[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           MINING LAW REFORM

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, as everyone knows by now the 103d 
Congress will adjourn without enacting legislation to reform the 1872 
mining law. What this means is that, for at least another year (and 
possibly longer), hardrock mining companies operating on our Nation's 
public lands can continue to extract billions of dollars worth of gold, 
silver, platinum, palladium and other hardrock minerals without 
compensating the taxpayers for even one red cent, while at the same 
time leaving the taxpayers with the costs of cleaning up the 
environmental disasters these mining companies leave behind. If this 
were not enough, the mining industry, and some members representing 
mining interests, now have the audacity to claim that they have always 
supported reasonable mining law reform and that the blame for Congress' 
failure to act lies with those very Members of Congress, such as 
myself, that have fought long and hard for reform. Mr. President, the 
fact is that nothing could be further from the truth.
  I first introduced legislation in the Senate to comprehensively 
reform the 1872 mining law nearly 6 years ago. From day one, the mining 
industry has done nothing but throttle reform and proponents of reform 
every step along the way. Rather than sit down in an effort to work out 
a compromise, all I ever heard from industry was ``no, we can't do 
this, and no, we can't do that''. In fact, before Bill Clinton was 
elected President, the industry steadfastly opposed the payment of any 
royalty for mining on public lands even though the industry pays 
sizable royalties to private landowners and State governments for 
mineral production on their properties.
  While mining law reform came closer to becoming a reality in the 103d 
Congress than ever before, what happened this year in conference 
illustrates how difficult a task it is when a wealthy and powerful 
industry wants to engage in the politics of gridlock. Although the 
House enacted a comprehensive and meaningful reform bill, the Senate 
was forced to pass a so-called ``ticket to conference'' in order, for 
the first time, to move mining law reform out of the Energy Committee 
and into a House-Senate conference.
  Senator Johnston, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, volunteered for the unenviable task of trying to craft a 
bill that would meet the needs of both industry and reformers. First, 
he entered into negotiations with the three Republican Senate members 
of the conference committee. However, after he made repeated 
concessions in order to meet their stated concerns, he was ultimately 
unable to meet all their demands. Senator Johnston then began working 
with a group of Western Democratic Senators led by Senator Reid of 
Nevada. They jointly drafted a negotiating proposal with the 
understanding that additional changes would be made to meet some of the 
concerns of proponents of reform. However, when Senator Johnston 
proposed to make some minor changes some of the Western Senators 
immediately declared mining law reform dead and threatened to 
filibuster any bill reported by the conference committee.
    
    
  In response, Senator Johnston tried to meet the major concerns as 
expressed by industry. For instance, as proposed by the House 
conferees, he offered to strike all language in the bill with respect 
to the protection of water even though hardrock mining results in 
serious degradation of surface and ground water. In addition, he 
proposed to reduce the royalty to be charged for gold production to 3 
percent as originally agreed-to by industry. However, as was readily 
apparent throughout, industry's objections were just moving targets. 
Rather than continue to negotiate in good faith, the industry and some 
Western Senators continued to threaten a filibuster. Senator Johnston 
was forced to concede defeat and pronounced that the conference would 
be unable to report reform legislation.
    
    
  Mr. President, it should be obvious to everyone that the mining 
industry never wanted reform legislation. However, what is even more 
outrageous is the charade industry is now engaged-in by trying to blame 
proponents of reform for the demise of mining law reform. While the 
industry and their representatives in Congress may have won this 
battle, it would be foolish for anyone to believe that I, or any other 
proponents of reform, will give up the fight.
  The outrages of the anachronistic 122-year old mining law are no 
longer a secret. Now that this issue has caught the public's attention, 
the voters will no longer allow Members of Congress (Democrats and 
Republicans alike) to vote to permit large mining corporations, many of 
which are headquartered in foreign countries, to take billions of 
dollars worth of taxpayer-owned resources without the payment of 
royalties, purchase public land for $2.50 an acre and pollute and 
permanently degrade water and land resources, leaving the taxpayers to 
clean up their mess. Mr. President, Senator Johnston and others offered 
the mining industry with a deal they should never have passed up.
  The industry has, since 1872, removed about $230 billion dollars 
worth of gold, silver and other hard rock minerals, and never paid the 
government one red cent in royalties. In addition they have left 
thousands of environmental disasters, 77 of which are on the endangered 
list, for the taxpayer to clean up at a cost of billions. This must not 
continue.

                          ____________________