it. All I can
say is, I did my best to try to save this planet for my children, my
grandchildren, and yours.
Let me repeat one more time, when you consider FLPMA, which we passed
in 1978, when you consider the National Forest Management Act, when you
consider the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, tell us, which ones
would you strike? Which ones would you repeal?
It reminds me, as a southerner, what a tough time we had coming to
grips with civil rights. Monday morning I will speak at an assembly at
Central High School in Little Rock where, 31 years ago, the National
Guard was called to keep black children from going to school there. The
Arkansas Gazette, at that time the oldest newspaper west of the
Mississippi, took a strong stand against Orval Faubus, who was Governor
and who called out the National Guard to keep those nine children from
going to school at Little Rock Central High School.
They lost circulation down to about 82,000. Orval Faubus was elected
six times--the first Governor ever elected to a fourth term. Only one
had ever been elected to a third term. And who today would take that
side of that question? There are a few, of course. Who today would want
to go back to charging people to vote?--which they did when I was a
young man. You had to go down to the courthouse and pay a dollar for a
poll tax. Who would go back to that?
If I were to start talking about the literally hundreds of things
that we have done in this country that were terribly unpopular--I can
remember when every doctor in America said, ``If you pass that Medicare
bill, you will be sorry; it will be the end of health care in this
country.'' Can you find me somebody today who doesn't like Medicare,
including the medical profession? No. In the 1970's--go back and look
at the speeches made when we passed a variety of environmental
statutes. I never read as many doomsday speeches in my life. Who would
go back to the time when we didn't have NEPA? Who would want to go back
to the time where we emptied our garbage out in the Buffalo River in
plastic bags?
Sometimes it is a long time coming, and the disastrous part of it is
that so much of it is irreversible; you cannot put it back the way God
gave it to us. That might be getting too heavy on an issue like this.
But I am telling you, when you look at the statistics of how many
abandoned mine sites there are right now, when you look at the fact
that we know what this is--this is nothing more than a dilatory tactic.
There is not one Senator who doesn't know precisely what this is about.
It is a simple delaying tactic.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time--
Mr. President, I will not yield back the remainder of my time. I think
Senator Landrieu may wish to speak, so I will reserve the remainder of
my time for her.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to indicate how much
time remains on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 13 minutes. The
Senator from Arkansas has 5 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express strong
opposition to the Bumpers amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose
it as well. This amendment is a step backwards, Mr. President. It is a
step back toward more centralized government; it is a step back toward
more heavy handed regulations; and it is a step back toward making
environmental policy with emotion and politics instead of science and
common sense.
Mr. President, this argument really comes down to whether or not we
want environmental regulations to be determined on the state level by
those who have the greatest stake in a healthy environment and a strong
economy, or do we want to keep all the power inside the Washington
beltway and in the hands of federal politicians and bureaucrats.
This amendment would strike section 117 of the fiscal year 1999
Interior appropriations. What is so disturbing about this section that
it must be struck, Mr. President? Section 117 is simply an attempt to
replace the emotionally and politically charged controversy surrounding
the revised 3809 regulations with good science. Section 117 would
require that the National Academy of Sciences--hardly an organization
in the pocket of the mining industry--perform a study of the adequacy
of federal and state regulations

[[Page S10352]]

governing hardrock mining on our public lands before the Secretary of
Interior moves forward with the new regulations. I find it baffling,
Mr. President, that a member of Congress would be opposed to
introducing an impartial and nonpartisan element to this heated debate,
such as a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
Mr. President, this is not merely a philosophical debate. This debate
is about jobs in rural America. We have learned by unhappy experience
that regulations spewed forth from Washington, D.C., with no regard for
those who are most affected by the regulations, often lead to a loss of
competitiveness and jobs in rural areas.
I wish all of my colleagues could visit the many rural areas of my
state of Utah. They would find that opportunity has been whittled away
from rural Americans who live among public lands. And why have these
citizens lost their ability to grow and prosper, Mr. President? Has it
been because of a lack of effort or creativity? Of course not--rural
areas in Utah are struggling because government bureaucrats have
systematically closed off opportunities to graze on public lands, to
harvest timber on public lands, and to mine on public lands. I
challenge anyone to tell me that this trend has not led to a major loss
of rural jobs, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the rural people of my state know that the source of
their problems has been an onslaught of centralized government
regulation. I would like to read a letter from a young constituent of
mine, T.J. Seely. He sums up, better than I could, what the crux of
this debate is really about.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered
into the Record along with my remarks.
Mr. President, T.J. asks me in his letter, ``What are you doing about
jobs in rural Utah?'' Well, Mr. President, an important part of my
answer to T.J. will be that I voted against this amendment today, and
that I urged my colleagues to do the same.
There being no objections, the letter was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

January 19, 1998.
Dear Senator Hatch: My name is T.J. Seely. I'm from Ferron,
Utah. I am thirteen years old and I'm concerned that there
won't be any jobs when I'm out of high school.
My dad is forty years old. He works for one of Pacific
Corps. mines and I'm worried that he won't have a job.
In Utah I think that we have more of our share of Federal
lands.
What are you doing about jobs in rural Utah, and what can I
do about securing jobs in Utah?
Sincerely,
T.J. Seely.

Proposed BLM 3809 Regulations

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the
discussion that has taken place today regarding the Bumpers amendment
and I would like to express my views on the BLM's proposed 3809
Regulations. I am concerned that my colleagues are facing another
situation, like others in the past, in which policymakers in this
Administration lacking support from Congress, nevertheless develop
policy based on a predetermined outcome. Once that policy is
introduced, we are then subjected to the usual vocalizing about the
importance of public input and the necessity of hearing views of all
interested parties.
BLM's justification for new regulations is spotty--advances in mining
technologies and current regulations which have not been updated for 15
years. Yet when we had this discussion last year, we agreed that since
the regulatory authority of western states would be called into
question, it was important that we allow for significant input from
those impacted states. I am dismayed that the BLM draft regulations
ignored most of the input received last year. The result has been a
proposal that was so top-heavy with prescriptive regulation it would
never pass muster if it were to move through the normal legislative
process.
We find ourselves in a situation where the Western Governors, which
have individual state programs that are working very well with respect
to mining in those states, wish to have greater input into the draft
regulations. These Governors, regardless of party affiliation, have
stated very clearly that the problems with the current law described by
the Secretary simply do not exist. They would prefer to have several
legal issues resolved prior to any modification of the current 3809
regulations. I do not see anything wrong with seeking guidance from an
outside source as to how the current regulatory framework is deficient.
I believe the language we have in this bill addresses those concerns by
bringing in a non-biased entity to determine if the current regulatory
framework is inadequate.
I sometimes wish we could be more candid with each other. I am amazed
at what happens when we can sit down around the table and have an open
discussion. We have been successful in the past, as my friend Senator
Bumpers well knows. Were it not for two or three candid discussions, we
would have never reached agreement on National Park concessions reform.
But this is a case where BLM is not willing to admit what it is really
trying to do. The Secretary should admit that he is trying to
accomplish mining law reform through the back door because the
Administration lacks the votes in Congress. If he would simply say
that, I would say that I disagree with his position. But because of the
lack of candor around here, we go through various machinations and we
find ourselves in this situation where we now have to bring in the
National Academy of Sciences to provide a non-biased review so we can
get the information to Congress. I think this issue has moved to the
point where we are in need of unbiased, outside counsel. If there is a
problem, let's fix it, if not, let's leave well enough alone. But the
first step is to identify if a problem really does exist.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, following the current debate, let me
point out a couple of things that I think the Senator from Arkansas may
have overlooked with regard to his general statement that we have
557,000 sites in the abandoned mine category.
I think it is important to recognize what we have done. We have a
system. The system is working. Fewer than 3 percent of those 557,000
are considered to be of a significant environmental concern. Surface
water contamination, ground water contamination, and Superfund make up
less than 3 percent of these sites. The others--it is interesting to
note--34 percent, or 194,000, have been reclaimed and are considered
benign; 231,000, or 41 percent, have a surface disturbance. Obviously,
if you are going to mine an area in an open pit, you are going to have
a surface disturbance. But that can be taken care of in the reclamation
process. The trees can grow back.
I ask anybody who has visited the interior of Alaska to recognize the
techniques used with the gold dredges where they basically built this
dredge in a pond and it dug ahead of itself and deposited the tailings,
the pond was not any bigger than the dredge, it simply moved, and yes,
the tailings were evident at the time, but now the trees have grown
back into the tailings piles. That is what is happening in these areas
where appropriate reclamation takes place, and the technology today is
much more advanced than previously. So there is significant advancement
in the process.
The system of reclamation is working, and the States take pride in
their obligation to address reclamation associated with mining
activity. You can't create wealth, you can't create jobs, and you can't
create prosperity without some kind of a footprint. Mining is no
exception. But with the technology we have, we are addressing it and
doing a better job.
The problem with the proposal of my friend from Arkansas is that he
simply wants to have the Department of the Interior come in and dictate
terms and conditions--a nameless, faceless bureaucracy, accountable not
to the people within the States, not to the people who work in the
mining industry, not to the people who have jobs, families, mortgages,
but to an indifferent Department of the Interior coming down with
regulations that would basically strangle the mining industry as we
know it today and force it overseas.
We have had a discussion about the poultry industry. I am sorry that
my friend from Arkansas stepped out briefly, but I have done a little
investigation in the last few minutes relative to the poultry industry
in Arkansas, which I know very little about. Clearly, the Senator from
Arkansas is on record opposing any State regulation of mining that is
evident today. But he doesn't oppose State regulation of his

[[Page S10353]]

State's biggest industry, and that is poultry. Small poultry farmers
are not subject to Federal law, clean water regulation, even when large
corporations actually own the chickens. It is left up to State law,
even though it is a major water quality issue in those States with high
populations of poultry. In Virginia alone, over 1,300 poultry
operations produce 4.4 billion pounds of manure a year. A so-called
small poultry operation can produce 540 tons of litter per year. I
haven't heard the Senator from Arkansas arguing in favor of Federal
regulation, but perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves and we don't
need to spread the issue around any more than we have, relatively
speaking.
Let me just highlight a few more points that I think are appropriate.
Let's look at the gold industry in the United States today. The layoffs
total approximately 3,500 workers--not because the gold isn't there,
but the world price of gold has declined. As a consequence, these
mines, such as the HomeStake Mine in Lead, SD, a small community of
fewer than 1,000 people, where there are over 466 people that are out
of work--that issue is not as a consequence of the issue before us
today, but it is a consequence of the mining industry's ability to
operate internationally based on cost, based on the value of the gold
in the ground, and a number of other considerations.
The point is, when you go into the mining industry, you go in for the
long haul. You are going to have good years and bad years. But I think
it is appropriate that we take a look at the industry as it exists in
the Western States. There are 5,000 people employed in my State of
Alaska. In California, there are 115,000 people with jobs directly or
indirectly affected by the mining industry; Colorado has 19,000; Idaho
has 7,000; Montana, 9,000; Nevada has 11,000; South Dakota, 8,000; the
State of Washington has 26,000.
So I remind the Senators from those States that are directly
affected, with a significant payroll, a number of jobs are dependent
directly or indirectly on the mining industry, and it is very important
that we have a mining industry that has regulations that are responsive
to the legitimate environmental demands, but at the same time recognize
that this industry fluctuates with market price, world prices, unlike
many other items that we might not have a fair comparison with.
Finally, let me in the remaining moments again refer to the effort
that has been made that is pending before the U.S. Senate. It is ready
for markup. That is the mining bill that Senator Craig and I have
offered. It was a solid foundation upon which to build mining reform.
We made an accommodation to the Senator from Arkansas not to mark it up
in order for him to initiate an effort to reach a compromise with the
mining industry to resolve long standing issues. Evidently, this has
not yet happened, although I still have hopes.
Let me remind my colleagues that the mining bill before us would have
pleased, I think, reasonable voices on both sides of the issue. It
seeks reform, which brings a fair return to the Treasury. It protects
the environment and preserves our ability to produce strategic minerals
in an international marketplace. I think the bill, when it eventually
reaches the floor of this body, will receive support and pass. The
legislation protects the small miners, it maintains traditional
location and discovery practices, and it is reform. It is an effort to
do the job right. Bad decisions are going to harm a $5 billion U.S.
industry whose products are the muscle and sinew of our Nation's
industrial output.
The future of some 120,000 American miners and their families and
their communities is at stake here. So is the well-being of thousands
of other Americans whose income is linked to manufacturing goods and
services which support this critical industry.
In summary, Mr. President, I am going to be offering a motion to
table Senator Bumpers amendment to strike at 2:15 when the Senate
reconvenes
I want my colleagues to know ahead of time what my intentions are
relative to the disposition of the Bumpers amendment.
Finally, let me, for the record, indicate the position of the Western
Governors' Association, which wrote in a letter:

States already have effective environmental and reclamation
programs in place and operating. These programs ensure that
national criteria where they exist in current law are met and
allow the States site-specific flexibility for the remaining
issue.

We have letters from the Governors of Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho,
Wyoming and Utah--written letters in support of having the National
Academy of Sciences conduct a review of the existing State and Federal
regulations governing mining to determine their deficiencies.
One other point, Mr. President. I think it is noteworthy, to my
colleagues who have perhaps been following some of our Nation's
environmental leaders, the comment that was made in December 1997 by
former Secretary of the Interior, Governor Cecil Andrus. When the 3809
regulations were promulgated back in 1980, Governor Andrus was
Secretary of the Interior. So this gentleman knows of what he speaks.
In December, Governor Andrus stated:

For over 20 years, I submit, the 3809 regulations have
stood the test of time. These are the regulations that we are
talking about today, the ones the Secretary of the Interior
proposes to change.

Further, I quote:

Those regulations revolutionized mining on the public
lands. Bruce Babbitt, who should know better, is trying to
fix things that are not broken and accomplish some mining
reform laws through the back door.

Mr. President, that is just what this issue is about. I don't know
what is good for the goose or the chicken, but I do know what is good
for the mining industry in the United States today; that is, to defeat
and prevail on the motion to table the Bumpers amendment to strike.
Mr. President, I ask that the remainder of my time be indicated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I retain the remainder of my time and yield to my
friend from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, here is what the new regulations contain:
Regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts, if
economically and technically feasible--that is a pretty big loophole;
that is what these new regulations provide--reclaim the land to its
prior condition; bonding, enough bond to cover reclamation costs; and,
protect the air and water quality.
Let me ask my opponents on this issue, to which of those do you
object? To what do you object?
Mr. President, these arguments about the poor gold miners processing
gold--I have heard those same arguments year after year, and sometimes
when gold was more than $400 an ounce. If gold is cheap, that is the
argument. If gold is high, then it is jobs. If neither apply, then it
is that bad old Federal Government trying to regulate our lives--
anything under God's Sun to keep from doing anything to make the mining
companies of this country do it right.
This is the simplest amendment in the world. Everybody knows what it
is. For 17 years, since 1981, we have been living with regulations for
the most part which were hopelessly out of date. In the meantime, we
have been allowing cyanide to go into the rivers and streams and the
underground aquifers of this country, and they don't want to do
anything about it. They don't want a regulation or a rule that makes
people responsible for that.
I think I have said everything I can possibly say about this issue. I
will simply say I may lose this afternoon, and probably will. And when
27 months have gone by, unless somebody takes it on again next year,
maybe we will get James Watt back as Secretary of the Interior and we
will not have to worry about things like this anymore. This is very
carefully crafted to say to Bruce Babbitt that you cannot do anything--
you can't do anything until the year 2001. At that time, my opponents
on this divinely hope that there will be a Republican President and
there will be a Secretary of the Interior who will do their bidding.
That may happen. And in the meantime, unmitigated, unfathomable
economic disasters will continue to occur.
If this is an issue for the Senate to do something about, all you
have to do is vote yes. If you do not want to do anything about it,
then vote no.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my
time.

[[Page S10354]]

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Arkansas
for his input and his consistent effort to bring this issue before this
Congress, and certainly the U.S. Senate.
I must differ with him on his interpretation. It is not unmitigated
disaster. I think every Member of the Western States, and those States
that have mining, recognize that there are certainly ills. But there is
also an obligation and a pride to correct them, and those corrections
are underway. But the suggestion that the Department of the Interior
should have the broad authority to come in with sweeping new
regulations that would in many cases have an adverse effect on the
industry's ability to be internationally competitive is the threat
proposed by the Department of the Interior. As a consequence, I would
again expect to offer a motion to strike the amendment, and a tabling
motion.
I yield the remainder of my time. I thank my good friend for the
spirited debate. We will keep him informed of the progress and the
eventual resolve of this issue, if we don't get it done today.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there 10
minutes equally divided beginning at 2:15 on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.

____________________