Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, let us make it clear what the issue is. This body voted to recommit this bill to the conference committee for the purpose of including a mining patent moratorium. The patent moratorium was put back in the bill. It is the language that I had in the bill last year. I have been one of the key proponents of a patent moratorium. I voted to recommit my own bill to get a mining patent moratorium. I think it is essential. I think we need the patent moratorium in order to effect meaningful mining reform legislation. However, we are not a legislative committee. Our responsibility is to hold the line with a moratorium for fiscal year 1996 in hopes that there will be mining reform legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friends across the aisle that for 2 years they had complete control of the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, and there was no mining reform. The only thing that was enacted was the patent moratorium that I put in the bill last year after a struggle to get that. Now we have an opportunity again to have a mining patent moratorium in this bill. Mr. Speaker, let me read to my colleagues what the Department of Interior said about this language, and I quote from the Department's effect statement, and they say this, about what is in this conference report: ``This amendment language would hold back such a rush while Congress passes at least some form of mining law reform legislation.'' So you have the Department of Interior saying that this language will hold back the rush to have patents issued. Without the moratorium language, we are going to have along line down at the Department of Interior of people waiting to file their patents and have them issued.

Mr. REGULA. Well, I believe that I heard him say that he does not agree with what is happening in the reconciliation bill, and he clearly, and with good cause, has said that the language in the reconciliation bill is inadequate. I would also point out to my colleagues that the original Interior appropriations conference agreement had in it some of that very weak, sham legislation, as the gentleman from Illinois will recall, the so-called Craig language, and as part of getting the moratorium in our second conference, we eliminated that weak language that they attempted to place in the Interior appropriation bill in the other body. That is, of course, what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] was addressing. We got rid of that. We have a mining patent moratorium in this bill to stop the giveaway until such time as we have good mining reform legislation, and I hope that the reconciliation conference committee will produce that. If they do not, I am quite sure the President will veto it, and therefore, the moratorium will stay in place, and I certainly urge everyone to vote for the rule, to vote against the motion to recommit that will be offered by the gentleman from Illinois, and vote for this conference report.

Mr. REGULA. Well, reclaiming my time, the reconciliation bill cannot become law unless it is signed by the President. That is a legislative act.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from West Virginia is talking about the second condition that it has to be an identical freestanding bill. If that occurred, it would allow every Member of the House and Senate to participate in establishing mining policy. That is extremely unlikely to happen. The real key is that if the reconciliation bill contains mining reform dealing with patents and royalties and it is signed by the President, then the moratorium drops out. Otherwise, it stays in effect and we will not have this rush of patents that otherwise would happen.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker I am very aware of it, and for that reason it becomes meaningless. So the key here is a reconciliation bill that contains mining reform that is signed by the President. Otherwise, the moratorium stays in place, which I know is what the gentleman would like to have happen.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is on the reconciliation bill, and that is the key to having the moratorium drop out. As a practical matter, unless there is a reconciliation bill with mining law reform signed by the President, the moratorium stays in place for fiscal year 1996. That is the practical effect, because the question you have raised makes the second part moot.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, again, just let me emphasize that this does address what this body recommitted, and I supported the recommittal. Again, I want to emphasize, I support a mining patent moratorium. I put it in place in this subcommittee in previous years. I think that this does the job. Mr. Speaker, the real problem is with the reconciliation bill, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides who want meaningful mining reform legislation to talk to the conferees on the reconciliation bill, because there is where the action is. But if they do not do the job, and the President obviously has said he will not sign a bill that does not have good mining reform language, then the moratorium will stay in place in fiscal year 1996, as we were instructed. Mr. Speaker, let me mention the Tongass. The statement was made that this would dramatically increase the cut. Well, from 310 million board feet to 320 million board feet hardly qualifies as dramatically increasing the cut. All it does is give the Forest Service some flexibility. The Tongass language, and this is important that I emphasize to my colleagues, says, and I am quoting from the language, that the increased cut, which will be very, very slight, if any, because we have not put any extra money in to implement the cuts, so I doubt if there will be any extra cut, but if it is, it is ``to the maximum extent as is practical.'' Decided by whom? The Forest Service. The Chief of the Forest Service is appointed by the President of the United States. So, control over what happens in the Tongass remains, I emphasize remains, in the Forest Service. Because if they determine that not one extra board foot is practicable, nothing happens. Furthermore, they likely cannot do it because they do not have the money to accomplish that. So I think that the Tongass is raised as a symbolic issue, but as a real issue, it is meaningless, and I hope Members will not make a judgment on this motion on the basis that it is sending it back for the Tongass. That language does not do anything for all practical purposes. I was advised by the Forest Service that it really does not do anything. So I think it is important that we get on with this bill and not recommit it. Let us get it passed. if the President determines that this does not meet his standards for environmental conditions, he can veto it, and then we will go back to the drawing board and the ranking member and myself, along with our colleagues in the other body, will try to address as best possible their concerns. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to the Members on my side of the aisle, and for all Members, for that matter, we talk about balancing the budget; the President is talking about balancing the budget, about cutting spending. The only way we cut spending is to cut spending. We have done this. This bill is 10 percent below 1995, and that is in the face of very challenging responsibilities. However, it keeps the parks open, it keeps the forest recreation areas open, it keeps the fish and wildlife facilities open, it keeps the Smithsonian open, the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art. It funds the programs that are important. Obviously, there were some things we could not do. We could not buy a lot more land, we could not start more visitor centers. A lot of the nice things that we would like to do we could not do, but we have accomplished what I think is a very responsible bill, given the fact that we had 10 percent less to work with. Some on my side have been concerned about the National Biological Service. We have folded that into the U.S. Geological Survey to ensure that we have the scientific evidence and basic information that is needed to do an effective job in the Department of the Interior. We have in no way crippled the ability to deliver science. The USGS is a highly respected, reputable agency, and I think that what we have here is a very responsible bill, given the parameters of what we have to work with, and I would urge all of my colleagues, when the time comes, to reject the motion to recommit and to vote for the conference agreement.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I would point out that, of course, we did not have the Tongass language in the bill in the House originally, but there is another body, and we have to conference with the other body and reach some level of agreement with them. I would point out also that the mining patent moratorium is not legislation. It simply says they cannot use the money in this bill to issue patents. As the Interior Department points out very clearly in their statement, there will be a land grab, a rush down in the department if we do not have a moratorium. That is why I put it in, to stop that from happening. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] talked about the shortcomings of the reconciliation bill, and I agree with him 100 percent in what he said. So the answer to that is to vote against the reconciliation bill. That is where the issue is.

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

Mr. REGULA. The language could not be exactly what it was last year because it was conditioned on a conference report coming out of a conference on mining reform that was being held between the House and the Senate, a conference agreement which never materialized.

Mr. REGULA. Let me say, as the gentleman well knows, in the first conference I was the one who tried to maintain the House position on the mining patent moratorium. I voted to send the bill back for a second conference to get a mining patent moratorium. I do not believe anybody can question my dedication to accomplishing a mining patent moratorium. As the gentleman knows, I pushed this in our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Absolutely.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, that is right, and I do not think that there will be more than 310, more than that, because the money is not there, and the Forest Service has the judgment as to what is practicable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit. Vote for the bill. It is a good bill, it is a responsible bill.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from West Virginia was a sponsor and it was a good bill and I spoke for it and supported it. Unfortunately, it died in conference and it did not get to the President. But, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that it is very difficult to revise the 1872 mining law. I think the gentleman from West Virginia would agree with that, because the gentleman has been making an effort for several years to accomplish that goal. What concerns me is that this bill is being used to address that problem. We have heard speeches during the rule debate that would indicate that we are not doing mining reform. That is not the mission of this bill. That is not the venue of this bill. Mining reform is in the reconciliation bill. Members who want mining reform, including myself, should push hard to get the reconciliation bill to have meaningful mining reform. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is stopping the issuance of patents. We are stopping the giveaway. We responded in the second conference to the directive of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], my good friend and the ranking member of this committee and former chairman. Mr. Speaker, I agreed with him. I voted to recommit. We went back to the conference and it was a struggle with the other body, but we got a mining moratorium. It stops the giveaway. Of course, it provides that if a reconciliation bill contains meaningful mining reform, if it is signed by the President and becomes the law of the land, then the mining moratorium drops out. That is only fair. But I think, and I emphasize over and over again, we did what we were instructed to do. We have a moratorium on the issuance of mining patents. Certainly some are grandfathered, because they are in the pipeline. This was true in the language last year. We made every effort in this bill to address the mining question insofar as it is our responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the discussion that follows, that we will not be discussing the reconciliation bill, but rather we will be discussing what we do, which is to stop the issuance of patents until such time as a meaningful mining reform bill is signed by the President. Of course, this would be in effect until the end of the fiscal year 1996. The other issue will be the Tongass, and I would again, as I did in the rule debate, point out that the Tongass language is subject to a decision on the part of the Forest Service, by the chief, because it says that any increase in the cut must be to the extent practicable as determined by the chief of the Forest Service. Mr. Speaker, that means that the administration of my friends on the other side of the aisle will be calling the shots on anything that will be done in the Tongass. I would point out that in the Tongass, there are 17 million acres. A great part of that acreage is already set aside as wilderness. If my colleagues will look at the chart here, in the Tongass, almost 7 million acres out of the 17 is wilderness. Not even hunting and fishing. It is no cutting of timber certainly. No cutting. Another 4.6 million acres is set aside for recreation, and the nonsuitable timber is 4 million. That leaves 1.7 million out of a total of 17 million acres, or 10 percent as a timber base. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, under the present program enacted by this body, will be harvested over the next 220 years. So it is not going to impact on the Tongass. Furthermore, the cut that is already allowed by legislation passed last year when my good friend was chairman of the committee allows a cut of 310 million board feet. Under the language that is put in the conference report, it might increase to 320. It probably will not increase at all. We would be cutting the same amount that was allocated for 1995.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I meant was nothing was done in terms of legislation being enacted into law and signed by the President to change the 1872 mining law. I think the gentleman from West Virginia would agree that is the case.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree, and I supported the bill.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think we have had an excellent debate on this issue, and certainly my good friend, the ranking member and former Chairman, made the point. I just want to make sure everybody has all of the correct facts. We have heard this called a sham. Well, the Department of Interior said this: ``This amendment language would hold back a rush while Congress passes at least some form of mining law reform legislation.'' We have the Secretary of Interior, the Department of Interior saying, this is a good moratorium. Let me read the moratorium that we put in in conference so that everybody has all of the facts. This is in the law, and they are attempting to send it back. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], my good friend, when the gentleman says more, I do not know what more we can do. Because here is what the moratorium language says, and we did this at the direction of Members of this House, including myself: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this act shall be obligated or expended to accept or process applications for a patent, for any mining or mill site claim located under the general mining laws, unless legislation to carry out reconciliation instructions pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 is enacted into law and such legislation contains, at a minimum, provisions relating to the patenting of and payment of royalties on such claims or an agreement is approved by the House and Senate in identical form in other legislation containing provisions relating to patents. Mr. Speaker, it is clear. It says, unless there is mining reform legislation in reconciliation which will have to be passed by a majority of both Houses and signed by the President that, otherwise, the patent moratorium stays in place. This is what this body requested that we do. I think therefore it is important to understand that we vote ``no'' to recommit and we vote ``yes'' on the bill. It accomplishes that goals of budget reduction. It does it without hurting anything. It takes care of the important needs. There is no give-away, it stops the give-away of the mining patents that are presently taking place. As far as the Tongass is concerned, there is no money to increase the cut despite what has been said out here. The cut will remain at 310, maybe a few thousand extra board feet. Mr. Speaker, I would point out something else that we did in the conference, and that is we allow the planning to go forward on the Tongass. We allow the Forest Service to continue their planning process and to determine what is the best way long-term to deal with this resource. Furthermore, it protects the Tongass because it gives the Forest Service the decision as to whether or not there should be additional cutting, because the language says that they can only cut to the maximum extent practicable, and that word practicable is determined by the Forest Service. So I think the control remains in the Forest Service. All the dire things that have been outlined here simply will not happen.