Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is the conference report on Interior. As my colleagues know, it was recommitted once on the question of the moratorium on mining, and the second time on the mining issue and also on the Tongass timber program. Mr. Speaker, the questions on mining and the Tongass, I will address, but let me say at the outset I think what we have is a very fair bill. For example, we had dozens and dozens of requests from Members for various things that might impact in their districts, and the number on the Democratic side that we responded to is actually a few more than on the Republican side. We made an effort to respond on the merits of the issues without regard to partisanship, and I would hope that my colleagues on the minority side would support this legislation. I think likewise that the majority Members should do the same, and I think, as I explain what we made in the way of changes, that my colleagues will understand we have responded to the concerns of the Members. Also I think it is very important that we get this bill down to the President, and I would hope he would sign it. There are 130,000 employees who are waiting and hoping that this legislation will become law so they can get on with the job of managing the parks, keeping the gates open for the public to enjoy these wonderful facilities; likewise in managing our forests, our public lands, the grazing lands, the fish and wildlife facilities, the Smithsonian, the National Gallery. Many of my colleagues probably had their visitors here experience the fact that the doors were closed on the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the Kennedy Center during the period of time, the 5 days or so, that we did not have funding, and, if we can get this conference report passed in the House and the Senate, get it to the President, I think to examine the merits of the bill, that the executive branch, the President, will recognize that we have been as fair as possible, that we have addressed the problems. I want to say also at the outset that there is some talk about a budget buster. That has got to be the new math in this town, because this bill is $1.3 billion under 1995 in budget authority. It is about 10 percent below 1995, and it causes some tough decisions, but if we are to get to a balanced budget in 7 years, we have to look at each expenditure and say can we do this more efficiently, and we have tried to apply the policies of total quality management to the responsibilities that we have. Let me address the issues that caused the recommittal, the first being the Tongass, the rain forest in the State of Alaska. A statement was made during the debate on the rule that actually we were increasing the cut. Exactly the opposite is happening. In the modified language, which I might say was worked over and agreed to by both sides of this issue on the Tongass, we reduced the allowable cut from 450 million board feet to 418 million board feet in the Tongass, so this is a reduction of the amount that can be allowed as far as cutting the timber. The practical matter is that the money in the bill, because of reduced funding, is only enough to allow for about 310 million board feet, and the same will likely be true in the 1997 bill. So, as far as the amount of cut that is allowed, it is substantially below what had been allowed prior to this time, so I think that is one of the ways we responded to those who have a concern for the Tongass. Second, we removed the sufficiency language. Sufficiency language insulates actions from the courts from the requirements for environmental evaluation, and in the original bill that was language that was placed in there by the other body. We remove that so that the cuts in the Tongass, with one exception, are subject to all the rules, regulations, the actions of the courts, the Environmental Protection Agency, the endangered species law, the whole 9 yards, and therefore I think for those who are concerned about the environmental impacts, Mr. Speaker, we have made every effort to insure that environmental concerns are addressed. The one sale has already gone through all this, and we would allow that sale to be transferred to another buyer. We have also allowed the planning process by the Forest Service to continue. They can go forward in their planning process to determine what should be the allowable cut and how it should be handled in the future, and that plan, we would hope, would be developed in the next several months. We give the Department a totally free hand in the planning process. We removed the language concerning the Goshawk and permanently prohibiting establishing certain habitat conservable areas. The administration strongly objected to this permanent provision and it has been deleted. I think on balance what we have done in the Tongass represents a very good compromise between those who are concerned about providing the jobs in Alaska, allowing a cut, and those who want to protect the environment, protect this forest, and as I said earlier, this represents a compromise among the interested parties. On the mining issue, which was also part of the motion to recommit, we removed the triggers that would lift the moratorium so what we have is a moratorium with no triggers. We also provide that the Department of Interior, or BLM, has a 5-year period to process the grandfathered patents, and I know that is of an interest to those who have concern about the mining proposals. But, the moratorium that has been in place in the 1995 bill remains in place in the 1996 bill, and I think this is the important fact that I want to convey to all members: We responded to the motion to recommit exactly as has been requested in that motion. It also provides that the Secretary of Interior should give us a report in the year as to what success they are having in getting the grandfather patents in which people have a proprietary interest effectuated or out to the applicants. On the question of the Indians, I know the gentleman from Wisconsin, the minority leader on the Committee on Appropriations, was concerned about adequate funding for the Indians, and we had a request from the administration. Actually they requested $110 million over the Senate level. We end up here with $11 million. We have added $50 million from the second conference report to this one, $25 for tribal priorities. This allows the Indian tribes to use these funds in the way that will best serve their individual tribes and the people that are members thereof, and we put $25 million in Indian health, recognizing again that this is extremely important as we discharge our responsibility. One of the treaty obligations, the really true major obligations we have under the treaties, one is to provide health services, and the second is to provide education, and we have addressed those, and we have added the $50 million. We have some other changes in the conference report. They are not big items, and I would be happy to address those in response to any questions. One of these would be requested by the Department of Interior, to allow them to work out agreements in cooperation with other levels of government. Also, a requirement that limits the log exports for an additional period of time in the Western States, and most of the other changes were agreed on, but I think the important thing I want to impress on the Members is that we responded to the motion to recommit. On the Tongass, on the mining moratorium, we responded in a way in which I think those who are interested parties will tell the Members during this debate that they are very well pleased with what we have been able to do, and the bill itself, I believe, responds, given the fiscal constraints we had, very effectively in meeting the needs of the people. So I would hope that we can get this passed and get on with it. our responsibilities, and we can say to those 130,000 employees, ``We know your job is important, we know the public depends on you to provide the services in the parks, the forests and so on, and we want to let you know that we are behind you by supporting this legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Record include a table on the various accounts in the bill, as agreed to by the conference managers.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 301, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the subcommittee. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I think one of them chairs it. Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the gentleman from Massachusetts complaining that we are spending too much money. It is the new math that we have in Washington, DC, as near as I can figure out, since this bill is $1.3 billion less than in 1995. It is about a 10-percent reduction from 1995 funding. It is responsive to the movement to a balanced budget. We have had to make tough decisions, of course. But as I have said previously, we divided the responsibilities into three parts: The must- do's, the need-to-do's, and the nice-to-do's. The must-do's we took care of. We kept the parks at level funding, the forests at level funding and operations. The Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the Kennedy Center, the things that the people enjoy, that they want to use, are nearly level-funded. Certainly, in order to save $1.3 billion, we had to eliminate or substantially downsize some other activities. But I simply point out again that in terms of the budget and the deficit reduction which I think the American people very much want to see, this bill is extremely responsible. I do not think that in any way it is environmentally detrimental. It responds to the motion to recommit. We have made adjustments on the mining issue of the moratorium. We have made adjustments on Tongass. All the parties involved and both sides worked on the language, and I will address that more in the general debate. On the matter of the Indians, we have added $50 million, $25 million for health services, $25 million for tribal priorities. In fact, this is more than the administration requested. They wanted something like $125 million over the Senate level. We are at about $111 million over the Senate level. So I think we have a very responsible bill here. I hope that the Members will support the rule, I hope that the Members will support the bill, and that the administration will sign it. There are 130,000 employees that are directly affected by this bill, and what a great gift we could give them by passing this excellent, responsible bill that has been developed with a lot of give-and-take, so that those 130,000 employees would know on Friday that their jobs would be secure, that they can go out and open the gates to the parks, to the forests, to the Smithsonian, to the fish and wildlife facilities. If Members are concerned about the environment, the way to support the environmental issues is to vote for this bill so the funding will be available to these dedicated people who do truly take care of the environment as they provide the services in the Department of the Interior, to the cultural institutions, to the Department of Energy. I would strongly urge the Members to support the rule and support the bill. I think, given the restraints that we had on the funding levels, that we have done a responsible job of meeting the needs of this Nation.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, a lot of conservative environmentalists come from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this is a good bill. I think it recognizes, of course, the fiscal restraints that we are under. It is $700 million under 1995 in terms of discretionary spending. But as chairman of the Steel Caucus, I want to also point out that we have kept the funding up for the International Trade Administration. We are in a competitive environment worldwide with our products, including steel, and it is therefore very important that the ITA have full funding. We have been able to do that. It is almost at 1995 levels, and what this means is that the International Trade Administration will be able to very vigorously support our trade laws and make sure that none of our industries are subjected to unfair trading practices. With the GATT treaty in place the challenges to maintain a fair trade environment has become extremely important. The Commerce Department funding is down about $578 million, and many people say this Department perhaps is not necessary. However, the ITA has a very essential function, and I am pleased that we have been able to keep the funding level at 1995. The second important thing I would bring to the attention of my colleagues is the manufacturing extension program. Again, we have kept the funding level up. This is an agency that provides help to many small businesses. Some 14,000 of them in northern Ohio potentially benefit from this program, because this agency provides help to many small businesses and give them advice as to how to manage their accounting, how to manage in some cases the sales programs. They provide the kind of professional consulting that many times the small business does not have. So, these two features are important to the economy and jobs, and I am pleased that we could fund them at almost a 100 percent level.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not condemn that. That is something the other body insisted on. But as the Forest Service people said to me this morning, it really does not do anything. We have not put the money in to increase the cut, so as the gentleman knows from past experience, it cannot be increased. So that is a Trojan Horse really. The real issue here is the mining patent moratorium, and it is in here, as was ordered by the House.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues, I am tempted to check with the Clerk and see if we are still debating H.R. 1977. I hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle a lot of statements that have no relationship to this bill. First of all, they say it is going to be a giveaway. This bill does not give anything away. It is the reconciliation bill that has mining reform, not this bill. This bill stops the giveaway. This bill has the moratorium. Now, my friend from California says it is only slightly different. It is very different because it has a patent moratorium in it. The bill that was sent back by my friend from Illinois, and I agreed with his motion, did not have a moratorium. We sent it back to put in a moratorium. We did. We put the moratorium in, and, believe me, it was not easy. But it is there. I think that is far more than slightly different. Then I have heard the statement that we are not doing enough for science. Let me point out that we have $137 million for natural resource research in the NBS that has been put into the USGS. We have $650 million for USGS, including resource research which is a scientific organization. We have almost $1 billion in energy research in science. So we get a total of at least $2 billion in science. That is not exactly a slight amount. Then I have heard the statement that it guts Indian education. Well, I do not understand how a $2 million increase over 1995 deserves that kind of a description. It is an increase in Indian-based education over 1995. It is certainly no reduction. I have to say to all of my colleagues, this bill, given the fact that we were given 10 percent less to work with, is very fair. We have addressed the needs. As Members will recall, I said we divided into must-do's, need-to-do's, and nice-to-do's. We did those without regard to whose district it might be in, without regard to any partisanship. There are things in here in the must-do's that are in Democrat districts and Republican districts. There are need-to-do's in Democrat districts and Republican districts. We have done the best we could, given the fact that we had 10 percent less money. We have done the best we could to address the egregious problems in mining in the 1872 Act. We are not given the responsibility nor do we have the right to enact mining reform. That is an authorizing problem, as the gentleman from Illinois clearly pointed out, in 1994, and it is in the reconciliation bill. We said we have a thumb in the dike, no more patents, other than those in the pipeline, which we cannot deal with because of the Constitution, but no more patents until there is a mining reform bill signed by the President of the United States.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the real problem today is getting out the facts. The facts are that this bill stops the giveaway, quite the contrary of what we just heard; it puts a moratorium on issuance of patents so that they cannot sell or give this away. The speeches keep addressing mining reform. This is not mining reform legislation. That is in reconciliation. It should have come out and have been passed in the last 2 years when my friends had control. They did not do it. I would certainly disagree that this is destruction of the Tongass when there are only a few million board feet added, and the Forest Service has control. There may not be any board feet added unless the Forest Service agrees to it.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. REGULA. Let me just quote for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] from Congressional Quarterly: Chairman Sidney Yates had tried to steer clear of major policy disputes that could spark a fight with authorizing committees. He persuaded the panel, ``that is the subcommittee'', for example, to exclude proposals to boost entrance fees at national parks and to impose royalties on hard rock miners. President Clinton included both policy proposals in his fiscal 1995 budget request. So there was something that was proposed in the subcommittee by the President, and you took it out.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to answer some of the things that have been stated here. No. 1, concerning funding for programs for Indians, I want to point out that reservation-based education, these are the programs run by the Indians for their own education, is $2 million over 1995 levels. I would point out that health care--and these are the two areas of greatest Federal responsibility--health is fully funded at 1995 levels. I would point out, also, that we restored in conference, which I insisted on, $86 million above the level for Indian programs in the other body. When we went to conference, the level in the other body's legislation was about $220 million less than ours, and we pushed hard in conference and got it up $86 million over the other body's level. There is not enough to go around to do everything, but I think we addressed the most important things, education and health. Some of the complaints about the existing programs are those that are operating under legislation passed when my friends across the aisle were in charge. Now, let us talk again about the issue of mining reform. I think this is not the venue or the forum to address it. That issue is in the authorizing area. As the Congressional Quarterly in 1994 reported, if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] recalls, the President sent up a bill that had in it a provision for royalties, and the gentleman deleted it because he said this is a responsibility of the authorizing committee, which was proper.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct, but the problem is that we cannot use the identical language, because the moratorium last year was conditioned on falling out if the mining reform legislation in conference was passed. Well, of course it was not, so the moratorium stayed in effect. Mr. Speaker, we do not have mining reform bill in conference as a free standing bill this year. We have mining reform legislation in reconicilation, also known as the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. This, again is conditioned on the fact that if, if there is in the reconciliation bill mining reform that must be signed by the President and becomes law, only then will the moratorium drop out. I would assume and hope that it will be not be signed by the President if it does not have good comprehensive mining reform. The President has said that.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to H.R. 1977, which was just agreed to, and that I be allowed to include extraneous and tabular material.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can only say that one of the members of the Forest Service who worked in the Tongass said that, as a practical matter, there will be no increase in cut over what is allocated. As a practical matter, there is no money to do it, regardless of what the Alaska delegation may want to do. We did not put enough money in, which I agreed with, and I am sure the gentleman from Illinois agreed with, to accomplish a 310 million board foot timber harvest. So actually the Tongass language for all practical purposes has no effect. I think that to send this back to conference on those issues does not make sense. We have taken care of the mining moratorium as we were directed to in the original motion to recommit. As far as the Tongass is concerned, the language was in the bill, in the bill when we sent it back to conference, and nobody mentioned it. Now, suddenly this is brought up. I assume that, if we would go back to conference, make some changes here, then there would be something else that would not suit. We have to get on with this because if we can pass this bill, the parks will open. That is the problem. Let us get this bill down to the President and open the parks and the Washington Monument and the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center and the National Gallery. All we need to do to open those facilities is to pass this bill and send it to the President and have him sign it. Let us do that. That is what the public wants. Let us deal with those issues. Let the reconciliation bill deal with mining reform. For those that do not like what is in that bill, that is the venue that should be addressed. Those that do not like mining reform language as it is set forth in reconciliation should vote against it. They should object to it. They should speak on that issue. This is not the place for mining reform. We are doing the best we can to stop the giving away of the land by putting a moratorium in. That is the extent of what our right is under this bill. I am not going to take a lot of time on the other features in the bill. I think we have done a good job working with the Members on both sides of the aisle to have a fair, balanced budget. I think they would agree that it was not in any way partisan. We did the projects. We dealt with the things that were important and we keep the facilities open. If we can get this bill down to the President, we can get the parks opened again and give the public access that they deserve. I would certainly say to my colleagues, and I guess I begin to sound like a broken record, but let me say over and over again, this conference report has a mining patent moratorium as was directed by this body in the motion to recommit. The Tongass language does very little. That is not a problem. The Forest Service says it is not a problem, and certainly I would accept their judgment on that. It was not a problem the last time we had a conference report here. Suddenly for some reason it came up here. All I can say is, I think that this is a reasonable bill. We have done our best to address the problems. I hope in this debate we will limit our remarks to what is in the bill. I kept thinking when I listened to the comments on the rule, this must be the reconciliation bill, because most of the speeches were directed to the reconciliation bill, which has mining reform, or to other items that were in that bill and not to this bill. We heard about the Bureau of Indian Affairs and education. We increase tribal education over last year. We flat fund the health services. Those are the two most important things. Obviously, when you have 10 percent less than we had in 1995, to work with, it is difficult. We had to work hard to make sure that all the essential services, all the essential programs were funded. And some of the things that it would be nice to do simply could not be done under those circumstances. But I have to say, I believe that in November 1994, the American people said we want the budget balanced in an appropriate time. We want to reduce spending, and we have made every effort to accomplish that goal; in the process, not do anything that is injurious to the management and the use of the 750 million acres of America that are presently owned by the Federal Government and to the other programs that are funded by this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and vote for the bill. Let us get on with this. Let us get those parks open so that the public can again enjoy the parks and the forest and the fish and wildlife facilities and the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery and all the other good things that we fund. The bill is 10 percent, or $1.4 billion below 1995 spending levels. This represents real savings both now and in the future. By not starting programs or construction we save costs in future years. The bill terminates agencies and programs and puts others on notice that Federal funding will terminate in the near future. This bill is not business as usual. We are not cutting at the margins with the hopes that if we can keep programs on life support more money will be available in the future. Instead we have terminated lower priority initiatives to provide scarce resources to meet the many critical needs of our public lands, to ensure quality health and education for native Americans and to promote quality science and research in energy and public land management. Specifically four agencies were eliminated: the National Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, DOE's Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. In addition more than 35 individual programs have been eliminated. With respect to the National Biological Service, an issue of some interest to many in this body, let me reiterate the NBS has been eliminated. However, as many agreed, the core natural resource research activities critical to responsible stewardship of our public lands has been preserved and will be carried out by what is widely recognized as a premier unbiased, credible scientific agency, the U.S. Geological Survey. As the statement of the managers makes clear, this merger is permanent and is to be fully implemented by October 1, 1996. This will ensure that critical research continue and that it be conducted independent of regulatory influence or agendas and will ensure scientific excellence. I will also commit to my colleagues that have had a keen interest in this issue that I intend to very closely monitor the elimination of the NBS and the absorption of the core scientific functions into the USGS to ensure that the intent of the conferees is met. In keeping with our commitment to reduce spending we have also cut funding for this activity by 15 percent. The National Endowment for the Arts is funded at the House-passed level of $99.5 million and the statement of the managers makes it clear that it is the intent of the House to terminate Federal support for the NEA after fiscal year 1997. Funding for land acquisition, as in the House-passed bill, is not earmarked and is funded at 40 percent below past year's funding levels, ensuring that limited funding will be directed to high priority projects for the four land management agencies. Contrary to what you may have read in your local press, passage of this bill will not force the closure of one single National Park. No park will be forced to close under this agreement as funding for park operations is over 1995 levels by $5 million. To achieve that increase savings were made in lower priority park programs such as land acquisition and construction. Construction has been reduced more than 14 percent and land acquisition is down nearly 44 percent. Overall, however, funding for the Park Service is down less than 5 percent. Further the bill establishes a new Recreational Fee Demonstration Program that may help land managers meet their growing needs by collecting fees which can then be used in the areas in which they are generated for enhancements and improvements in sites, facilities, interpretive programs and so forth, all needs which we cannot fully meet with declining budgets. Generally we have tried to fund critical maintenance and as much as possible, health and safety needs. Funding for critical scientific research is also maintained including important health and safety research and mineral assessments of the former Bureau of Mines which will now be carried out by the USGS and the Department of Energy for significant savings. This disposition upholds the House position that much of the work of the Bureau in health and safety research and minerals information is critical and these functions will be preserved. Core programs that are critical to providing for the needs of native Americans have also been maintained. Funding for the Indian Health Service is down less than one percent from last year's level. Of the increase above the Senate level virtually all of this was directed to the tribal priority allocations which all the tribes indicated was the highest priority for restoration. Energy programs have also been reduced ten percent from 1995 levels with commitments for continued downward trends. Numerous energy projects were terminated and limited funding focused on projects and programs which leverage significant non-Federal investment. While new construction was significantly curtailed it was our goal to take care of necessary maintenance and rehabilitation of Federal facilities and the Smithsonian is a good example where the conference provides nearly $34 million, the budget request, for critical repair and restoration of aging Smithsonian facilities. Two points of clarification: First, in the statement of the Managers accompanying the conference report the managers referred to the ``existing hospital authority'' in American Samoa. This reference is to the institutional entity, and does not preclude charges to the composition or the structuring of the authority, particularly if the changes strengthen the management of health care in American Samoa; and second, the managers for both the House and the Senate agree that funds provided in this bill for cooperative conservation agreements may be used for the 4(d) rule to ease endangered species land use restriction on landowners, whether large or small.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I bring to you today the improved and revised Interior conference report. When we last met on H.R. 1977, the House voted to recommit the Interior Appropriations conference agreement with instructions to restore the mining patent moratorium included in the House-passed bill. As the original author of the patent moratorium which was enacted for the first time last year, I supported the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I urge those who joined me in supporting that motion, and all of my colleagues, to support this conference agreement and defeat a new motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that at a little more length. The Interior Appropriations conference agreement is fair. It is a well- balanced bill. It is fiscally responsible. It cuts spending by 10 percent from last year's level. It is sensitive to the need to preserve and enhance our natural and cultural resources. It keeps open the facilities that are important to the public. We level-fund the money for the operations of the parks. We level-fund the money for the operations of the Forest Service, or close to it, so that they can provide the facilities that people enjoy. It is the same with other agencies; the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the Kennedy Center. Mr. Speaker, I want to address essentially the two issues that we will hear a lot about today. It is my understanding there will be a motion to recommit this bill back to the conference committee for further revision of the mining moratorium and the Tongass language. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues, if reforming the 1872 mining law were easy, it would have been accomplished years ago, and certainly would have been accomplished in the past 2 years, 1993, and 1994, when my friends from the other side of the aisle had complete control. Mr. Speaker, they had control of the House. They had control of the Senate. They had the President, the executive branch, as a Member of their party. So, far 2 years they had a golden opportunity to revise the 1872 Mining Law. Nothing happened. The only thing that was done in that period of time was a moratorium on issuing patents, which was language I introduced into the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.