[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10239-S10240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TIME TO STRENGTHEN HARDROCK MINING REGULATIONS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have strongly advocated strengthening
so-called 3809 regulations, which governs hardrock mining on public
lands. However, attempts to update these regulations have been subject
to much debate.
I am pleased to see that the Interior conference report included a
compromise provision related to the regulations, which should allow the
BLM to move forward with their efforts to better protect taxpayers and
the environment from the impacts of the hardrock mining industry.
However, I am concerned about recent statements made by my
colleagues, Senators Reid and Gorton, which I feel distort the intent
of the provision and would weaken the 3809 regulations. I would like to
take this opportunity to clarify my understanding of the meaning of
this provision.
To paraphrase the language of the bill text included in the
conference report, the mining provision permits the BLM to prevent
undue degradation of public lands with a new and stronger rule
governing hardrock mining on public lands. The only requirement is that
the rule be ``not inconsistent with'' the recommendations contained in
a study completed by the National Research Council, or NRC.
I agree with the Department of the Interior's interpretation that the
key phrase ``not inconsistent with'' means that so long as the final
mining rule does not contradict the recommendations of the NRC report,
the rule can address whatever subject areas the BLM finds necessary to
improve environmental oversight of the hardrock mining industry.
For example, one of the recommendations made in the NRC report would
clarify the BLM's authority to protect valuable natural resources not
protected by other laws. Given that recommendation, it would be ``not
inconsistent with'' the report to issue a rule that would allow the
disapproval of a mine proposal if it would cause undue degradation of
public lands, even if the proposal complied with all other statutes and
regulations. The final mining provision included in the report would
permit such a rule.
However, during earlier negotiations of the hardrock mining
provision, mining proponents attempted to include language that would
have effectively undermined the ability of the BLM to strengthen the
3809 regulations. This original language would have bound any final
rule published by the BLM to the recommendations of the NRC report.
This means that a final rule could only address those recommendations
made by the report and nothing else, regardless of what actions the BLM
identified as necessary. The original language is as follows:
bill text
None of the funds in this Act or any other Act shall be
used by the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate final
rules to revise 43 CFR subpart 3809, except that the
Secretary, following the public comment period required by
section 3002 of Public Law 106-31, may issue final rules to
amend 43 CFR Subpart 3809 which are not inconsistent with the
recommendations contained in the National Research Council
report entitled ``Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands'' so long
as these regulations are also not inconsistent with existing
statutory authorities. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to expand the existing statutory authority of the
Secretary.
report language
Section xxx allows the Bureau of Land Management to
promulgate new hardrock mining regulations that are not
inconsistent with the National Research Council Report
entitled ``Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.'' This provision
reinstates a requirement that was included in Public Law 106-
113. In that Act, Congress authorized changes to the hardrock
mining regulations that are ``not inconsistent with'' the
Report. The statutory requirement was based on a consensus
reached among Committee Members and the Administration. On
December 8, 1999, the Interior Solicitor wrote an opinion
concluding that this requirement applies only to a few lines
of the Report, and that it imposes no significant
restrictions on the Bureau's final rulemaking authority. This
opinion is contrary to the intentions of the Committee and to
the understanding reached among the parties in FY2000. The
Committee clearly intended Interior to be guided and bound by
the findings and recommendations of the Report. Accordingly,
the statutory language is included again in this Report and
this action
[[Page S10240]]
should not be interpreted as a ratification of the
Solicitor's opinion. The Committee emphasizes that it intends
for the Bureau to adopt changes to its rules at 43 CFR part
3809 only if those changes are called for in the NRC report.
Fortunately, this original language did not stand because it was so
limiting. In fact, President Clinton threatened to veto the entire
Interior Appropriations bill if the mining provision unduly restricted
the ability of the BLM to update the regulations. The improved, final
language indicates that the intent is not to limit the BLM's authority
to strengthen the hardrock mining regulations.
The Interior Department has been working for years to update the 3809
regulations after numerous review and comments from BLM task forces,
congressional committee hearings, public meetings, consultation with
the states and interest groups, and public review of drafts of the
proposed regulations. There is no longer any reason to delay improving
these regulations.
____________________