Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to respect the needs of these wildlife managers and the traditional lifestyle of our Western States, as well as to respect the basic concepts of the Alaska lifestyle. Let me add just a few statistics before I close. Our State has 365 million acres. As I said, we are one-fifth the size of all the lands of the United States. These 16 wildlife refuges have 77 million acres. They are more than 20 percent of Alaska. More than one-fifth of our State, which is one-fifth of the Nation, has been set aside in refuge land. Congress specifically recognized the need for this type of harvesting of resources in the 1980 act. We believe the impact of this amendment, if adopted, would deny our Alaskan people the protection that was assured by Congress at the time this vast acreage was set aside as wildlife refuge areas. I want to quote from a book written by a friend, John McPhee. Some people may recognize John. He wrote a book, called ``Coming Into The Country,'' about Alaska. It was a book that received acclaim from all sides of issues pertaining to Alaska, those who agree with us as well as Alaskans who basically agree with John McPhee and his outlook. He told a story of one woman in Alaska, and he said this: Ginny looks through Alaska Magazine, where her attention is arrested by letters from the Lower 48. ``There was a time when man was justified in taking wildlife,'' she reads aloud, ``for then man's survival was at stake, but that time is long gone. . . .'' She slaps the magazine down on the table. ``They don't understand,'' she says. . . .''These people who write these letters are not even rational. They say we're out to kill everything. People in the Lower 48 do not understand Alaska. . . . They wonder how Alaskans get their mail, and what they do in the winter. They can't believe anything can grow here. They're amazed we can't buy any land. They think Indians are Eskimos. They know nothing about Alaska and yet they've been manipulating us for years. We thought Statehood would put an end to that. They don't understand trapping. They don't understand the harvesting of animals.'' That is the type of comment I get when I go home. People in Alaska constantly tell me: Those people you work with in the Congress just don't understand us. They have asked me to stand up and try to explain to the Senate what the Alaska lifestyle is. That is hard for a lawyer, a person who has been here 30 years now, to continue to try to convince succeeding generations, those who have come after me, that Alaska is still that way. For the most part, Alaska is natural wilderness, and dispersed throughout that wilderness are some 700,000 people. The bulk of the people out of the cities live the Alaska lifestyle. They hunt for their food. They trap to obtain furs as well as food, but the furs give them a cash flow of income. That is supplemented by our own Alaska system of what we call a permanent fund dividend. Without the income they obtain from hunting, these people would not be able to survive. In this area, hunting is done by trapping. If you take away the traps, they will go back to shooting them. This bill does not ban guns. What it would do is go back to the day before traps were recognized as a scientific management concept, and animals will be shot. For every time there is a miss, it is much worse than one being caught and having a leg broken in a trap because that animal is wandering off forever. The wildlife managers have told us, if you are going to harvest these animals, the best way to do it is with these traps following the code of ethics that has been adopted by the trappers themselves, with the approval, by the way, of the wildlife managers. I can tell you without any question that I have urged every Member of the Senate by a personal letter to vote no on this amendment. This is not the way to change the concept of scientific management of the lands that we have set aside as wildlife refuges. It is not the way to change basically the Alaska lifestyle. Eighty-five percent or more of its impact is in our State. We would be devastated if this concept is adopted. I urge this amendment be defeated. I serve notice that I will ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment. When the time is appropriate, I will make that request.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these agencies agree wildlife managers rely upon commercial trappers to control invasive and nuisance species, as well as normal predators. In Alaska, Federal and State wildlife managers rely on these trappers to control predators in order to maintain healthy moose and caribou herds, for instance. Moose and caribou are major subsistence species, and a ban on this trapping would harm subsistence hunters by creating more competition for subsistence resources. Another example is the Aleutian-Canada goose. This species was listed under the Endangered Species Act after foxes were introduced on the Aleutian Islands. At first, the refuge managers tried to poison the foxes until EPA banned the poison. Then they hired local trappers to save the goose, and trappers have successfully controlled the fox population, restoring the Aleutian-Canada goose. Our Alaska Department of Fish and Game relies upon data from trappers to track remote populations, where the agency cannot afford to have biologists, through this area that is one-fifth the size of the United States. I know proponents of the amendment argue that more humane methods are available. But the trouble is the methods cost 10 times as much and will not work, and we do not have the people to pursue those methods. A $2 snare trap works much better than a $30 conibear trap that freezes in the snow. A trapper can vary the size, location, tension, bait, scent, screening, and seasonal timing of a trap to target specific animals. These unfortunate concepts that have been mentioned by the Senator of the birds that have been trapped--no one seeks that. I do not believe that is a normal result of trapping, particularly in our very wild country. The amendment purports to contain a subsistence exemption. I want to explain that a little bit to the Senate. In 1980, the Congress specifically allowed those who reside in the area of wildlife refuges in Alaska to use refuge lands for subsistence hunting. Most of the trappers in our States are, in fact, subsistence hunters. Many Native Alaskans trap for subsistence and they generate cash income from the pelts they take. This permits trapping only for subsistence, but not for the commercial side of that operation. These people are not in trapping for recreation. They are trapping not only for the food they obtain but also for the cash they derive from the trapping activities. That cash is one of the main sources of income for people who live in the rural area of Alaska. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which added 53 million acres, in one act of Congress, to the wildlife refuge system, the National Wildlife System, on lands within our State. Among the new Federal lands added by that act were the Innoko, Kanuti, and Koyukuk; almost 9 million acres of land, the size of New Hampshire and Connecticut together. Congress specifically recognized the furbearer resources of those refuges when it passed that act which we call ANILCA. This amendment will essentially repeal the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act concept of permitting trapping by prohibiting the harvesting of resources in a way that currently is recognized by law. In Alaska, licensed trappers earn about $7 million annually, mostly from marten, lynx, and beaver. It may not sound like a lot of money to Members of Congress, but within these refuges in our State lies the most poor census district in the country; that is, the Wade Hampton District in the Yukon Delta Refuge. That stretches over 22 million acres. It's the largest refuge in the United States and the largest of the 16 refuges in Alaska. It is, I would say to my friend from New Jersey, four times the size of New Jersey. The refuge contains 42 Native Alaska villages and tens of thousands of people, mostly Natives. Like many others in Alaska, most of these people rely on subsistence lifestyle, which includes commercial trapping, as I have said. I have received letters from a number of villages on or near refuges, including Ruby, Mountain Village, and Quinhagak. They point out to me that trapping keeps predators in check so the other game animals on which they rely will flourish. They also point out how the only nongovernment jobs available in the winter are trapping jobs and they would rather trap and sell the fur than sit idle and collect welfare checks. As a matter of fact, we in Congress have mandated they do just that; they go to work. When we passed the welfare reform we required these people to go to work. Now this amendment would outlaw the only jobs that are available for these people in this very remote area of Alaska. The amendment also makes a value judgment about the way these Alaskans have lived for generations. This bothers me greatly. For decades, in many cases centuries, our Alaskan Native people have lived off the land. They have been joined by a great many non-Alaskan people, by the way. The Federal law guarantees both non-Natives as well as Natives the right to a subsistence lifestyle, and to trap within these areas if they reside in the area of the refuge. When others tell Alaskan hunters, trappers, and fishermen how to manage our resources, they are literally telling them how to live their lives. We have a great deal of respect and admiration for our wildlife, probably more than any I know. This includes trappers who, incidentally, have a very strict code of ethics. I want to have that printed in the Record. I am not sure many people realize these trappers have come together and put up, even before this issue arose, an ethics code. That code encourages trappers to act humanely, to concentrate on areas with overabundant population, and to share information that they obtained with the wildlife managers. In other words, each one of them is a volunteer on a wildlife refuge to assist in the scientific management of the areas that are set aside in our State. I ask unanimous consent that the code of ethics be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Montana. I want the Senate to know this amendment would seriously harm a vital sector of the rural Alaskan economy. It would injure greatly those who follow the Alaskan way of life. We are very much involved with this amendment. What it seeks to do is end trapping in the Federal wildlife refuges. There are some exceptions in the Senator's amendment for research, conservation, facilities protection, and subsistence. Let me point out this chart I have. There are 77 million acres of wildlife refuge in our State; 85 percent of all the wildlife refuge in the country is in Alaska. The amendment seeks to absolutely discard the concepts of sound game management principles. As the Senator from Montana stated, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represent State fish and game managers throughout the country, have opposed the amendment because it limits the ability to manage wildlife populations scientifically. The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote me a letter on July 20 explaining the Service's opposition to the House amendment in detail. This is a very serious thing. I am disturbed when my colleague talks about recreational trapping. The Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that the core of its mission is wildlife management. In its letter to me, the Fish and Wildlife Service stated that: . . . a prohibition of specific animal restraint devices is not in the best interest of sound wildlife management. The Department of Fish and Game of my State of Alaska also stated this amendment hinders the ability of wildlife managers to do their job. It said: We have consistently supported trapping as an important tool in managing the national wildlife refuge system. I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Chairman also agree that, to the extent appropriate in meeting its responsibilities and obligations, the National Park Service should review the maintenance and rehabilitation needs for this area and strongly consider allocating additional resources to make any needed improvements?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. STEVENS. As the Senator from Washington is aware, the National Park Service is responsible for the management of much of the land along the Georgetown waterfront in the District of Columbia. As a regular visitor to this area, I have been disappointed with the condition and appearance of much of the land under the management of the National Park Service, particularly the area surrounding Thompson's boathouse, the boathouse itself, and the nearby lands that are currently used for boat storage. These lands are adjacent to the confluence of Rock Creek and Potomac River, making their care and maintenance critical to the protection of the watershed. I understand that upkeep and maintenance of the boathouse is the responsibility of the concessioner that manages the boathouse. Does the Chairman of the Subcommittee feel that it would be appropriate for the National Park Service to review the concession contract for the boathouse, and the performance of the concessioner under that contract, to determine whether the concessioner should be compelled to make a greater effort to maintain and rehabilitate the boathouse and appurtenant lands?

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee. maggie walker national historic site

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Conference Report of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 contains tow amendments I authored to extend the same tax benefits that farmers have to fishermen. The original version of the Taxpayers Refund Act of 1999 included provisions to create farm and ranch risk management (FARRM) accounts to help farmers and ranchers through down times and to coordinate income averaging with the alternative minimum tax. The FARRM accounts would be used to let farmers and ranchers set aside up to 20 percent of their income on a tax deferred basis. The money could be held for up to five years, then it would have to be withdrawn and taxed at that time. Interest would be taxed in the year that it is earned. Encouraging farmers and ranchers to set some money aside for downturns in their markets makes sense. However, I felt this provision should have been expanded to include fishermen and I offered an amendment that would do just that. I also authored an amendment to expand income averaging to include fishermen and to coordinate averaged income with the AMT I am proud to say that both measures had broad bi-partisan support, and I want to thank those who cosponsored my amendments. Allowing fishermen to elect income averaging and coordinating that election with the AMT is important to the overall issue of tax fairness under the tax code. Under my amendment, a fishermen electing to average his or her income would owe AMT only to the extent he or she would have owed alternative minimum tax had averaging not been elected. In previous years Congress has responded to fishing disasters with Federal assistance under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We do the same for farmers when crop disasters occur. Allowing fishermen, like farmers, to establish risk management accounts, is a responsible way to let them help themselves and preserve the proud self-reliance that marks their industry. Fishermen are the farmers of the sea. Fishermen and farmers share seasonal cyclical harvest levels and fishermen should not be left behind in the tax code because of this. While these amendments are modest steps toward equal treatment for our fishermen, they are an important part of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry. In addition to the provisions in this bill for America's fishermen, I, along with my colleague, Senator Murkowski, included a measure to allow Eskimo whaling captains to deduct up to $7,500 dollars of their expenses incurred during whaling hunts. This provision allows whaling captains to continue the tradition of sharing whale meat with Alaska villages. It is the custom that the captain of a whale hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with the hunt. In return, the captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuk, a consumable part of a whale. The captain is then required, by tradition, to donate a substantial portion of the whale to his village. This provision will allow the captains to deduct for the costs involved since they do not recoup the actual costs from their share of the whale meat. This provision is important to the heritage and traditions of the Alaskan Eskimos, and I am pleased that it was included in this bill. This tax refund plan is just that--a tax refund for every tax paying American. Every American would see a reduction in their Federal income taxes in the form of a refund. When you are overcharged for an item in a store, you march back in and demand the difference between the actual price and the amount you were charged. The American taxpayers cannot march up the front steps of the Treasury demanding a refund of their overpayments to Uncle Sam. We in Congress must do that for them. Some would not like to see this measure pass because they feel it does not reduce our national debt. However, this bill contains provisions to ensure that the goal of debt reduction is met. The debt triggers included in this package would halt any future refund measures under this bill until our debt reduction goals are achieved. This is a good balance because it allows us to send money back to the American people while reducing our debt load. Under this bill, one cannot happen without the other. I urge my colleagues to support this meausre and I thank the leadership of chairman Roth and the members of the Finance Committee in organizing and authoring this sweeping tax refund bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief statement concerning my amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill regarding the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program. My reading of the regulations implementing this program indicate that they provide women and their children with a very limited range of food options. For example, the only non-dried vegetable they may chose from is carrots. They may eat canned carrots, raw carrots, and frozen carrots, but no other non-dried vegetable is permitted. Likewise the only meat or fish they allow is tuna. Salmon, the most heart-healthy protein source available, is essentially banned along with beef, poultry, pork, and other protein sources. My amendment directs the Secretary to review the WIC food packages currently available to pregnant and lactating women and their children and consider adding new, but nutritious foods to the list. It is ridiculous to expect children to eat foods from such a limited list. Anyone with a picky toddler knows that a varied diet is critical to developing healthy eating habits. Several years ago there was a controversy concerning Congress deciding which foods should be included in the WIC package, substituting its judgment for that of nutrition experts at USDA. This amendment does not mandate that salmon or any other food be included on the list. It gives complete and full discretion to the Secretary to determine which foods should be included. It simply directs him to periodically update the list. I have worked for years with Dr. William Castelli at the Framington Heart Study in Massachusetts and know firsthand the health benefits of salmon. The omega 3 oils within salmon actually reduce cholesterol levels, I eat salmon at least twice a week. I am confident that salmon will meet any standard that USDA applies without any additional help from me. When the nutrition experts see what a wonderful protein source salmon is, they will wonder why they didn't put it on the list in the first place.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today by previous order the Senate will begin 1 hour of morning business to be followed by 2 hours of debate on S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act regarding sweepstakes. The first rollcall vote today will occur at 5:30 p.m. on passage of the sweepstakes legislation. At 3 p.m. today, the Senate will resume consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is hoped that Senators who have amendments will work with the bill managers to schedule time to debate those amendments. Additional votes beyond the 5:30 vote could occur relative to the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is the intention of the majority leader to complete action on as many appropriations bills as possible before the August recess. Therefore, Senators should be prepared to vote into the evenings throughout this whole week. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my amendment mirrors a bill I introduced on an earlier occasion-S. 1410. This amendment would equate the tax treatment of persons flying what would otherwise be empty seats on private noncommercial aircraft with the treatment of airline employees flying on space available basis on regularly scheduled flights. Currently, use of these empty seats is deemed taxable personal income to the employee. I refer to it as the empty-seat tax. In contrast, under current law, airline employees, retirees and their parents and children can fly tax-free on scheduled commercial flights for nonbusiness reasons. Military personnel and their families can hop military flights for nonbusiness reasons without the imposition of tax. Current and former employees of airborne freight or cargo haulers, together with their parents and children, can fly tax-free for nonbusiness reasons on seats that would have otherwise been empty. Employers who own or lease these aircraft are compelled by IRS regulations to consider 13 separate factors or steps in determining the incidence and amount of tax to be imposed on their employees. My proposal seeks to deal with this inequity by treating all passengers the same way, but includes a provision which retains a reasonable standard of proof at audit to prevent abuse. This amendment would not allow an executive to use a company jet to fly with his family and friends on vacation. My amendment would require proof to be shown that the flight was made in the ordinary course of business, the flight would have been made whether or not the person was transported on the flight, and no substantial additional cost was incurred in providing the transportation for the passenger. In addition to the facilitation of employee travel, this provision is an especially important issue to large States with smaller populations because air travel comprises such a large part of our transportation systems. Instead of driving a car from city to city, many people from rural areas get on a plane to travel within their States. There are no roads from Barrow to Nome or Anchorage to Cold Bay. Additionally, in the event of illness, many people in rural States must take an empty seat on a company owned airplane and incur a tax penalty because they need medical treatment that can only be found in larger cities. My amendment includes a provision to allow passengers to be treated as employees if they live in remote areas that are not connected to a road system. For cases of medical emergency or other time sensitive situations, a passenger could as if they were an employee of the operator of the non-commercial aircraft without being taxes on the value of the seat. This is a modest proposal with small revenue impacts. The joint Committee on Taxation estimates the revenue impact for this provision would be approximately five million dollars per year over the next ten year period. While this is a small amount against the backdrop of the overall tax cut measure we are considering, it is a large amount to the people who are forced to pay the tax simply because they do not work for or are not related to an employee of an airline, the military, a cargo freight company, or because they live in remote areas without road access. Flights are often, at best, biweekly to some rural villages in my State and during the long periods when no flights are scheduled, transportation out of these remote areas in emergency situations requires chartering an aircraft. We should keep in mind that we are currently debating a tax refund bill that seeks to level the playing field for the American taxpayers. The tax refund bill would remove the marriage penalty that discriminate against married couples. It addresses inequities in pension plans that discriminate against certain workers. Yet, the Tax Refund Act does not address the tax discrimination against the users of empty seats who live or do business in rural areas. It is my hope that we can address this basic issue of tax fairness and complexity by eliminating the empty seat tax. amendment no. 1460

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the proposed Taxpayers Refund Act of 1999 includes a provision to create farm and ranch risk management (FARRM) accounts to help farmers and ranchers through down times. The estimated cost for this provision is $887 million over the next ten years. The FARRM accounts would be used to let farmers and ranchers set aside up to 20 percent of their income on a tax deferred basis. The money could be held for up to five years, then it would have to be withdrawn from the individual's account. Once the money is withdrawn from the account, the farmers and ranchers would pay tax on the amount that was originally deferred. Any interest earned on the money in the account would be taxed in the year that it was earned. This approach to encouraging farmers and ranchers to set some money aside for downturns in the market makes sense. However, this provision should be expanded to include fishermen--I have an amendment that would do just that. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates allowing fishermen to set aside 20 percent of their income into these tax deferred accounts would cost only an additional $18 million over 10 years. Fishermen are the farmers of the sea. They face the same type of economic problems that farmers and ranchers face and they shouldn't be excluded from establishing their own tax deferred accounts. In previous years we have had to bail out fishing areas that have been hit hard by fishery failures. A recent fishery failure in Alaska, and the impact of that failure on families and communities, is still being felt today. We were forced to allocate $50 million to bail out those fishermen and the local communities. This amendment, at a cost of $18 million over ten years, is a far-sighted way to let fishermen play a part in a disaster recovery and preserve the proud self-reliance that marks their industry. Fishermen should receive the same benefits as farmers and ranchers under the Tax Code. They share seasonal cyclical harvest levels and should not be left behind in the Tax Code. While this amendment is one step toward equal treatment, it is an important part of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry. I thank my colleagues who have joined me on this amendment, Senators Murkowski, Inouye, Shelby, Breaux, Hollings, Gorton, and Murray. amendment no. 1488

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the proposed Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 contains a provision to coordinate a farmer's income averaging with the alternative minimum tax (AMT). This would ensure that a farmer's AMT is not increased solely because he or she elects income averaging. Under section 604 of the Finance Committee's bill, a farmer electing to average his or her farm income would owe AMT only to the extent he or she would have owned alternative minimum tax had averaging not been elected. I have offered an amendment that would extend the income averaging to fishermen and would coordinate the tax treatment with the AMT, just as the bill attempts to do for farmers. Fishermen should receive the same treatment as farmers. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the measure for farmers would cost $22 million over the next ten years. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, my amendment for fishermen would cost $5 million over the next ten years. This is a small amount to ensure that fishermen receive the same benefits as farmers under our current tax structure. Fishermen face the same type of economic ups and downs that farmers and ranchers face. Because of this, they shouldn't be excluded from income averaging or coordination with the AMT. I thank my colleagues who have joined me on this amendment, Senators Murkowski, Inouye, Shelby, Breaux, Hollings, Gorton, and Murray. amendment no. 1485, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Frist Medicare Amendment

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what time was that?

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I have been listening to the debate, and it has primarily been proponents of the amendment. I am willing to have some time. We should have a time certain to vote. I hope there is going to be some accommodation for those who have been waiting for these opening speeches to end. I will be more than willing to set a time, such as 8 o'clock, to vote, provided we get some time to respond to the statements that have already been made.

Mr. STEVENS. The Great Malinda Mine in southeast Alaska never opened because of the Clean Water Act. The Senator and his source could not be further wrong.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, I move to table the Murray amendment, No. 1360. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds on our time?

Mr. STEVENS. Maybe I was just listening at the wrong time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I find myself in a strange position because I was Solicitor of the Interior Department. At the time, I followed the law and I interpreted the law; I did not make law. The BLM manual, in case you are interested, says specifically: A mill site cannot exceed 5 acres in size. There is no limit to the number of mill sites that can be held by a single claimant. Now, that is a regulation made pursuant to the law that was in existence at the time the Solicitor rendered his opinion. He ignored that. But the main thing is, I am hearing things on the floor that amaze me. The Senator from Illinois says that, apparently, the environmental laws don't apply to mining claims. Why is it, then, that there is a requirement for mill sites? The mill sites are there primarily for the purpose of the tailings disposal of the ponds that must be built to provide protection under the Clean Water Act. Many of them are enormous in size and require several mill sites in order to have one disposal site. Those environmental laws are there to protect the public lands. But the Solicitor's opinion says you can only have up to 5 acres, which is the Catch-22. This opinion was not intended to validate the mining law. It was made to invalidate the mining law of 1872. In my State--and, after all, my State has primarily half of the Federal lands in the United States--the mining law is working. Our State has a small mining law that is compatible in terms of requiring claims to be pursued by production of minerals to take actions to protect the lands. In Alaska, it is our fourth largest industry. The Greens Creek Mine has twice as many mill sites as does active claims under a plan filed with and approved by the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, it is mandated by the Federal Government that such lands be used for specific environmental purposes to protect the lands that are being mined and protect the waters, in particular. The Clean Water Act applies. I am appalled--and I wish my friend from Massachusetts had stayed here--at his comments. I would like to take you to Alaska. Come up to Alaska and I will show you mining claims, and I will show you the extent to which we require them to comply with the environmental laws. As a matter of fact, we have enormous mining claims. The Kensington, Donlin Creek--they would never get off the ground if this amendment were passed. Currently, there are 235 jobs on one mine alone. This is going to put thousands of people out of work in my State. The fourth largest industry will go out of existence if this passes, because you cannot mine in Alaska with just 5 acres to comply with the mining laws and the environmental laws. The other thing is, I want to make sure you understand mill sites cannot be on mineral land. Under the law, they cannot be on mineral land. They are lands that are located somewhere in connection with the mining activities, and they have mining operations on them. So most of this entirely misses me. I don't understand what is going on. As a matter of fact, we have had fights over mining claims for years. My good friend from Arkansas is not with us anymore, but we had fights over mining claims. This is the first time people have attacked mill sites. The amendment of the Senator from Washington attacks mill sites under the Solicitor's opinion--a misguided opinion at that--with regard to the number of mill sites. The Forest Service manual states: The number of mill sites that may legally be located is based specifically on the need for mining and milling purposes irrespective of the types or number of mining claims involved. That has been a regulation issued by the Forest Service pursuant to the mining law, and it has been valid for years. Suddenly, the Solicitor's opinion says all that is nonsense; you can only have one mill site per mining claim. I am at a loss to understand why all of this rhetoric is coming at us with regard to the sins of the past. Why don't we talk about the tremendous destruction in the East? Why is this all about the West? As a matter of fact, as the companies from the East moved into the West, they laid the West to waste, and that is what led to the environmental laws that we have and live by. We abide by them, particularly the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the basic Environmental Protection Act. Every one of these mining claims must have a mining plan approved by the agency that is managing the Federal lands for the Federal Government. Those agencies approved those plans. To suddenly come in and to say there is something wrong about this, I don't understand the Senators from the East, nor do I understand the Senator from the West, raising this kind of an objection to the lands that are necessary for environmental purposes. If this mining claims decision is upheld, that decision made by the Solicitor, every mine in my State must close. Every mine must close. That is nonsense. Senator Murray's amendment merely states that the Solicitor is not going to make law. If you want to bring the law in and change the law of 1872, bring in the bill. We will debate it, as we did Senator Bumpers' bills. But don't come in and try to validate a Solicitor's opinion which is erroneous, and it is not good law.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I have 8 minutes?

Mr. STEVENS. Just a minute. I don't understand the division of time.