Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to ask for a division.

Mr. BUMPERS. Were we to follow the Senator's logic to its logical conclusion, would this not be a fair summary, that it costs millions of dollars to develop land belonging to the United States but nothing to develop lands that belong to private interests?

Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator know of any mine that has ever been developed in the history of this country where a lot of money wasn't spent to develop it, on private land or Federal lands?

Mr. BUMPERS. You always have to spend a lot of money developing it, don't you agree?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my distinguished colleague and friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, be recognized for 10 minutes, without my losing the right to the floor, and that I immediately be recognized following the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator realize that the land on which they are paying 18 percent royalty was formerly Federal land and was patented by a totally different person and they bought it, they bought it from somebody else who paid the Federal Government either $2.50 an acre or $5 an acre? They are paying him, not the Federal Government. You see, if they had been smart enough to get a patent before this other fellow did, they would not have had to pay anything. Now they are paying somebody else who patented the land 18 percent, but if they had gotten the patent from the Federal Government, they wouldn't have had to pay a penny. Indeed, Senator, I don't want to make too much light of your argument, but I don't even know what your answer is. I still do not understand why it is they are willing to pay 18 percent royalty to a guy who patented the land from the Federal Government. It is now private land because he bought it for $2.50 an acre. They are willing to pay him 18 percent royalty but the other lands--it is a part of the same lode of gold that they got a patent on from the Federal Government. They are not willing to pay one farthing, and the reason they are not willing to, I say to the Senator, you and I both know the answer, they got a bird nest on the ground.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I still have the floor, do I not?

Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada if he will tell his 99 colleagues why Newmont Mining Co.--which is the biggest mining company in Nevada--why is it that they are willing to pay 18 percent royalty for private lands they mine on, and land which is a part of the very same mine which they got a patent on from the U.S. Government for $2.50 an acre, why they are not willing to pay any royalty on that.

Mr. BUMPERS. All I'm saying to my colleagues is that you're not going to get a chance to vote on a division, you are not going to get a chance----

Mr. BUMPERS. They got it for $35----

Mr. BUMPERS. Second, Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues that on this point of order, if you want to vote ``no'' because of the constitutional technicality which is raised by the point of the order by the Senator from Washington, bear in mind that the point of order is clearly not valid at all against the royalty provision in this bill. The reason I can tell you that with absolute certainty is because the bill of the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Idaho, and the Senator from Nevada, has a royalty provision in it. The Parliamentarian of this body referred it to the Energy Committee--not the Finance Committee. There isn't any question that there is no point of order against the royalty provision in this bill. Second, I would like to ask my distinguished friend from Nevada, if I could have the attention of the Senator from Nevada----

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the committee amendment beginning on page 123, line 9.

Mr. BUMPERS. All I am saying is that the point of order was made before I could ask for a division. I am saying that could be worked out, and it could be easily worked out.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Nevada is incorrect. My amendment does not violate the Constitution and it deserves an up or down vote. What is the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Alaska so afraid of?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator does not have the option of doing that. He is going to be voting on the amendment, period. He is going to be voting on the point of order raised by the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BUMPERS. Is the State of Idaho willing to take over this cleanup site and absolve the U.S. Government of any further liability?

Mr. BUMPERS. I didn't acknowledge that. But go ahead.

Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just say to the Senator from Idaho that my legislation for 8 long years has been an anathema to him. I am not saying if I were a Senator from Alaska, Idaho, or Nevada I wouldn't be making the same arguments. But I want to make this offer. It is a standing offer. If the State of Idaho will commit and put up a bond that they will clean up all those abandoned mine sites in that State, that they will take on the responsibility, and do it in good order, and as speedily as possible, I will withdraw my amendment. I don't have the slightest fear. We all know that this is a Federal problem. It is a Federal responsibility to clean up these mine sites. The only way we can do it is to get some money out of the people who got the land virtually free and who have left us with this $30 billion to $70 billion price tag. Let me go back, Mr. President, and just state that since 1872 the U.S. Government in all of its generosity has given away 3.244 million acres of land. We have given it away for $2.50 an acre. Sometimes we got as much as $5 an acre. There are 330,000 claims still pending in this country. And the Mineral Policy Center estimates that since 1872 we have patented land containing $243 billion worth of minerals--land that used to belong to the taxpayers of this country. We now have a moratorium on all but 235 patent applications. But the 235 applications, when they are granted, will represent the continued taxpayer giveaway of billions of dollars worth of minerals and land. Stillwater Mining Company in Montana has a first half certificate for 2,000 acres of land in the State of Montana. What does that mean? That means they are virtually assured of getting a deed to 2,000 acres of land. It means that they are virtually assured of paying the princely sum of $10,180. Guess what is what is lying underneath the 2,000 acres: $38 billion worth of palladium and platinum. My figure? No. Stillwater's figure. Look at their prospectus. Look at their annual report. They are saying to the people who own stock, ``Have we pulled off a coup.'' We are going to get 2,000 acres of Federal land for $10,180, and it has $38 billion worth of hardrock minerals under it--palladium and platinum. You know, one of the things that I think causes me to fail every year is that it is so gross, so egregious, that people can't believe it is factual, that it is actually happening. But it is true. Look at what happened to Asarco. They paid the U.S. Government $1,745. What did they get? $2.9 billion worth of copper and silver. You never heard of a company called Faxe Kalk. Do you know the reason you never heard of it? It is a foreign mining company. You don't usually hear of them. The other reason you don't hear of them is because they are a Danish company. One of the things that makes this issue so unpalatable is that many of the biggest 25 mining companies in the United States are foreign companies. We ought to go today to Denmark and say, ``We would like some of your North Sea oil.'' What do you think they would say if we said, ``Look, we are going to start drilling here off the coast of Denmark. We will give you a dollar now and then for the privilege.'' They would say, ``You need to be submitted for a saliva test.'' But the Faxe Kalk Corporation comes here, and they say, ``You have 110 acres out here in Idaho, Uncle Sam. We would like to have it. We will pay $275 for it.'' So they go to Bruce Babbitt and they say, ``We will give you $275 for this 110 acres.'' Do you know what is underneath it? One billion dollars worth of a mineral called travertine. It is a mineral used to whiten paper. That is $275 the taxpayers get and $1 billion a Danish corporation gets. In 1995 the Secretary of the Interior was forced to deed 1,800 acres of public land in Nevada to Barrick Gold Co., a Canadian company, for its Gold Strike Mine. Barrick paid $9,000 for that 1,800 acres. Mr. President, there isn't a place in the Ozark Mountains of my State where you could buy land for one-tenth that price. The law required Secretary Babbitt to give Barrick, which is the most profitable gold company in the world, land containing $11 billion worth of gold for $9,000. I could go on. There are other cases just as egregious as that. For 8 long years, I have stood at this very desk, and I have made these arguments, as I say, which are so outrageous I can hardly believe I am saying them, let alone believing them. Newmont Mining Co. is one of the biggest gold companies in the world. They have a large mine in Nevada which is partially on private land. When people say that somebody is mining on private lands, if you will check, Mr. President, you will find that in most cases that land was Federal land that somebody else patented, and then somebody like Newmont comes along, and they say, ``You hold a patent on this land that you got from the Federal Government for $2.50 an acre and we want to mine on it.'' Do you know what Newmont pays to the land owner on its mine in Nevada? An 18 percent royalty. Mr. President, as I just mentioned, most of the land being mined on, so-called private lands, are private because somebody bought it from the Federal Government years ago for $2.50 or $5 an acre. True, it is private. They own it. They paid for it. The mining companies are willing to pay the States--they are willing to pay the States a royalty. They are willing to pay the States a severance tax. They are willing to pay the private owners of this country an average of 5 percent. But when it comes to paying the Federal Government, it is absolutely anathema to them. There is no telling how much the National Mining Association spends every year on lobbying, on publicity, on mailers, you name it, to keep this sweetheart deal alive. Since I started on this debate 8 years ago, the mining companies of this country have taken out billions of dollars worth of minerals from taxpayer-owned land. And do you know what the Federal Government and the taxpayers of this country got in exchange for that? One environmental disaster after another to clean up. And so that is the reason my bill, which contains a royalty and a reclamation fee, goes into a reclamation fund to at least start undoing the environmental damage these people have done because it is too late to get a royalty out of them. The gold is gone. We got the shaft. They got the gold. And it is too late to do anything about it. But you can start making them pay now to clean up those 555,000 sites. Arizona has a 2 percent gross value royalty for mines located on State lands and a 2.5 percent net income severance tax for all mines in the State. Montana, 5 percent; fair market for raw metallic minerals; 1.6 percent of the gross value in excess of $250,000 for gold, silver, platinum group metals. All of these States charge royalties for mining operations on State- owned land. Most of them also charge a severance tax for mining operations on all land in the State. Mr. President, what do they know that we don't? A lot. The States are collecting the money, but not Uncle Sam. Do you know why I have lost this fight for the last 8 years? Those States that have mining on Federal lands have great representation in the U.S. Senate. I know that every single Western Senator is going to start flocking onto this floor as soon as I start talking about this amendment. Do you see anybody else on this floor who is not from the West? Do you know why? My mother used to say, ``Everybody's business is nobody's business.'' This is everybody's business, except it just doesn't affect their States. There are no mining jobs in their States. For 8 years I have heard all these sayings, as to how many jobs you are going to lose, despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office says, ``None.'' ``You are going to lose all these jobs. It is going to discommode the economies of our respective States.'' And yet the States don't hesitate. We have people in this body who are Senators from the West who have served in State legislatures, who helped pass these laws, who helped impose royalties and severance taxes against the mining companies. But somehow or other they go into gridlock when they get here. At the State level they don't mind assessing these kinds of taxes. The States need the money. We do, too. We are the ones who are tagged with this gigantic bill for reclamation. Mr. President, I could go through a list of things I have here. Amax, for example, pays 6-percent royalty on the Fort Knox Mine in Alaska. The chairman of the Energy Committee 2 years ago passed legislation providing for a land exchange on Forest Service land in Alaska. The Kennecott Mining Co. was willing to pay the Forest Service a $1.1 million fee up front, and then a 3-percent net smelter return on the rest of it. We agreed on it, ratified it. I voted for it. But, now, isn't it strange that here is a mine in Alaska that we had to legislatively approve--because of the ownership of the land, it involved a land exchange--and I was happy to do it because it was a fair deal and these people demonstrated an interest in paying a fair royalty for what they took. Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I will not belabor this any further.

Mr. BUMPERS. I was getting ready to yield the floor. I want to say in closing, I know a lot of people would like to get out of here as early as they can tonight. I don't intend to belabor this. I said mostly what I want to say. I may respond to a few things that are said, so I am going to turn it over to my friends from the West and let them respond for a while, and then hopefully we can get into a time agreement after four or five speakers have spoken. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? When I introduced this amendment, I failed to state that my chief cosponsor on the bill is Senator Gregg from New Hampshire.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me first of all say my opposition to my colleague's amendment is difficult for me. I have the utmost respect for him. We have a fine working relationship. Occasionally we have a disagreement, as on this amendment. I know he feels very strongly about it. My interests in the wilderness areas and the rivers of this country go back to the time when I was Governor of the State of Arkansas. Long before Congress considered wilderness legislation, Arkansas was considering it. I must confess before God and everybody that my wilderness proposal was the only substantive legislation I lost or was unable to pass in my first term as Governor. It was considered a little bit of a radical concept. Now, of course, we have millions and millions of acres in the national forests and State forests set aside for wilderness areas. It was a concept whose time had not come in 1971. I remember one legislator said, ``Who wants a wilderness? If you want one, go grow one.'' That is how shallow the thinking was about wilderness back then. Fortunately, I was able to designate a few rivers as scenic rivers. I am pleased we were able to do that. I am a strong believer in preserving everything that has any aesthetic or cultural value. Now, as I see this proposal, not my colleague's proposal, but as I see what the President is proposing, I just do not understand, frankly, the opposition. We have had some calls in our office suggesting that this is a United Nations plot to take over private property. Well, I wouldn't be standing here saying that the President's idea is a good one if I thought for a minute it was going to take people's property away from them, that there was some kind of cabal or conspiracy to do such a thing as that. I guess that you could compare this to a scenic highway. In Arkansas we designate scenic highways in our State. You know why we do that? To entice tourists to drive on those scenic highways. You drive a few miles west of Washington, DC, and all you can see are signs saying ``Scenic Highways.'' I have never heard any outcry from anybody in my State opposing scenic highways. We love them. They do wonders for the Arkansas tourist industry. If I understand the proposal on the heritage rivers, it is designed so that the President would have to be told or he would have to be requested by the people in the local community that they want to declare their river an American heritage river. If he did it, it would be an honorary designation more than anything else. The only time any Federal resources would be committed to it would be if the local community decided that they wanted to start a new project along the river, as we have done in Little Rock, AR, with a beautiful new park. In 1972, I attended a Southern Governors' Conference in Austin, TX. We always have a big dinner at the close of those things. Lady Bird Johnson was my seatmate at dinner. I had never met her before. She is a very gracious, charming woman. The Lady Bird Johnson Park out here is a real tribute to her. She told me, ``Governor Bumpers, I was in Little Rock about 2 weeks ago and I was staying in a brandnew hotel. I looked out my window toward the river and there was the county jail and a sand and gravel operation.'' She said, ``I believe that Little Rock is the only city in the world on a major river that doesn't have a riverfront park that utilizes the beauty of the river and builds on the beauty of that river.'' I came back and reported that to the city fathers in Little Rock. It was rather embarrassing when she brought it to my attention. To make a long story short, we now have one of the most magnificent riverfront parks in Little Rock, AR, today, of any State in the Nation. We have a week-long Riverfest festival which everybody in Arkansas takes great pride in. There is nothing underhanded or sinister in this proposal. The President is not asking for legislative authority. He is simply saying, if the community of Little Rock came to him and said, ``We want this river in our State declared an American heritage river,'' he could proclaim it, like giving them a plaque. Everybody in this body has 1,000 plaques. What is wrong with that, providing recognition to aesthetic values in this rather meager way? I yield the floor.