[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E16]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MINING LAW OF 1872 REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 7, 1996

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing legislation to 
reform the mining law of 1872. I am pleased to note that the 
distinguished gentleman from California, George Miller, is joining me 
in introducing this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, we are sponsoring this legislation with the full 
knowledge that it will probably not see the light of day in the 
Resources Committee as long as that committee is chaired by our dear 
friend and colleague, the honorable Don Young of Alaska. Indeed, this 
bill is the very same which passed the House of Representatives by a 
three-to-one margin during the 103d Congress. Reintroduced into the 
104th Congress, our colleague Don Young put it under lock and key.
  This begs the question: Why reintroduce the bill?
  The answer lies in the fact that there remains within the broad 
membership of the House of Representatives enough votes to pass 
meaningful reform of the Mining Law of 1872. Last Congress, for 
example, we reimposed the moratorium on the issuance of mining claim 
patents by a vote of 271 to 153 during House consideration of the 
fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriation bill. In addition, the bill we 
are reintroducing today, which was designated H.R. 357 in the 104th 
Congress, attracted 92 bipartisan cosponsors during that period.
  The issue of insuring a fair return to the public in exchange for the 
disposition of public resources, and the issue of properly managing our 
public domain lands, is neither Republican or Democrat. It is simply 
one that makes sense if we are to be good stewards of the public domain 
and meet our responsibilities to the American people. This means that 
the mining law of 1872 must be reformed.
  I and other Members will continue to work toward that goal during the 
105th Congress. If reform can be accomplished within the context of the 
bill I am introducing today, so much the better. If this bill's fate is 
to serve as a rally cry for reform, with substantive reform efforts 
moving forward independently, than that is satisfactory as well. In any 
event, the eyes of the Nation will continue to focus, to an even 
greater extent than ever before, on how this Congress addresses natural 
resource issues such as this one. Congress ignores these matters at its 
own peril.
  Following is a brief explanation of the Mining Law of 1872 and how 
the legislation I am introducing proposes to reform it:

                       Mining Law of 1872 Reform

       The year was 1872. U.S. Grant resided in the White House. 
     Union troops still occupied the South. The invention of the 
     telephone and Custer's stand at the Little Bighorn were still 
     four years away. And in 1872 Congress passed a law that 
     allowed people to go onto public lands in the West, stake 
     mining claims, and if any gold or silver were found, mine it 
     for free.
       In an effort to promote the settlement of the West, 
     Congress said that these folks could also buy the land from 
     the Federal government for $2.50 an acre.
       That was 1872. This is 1977. Yet, today, the Mining Law of 
     1872 is still in force.
       And, for the most part, it is not the lone prospector of 
     old, pick in hand, accompanied by his trusty pack mule, who 
     is staking those mining claims. It is large corporations, 
     many of the foreign controlled, who are mining gold owned by 
     the people of the United States for free, and snapping up 
     valuable Federal land at fast food hamburger prices.
       Remaining as the last vestige of frontier-era legislation, 
     the Mining Law of 1872 played a role in the development of 
     the West. But is also left a staggering legacy of poisoned 
     streams, abandoned waste dumps and maimed landscapes.
       Obviously, at the public's expense, the western mining 
     interests have had a good thing going all of these years. But 
     the question has to be asked: Is it right to continue to 
     allow this speculation with Federal lands, not to require 
     that the lands be reclaimed, and to permit the public's 
     mineral wealth to be mined for free?
       Today, anybody can still go onto Federal lands in States 
     like Nevada and Montana and stake any number of mining 
     claims, each averaging about 20 acres. In order to maintain 
     the mining claim, until recently all that was required was 
     that the claim holder spend $100 dollars per year to the 
     benefit of the claim.
       In the event hardrock minerals such as gold or silver are 
     found on the claim, they are mined for free. There are no 
     requirements that a production royalty be paid to the Federal 
     government, or for that matter, a rental be paid for the use 
     of the land.
       It is estimated that $1.8 billion worth of hardrock 
     minerals are annually mined from Federal lands in the western 
     States. Yet, the Federal government does not collect one 
     penny in royalty from any of this mineral production that is 
     conducted on public lands owned by all Americans.
       Under the Mining Law of 1872, claim holders can also choose 
     to purchase the Federal land being claimed. They can do this 
     by first showing that the lands have valuable minerals, and 
     then by paying the Federal government a mere $2.50 or $5.00 
     an acre depending on the type of claim. This is called 
     obtaining a mining claim patent. Perhaps a good feature in 
     1872, when the Nation was trying to settle the West. But 
     today there is hardly a need to promote the additional 
     settlement of LA, San Francisco or Denver. Note: The Interior 
     Department is currently subject to a Congressionally imposed 
     moratorium on the issuance of mining claim patents which must 
     be renewed on an annual basis.
       Moreover, once the mining claim is patented, nothing in 
     this so-called mining law says that it has to be actually 
     mined. The land is now in private ownership. People are free 
     to build condos or ski-slopes on the land.
       For example, not too long ago the Arizona Republic carried 
     a story about a gentleman who paid the Federal government 
     $155 for 61 acres worth of mining claims. Today, these mining 
     claims are the site of a Hilton Hotel. This gentleman now 
     estimates that his share of the resort is worth about $6 
     million.
       Claim holders can also mine these Federal lands with 
     minimal reclamation requirements. The only Federal 
     requirement is that when operating on these lands they do not 
     cause `unnecessary or undue degradation.' What does this term 
     mean? It means that they can do whatever they want as long as 
     it's pretty much what all of the other miners are doing.
       The issue of Mining Law reform does not deal with coal, or 
     that matter, oil and gas. These energy minerals, if located 
     on Federal lands, are leased by the government, and a royalty 
     is charged. Further, Mining Law reform does not deal with 
     private lands. The scope of the Mining Law of 1872 and 
     legislation to reform it is limited to hardrock minerals such 
     as gold, silver, lead and zinc on Federal lands in the 
     Western States.
       The Rahall bill to reform the Mining Law of 1872 would 
     prohibit the continued give-away of public lands. It would 
     require that mining claims are diligently developed. It would 
     require that a holding fee be paid for the use of the land, 
     and that a royalty be paid on the production of valuable 
     minerals extracted from these Federal lands. And, it would 
     require industry to comply with some basic reclamation 
     standards .

                          ____________________