[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2263-E2264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AN ASSAULT ON AMERICA'S PUBLIC LANDS THE HARDROCK MINING PROVISIONS OF 
        THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE'S BUDGET RECONCILIATION PACKAGE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 3, 2005

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, among the many egregious provisions of the 
Budget Reconciliation recommendations recently approved by the 
Resources Committee is a raid on America's public lands and our natural 
resources heritage of almost unparalleled proportions. Included in 
these recommendations to be considered by the House Budget Committee is 
the worst kind of ``sham reform'' of the Mining Law of 1872 that has 
ever been promoted during my tenure in Congress and if enacted would 
result in a blazing fire sale of Federal lands to domestic and 
international corporate interests. It is actually a step backward from 
this 133-year old statute.
  Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, the Mining Law of 1872 
to this day governs the mining of valuable ``hardrock'' minerals such 
as gold and silver on Federal western public lands. The law allows 
private companies to patent--purchase--public lands containing valuable 
minerals for a mere $2.50 to

[[Page E2264]]

$5.00 per acre, prices set in 1872, without paying a royalty--
production fee--on the mining of these minerals to the taxpayer. Since 
1872, more than $245 billion worth of minerals have been extracted from 
public lands at these bargain-basement prices. Further, a land area 
equivalent in size to the State of Connecticut has been sold to the 
mining industry for less than $5 an acre. Since 1987, when I chaired 
the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee, I have worked to rewrite this 
antiquated law, introducing comprehensive reform bills in each 
successive Congress.
  In addition, at my urging, since 1994, and with strong bipartisan 
support, Congress has placed an annual moratorium on the patenting of 
mining claim on Federal lands. To be clear, bona fide mining can and 
does take place on unpatented mining claims. There is no indication or 
proof that this over one decade ban on the patenting of mining claims 
has diminished in any respect the actual production of hardrock 
minerals from unpatented mining claims on western public lands. Yet, 
the Resources Committee's budget reconciliation recommendations would 
repeal the moratorium and reinstate patenting--the sale--of these 
public lands. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this 
provision would only raise an estimated $158 million over the next 5 
years by patenting public lands for $1,000 an acre or fair market value 
of only the surface of the land--far from the true value of the 
minerals underneath. Let me emphasize that. The Resources Committee 
provision would allow the sale of potentially mineral rich public lands 
for the mere cost of the surface estate, completely ignoring the value 
to the underlying mineral estate. In contrast, an 8 percent royalty on 
the actual mineral production from mining claims which I have 
long advocated would raise $350 million in the same time period. Keep 
in mind that if one mines coal on Federal lands, the company is 
required to pay either an 8 percent or 12.5 percent production royalty 
depending on whether the coal is deep or surface mined. Further, 
producers of onshore oil and gas on Federal lands pay a 12.5 percent 
production royalty. But producers of gold, or silver or copper. . . . 
zero, zilch, nothing.

  The Mining Law of 1872 provisions adopted by the Resources Committee 
without benefit of public hearing also go far beyond just reinstating 
the much-maligned ``patenting'' provision. In fact, the provisions 
would require the Federal Government to sell such public lands to 
potential buyers, whether or not it is in the public interest to do so. 
Under the Resources Committee legislation, a prospective purchaser 
would merely (a) file a mining claim or mill site or ``blocks of such 
claims,'' (b) present evidence of mineral development work performed on 
the lands they want to buy totaling at least $7,500 per claim, (c) pay 
for a land survey, and (d) show up to get the deed.
  As such, under these provisions anyone, including real estate 
developers and oil and gas companies, could purchase and develop 
natural areas that are currently important for recreation, wildlife, 
fisheries or regional drinking water supplies under the guise of a 
mining law. This would enable oil and gas companies to purchase the 
land they currently lease from the Federal Government. Not 
coincidently, since most Federal oil and gas leases occur on Federal 
lands not protected by this legislation, this provision would put at 
risk the rents, royalties and bonus payments currently collected 
annually by the Federal Government and shared with the States from 
onshore oil and gas leases which in fiscal year 2004 totaled $1.850 
billion.
  Further, while the Resources Committee legislation would put off-
limits to its provisions certain Federal lands, such as National Parks, 
from location of new mining claims, it does not protect National 
Forests and Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern, and other similar areas, even if these other areas have been 
withdrawn from new mining claim location. For example, there are 
currently more than 60,000 acres of mining claims in the Tongass 
National Forest, the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world, 
which would be available for sale under these provisions. And the 
Resources Committee provisions do not protect National Parks, 
Wilderness Areas, and National Wildlife Refuges that have unpatented 
claims within them. In National Parks alone, there are more than 900 
unpatented mining claims that would be subject to sale for $1,000 per 
acre if these provisions become law.
  In addition, the bill does not require that the lands have been used 
or will be used for mining. As written, purchasing the land need only 
facilitate sustainable economic development. Since the term is not 
defined, sustainable economic development could include condominium 
construction, ski resorts, gaming casinos, name it. A unanimous Supreme 
Court said in 1979 that ``the Federal mining law surely was not 
intended to be a general real estate law. The American Law of Mining, 
the standard industry treatise on the mining law, says that the law 
does ``not sanction the disposal of Federal lands under the mining laws 
for purposes unrelated to mining.'' Yet, according to John Leshy, 
former Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, ``Subtitle B is 
effectively a `general real estate law' and will put in the hands of 
corporations, the keys to privatize millions of acres of Federal 
land.''

  In order to make it easier to dispose of Federal lands, these 
provisions would also free the potential buyer from performing 
``mineral development work'' on each unpatented claim or block of 
claims or millsites. Instead, it states that this type of work should 
be performed on ``the Federal lands identified and submitted for 
purchase.'' In other words, the potential buyer need only show that 
there has been some mineral development work somewhere on the lands 
being sold. The tracts could be huge because the proposal contains no 
limit on the acreage or numbers of claims that could be purchased.
  Moreover, the provisions so broadly define ``mineral development 
work'' as to render it essentially meaningless. It could involve 
activities that never come close to the land itself; e.g., geologic, 
geochemical or geophysical surveys, which can be done remotely. It 
could involve, for example, buying and looking at satellite data, or 
going through USGS reports; or hiring a consultant to do on-line or 
library searches. And, it could include environmental baseline studies, 
or ``engineering, metallurgical, geotechnical and economic feasibility 
studies.'' Again, consultants doing on-line searches and library work 
would qualify.
  These provisions also prohibit any other fees or fair-market-value 
assessments to be applied to ``prospecting, exploration, development, 
mining, processing, or reclamation, and uses reasonably incident 
thereto''--which would prohibit the government from levying any royalty 
or other production fee on mining operations.
  As a long time advocate of responsible reform of the Mining Law of 
1872, after reflecting on these provisions, I find it hard to believe 
that they would even be supported by responsible elements in the 
hardrock mining industry. Further, they represent an assault on 
America's natural resource heritage and to the American taxpayer. And 
given my history on this issue, I find them personally insulting as 
well.
  In closing, I would note that the following groups, on behalf of the 
millions of members from across the country, agree with me that these 
provisions should be deleted from the Resource Committee's portion of 
the Budget Reconciliation Package: Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, 
Alaska Center for the Environment, American Rivers, Amigos Bravos 
Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Citizens 
for Victor Clark Fork Coalition, Colorado Environmental Coalition 
Colorado Information Networks for Responsible Mining, Earth Island 
Institute, Earthjustice, EARTHWORKS, Environmental Protection 
Information Center, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the 
Clearwater, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Panamints, Gifford 
Pinchot Taskforce, Great Basin Mine Watch, Greater Yellowstone 
Coalition, Guardians of the Rural Environment, Idaho Conservation 
League, Indigenous Environmental Network, The Lands Council, Maricopa. 
Audubon Society, Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin, Montana 
Environmental Information Center, Mount Graham Coalition, National 
Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Okanogan 
Highlands Alliance, Oxfam America, Rock Creek Alliance, Save the Scenic 
Santa Ritas, SHAWL Society, Sierra Club, Silver Valley Community 
Resource Center, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Sky Island 
Alliance, South East Alaska Conservation Council, Southern Utah 
Wilderness Alliance, Umpqua Watersheds, Westerners for Responsible 
Mining, Western Organization of Resource Councils, The Wilderness 
Society, and Women's Voices for the Earth.

  I urge my colleagues to join me in recommending that these provisions 
be stripped from the Budget Reconciliation Package if they are included 
by the House Budget Committee. America's public lands are held in trust 
for future generations. They deserve to be protected, not sold off at 
fire sale prices. American taxpayers deserve to be paid a fair royalty 
for the minerals taken from public lands, not to be cheated by a bill 
that sells their land to corporations for much less than its true 
worth. We can do better.

                          ____________________