[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 168 (Thursday, November 1, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12397-H12432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HARDROCK MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 780 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2262.
{time} 1158
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals
on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-
initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes, with Mr. Serrano
in the chair.
[[Page H12398]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
{time} 1200
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, over 135 years after President Ulysses S. Grant signed
the Mining Law of 1872 into law, I bring before this body legislation
to drag it into the 21st century. This legislation at long last
provides badly needed fiscal and environmental reforms of mining for
valuable minerals in the 11 western States and Alaska.
In bringing this measure before the House, I am pleased to have the
strong support of our colleague from California (Mr. Costa), who chairs
the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Natural
Resources Committee. Jim chairs the subcommittee that I chaired 20
years ago when I first began this effort to reform the Mining Law of
1872. I am honored that he has taken up the mantle as well.
The Mining Law of 1872 is the last of the frontier-era legislation to
remain on the books, with the Homestead Act having long been repealed,
not to mention laws regarding carrying your six-gun into a saloon or
allowing a posse to hang horse thieves. The basic goal of this law,
almost free land and free minerals to help settle the West, has long
been achieved. While the minerals produced under this law remain in
demand, mining under an archaic 19th century regime is not compatible
with modern land use philosophies or social values. This threatens
mining, and mining jobs, and is one reason this law must be brought
into the 21st century.
Today, as in the 1800s, the Mining Law allows claims to be staked on
Federal lands in the West for valuable hardrock minerals such as gold,
silver, and copper. No royalty is paid to the true owners of these
lands, the American people, from the production of their minerals.
Except by dint of an annual appropriations rider, the claims can be
sold to multinational mining conglomerates for $2.50 or $5 an acre.
Now, some listening to what I just said may think I am making this
up. Free gold and land for $2.50 an acre? That sounds like a fairy
tale. My friends, ladies and gentlemen, I am not making it up. This is
no fairy tale. This is a pirate story, with the public lands profiteers
robbing the American public blind.
Mr. Chairman, billions of dollars' worth of gold, silver, and copper
have been produced from American soil without a royalty paid to the
true owners of the land, the American people. Those that will recall
history will know that the largest bank heists in the world have been
the $900 million stolen from the Central Bank of Iraq in 2003; the $72
million stolen from Knightsbridge Security Deposit in England in 1987;
and the $65 million stolen from the Banco Central in Brazil in 2005.
But, my colleagues, those figures are chump change, chump change
compared to the estimated $300 billion in valuable minerals given away
for free from America's public lands under the Mining Law of 1872.
Incredible. Simply incredible. But, it gets worse.
Being a 19th-century law, it contains no mining and reclamation
standards. The result is a legacy of toxic streams, scarred landscapes,
and health and safety threats to our citizens from abandoned mined
lands. The mayor of Boise, Idaho, and let me restate that State, Idaho,
wrote a letter to me recently to state that the city is powerless to
protect the integrity of its source of drinking water, which is
threatened by a cyanide heap-leach gold mining facility proposed by a
Canadian, and I repeat that, a Canadian-based company.
This last September, a 13-year-old girl tragically plunged to her
death in an Arizona mine shaft. In reference to an area pocketed with
abandoned mine sites, an Arizona mine inspector was quoted as saying:
``It's just a death trap out there.''
The Mining Law of 1872 is the Jurassic Park of all Federal laws. It
requires an extreme makeover. Environmental safeguards must be
supersized. Federal lands must stop being given away for fast-food
hamburger prices. The robbery of America's gold and silver must stop.
Mr. Chairman, the bill I am bringing before the House today would
make commonsense reforms by imposing a royalty on the production of
these hardrock minerals. Bear in mine that coal, oil, and gas produced
from Federal lands have long paid these royalties. The legislation
would also put a permanent end to what is known as patenting, the sale
of mining claims for the price of a snack at Taco Bell.
Further, it would provide for statutory mining and reclamation
standards that are performance-based rather than prescriptive. As well,
this would establish a special fund to reclaim abandoned hardrock
mines, address the health and human safety they propose, and provide
for community impact assistance.
This is a historic debate, a debate that is long overdue. Those who
support this legislation, the countless locally elected public
officials across the West, concerned citizens across the West,
sportsmen and -women across the West, taxpayer advocates across
America, bring with them the new-century conviction that corporate
interests can no longer have an unfettered ability to reap America's
mineral wealth with no payment in return. There must be parameters set
and rules to which industry must comply.
I am here to suggest that if we continue under the current regime,
that if we do not make corrections, the ability of the mining industry
to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future is
questionable. The other side will bring up jobs, they will bring up the
health of the industry that might be decimated by this legislation. I
say we are here to protect mining jobs and to protect the health of the
industry and to provide some certainty in the making of financial
decisions by the mining industry.
While the Mining Law of 1872 over the years has helped develop the
West and cause needed minerals to be extracted from the Earth, we have
long passed the time when this 19th-century law can be depended upon to
serve the country's 21st-century mineral needs, and do so in a manner
accepted by society. Reform of the Mining Law of 1872, I tell my
colleagues, is a matter of the public interest, the interest of the
American taxpayer, the interest of all Americans who are true owners of
these public lands. The name of every American is on the deed of these
lands. I urge approval of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman for his work on this bill and rise in opposition
against that bill. There are no Third World countries. There are simply
overregulated countries; there are overregulated economies. The debate
that Members of this House are about to engage in will be passionate
because the positions that we are fighting over are polarizing.
Mr. Chairman, it did not have to be this way. We all agree on the
same principles, hardrock mining on Federal land should pay a royalty,
should continue to operate in the most environmentally responsible
manner in the world, and protect the health and financial security of
the miners who bring the world's minerals to the surface.
As I mentioned earlier, if given a fair hearing, we would have agreed
on these goals. Instead, right now at this moment the stock market is
plunging in this country because of the rising energy prices. Oil hit
$94. Our stock market is reacting. The price of our dollar has fallen.
We are doing things in this body that will punish domestic jobs and
domestic industries. They will not touch the mining industry outside of
this country. Outside countries will have better access to our markets
because of the things that are occurring in this legislation.
So, yes, we are passionate about our position, and, no, we do not
listen to the arguments, no matter how well-conceived from the other
side, because they are simply arguments; they are not truths. We are
here to fight against a bill brought forth by the chairman which will
send some of the highest paying jobs in the West overseas by making
mining in the U.S. uneconomic.
[[Page H12399]]
Members from western States, like mine, will fight fiercely to keep
these jobs because the West cannot survive off tourism alone.
I have a chart here that shows the relative wages in the mining
industry. We have had hearings about the evolving West and what they
hope the West looks like, but we in the West want these good, high-
paying union jobs that exist now in the mines. The jobs in tourism do
not pay nearly as much. That is what we are fighting for today.
By making mining in the U.S. uneconomic, the chairman's bill will
give competitive advantage to countries like China and India. We
Members who like the U.S. being number one and who don't like the
current value of the dollar are fighting against that. I favor American
exceptionalism.
By making mining in the U.S. uneconomic, the chairman's bill will
compromise the readiness of our military because the military will have
to further import the strategic minerals and materials it needs from
hostile nations. It would be a sick twist of fate if the U.S. had to
start importing uranium from Iran.
In order to defend the bill against job loss, the economic security
and military security, you are going to hear some rhetoric that simply
amounts to whoppers, the whoppers about the 1872 mining law on the
House floor today, and I think it is important to set the record
straight.
First, you will hear the law was passed in 1872, and at 135 years old
it needs modernizing. I wonder where the chairman is when it comes time
to modernize Yellowstone National Park, which was also created in that
same year. But I will tell you that the chairman would be the first to
argue against any changes in the acts that created our national parks,
and Yellowstone in particular. Maybe the leaders back then believed
that we needed to protect areas, but we also needed to use some of our
lands to supply the materials for a growing Nation, because they
understood we needed those materials. Maybe our politicians of today do
not care if America's economy grows or not.
Secondly, you will hear that the law allows public lands to be
purchased for $2.50 an acre, the ``price of a snack,'' I think were the
words that were used. And yet I do not see any of our people in this
Chamber or across the Nation standing up to say let me have some of
that land for $2.50 an acre. Because the truth is that you have to mine
that land to get it for $2.50 an acre. Maybe it is just not that easy
to prove up on the mineral assets, on the mineral claims, as the
chairman caused us to believe here.
Third, you will hear that energy companies pay 12 percent or more in
royalties for coal, oil and gas on Federal lands; mineral mining
companies don't.
Now, that seems fair, doesn't it? But you have to understand that
many of our energy companies also tried to buy mining claims and tried
to do mining, and they gave up on it because they simply could not do
it. They did not have the economics right. They didn't understand how
to do it. And no more than you and I can buy a claim for $2.50 and make
a mining claim work, even our biggest oil companies could not do it.
And these are the kinds of misinformation points that we are asked to
believe today on the floor of the House of Representatives.
I tell you, please, my friends, do not believe it, because we are
about to export these jobs, these good high-paying jobs. We are going
to export jobs.
Fourth, you are going to hear that the Mining Law needs modern
environmental laws. The mining industry today is well regulated. The
mining industry itself, the BLM, the regulatory agencies used to have
mines that looked like this top chart; and this mine under current law,
under current environmental regulations, has now looked like this. We
had testimony to this in our committee, but the majority just decided
that they didn't need to listen to what is going on already. They
wanted to create new overlapping legislation.
Currently, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and all other Federal regulations apply to the mining
industry. But you would believe, if you heard our friends on the other
side of the aisle, that we are simply out here digging holes in the
ground and we are polluting the streams with no oversight. It is just
not true.
So, my friends, as we engage in this argument, listen to the passion
from the West, because you will know that our jobs are at stake, our
livelihoods are at stake. There are people who want to make the West
simply the vacation ground for the rest of the country. And I am saying
from the West, we just want jobs, good jobs. We want not only jobs, but
careers for our families. We want careers for our kids. And the
legislation today here is designed to take away the careers from the
West.
Look at it very carefully, because today the stock market is plunging
amid fears of high energy prices and unavailable access, no access to
drilling lands to increase the supply; and our dollar is falling
because the world believes that we are going to give away our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend, the
gentleman from West Virginia, on his legislation that substantially
reforms the governance of hardrock mining on public lands.
Abandoned mine sites pose serious environmental and safety hazards.
Currently, there are more than 80 hardrock abandoned mines or mine-
related sites on the EPA's Superfund National Priorities List.
Polluters should pay to clean up the pollution they leave behind.
I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman from West Virginia
to clarify the use of federally appropriated funds from the Hardrock
Reclamation Account under sections 411, 412 and 413 of the bill.
Does the gentleman from West Virginia agree that moneys in the
Hardrock Reclamation Account shall not be provided in a manner that
reduces the financial responsibilities of any party that is responsible
or potentially responsible for contamination on any real property?
Mr. RAHALL. Yes.
Mr. WEINER. Does the gentleman also agree that the provision of
assistance pursuant to this act or section shall not in any way relieve
any part of liability with respect to such contamination, including
liability for removal and remediation costs?
Mr. RAHALL. Yes.
Mr. WEINER. I thank the chairman. I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at this point a
letter to me from Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and a letter in response from myself to Chairman Dingell of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write with regard to H.R. 2262, the
``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''. I know it is
your wish for the bill to be considered on the House floor as
soon as possible.
Some of the provisions in the bill establish requirements
for the Environmental Protection Agency and concern the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980. Those provisions are within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am
not, however, raising the issue with the Speaker because it
is my understanding that you have agreed that the referral
and consideration of the bill do not in any way serve as a
jurisdictional precedent as to our two committees.
Further, as to any conference on the bill, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce reserves the right to seek the
appointment of conferees for consideration of any portions of
the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. It is
my understanding that you have agreed to support a request by
the Committee with respect to serving as conferees on the
bill (or similar legislation).
I request that you send to me a letter confirming our
agreements and that our exchange of letters be inserted in
the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of the
bill.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss
this matter further.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Chairman.
[[Page H12400]]
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2007.
Hon. John Dingell,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce over H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and
Reclamation Act. As you know, some sections of H.R. 2262 as
reported by the Committee on Natural Resources relate to the
application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and others
establish requirements for the Environmental Protection
Agency, both of which fall under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
It is my understanding that you will not seek a sequential
referral of H.R. 2262 based on the inclusion of these
provisions in the bill. Of course, this waiver is not
intended to prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over
these sections or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to
support your request for appointment of conferees from the
Committee on Energy and Commerce if a conference is held on
this matter.
Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have
worked regarding this matter and others between our
respective committees. At your request, I will include this
exchange of letters in the Congressional Record as part of
consideration of the bill.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely,
Nick Rahall,
Chairman.
{time} 1215
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
what could have been responsible bipartisan legislation. I have a great
deal of respect for the chairman of the committee; he is a good friend
of mine. But this is a bad bill.
As the gentleman on our side, the ranking member, Mr. Pearce, has
done an outstanding job, he mentioned in his statement to listen to the
chairman of the committee and those who are promoting this bill that
the mining industry has no regulations, no laws, they just run rampant,
which is pure nonsense. We are not really addressing an 1872 mining law
here. It is not about the royalty. They offered the chairman if he
would strike title III, we might be able to work a bill, and he turned
it down.
This is about driving our industry, our mining industry overseas and
away from our shores. This bill will do it. Just as I have heard in the
past about legislation from that side of the aisle when you were in
power that we are not trying to stop the logging industry in Alaska, we
are just trying to make sure that we get our fair share. We went from
15,000 jobs down to less than 300 jobs. That was from the previous
chairman.
I also heard all the time about how when they were in power, how we
were going to be energy independent. And now we are paying $93 a barrel
for oil, $93 a barrel, because you have not acted and we didn't do
also. But we didn't try to stop the mining industry in this country as
this bill will do.
This is not just about mining; this is about national security. Where
do you think the metals come from to build our airplanes? Right now we
are probably importing most of it. And I guarantee you, we will import
all of it under this bill. We know, Mr. Rahall, this doesn't affect
West Virginia. It doesn't affect his coal mines or any of the east
coast States. But it does affect public lands in the West where our
minerals are derived from.
I say wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America and my colleagues. Wake up. China
has gone into Chile now, and they control the copper that we must have
for our hybrid cars.
Yes, all of you, as I watch my good friend there working his
BlackBerry, where do you think the metals and minerals came from for
this? As we vote electronically today, the metals and minerals make
that electronic system work.
We are not talking about the royalty, here; although, I do think it
is unconstitutional as the bill came out of committee because you
rewrote the contract under the bill. It will be taken to court and that
part of the bill will be struck. It will be struck. I tried to say
that. But no, again this is not a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that
was written primarily by the leadership of this House that in reality
takes away the ability for the western States to produce the minerals
that are needed. That is what this bill does.
It does affect my State probably more than any other bill that has
come out other than the Alaskan National Lands Act that put 147 million
acres of land off limits. What remaining BLM land we have where we are
trying to develop a mining industry will be precluded, taking away the
benefit of the mining industry in the State of Alaska as it does in the
western States. But it affects my State more, probably.
Yes, we probably could have written a bill that would have recovered
the dollars necessary to straighten out hardrock mining. But no, we
have a bill that stops the ability of this Nation to be self-sufficient
in minerals. Later on you will see a display about just how dependent
we have become.
I am hoping that this bill will be killed in the Senate, as most
bills will be killed from the House side because no one wants to work
with the Republicans at all. That is why you have an 11 percent rating
of favorability. No ability to work across the aisle and say what will
work and what are we trying to achieve. What are we trying to achieve?
If you were looking for money from royalties, we could have talked
about that; prospective, not retroactive, because that will go to
court. But that didn't happen, and you left title III in, which
requires so much impossibility of achieving a mining claim that they
will go abroad. They will go abroad, and that's not right for this
country.
I have said all along, and I am going to be around here a lot longer
than most people expect, and most of you probably don't like that, but
I will be here just to say ``I told you so'' like I have done with the
logging, what you did in my State and the logging industry and the west
coast and on public lands. There is no timber industry. We are now
importing our timber with no regulations. We have private timber in the
eastern States, but not in the western States.
I listen to you. We just voted on a bill yesterday to help out people
who are going to be displaced because of losing jobs overseas, and you
voted for that. And that is what this bill does. It will drive the
industry out of the United States of America and we will be dependent
upon China and Russia and all of the other countries for the metals and
minerals we must have in our Nation to make sure we are economically
strong, and then we cannot become strong.
So as much as I love you, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad piece of
legislation. I have been told don't worry about it, we will take care
of it later on down the line. Well, I have been down that road before,
too.
So I am asking my colleagues on my side of the aisle and anybody that
is thinking on that side of the aisle to vote against this legislation
if you believe in this Nation. If you believe in this Nation being
strong, if you believe in jobs in our country and not abroad, then you
will vote ``no'' for this bill.
If you don't believe that, then vote ``yes'' for the bill. And then
go home and say, ``I repealed the 1872 mining law. Look what I did for
you, Mr. Backpacker.'' But think of our country and our Nation. Think
of our future. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costa from California.
Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for all your hard work
on this issue, not just this year, but for the last two decades. I also
want to thank the ranking Republican member, the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young), and the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), for all of their hard work over the last
10 months.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation and it
provides a balanced approach to public lands. It recognizes that
hardrock minerals to our lives are important, but they are also
important as a public trust that belong to all Americans.
During this process over the last 10 months, we held numerous
hearings at which over 33 witnesses testified. For example, in Pima
County, Arizona, earlier this year, we had local government
[[Page H12401]]
and citizens talk about the important values, as well as the impacts to
water, wildlife and recreational opportunities. We also listened to
State and local government and tribes and gave them the option to close
sensitive lands which are critical to their communities, or to have
restraint. Lands that provide, in fact, drinking water supplies.
In Elko, Nevada, the subcommittee received additional testimony from
people to understand how important the mining is to those communities
in those towns. Let's make it clear. We do not want to put those mining
operations out of business. They provide a viable industry to this
Nation which has already been substantiated. We gained a better
understanding on the ways that industry strives, and they are doing a
marvelous job for the most part in being responsible and following
regulations which they must comply with.
Many States have already taken initiatives. The committee listened.
We have taken amendments which make mineral exploration provisions to
benefit an important part of the industry to keep the momentum and the
motivation there. We also took changes in title III to set forth strong
national standards for mining but make sure that we are not duplicating
existing State law and regulations. The subcommittee hearings in
Washington also focused on the issue of royalties, which has been much
talked about.
Let me address some of those criticisms at this time about it
decimating the mining industry. Some of us are old enough to remember
Sergeant Friday from Dragnet. Remember what he used to say: ``Just the
facts, ma'am.'' Well, the facts are this: These are multinational
companies that mine in areas throughout the world, and they pay
royalties in those countries. They pay royalties in those countries,
and they are existing and doing fine, as they are doing fine in this
country.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the total income
subject to the proposed royalty, which I would submit is a work in
progress, would average roughly $1 billion a year. These are public
lands. We require the same for oil and gas production. It is a
relatively small number when you take into account that the total U.S.
mining industry produces $23 billion each year.
The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that the cost of this
legislation, should it become law, would approximately be, with this
royalty, $200 million over a period of 5 years. That is $200 million
over a period of 5 years, a $23 billion a year industry in this
country. We think that is a fair shake for these lands that are owned
by all Americans, and it makes a serious opportunity to resolve
something that has been contentious for two decades.
The industry will tell you that they want certainty. They don't want
the vagaries from administration to administration. They know this is a
work in process. They know the issue of royalties are subject to
negotiation between us and the Senate as this measure moves on.
So let's be clear about it. This measure, in short, I think reflects
a thoughtful and informed process. Did everybody get everything they
wanted? No. Is the process still moving along? Yes. We will continue to
work with our colleagues of the loyal opposition as we try to endeavor
to create a bill that reflects the best interests of America.
Let me quickly respond to the issue of the precious metals. This
chart explains it very clearly. The U.S. Geologic Survey ranks the
import reliance for nonfuel mineral materials. According to the USGS,
there are 30 nonfuel minerals on which we are 80 to 100 percent reliant
on imports. Simply put, we almost completely import these minerals, as
has been stated, rather than produce them domestically.
Now, that sounds worrisome, and the Republicans have noted that. But
it is important that we realize that 19 of these 30 minerals, two-
thirds of them, are not ``locatable'' and therefore are not subject to
the 1872 mining law. So the reform of this law will have no effect on
the production or the imports of those minerals. They will not be
subject to the royalty we propose or the environmental standards.
Of the other 11, all but one are simply not available in terms of
commercially marketable quantities in the United States. We depend on
imports of these minerals. Ones like graphite and rare earths do not
exist in deposits where it is economical to produce them or they don't
exist on public lands, so they are not subject to the legislation.
So if it ain't here, you can't mine it.
The only mineral among those 30 that are 100 percent import reliant
into this country and impacts both the 1872 mining law and that are
``locatable'' minerals, the only one that is actually located in
deposits large enough to be economically produced is fluorspar.
Fluorspar. We are dependent upon fluorspar. Now let me tell you what we
use fluorspar for: Toothpaste. We get fluorspar from China, Mexico,
South Africa and Mongolia. We don't need to worry that the cleanliness
of our teeth is in jeopardy because of this mining law.
{time} 1230
The last time I checked, tooth decay, while distasteful, is not a
national security issue. I ask that we support this measure.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will note that the gentleman from New Mexico
has 16 minutes remaining and the gentleman from West Virginia has 15\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California said we want
to get the facts right; and if I heard him correctly, he said this bill
is a work in progress. Now, we've had 135 years, according to him, to
work on this bill, and we're going to rush it while it is still in
progress. I really don't understand why we're going to take such a
serious step as risking all the jobs in mines with work in progress. I
think those were the words used and the facts used.
The truth is we have a severe difference of opinion. I will quote
from the chairman of the committee: No reason, no reason whatsoever why
good public land law should be linked to the gross national product.
That was in our markup hearing, and yet I would submit that energy
production, timber production, water production, mineral production,
they all affect the gross domestic product, and they are public land
law.
So I really just believe that we have a complete disconnect in the
committee between the majority and minority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect and
admiration for my neighbor, the chairman from West Virginia, for work
that we've done in our river industries and supporting local
industries; but I have to rise in objection to this bill. I think in
some ways we might entitle it the Exporting America's Jobs Overseas
Act.
I grew up around the American mining industry at the working-class
end and got to see it from that side, one of the great transformations
that took place during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; and I think there
are three core issues.
The law needs to be reformed, I agree, to adapt it to a 21st-century
economy within which we live. However, the issue of competitiveness,
the issue of American jobs and the issue of fundamental social justice
all militate against this bill.
First of all, for the Democratic Caucus, from my friends on the other
side who are committed to protecting jobs, I think it's amazing that we
want to raise taxes on a core industry that's important to our supply
chain, for our technology industry, to drive jobs overseas. It's going
to increase material costs, increase our dependency on foreign hardrock
minerals which has doubled over the last 10 years according to the U.S.
Geological Survey.
Secondly, there is a significant impact on jobs. Mining jobs and the
mining support and supply chain jobs and industries that support that
cannot be replaced by hospitality jobs. That is a flawed logic, in my
mind; and it's very critical that we maintain the robustness of this
industry as a strategic asset and a strategic resource.
For our future in energy, our future in manufacturing, we have to use
the resources that we have in an environmentally friendly way to not
only protect our jobs but to grow their jobs.
Finally, I think the one thing I found in trade agreements through
the years here in the House, there's always the discussion about a
social justice component in establishing trade agreements with
countries that may have
[[Page H12402]]
sweatshops, may abuse men, women and especially children. In this case,
I would point out that areas where we get strategic materials now that
will increase their industry are abusive of children. Specifically, you
can see a picture here of a child who's a Peruvian miner, children who
are Colombian miners, and a Ugandan miner, all of whom are young
children, all of whom are having their futures closed down because of
this.
I oppose this bill. I ask that we yield back to the principles
expounded by the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman from
Alaska.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I say to my colleague from across the river from me in Kentucky that,
as he knows, jobs in both our hardrock mining industry and our coal
industry are on the decline already. Those jobs have been declining;
and as the gentleman so well knows, as well as my colleagues on the
minority side, these jobs are declining today because of the
technologies that are coming in place.
Look at our coal industry. We're mining more coal as we're producing
more hardrock minerals, but with less man and woman power because of
the technologies that are replacing man and woman power. It's that
simple.
So while the jobs may be on the decline, the production is on the
upswing.
I would say as well to my colleagues who raise the specter of here
the Democrats go raising taxes again, note this week in the Wall Street
Journal, this week the administration, the administration, not the
Congress, announced that it's raising the royalty rates for oil and gas
from the Gulf of Mexico to 18.75 percent from 16.67 percent for
offshore leases to be offered next year. Even with this increase, the
gulf will remain one of the lowest tax oil basins in the world.
So let's put this proposed 8 percent royalty on hardrock mining in
perspective, please. It's less than half. Let's also keep in mind that
hardrock mining is the only industry that pays no royalty on public
lands, and all other countries and all States, for that matter, charge
a royalty. Companies impose royalties and private agreements on
hardrock mines. Let's keep in perspective what we're doing here; and,
remember, it was the administration this week that raised royalties on
Gulf of Mexico leases.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 2262 so we can, after 135 years, update the
1872 Mining Law. Since Ulysses S. Grant's administration in 1872, the
Mining Law has governed hardrock mining on our public lands, public
lands. Those are lands which you, the taxpayers, own.
For nearly 100 years, those lands have been debated in Congress about
changing policies that give away public resources and leave each new
generation with a larger legacy of unreclaimed lands and degraded
streams.
Debate has continued. It's continued while northern California's Iron
Mountain spewed nearly a quarter of the copper and zinc discharged by
industries to the Nation's surface waters; during the decades of
efforts to control acidic, metal-laden discharges from old sulfur mines
southeast of Lake Tahoe; as historic lands of the Indian Pass in the
area of Southern California in the desert area faced destruction from
the proposed Glamis mine; and as California cities spend millions of
dollars to treat hazardous mine discharges and fight giant mining
corporations in court.
Like the pollution problems it creates, the 1872 Mining Law persists,
but that will now change with passage of this bill, and we owe that
hard work to Chairman Rahall and to my colleague Jim Costa from
California.
While this congressional debate has continued after all these years,
we've allowed mining companies to take billions of dollars' worth of
gold, silver, and other minerals from our public lands for free.
However, we will no longer treat that as we have not treated oil, coal,
natural gas. So they will all now have to pay.
While countless hearings have been held, nearly 3.5 million acres of
public lands have been deeded to mining claim holders for as little as
$2.50 an acre. We've had to buy back some of this land to protect the
unique ecological, recreational and cultural values, paying prices much
higher than those set in the Mining Law.
And during our long deliberation, the price tag for mining cleanup
has risen astronomically. Since the House last acted on reform
legislation, more than 20 mines and mills have been added to the
infamous Superfund National Priority List, and the EPA Inspector
General has warned that nearly $24 billion in cleanup costs from mine
sites now exists, some of which will require treatment in perpetuity.
However, this is about to change. For today, the Hardrock Mining
Reclamation Act of 2007 will do what it should have done years ago. I
urge the passage of this important legislation.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman again, the gentleman from California said
let's talk about the facts. He said we do not have rare Earth. We do
have rare Earth minerals; we don't have rare Earth mines. Those were
shut down by the EPA due to lawsuits. U.S. companies developed the uses
for rare Earths, and now we import them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Sali) who has done great work on this bill.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill
before us.
Plain and simple, this bill is bad for America because it is bad
policy. My concern centers around the long-lasting impacts that this
bill will have on the First District of Idaho and on America's future.
The bill imposes a royalty that will threaten the existence of
domestic mineral production. Please note that mining is already one of
the most regulated industries in the United States. Everyone believes
that we need safe, productive, and environmentally responsible mineral
development and that there needs to be a logical and efficient way to
deal with abandoned mines. We all agree on those goals. But this bill
takes an environmental cause, like abandoned mines, and uses it as a
cover for a tax hike that will accomplish nothing less than outsourcing
our domestic mining industry. That is bad policy.
Hardrock mining is dangerous. It takes a lot of grit to engage in it.
Today, hardworking professionals do it here in the United States. This
bill, however, will send American production overseas, where there are
limited or no environmental standards and where child labor is used.
As the gentleman from Kentucky before me mentioned, H.R. 2262 makes
America more dependent on child miners from around the world for our
minerals and metal needs. The International Labor Organization
estimates there are over 1 million children that are working in mines
and quarries around the world. This bill will not only ship our mining
industry jobs overseas; it will ensure that American mineral needs are
satisfied by child labor. That is just plain wrong; it is bad policy.
My colleagues across the aisle have made a commitment to the American
people to combat global warming. This bill will ensure that they cannot
meet that commitment. How are they going to combat global warming if
they do not have the very minerals that they need to do it? Alternative
energy is dependent on minerals that we mine here in the U.S. For
instance, copper is used for wind, solar power, and fuel cells, just to
name a few items. Currently, domestic production cannot meet domestic
demand. This is kind of like having the Democrats promise us sand
castles but banning domestic sand. They're cutting off the domestic
supply of minerals that they need to deliver on their commitment to
fight global warming. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.
Mining industry jobs are important in the First District in Idaho.
H.R. 2262 will outsource these good-paying jobs that America and Idaho
needs. H.R. 2262 will take these jobs away from hardworking American
professionals and force them on child laborers. Once again, H.R. 2262
is bad policy.
My final point is this: our national defense depends on minerals
mined in America. This bill will result in an importation of the very
minerals we need to keep America safe from every unfriendly country
from which we are protecting ourselves. Yes, that is right, we'll be
asking our enemies to supply
[[Page H12403]]
us with the minerals used for the very weapons we will be using to
defend ourselves from them. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
chairman of our Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands, my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2262.
It is an understatement to say that the West has changed dramatically
since 1872, but this law that we are reforming today has not kept pace.
Those of us from the West need this legislation to pass to protect the
health of our communities, our scarce water supplies and our public
lands, which are under continuing threat from an outdated mining law.
In my home State of Arizona, hardrock mining has left behind a legacy
of contaminated lands and rivers, abandoned mines leaching poisonous
metals into groundwater and other hazards to the public, with hundreds
upon hundreds of millions of dollars to reclaim and cleanup the mess
left behind.
Only a few months ago, a young girl was killed when she and her
sister drove their vehicle into a mine shaft that had been left exposed
after the site was abandoned. The mine shaft was hidden by brush, had
no signs or barriers to warn anyone about the danger. The younger
sister was trapped overnight with her sister's body before rescuers
found them the next morning.
This is just one heartbreaking example of the impacts of a law left
over from another era, an era when the West was not populated and when
our value system was far different from what it is now.
{time} 1245
The law simply must be updated to today's modern-day values and
environmental standards. The issue of employment has been raised over
and over again, exporting our jobs and importing our vital metals. I
agree, mining jobs are good jobs, but I would suggest they are not the
only jobs in the West. We need to have a diversified workforce, and
that workforce needs what the population needs, diversified
opportunities.
Chairman Rahall's bill puts standards in place, requiring cleanup and
reclamation of mining sites. This bill makes certain that lands are off
limits to mining, as they should be, but it also ends the free-for-all
that this law has created over the years, where companies have used a
patenting process to purchase inholdings within national forests and
other public lands for a few dollars per acre, only to have the Federal
Government later buy them out for millions of dollars when they
threaten to develop the land.
The Federal Government has spent billions of dollars over the years
rebuying patented mining lands, and taxpayers' are served much better
for their money. They deserve a fairness and an equitable return for
their tax dollars.
I strongly support the balanced approach that the chairman has taken
with this bill. I am also pleased that the committee approved
amendments I offered to allow Native American tribes to petition the
Secretary to withdraw from mining lands of cultural, historic or
religious importance to them. Tribes have been just as impacted as
other communities by the impacts of mining and should be able to weigh
in on these important matters.
There is an urgency here that cannot be understated. I hope my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this bill.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the comments by the
gentleman from West Virginia earlier about the administration, and I
appreciate his praise.
Although I don't always agree with the administration, I would say
that the same administration he was praising has issued a veto threat
because there is a constitutional abridgement that's possible in this
bill, a takings violation, from the royalty structure. That would be a
violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
I believe that this work in progress should be sent back to the
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Heller) who has done great work on the bill.
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. I want to thank the ranking member for his hard
work the last 10 months.
I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, for
his efforts on the bill. He was very patient, very respectful. I
appreciate his time and energy. We may disagree, but I certainly do
appreciate him listening to my concerns and oppositions to this
particular bill, so thank you so much.
Also, I thank the subcommittee chairman for a field hearing in Elko,
Nevada. I certainly do appreciate that also, giving them a chance to be
heard. I know that was appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, mining is the second largest industry in the State of
Nevada, which employs approximately 32,000 Nevadans, supporting,
obviously, countless numbers of families. These high-paying jobs and
their related services are the backbone of the rural community in our
State and other rural economies.
I would take, for example, a couple, Larry and Vickie Childs of
Spring Creek, Nevada. Larry retired from the mining industry
approximately 25 years ago and subsequently went to work for a company
in Elko, Nevada, providing miners the tools and equipment that they
need. Vickie works at a health clinic for miners and their families
provided by the two largest mining companies in the area.
Vickie's clinic employs two pharmacists, four doctors, physician's
assistants, nurses, lab technicians, maintenance and clerical people.
Larry and Vickie raised four children in Elko, Nevada, one of whom
currently today works in the mining industry.
When this bill closes down the local mining operations, the equipment
suppliers and the health care clinics will have layoffs, and,
obviously, close their doors. The Childs family will begin to lose
their homes. The mining industry will join other domestic industry
crushed by foreign competition and overregulation.
Despite opposition to this bill in Elko, one of the most affected
communities by this bill, the new excessive taxes and burdensome
regulations of this bill will kill this industry, and with that
industry will go the towns and families that depend upon it.
Clearly, this was not the result of the field hearing that the
community had hoped for. All of these measures, many of the supporters
will say, are in the name of fairness.
The question is, fairness to whom? Fairness to Nevada? Fairness to
New Mexico? Arizona? I know that China thinks it's fair. I would guess
that South Africa thinks that this is a fair bill. I would probably
even guess that Australia thinks it is a fair bill.
But do you think it's a fair bill to the Childs family in Spring
Creek and the many thousands like them? I don't think so.
But just like this bill ignores the futures of the families in
Nevada, H.R. 2262 also fails to embrace the realities of the future of
our Nation. India and China, with their State-funded purchases of
global mineral commodities, should make us consider the long-term
ramifications of the health of the domestic mining industry. Also, the
technological advances we all want in our future, such as alternative
energy, rely heavily on minerals and metals. A hybrid car, for example,
requires twice as much copper as a traditional SUV today.
Our national defense will rely on foreign sources of minerals to
build our military equipment. Frankly, I don't want to rely on China
when we are in a war-time situation.
I urge my colleagues to support rural communities, urge them to
support our domestic mining industry for the sake of our families, our
economy, and our national security by voting against H.R. 2262.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished
subcommittee Chair on Insular Affairs, the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.
In doing so, I want to congratulate its lead sponsor, the chairman of
the Committee on Natural Resources, Nick Rahall. For 20 years now, Nick
has led
[[Page H12404]]
the effort to reform mining laws which have been unchanged since 1872.
It is high time that the 19th century mining law be updated to
reflect our 21st century needs and goals. The current law was enacted
before the invention of the telephone and was designed to promote
mineral development in the age of the pick-and-shovel prospector.
Unlike virtually any other use of public lands, the 1872 mining law
allows mining on public lands for hardrock minerals such as gold and
copper without any compensation or royalty. It is time that this law be
changed to reflect modern mining technologies and newer social values
that question whether mineral extraction is always the best or highest
use of the land.
As a long-term member of the Natural Resources Committee, I want to
once again commend Chairman Rahall for his commitment to mining reform,
and he and Mr. Costa for producing a balanced bill which benefits
American taxpayers who own the land, the environment and the mining
industry.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2262.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, in order to, again, stick with facts that I
think one of my colleagues mentioned we should, I would note that when
we just heard the comment that no fees or dollars were taken from the
mining industry, actually, $55 million was paid in claim maintenance
fees.
But if we are to have this discussion about what effect this royalty
is going to have, I think we should look at other circumstances. Again,
these facts were presented in committee, in the committee hearings,
but, somehow they did not get integrated into the bill, the knowledge,
and again, it's the reason that we are passionate here on the floor
about our points of view.
We had testimony from British Columbia that instituted a 2.5 percent
royalty. Now we are looking at an 8 percent, almost three times as
much.
Now, if, as our opponents claim, there is no effect, that we can
expect nothing, then you would think nothing happened in British
Columbia. Yet, after they instituted, in 1 year, 1 year, revenues from
the mines didn't increase because of this royalty; it decreased from 28
to 15, almost a 50 percent decrease.
Exploration, likewise, fell dramatically from 38 to 15, far more than
a 50 percent drop. That was in 1 year. The tax was repealed the next
year because they found out exactly what we are claiming, that jobs
were lost, 6,000 jobs were lost in 1 year. In 1972, the number of
claims fell by 85 percent.
So when our opponents say there is not going to be any effect here,
it's only right, we are asking them to pay the same amount that you pay
for a snack at the grocery store. British Columbia did one-third of the
tax that we are proposing. British Columbia found that they had to undo
the tax because it was so destructive to the industry.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a valued member of our Committee on Natural
Resources.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman and commend my colleague from West
Virginia for bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, we are doing a good thing here. The Mining Act of 1872
is as archaic and as deserving of updating as the name suggests. It was
written at a time of manifest destiny, the belief of our predecessors,
who held that we should expand from coast to coast and that mining was
recognized as one of the best uses of public lands when the country
seemed so vast that no one could imagine that human actions would
affect the world.
Many things have changed over 135 years. Our Nation is settled. We
have come to realize the worth of our natural environment. We have come
to comprehend the effects of human actions on the resources that we
will pass down to future generations.
This legislation is governing hardrock mining, an industry that's
remained exempt from environmental regulations despite the fact that
the U.S. EPA's toxic release inventory has determined that hardrock
mining is a primary source of toxic pollution in the United States.
I am pleased that in committee we have included language, important
language, I would say, to restrict permits for activities that would
harm national parks and national monuments. There are thousands of
claims and could be thousands more in the close environment of national
parks and national monuments, some of our most treasured lands. This
legislation will provide vital protection for those lands.
We all know well the costs to American taxpayers of refusing to look
after the environment. This language about national parks, I think,
will also save the taxpayer money, because we will have to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up damage to water supplies
and so forth.
I commend the chairman for bringing such a good bill forward and urge
its passage.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico has 3 minutes left. The
gentleman from West Virginia has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, just sticking with the facts, we had
one of my colleagues talk about fluorspar, that's what's used to make
toothpaste, as if there were no strategic minerals; yet when I look at
the list of imported minerals, I see that we import 72 percent of
titanium, which is used in jet aircraft, fighter jet aircraft, 72
percent.
I think when we are discussing these facts, we should be talking
about the critical facts, as I am sure that the gentleman was correct
that we do import fluorspar, and it probably is used on toothpaste, but
we probably should be talking about the domestic security, about the
security of our Nation, about the willingness of our industry and the
capability of our industry to provide the instruments to defend this
country.
We are at a time when terrorists are trying to overcome us, al Qaeda,
radical jihad. The terrorists are trying every way they can, and we are
going to put the source of critical minerals that are necessary for our
Nation's offense outside the Nation's borders. It simply doesn't make
sense. It actually does feel like a work in progress. It feels like we
should have done more.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico
if he has any additional speakers, because I am prepared to close, as I
have the right to close.
Mr. PEARCE. I have no additional speakers. I will close if the
gentleman is ready to close.
Mr. Speaker, when I look on the walls of this Chamber, I see the
quote by Daniel Webster up above the Speaker's chair, and it says:
``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers,
build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see
whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something
worthy to be remembered.''
Worthy to be remembered. I think our Founding Fathers had it right.
They visualized a nation of tremendous promise, where the wealth of the
Nation and the protection of the Nation would come together in the
production of its resources and in the taking care of its land.
I don't find it unusual at all that the same generation protected
Yellowstone and yet gave us the capability to create these mines, which
take billions of dollars to promote and to produce. I don't find that
unusual at all.
But what I do find unusual is that our friends on the other side of
the aisle are not listening to their own testimony coming in their own
hearings. We heard testimony from both Democrat and Republican
witnesses alike saying 8 percent royalties are unprecedented. They are
damaging, destructive, they will hurt. Those are the things that we
heard in the committee.
I would suggest that we send this work in progress back to the
committee and finish our work before we try to change 135-year-old
policy.
Mr. Chairman, I include a letter for the Record from Governor Palin
of Alaska, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining
Association, and others, all in opposition to the legislation proposed
here.
Department of Natural Resources,
Anchorage, AK, September 28, 2007.
Hon. Nick Rahall,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rahall: The State of Alaska has completed a
review of H.R. 2262,
[[Page H12405]]
the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. I attach the
resulting position paper for your consideration.
While we acknowledge the need to revise some of the same
federal laws that H.R. 2262 modifies, we believe the
legislation would unjustifiably harm the domestic mining
industry, and the Alaska mining industry in particular.
Our state produced almost $3 billion of minerals last year,
four percent of the nation's total. We can continue and even
expand this contribution indefinitely, but not without
predictable access, on reasonable fiscal terms, to the
federal domain in Alaska.
Your legislation, H.R. 2262, would create several obstacles
to such access and terms. Specifically:
Prohibiting mining exploration and development on lands
identified in the 2001 Forest Service ``roadless rule'' and
in other ``special areas'' would place millions of acres off
limits. These prohibitions are far too broad, particularly in
Alaska where the federal government owns so much land, yet
already offers so little of it to mineral exploration.
A flat royalty on gross revenues will cause unnecessary
mine shutdowns and job losses during periods of low prices.
The government should adopt a flexible royalty that adjusts
for high and low returns.
The proposed new permitting system would unnecessarily
duplicate existing laws while also creating great uncertainty
and thus great risk for mineral exploration and development.
We believe it could end exploration and mining on federal
lands.
Thank you for considering these views and the attached
position paper as Congress works to reform the nation's
mining laws.
Sincerely,
Tom Irwin,
Commissioner.
____
National Mining Association,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.
Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Abercrombie: The National Mining
Association (NMA) supports updating the Mining Law in a
manner that produces a fair and predictable public policy
capable of sustaining a healthy domestic hard rock mining
industry and providing a fair return to the taxpayer for the
use of federal lands. House members will soon be asked to
vote on the ``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''
(H.R. 2262). NMA opposes H.R. 2262 because it jeopardizes
current and future sources of domestic minerals that are
critical to our nation's economic well-being and security.
NMA believes that the Mining Law can be responsibly updated
in way that does not sacrifice American jobs or endanger the
nation's security. Our domestic mineral and mining industry
supports 169,500 direct and indirect jobs, produces metals
valued at more than $16 billion and pays direct personal and
payroll taxes totaling $830 million.
NMA finds the following features of H.R. 2262 particularly
objectionable.
Excessive Royalty (Tax): The bill would impose the world's
highest royalty on mineral production--a new tax on America's
minerals that are critical to our economic vitality and
national security. The tax would take the form of an 8
percent gross royalty, which would cause a significant
reduction in mineral and mining investments. NMA supports a
fair return to the public in the form of a net income
production payment for minerals produced from new mining
claims on federal lands.
Retroactive Levy on Existing Mines: The bill would
retroactively levy a 4 percent gross royalty on existing
mines where business plans and investments were implemented
without this significant cost in mind. Apart from the
doubtful legality of such a levy, it virtually guarantees the
closure of some mines and the export of high-paying mining-
related jobs.
Confiscation of Investments: Several provisions of H.R.
2262 would empower political appointees to stop new mining
projects even when such projects have met all applicable
environmental and legal requirements. No business can attract
the necessary capital or operate with such regulatory
uncertainty and, as you would expect, those investments and
projects will move overseas.
Our country is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign
sources of minerals critical to virtually every sector of our
economy. Our national minerals policy should support, not
destroy, the investments, jobs and infrastructure necessary
to supply our domestic mineral needs. We urge you to oppose
H.R. 2262 so a more balanced measure can be developed.
Sincerely yours,
Kraig R. Naasz,
President & CEO.
____
National Association of
Manufacturers,
October 30, 2007.
Dear Representatives: On behalf of the National Association
of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade
association representing small and large manufacturers in
every industrial sector and in all 50 states, I urge vou to
oppose H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of
2007.
The U.S. mining industry currently provides about 50
percent of the metals American manufacturers need to operate,
including iron ore, copper, gold, phosphate, zinc, silver and
molybdenum. The U.S. has become increasingly dependent upon
foreign sources of minerals for products that are
strategically important to both our national and economic
security.
Rather than encouraging environmentally safe mineral
development, H.R. 2262 would impose new taxes on the mining
industry, including an eight percent royalty on new mining
and a retroactive four percent royalty on existing mining
operations. The bill would also establish new prohibitions on
future mining on certain public lands and set highly
prescriptive environmental standards that sometimes conflict
with existing state and federal regulations.
Not only would the bill seriously impact the U.S. mining
industry, it would increase the cost of raw materials for
U.S. manufacturers, make our products less competitive in
global markets and adversely affect thousands of high-paying
manufacturing jobs. Moreover, we remain concerned that this
sets an unwise precedent in targeting specific industries
with new and burdensome tax increases.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes on H.R. 2262 will be considered for designation as Key
Manufacturing Votes in the 110th Congress.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Timmons,
Senior Vice President for Policy
and Government Relations.
____
Chevron Mining Inc.,
Englewood, CO, October 30, 2007.
Dear Congressmen: as an operator of two domestic metal
mines with over 500 employees, I would like to urge you to
vote ``NO'' on the ``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of
2007'' (H.R. 2262). As longstanding members of the mining
community in the United States, we are concerned that H.R.
2262 as it currently stands will negatively affect domestic
supply of the metals and minerals needed to ensure our future
economic prosperity. The new taxes imposed, and more
importantly, the retroactive taxes proposed, will have a
chilling effect on our industry. The uncertainty of mining
rights will make domestic investment in new mines difficult,
undoubtedly increasing our dependence on foreign minerals and
eliminating countless jobs in the US.
Today, American hard rock miners are the highest paid in
the world earning excellent salaries and receiving unmatched
benefits. Congress will drive these jobs overseas if it
approves H.R. 2262, which impose the highest minerals tax in
the world!
We are dedicated to reforming Mining Law to ensure a fair
return to taxpayers and allow businesses to stay open,
preserve high-wage American jobs and prevent further
increases in our dependence on foreign minerals.
On behalf of our 500 employees, I urge you to vote ``NO''
on the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.
Very truly yours,
Mark A. Smith,
President and CEO.
____
American Copper Policy Council,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2007.
Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Abercrombie: I am writing on behalf of the
members of the American Copper Policy Council (ACPC) to
indicate our opposition to H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and
Reclamation Act of 2007. Reform of the mining law is long
over-due, but this legislation in its present form would
impose new costs and regulatory burdens that would make the
U.S. mining industry uncompetitive in the world marketplace.
In addition to stifling new mining investment, H.R. 2262
would increase our domestic manufacturing sectors dependence
on imported raw materials, particularly from manufacturing
economies such as China. In the case of copper, this could
discourage the use of a valuable material that positively
contributes to green construction and improved energy
efficiency.
ACPC members are involved in all facets of copper mining,
production, fabrication and distribution and as such play a
critical role in nearly all domestic manufacturing, which is
vital to the national economy and defense. Mining law
amendments must recognize the need to strike a balance
between providing a fair return to the public for minerals
extracted on federal lands and ensuring that our U.S. mining
industry can continue to compete and provide our industrial
base with a reliable supply of domestic minerals.
H.R. 2262 would impose a royalty that is higher than any
other mining country in the world. A royalty is imposed on
new mines and also retroactively on existing mines on federal
lands. The bill fails to provide assurances that significant
investments on public lands will not be placed at risk by
arbitrary and capricious restrictions by regulators, and it
imposes redundant and conflicting environmental standards on
mining contrary to a finding by the National Research Council
that current laws protect the environment.
We support reform but let's make sure it is good reform. At
a time when our manufacturing base is struggling to compete
in a world marketplace that is not always level, we need to
consider the ramifications of legislation on our industrial
base.
[[Page H12406]]
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Linda D. Findlay,
Chair, American Copper Policy Council.
The American Copper Policy Council's members include the
Copper Development Association, the Copper and Brass
Fabricators Council, the Copper and Brass Servicenter
Association, the International Copper Association, the
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rio Tinto, and
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, on January 28, 1872, Representative
Sergeant brought to the House floor from the Committee on Mines and
Mining H.R. 1016, the bill that was to be enacted as the Mining Law of
1872. He noted that debate had taken place whether it was worthwhile
for the government to sell the mineral lands of the United States, some
thought, on some idea of a royalty belonging to the government.
Instead, the Members debating that measure decided to allow for the
patenting of mining claims for $2.50 or $5 an acre, depending on
whether it was allowed to place their claim because, in the words of
Representative Sergeant, ``We are inducing miners to purchase their
claims so that large amounts of money are thereby brought into the
Treasury of the United States.''
Well, now, perhaps back then $2.50 an acre represented a large amount
of money. But I submit it does not today. And the royalty debated back
when this law was passed is what, ironically, we are debating today.
Now, the gentleman from New Mexico has said that in order to pay that
$2.50 an acre you have to mine the land. I would say that that is an
inaccurate description of current law. You do not necessarily have to
mine the land. You have to show that there's a valuable mineral that
exists therein, which is not a very hard proposition to show these
days.
With that noted, let me state that I've engaged in the effort to
reform the Mining Law of 1872 these past many years, not just for the
apparent reasons, valuable minerals mined for free, the threats to
health and human safety from abandoned mine lands, but also because I
am pro-mining, I come from a coal mining State, because I no longer
believe that we can expect a viable hardrock mining industry to exist
on public domain lands in the future if we do not make corrections to
the law today.
I do so because there are provisions of the existing law which impede
efficient and serious mineral exploration and development. And I do so
because of the unsettled political climate governing this activity.
With reform, if not coming in a comprehensive fashion, certainly it
will continue to come on a piecemeal basis.
As my colleagues come to the floor to vote on this issue, I hope they
will ask their staffs just how many letters from how many mining groups
have they received in opposition to the pending bill. I hope they'll
bring those letters to the floor with them, because I submit there will
not be many. And I submit the reason may be, using my intuition, could
the responsible segments of the hardrock mining industry, which is the
majority, could the responsible segment of that hardrock mining
industry want to end the uncertainty that exists over this industry?
Could it be that they want a finality to the arguments surrounding
their industry? Could it be that they want a basis upon which to make
business and future investment decisions?
And hardly today are they screaming pauper. Look at this week's Wall
Street Journal headline: ``Gold Rush of 2007. Mining Mergers.''
The price is pretty well up there these days. I think these companies
are doing quite well, and they would like to have some finality on this
issue. I believe that, with enough courage, as we've seen from elected
officials, hunters, sportsmen, fishermen from across the West, we can
continue to address the problems facing mining and dovetail our need
for minerals with the necessity of protecting our environment.
For at stake here in this debate over the Mining Law of 1872 is the
health, welfare, and environmental integrity of our people and on our
Federal lands. At stake is the public interest of all Americans. And at
stake is the ability of the hardrock mining industry to continue to
operate on public domain lands in the future to produce those minerals
that are necessary to maintain our standard of living.
I urge the adoption of this legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in very strong support of
H.R. 2262, and I congratulate its sponsor, Chairman Nick Rahall.
The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 will finally end the
give-away of our public lands and minerals. The bill secures a fair
return for taxpayers on minerals taken from public lands, and it will
provide for environmental standards and cleanup for hardrock mining.
For 135 years, American hardrock mining policy has given away public
resources, and it has left each new generation a larger legacy of
unreclaimed lands and degraded streams.
The 1872 mining law is long overdue for comprehensive reform.
The American taxpayers deserve an updated mining policy, and so does
our natural environment.
Chairman Rahall and I have been striving to update this antiquated
law for decades, and thanks to his leadership, we are closer today to
success than we have ever been.
The Natural Resources Committee's effort to reform mining law began
in the early 1990s, when I chaired the committee, but we were derailed
by the Republican rule.
Chairman Rahall has spent 20 years introducing bills in this House to
get to this point. He has persevered against indifference, opposition,
and intensive lobbying.
Today, he has brought a bill to the floor of the House that takes a
major step towards reform after many long years of struggle.
The 1872 mining law allows mining companies to take billions of
dollars worth of gold, silver and other minerals from public lands for
free.
We no longer treat any other resource that way--not coal, oil, or
gas--yet under the archaic mining law, we still give away gold with no
compensation to the taxpayers who own it.
And over the years, the price tag for mining cleanup has risen
astronomically. Since the House last acted on reform legislation, more
than 20 mines and mills have been added to the Superfund National
Priority List.
The EPA Inspector General has warned of nearly $24 billion in cleanup
costs for mine sites, some of which will require treatment ``in
perpetuity.''
The 1872 law's failings have had a serious impact on California and
the West. The mining law has remained in effect while Northern
California's Iron Mountain mine spewed out nearly a quarter of the
copper and zinc discharged by industries to the Nation's surface
waters; as historic lands of the Indian Pass area in the southern
California desert faced destruction from the proposed Glamis mine;
during decades of efforts to control acidic, metal-laden discharges
from an old sulfur mine southeast of Tahoe; and as the city of Grass
Valley spends millions to treat hazardous mine discharges and fight a
giant mining corporation in court.
The bill that is before us today, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation
Act of 2007, will: put certain irreplaceable public lands off limits to
mining, secure a fair return for taxpayers with a royalty on minerals
taken from public lands, halt the sale of public lands to mining
claimholders, adopt modern environmental standards for hardrock mining;
and establish a program to clean up abandoned mines.
I congratulate the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Nick
Rahall, and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa, our California
colleague, for their leadership on this issue.
I also want to commend the staff of the Natural Resources committee
for their years of hard work to get us to this point.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this major legislative
accomplishment, which will be celebrated by future generations of
Americans.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
important legislation.
As a proud cosponsor of the bill, I want to begin by congratulating
Chairman Rahall, the lead sponsor of H.R. 2262 and our leader on the
Natural Resources Committee, for all he has done to make it possible
for the House to consider the bill today.
For many years, he has worked to replace the ancient mining law of
1872 with a statute more attuned to this era than to the days of the
Grant administration--a worthy task that remains unfinished through no
fault of his.
For him, it is personal. And it is personal for me as well.
My uncle, Stewart Udall, had the honor of serving as Secretary of the
Interior during the administrations of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.
During his tenure, he accomplished a great deal, but he wanted to do
more. He has often said that reform of the mining law of 1872 was the
biggest unfinished business on the Nation's natural resources agenda,
and
[[Page H12407]]
has never let me forget that one of his final actions as Secretary was
to send to Congress proposed legislation to accomplish that goal.
And, as Chairman Rahall has reminded us all, my father,
Representative Morris K. Udall, recognized the need for legislation
such as the bill before us today. As chairman of what was then the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, he also accomplished a great
deal, but he did not live to see that need fulfilled through its
enactment.
So, I consider myself very fortunate to have the opportunity to join
in supporting this bill and, by so doing, helping to accomplish what
both my father and uncle recognized as a long-overdue step to provide
the American people--owners of the Federal lands--with a fair return
for development of ``hardrock'' minerals and to establish a better
balance between the development of those minerals and the other uses of
those lands.
Those are the purposes of this bill, and I think it is well designed
to accomplish them.
Its enactment will replace the mining law of 1872 with a new
statutory framework for the development of hardrock minerals on Federal
lands.
Perhaps most notably, it will impose a royalty on gross income from
hardrock mining on Federal land. Under current law, those who mine
gold, silver, platinum, or other hardrock minerals from those lands pay
no royalties at all--unlike those who extract oil, natural gas, or
other minerals covered by the Mineral Leasing Act.
The royalty rate would be 8 percent of ``net smelter return'' for new
mines and mine expansions, and a 4 percent net smelter rerun for
production from existing mines. Those royalties, to the extent they
exceed the costs of administering the new law, would go into a special
fund in the Treasury and, along with certain administrative fees, would
be available, subject to appropriation, to support reclamation programs
and to provide assistance to State, local, and tribal governments.
I consider the establishment of this ``abandoned hardrock mine
reclamation fund'' one of the most important features of the bill.
It is very important for Colorado because while mining brought many
benefits to our State, it has also left us with too many worked-out and
abandoned mines. Some of them are mere open pits or shafts that
endanger hunters, hikers, or other visitors. And too many are the
source of pollution that contaminates the nearby land and nearby
streams or other bodies of water, and so are threats to public health
as well as to the ranchers and farmers who depend on water to make a
living and the fish and wildlife for whom it is life itself.
In fact, I have seen credible estimates indicating that the Western
States have as many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mines, and that just
in Colorado there are over 20,000 old mines, shafts, and exploration
holes.
In short, Mr. Chairman, there is an urgent need to clean up and
reclaim these abandoned mines. But there are two major obstacles to
progress toward that goal.
One is a lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private
person or entity can be held liable. The reclamation fund established
by this bill will be a major step toward remedying that problem.
The other obstacle is the fact that while many people would like to
undertake the work of cleaning up abandoned mines, these would-be
``good Samaritans'' are deterred because they fear that under the Clean
Water Act or other current law someone undertaking to clean up an
abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that
would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in
the first place.
Because that obstacle is not addressed by this bill, I have
introduced a separate measure--H.R. 4011--that does address it. That
bill, similar to ones I introduced in the 107th, 108th and 109th
Congresses, reflects valuable input from representatives of the Western
Governors' Association and other interested parties, including staff of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Environmental
Protection Agency. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on
establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from
abandoned mines. It is cosponsored by our colleague from New Mexico,
Representative Pearce, whose help I greatly appreciate, and I will be
seeking to have it considered as soon as practicable.
Another important aspect of the bill before us is the way it would
modify the administrative and judicial procedures related to mining
activities, including establishing a means for local governments to
petition for withdrawal of Federal land from the staking of new mining
claims.
That will enable local governments all over Colorado to have a much
greater voice regarding activities that could have the potential to
cause problems for their residents and for them to seek protection for
such resources and values as watersheds and drinking water supplies,
wildlife habitats, cultural or historic resources, scenic areas. In
addition, Indian tribes will be able to seek protections for religious
and cultural values.
I recognize that not everyone supports the bill as it stands. The
Colorado Mining Association has informed me that while its members
support reforming the 1872 mining law, they think the royalty rate that
the bill would apply to new production is too high, and that they
consider application of even a lower rate to existing production is
unfair. I respect their views--although I don't think it is accurate to
describe the royalty on existing production as ``retroactive,''
because it will not apply to any production occurring prior to the
bill's enactment--and I am ready to consider supporting changes in the
royalty rates as the legislative process continues.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, one that deserves
our support. In the words of a recent editorial in the Daily Sentinel
newspaper of Grand Junction, CO, it is ``long- overdue and much-needed
legislation.'' I urge its passage, and for the benefit of all our
colleagues I attach the complete text of the Daily Sentinel's
editorial.
[From the (Grand Junction, CO) Daily Sentinel, Oct. 18, 2007]
Archaic Mining Law Needs 21st-Century Update
The mining industry that transformed huge swaths of western
Colorado's landscape in the latter part of the 19th century
was given a considerable boost by the 1872 Mining Law. And
that legal antique continues to transform public lands in the
state today.
However, long-overdue and much-needed legislation to
finally reform the 135-year-old law is to be marked up in the
House Natural Resources Committee today.
The mining legislation signed into law by President Ulysses
S. Grant was adopted when most Americans enthusiastically
supported both the development of the largely unpopulated
West by white settlers and full exploitation of its natural
resources. Along with laws such as the Homestead Act and the
Timber and Stone Act, the 1872 Mining Law helped drive that
effort.
Over time, however, public-lands laws passed in the late
19th century have been eliminated or superseded. Only the
1872 Mining Law remains in largely its original form,
allowing companies and individuals to stake mining claims on
federal lands and eventually purchase those lands for as
little as $5 an acre.
In Colorado since 1980, 17 companies and 40 individuals
have obtained mineral rights and deeds to more than 84,000
acres of once-public land under the 1872 law, according to a
study by the Environmental Working Group. Four more
applications are pending to acquire deeds to mining claims in
Colorado.
Moreover, unlike companies that lease the rights to recover
coal, oil and gas from public lands, those who obtain gold,
silver and other precious metals under the 1872 law
contribute nothing to the federal treasury through leasing or
royalty payments. And because there were no environmental
requirements in the law, U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill
to clean up thousands of old mine sites around the West.
The legislation before the committee would end the practice
of selling federal lands for hard-rock mining. People could
lease lands for mining--as they do with coal, oil and gas--
but they could not gain ownership of them, often for a tiny
fraction of their current value.
Additionally, the bill to reform the 1872 Mining Law would
establish an 8 percent royalty for new mines. It would
improve environmental rules, create reclamation bonding
requirements for mines and give federal land managers more
authority to balance hard-rock mining with other public-lands
activity. Not surprisingly, industry lobbyists are trying to
water it down.
Western Colorado's two House members, Mark Udall and John
Salazar, support the bill. Others should, too. It's long past
time this 19th century relic was revamped to reflect the new
realities of the 21st century.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R.
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, introduced by my
good friend, Chairman Rahall. In 1991, I introduced the Mining Law
Reform Act of 1991, which was very similar to the legislation that we
are considering today. The following year, I introduced an amendment to
another mining reform bill--also introduced by Chairman Rahall--that
would have put a 12.5 percent royalty on hardrock minerals mined on
Federal public lands. It is beyond belief that for the past 135 years,
the law has allowed these minerals to be extracted with no royalty paid
to the American people, unlike the royalties paid by oil, gas, and coal
developers.
So, I am very familiar with the issues involved in hardrock mining
and the efforts to reform the antiquated 1872 mining law.
Unfortunately, none of these previous measures became law. Today,
however, we have a real chance at mining reform. I am glad for that.
H.R. 2262 is a vast improvement over the 1872 mining law that
currently guides mineral development on our public lands. Still, it
could be improved further.
In the markup of this bill held by the Natural Resources Committee, I
offered an amendment that would have clarified that the royalty
[[Page H12408]]
provisions of H.R. 2262 do not apply to small miners, many of whom
reside in my district in Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management
estimates that there are approximately 3,400 small miners in Oregon
that hold 10 or fewer claims, who engage in casual use of the public
lands for hand panning, nonmotorized sluicing, and other small,
recreational mining activities. Unfortunately, my amendment was not
approved by the committee, although Chairman Rahall agreed to work with
me to address my concerns.
I intended to offer the same amendment to H.R. 2262 here today on the
floor, to do just that. The Rules Committee, however, did not make my
amendment in order. Therefore, I rise today to speak on this issue.
I am told by Chairman Rahall and his staff that the underlying bill
does not apply to recreational miners, or those miners engaged in
casual use of the public lands; i.e., those mining activities that do
not ordinarily result in any disturbance of public lands and resources.
Sections 302 and 304 of H.R. 2622 indicate that miners engaged in
casual use do not have to get a permit to mine, and section 103 states
that miners who hold less than 10 claims are exempt from paying the
maintenance fee required under the act.
I am told that this language, combined with existing regulations,
means that recreational miners are not subject to the royalty
provisions of H.R. 2622. I remain unconvinced that this is the case,
which is why I wanted to offer my amendment. If it is true that small
miners are not covered by this legislation, then adding clarifying
language should not have been a problem. If the bill is in fact
unclear, my amendment would have clarified it. In addition, my
amendment would have addressed concerns raised by Chairman Rahall that
exempting small miners from royalty payments was a slippery slope, and
that the exemption would have reduced revenues to the Federal
Government. Nevertheless, I was not permitted to offer my amendment.
Therefore, let me be clear now, it is not my intention that the
royalty provisions of H.R. 2622--specifically, section 102 of the
legislation--apply to small recreational miners engaged in casual use
of the public lands for mining. Hand panning, the use of hand tools,
and other similar activities that work public lands for enjoyment or to
supplement one's income is a time-honored tradition in this country,
and explicitly anticipated by a variety of Federal laws governing the
multiple use of these lands. While a revamp of the 1872 mining law is
more than overdue, including placing royalties on the minerals
extracted from Federal lands, we must ensure that small, recreational
mining opportunities are not lost. My amendment would have guaranteed
protection for small miners. I am disappointed that I was unable to
offer it today.
I have made my concerns known to my colleagues in the Senate, and
have provided them with copies of my amendment. When this legislation
reaches their Chamber, I will call on them to ensure that small miners
are not subject to the royalty provisions of this bill. Until then, I
will reserve my judgment on whether I will support a final conference
report on mining reform.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to applaud and congratulate my
good friend, Chairman Rahall for his efforts to bring this legislation
to the House floor. He has worked over many years to reform the mining
law and because of his persistence, we have a better chance of finally
securing reform than we ever have. Reform is long overdue.
I am supporting this legislation, but I wish to continue to work with
the chairman and follow the actions of the Senate to make sure final
legislation does not inadvertently create a system that makes our
domestic industry unable to compete in the world marketplace. Mining
has a long and colorful history in the State of Arizona and it provides
great benefit to the State's economy. I believe we can have reform and
also preserve a healthy industry.
I know the chairman shares that objective, and again I applaud him
and his staff for making this issue a priority.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.
H.R. 2262 will put new royalty rates on production from hardrock
mining. For the other side, of course, royalty rates is a fun, new
catchword meaning taxes. But, unlike the coal and petroleum industry
who are taxed on production of product, H.R. 2262 will place the tax on
the amount of material extracted. For example, if ``Joe Voter Mining''
moves 1 cubic yard of rock weighing in the neighborhood of 800 pounds
to retrieve \1/10\th or 1 ounce of gold, Joe would not be taxed on the
gold recovered, but on the amount of rock moved. By raising taxes like
this, the bill will cripple American production.
Since the 110th Congress convened, the Pelosi-led majority has been
talking about the need for ``renewable'' energy.
The energy bills, that were rammed through the House and put large
tax increases on the oil and natural gas industries placed a large
emphasis on renewable energy; wind and solar. So why would this bill
punish renewable energy?
Now, western Iowa does not have a hardrock mining industry.
Thankfully for our farmers, we don't have much hardrock in western
Iowa. But what we do have is large-scale production of renewable
energy. The Fifth District of Iowa is the leader in production of BTU's
of renewable energy: ethanol, biodiesel, and wind. However, this bill
will put a cramp on further production of renewable energy. I want to
let my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in on a little secret,
those ethanol and biodiesel plants require steel and copper. Those wind
chargers that produce clean, renewable electricity from the air sit on
large steel columns. The electricity that is produced by wind chargers
and solar panels is transported via copper wires.
Mr. Chairman, steel and copper come from the ground. So I want to try
and figure out the Democrat logic. They are going to tax the raw
resources that are used by the renewable industry to make a product the
Democrats want to see more of? That doesn't sound like sound logic to
me. I would just hope that what my Democrat colleagues realize is that
which you tax, you get less of. If they want less renewable energy,
then taxing the resources used in its production is a sure way to make
that happen.
Mr. Chairman, today, oil is over $90 a barrel and natural gas is over
$8 per million cubic feet because of Democrat energy policies. And in
an absurd response, the Democrats aim to crush the renewable industry
by raising the rates on the materials the renewable energy industry is
built on. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining
and Reclamation Act of 2007.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to mark the
passage of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. H.R.
2262 takes long overdue action to reform the 1872 Mining Act. That law,
the General Mining Act of 1872, was written to encourage westward
expansion and to generate the supply of minerals needed in our Nation.
Back in 1872, a charge of $5 an acre to mine hard rock minerals in
remote areas of the undeveloped west was probably a pretty fair price.
The fact that the price is still the same today is simply ludicrous.
As a result, private companies, both domestic and foreign, have been
able to profit handsomely by mining on public lands without the need to
pay the American people any royalties or to even clean up the messes
they leave behind. By some estimates, the antiquated 1872 Mining Act
has allowed over $245 billion worth of minerals to be extracted from
more than 3.4 million acres of public lands without returning to the
American people, the owners of those lands, a single cent in royalties.
Today, we took a necessary step toward bringing this policy into the
modern era.
H.R. 2262, introduced by Representative Nick Rahall, the chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee, requires mining companies to pay
royalties to the American people for the minerals they mine from public
lands and to properly reclaim lands damaged by mining. It also allows
for the prohibition of mining on environmentally sensitive lands, and
it creates a fund to begin the clean up of nearly a half million
abandoned mine sites.
I sincerely hope that the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act sees
swift passage in the other Chamber so we can send it to the President
to be signed into law. Even though we have already waited 135 years to
take action on this matter, time is truly of the essence. In 1872,
hardrock mining mostly took place in the middle of vast undeveloped
lands. Today, however, with over 375,000 mining claims spread
throughout the rapidly developing West, some of our last pieces of
unspoiled lands are threatened. According to the New York Times, many
of those 375,000 claims are within 5 miles of 11 major national parks,
including Death Valley and the Grand Canyon.
Over 89,000 of those claims were staked in 2006, largely due to the
renewed interest in nuclear energy and the concomitant increase in the
price of uranium. In New Mexico alone, almost 2,000 claims were staked
in 2006. Many New Mexicans, most particularly members of the Navajo
Nation, have already suffered devastating injuries from uranium mining
in the past. H.R. 2262 will bring some much needed balance to the use
of our public lands and, in so doing, help protect the health of our
citizens. I am proud to support Chairman Rahall's efforts and I
encourage our colleagues in the other Chamber to do the same.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2262, the
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, which will reform the General
Mining Law of 1872 and provide a fair return to the American taxpayer
of publicly owned minerals on Federal lands.
By charging a royalty for publicly owned minerals, the American
taxpayer will no longer have to bear the cost of reclaiming and
restoring abandoned hardrock mines. H.R. 2262 will
[[Page H12409]]
assure that future mines operate in a manner that conserves the
environment and our valuable natural resources, including fish and
wildlife habitats.
H.R. 2262 addresses the financial needs of our Nation. By charging a
royalty fee on existing and future mining operations, along with filing
and maintenance fees, the Congressional Budget Office has determined
this legislation would reduce our country's deficit, which has spiraled
out of control under the current administration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues today to update the 1872 Mining
Law for the 21st century and vote for this important legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of reforming one of
the most antiquated laws still on the books. The General Mining Law of
1872 has remained essentially unchanged since Ulysses S. Grant was
President. Originally intended to spur westward expansion, the law has
become an environmental and fiscal train wreck. Today we have a chance
to reform this relic by passing the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act
of 2007 (H.R. 2262).
Back in 1872 individual miners used hand tools to look for gold and
silver; now multi-national corporations blast the tops off of mountains
and produce chemicals such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury that leach
into streams and groundwater long after mining operations cease. Much
has changed, but the law has not.
For 135 years, mining companies have been the beneficiaries of public
largesse that would make even Haliburton blush: over $245 billion worth
of minerals have been removed from public lands virtually free of
charge. Taxpayers have then been expected to foot the bill for the
massive cleanup of abandoned mines to the tune of at least $30 billion.
Under the 1872 law, mining takes precedence over ever other concern--
environmental protection, recreation, or safety. The mining industry,
which is responsible for more Federal Superfund sites than any other
industry, pays no royalties on extracted metals. In addition, through
the ``patent'' process, companies can force the sale of public lands
for as little as $2.50 per acre. Patenting has resulted in the sale of
over 3 million acres of public property at far below market value.
In my home State of California, a recent study found over 21,000
existing mining claims within 10 miles of national parks, monuments,
and wilderness areas. The 285 claims within 10 miles of Yosemite
threaten one of the Nation's most visited and spectacular parks.
The bill before us protects sensitive lands in California and
throughout the West by creating environmental safeguards, transparency,
and public participation. Some lands, such as wilderness study areas,
would be completely off-limits. In other areas, new mines would be
permitted only after a showing that they are not environmentally
destructive. Local governments can also challenge new projects. The
bill restores fiscal sanity by ending the practice of ``patenting'' and
requiring that new mines pay an 8 percent royalty and existing mines
pay 4 percent, both reasonable rates and well below what the coal and
oil industries pay. These royalties are then put into a fund to pay for
the cleanup of old mines.
It is time to fix a law that deserves to disappear into the dustbin
of history. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for reform.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2262
because it will finally compensate American taxpayers for the minerals
that are extracted from public federal lands and, at the same time,
dedicate this revenue to restoring wildlife habitat, drinking water
supplies, and other natural resources that have been ruined by mining
operations. Mr. Chairman, these changes are long overdue, and I commend
Chairman Rahall for bringing this bill to the floor today.
The importance of mining to the settlement and development of the
West and to western economies today cannot be overstated. Therefore,
this bill does not seek to destroy the U.S. mining industry, but to
bring it out of the 19th century and into the 21st. The Hardrock Mining
and Reclamation Act at long last will force U.S. law to recognize that
our public lands belong to all U.S. citizens, and any activities or
industries that utilize those lands must do so for the benefit of all
Americans. This bill will hold the mining industry responsible for the
public minerals it extracts and for the environmental consequences of
their operations.
For the past 135 years, the mining industry has had easy access to
federal lands and was free to take what it wanted and then leave the
lands in whatever condition they chose. The American taxpayer gave up
their rights to these minerals and then took up the bill for cleaning
up lands polluted with toxic chemicals. H.R. 2262 rightfully imposes a
royalty fee on mining companies, similar to that paid by oil, coal, and
natural gas companies who drill and mine on federal lands, which the
Department of the Interior will use to fund environmental restoration
and reclamation of abandoned mines. It is only fair that the mining
industry pay to repair the damage it has done to natural resources,
including drinking water supplies and prime habitat for wildlife and
outdoor recreation.
This last point is very important to me. As an avid hunter and
outdoorsman, it is critically important to me that we maintain our
Nation's natural heritage for current and future generations. Federal
lands harbor some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat and
provide some of the finest hunting and angling opportunities in the
country. For example, public lands contain more than 50 percent of the
Nation's blue-ribbon trout streams and are strongholds for imperiled
trout and salmon in the western United States. More than 80 percent of
the most critical habitat for elk is found on lands managed by the
Forest Service and the BLM, alone. Pronghorn antelope, sage grouse,
mule deer, salmon and steelhead, and countless other fish and wildlife
species are similarly dependent on public lands.
That is why sportsmen's organizations around the country support
reform of the Mining Law of 1872. By passing this bill today, we will
ensure the continued viability of wildlife habitat and the continued
ability of hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts to pursue and pass
on our sporting heritage.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2262 just makes good sense. By holding the mining
industry accountable for its own actions and making it live up to
certain basic environmental standards, this bill will protect the
rights of all American citizens while ensuring that mining will
continue in a balanced and responsible manner. I support H.R. 2262, and
I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage today.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2262, the
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. Reform of this 135-year-old law is
long overdue, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this needed
legislation.
In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the General Mining Law.
The intention of the law was to promote the settlement of the American
West. Under the 1872 law, mining companies do not pay any royalties for
the publicly-owned ``hardrock'' minerals mined on federal lands. Over
the years, mining companies have been able to extract hundreds of
billions of dollars in gold, silver, platinum, copper, and uranium
without paying royalties.
It is time to overhaul this archaic law. Let me be clear that this
bill does not affect privately-owned land, but rather federal lands
that belong to all Americans. The American people deserve a fair return
for the minerals extracted from the lands they own. By comparison, the
coal, oil, and gas companies already pay royalties for their operations
on federal lands. Why should hardrock mining be any different?
Virtually every other nation that allows mining on public lands imposes
some form of royalty.
Opponents of this bill claim that charging an 8 percent royalty on
new hardrock mines and setting some basic environmental standards will
devastate the domestic mining industry and send mining jobs overseas. I
read in the paper this morning that the price of gold hit just hit a
27-year high of $800 an ounce. Platinum is now selling for $1,447 an
ounce. The worldwide demand for copper is so high that thieves have
taken to stealing phone lines in some areas so they can sell the copper
at recycling yards. Yet, in the face of these facts, opponents of the
bill implausibly argue that the mining industry in this country will
collapse if we don't continue to give away publicly-owned minerals for
free.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to bring this 19th
century mining law into the 21st century.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2262,
the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, which requires hardrock mining
companies to pay the government royalties for their operations on
federal land.
Currently, the General Mining Law of 1872 allows mining companies to
stake claims on public lands without paying royalties to the
government. Claimholders are able to purchase public lands where their
mines are located for as little as $2.50 an acre.
The bottom line is that there is no good reason that hardrock mining
companies should be exempt from royalties for using land that belongs
to all Americans. It is time we treat the hardrock mining industry just
as we do coal, oil, and gas companies who operate on public lands.
For example, miners of coal on public lands pay 8 percent on
underground deposits and 12.5 percent on surface deposits. Drillers of
oil and natural gas pay 8 percent to 16.7 percent.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1 billion in hardrock
minerals are extracted annually from federal lands. Under this bill,
future mine operations would pay an 8 percent royalty and existing
mines would pay a 4 percent royalty. It would also end the
``patenting'' practice, allows claimholders to purchase public lands
where their mines are located for as little as $2.50 an acre.
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has identified hardrock
mining as a leading source of toxic pollution in the United States.
[[Page H12410]]
According to the EPA, it will cost approximately $50 billion to clean
up abandoned hardrock mines, and 40 percent of the headwaters of
western watersheds have been polluted by mining.
Mining practices have changed since 1872. Today, mining companies
often dig holes over one mile in diameter and 1,000 feet deep, using
cyanide and other chemicals to extract metals from tons of low-grade
ore. These chemicals and the toxic metals they dissolve from the rocks
can leach into water sources. Acid mine drainage filled with heavy
metals is difficult and expensive to clean up. When spills occur,
taxpayers bear the brunt of cleaning them up.
The royalties collected under this bill would be directed towards
much needed environmental protection measures. Two-thirds of the
royalties, fees, and penalties paid by hardrock mining companies would
help to mitigate the harmful effects of past mining activities on water
supplies and public health. The funds would be used to restore land,
water, and wildlife harmed by mining, and to clean up the abandoned
mines and toxic waste materials.
The remaining one-third would go to assist states and localities
impacted by hardrock mining to provide public facilities and services.
H.R. 2662 also expands the types of land on which mining would be
prohibited to include wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and
certain roadless areas in national forests, adding necessary
protections to some of our national treasures.
H.R. 2262 brings much needed reforms to hardrock mining operations.
The bill ends priority status for mining interests, and ensures that
mining on public lands takes place in a manner that protects taxpayers
and the environment, and I urge its support.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:
H.R. 2262
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Hardrock
Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and references.
Sec. 3. Application rules.
TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 101. Limitation on patents.
Sec. 102. Royalty.
Sec. 103. Hardrock mining claim maintenance fee.
Sec. 104. Effect of payments for use and occupancy of claims.
TITLE II--PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES
Sec. 201. Lands open to location.
Sec. 202. Withdrawal petitions by States, political subdivisions, and
Indian tribes.
TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND
DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 301. General standard for hardrock mining on Federal land.
Sec. 302. Permits.
Sec. 303. Exploration permit.
Sec. 304. Operations permit.
Sec. 305. Persons ineligible for permits.
Sec. 306. Financial assurance.
Sec. 307. Operation and reclamation.
Sec. 308. State law and regulation.
Sec. 309. Limitation on the issuance of permits.
TITLE IV--MINING MITIGATION
Subtitle A--Locatable Minerals Fund
Sec. 401. Establishment of Fund.
Sec. 402. Contents of Fund.
Sec. 403. Subaccounts.
Subtitle B--Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account
Sec. 411. Use and objectives of the Account.
Sec. 412. Eligible lands and waters.
Sec. 413. Expenditures.
Sec. 414. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Use of Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account
Sec. 421. Use and objectives of the Account.
Sec. 422. Allocation of funds.
TITLE V--ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Administrative Provisions
Sec. 501. Policy functions.
Sec. 502. User fees.
Sec. 503. Inspection and monitoring.
Sec. 504. Citizens suits.
Sec. 505. Administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 506. Enforcement.
Sec. 507. Regulations.
Sec. 508. Effective date.
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 511. Oil shale claims subject to special rules.
Sec. 512. Purchasing power adjustment.
Sec. 513. Savings clause.
Sec. 514. Availability of public records.
Sec. 515. Miscellaneous powers.
Sec. 516. Multiple mineral development and surface resources.
Sec. 517. Mineral materials.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES.
(a) In General.--As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``affiliate'' means with respect to any
person, any of the following:
(A) Any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with such person.
(B) Any partner of such person.
(C) Any person owning at least 10 percent of the voting
shares of such person.
(2) The term ``applicant'' means any person applying for a
permit under this Act or a modification to or a renewal of a
permit under this Act.
(3) The term ``beneficiation'' means the crushing and
grinding of locatable mineral ore and such processes as are
employed to free the mineral from other constituents,
including but not necessarily limited to, physical and
chemical separation techniques.
(4) The term ``casual use''--
(A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means mineral
activities that do not ordinarily result in any disturbance
of public lands and resources;
(B) includes collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or
mineral specimens using handtools, hand panning, or
nonmotorized sluicing; and
(C) does not include--
(i) the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, suction
dredging, or explosives;
(ii) the use of motor vehicles in areas closed to off-road
vehicles;
(iii) the construction of roads or drill pads; and
(iv) the use of toxic or hazardous materials.
(5) The term ``claim holder'' means a person holding a
mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located
under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance
with such laws and this Act. Such term may include an agent
of a claim holder.
(6) The term ``control'' means having the ability, directly
or indirectly, to determine (without regard to whether
exercised through one or more corporate structures) the
manner in which an entity conducts mineral activities,
through any means, including without limitation, ownership
interest, authority to commit the entity's real or financial
assets, position as a director, officer, or partner of the
entity, or contractual arrangement.
(7) The term ``exploration''--
(A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means creating
surface disturbance other than casual use, to evaluate the
type, extent, quantity, or quality of minerals present;
(B) includes mineral activities associated with sampling,
drilling, and analyzing locatable mineral values; and
(C) does not include extraction of mineral material for
commercial use or sale.
(8) The term ``Federal land'' means any land, and any
interest in land, that is owned by the United States and open
to location of mining claims under the general mining laws
and title II of this Act.
(9) The term ``Indian lands'' means lands held in trust for
the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual or held by an
Indian tribe or individual subject to a restriction by the
United States against alienation.
(10) The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village or regional corporation
as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 and following), that is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians.
(11) The term ``locatable mineral''--
(A) subject to subparagraph (B), means any mineral, the
legal and beneficial title to which remains in the United
States and that is not subject to disposition under any of--
(i) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
(ii) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 and
following);
(iii) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the
Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
(iv) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C.
351 and following); and
(B) does not include any mineral that is subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the United States
and is--
(i) held in trust by the United States for any Indian or
Indian tribe, as defined in section 2 of the Indian Mineral
Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101); or
(ii) owned by any Indian or Indian tribe, as defined in
that section.
(12) The term ``mineral activities'' means any activity on
a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim for,
related to, or incidental to, mineral exploration, mining,
beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities for any
locatable mineral.
(13) The term ``National Conservation System unit'' means
any unit of the National Park System, National Wildlife
Refuge System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or
National Trails System, or a National Conservation Area, a
National Recreation Area, a National Monument, or any unit of
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
(14) The term ``operator'' means any person proposing or
authorized by a permit issued under this Act to conduct
mineral activities and any agent of such person.
(15) The term ``person'' means an individual, Indian tribe,
partnership, association, society,
[[Page H12411]]
joint venture, joint stock company, firm, company,
corporation, cooperative, or other organization and any
instrumentality of State or local government including any
publicly owned utility or publicly owned corporation of State
or local government.
(16) The term ``processing'' means processes downstream of
beneficiation employed to prepare locatable mineral ore into
the final marketable product, including but not limited to
smelting and electrolytic refining.
(17) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior, unless otherwise specified.
(18) The term ``temporary cessation'' means a halt in mine-
related production activities for a continuous period of no
longer than 5 years.
(19) The term ``undue degradation'' means irreparable harm
to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental
resources on public lands that cannot be effectively
mitigated.
(b) Title II.--
(1) Valid existing rights.--As used in title II, the term
``valid existing rights'' means a mining claim or millsite
claim located on lands described in section 201(b), that--
(A) was properly located and maintained under this Act
prior to and on the applicable date; or
(B)(i) was properly located and maintained under the
general mining laws prior to the applicable date;
(ii) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral
deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws on the
applicable date, or satisfied the limitations under existing
law for millsite claims; and
(iii) continues to be valid under this Act.
(2) Applicable date.--As used in paragraph (1), the term
``applicable date'' means one of the following:
(A) For lands described in paragraph (1) of section 201(b),
the date of the recommendation referred to in paragraph (1)
of that section if such recommendation is made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) For lands described in paragraph (1) of section 201(b),
if the recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) of that
section is made before the date of the enactment of this Act,
the earlier of--
(i) the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(ii) the date of any withdrawal of such lands from mineral
activities.
(C) For lands described in paragraph (3)(B) of section
201(b), the date of the enactment of this Act.
(D) For lands described in paragraph (3)(A) or (3)(C) of
section 201(b), the date of the enactment of the amendment to
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 and following)
listing the river segment for study.
(E) For lands described in paragraph (3)(B) of section
201(b), the date of the determination of eligibility of such
lands for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System.
(F) For lands described in paragraph (4) of section 201(b),
the date of the withdrawal under other law.
(c) References to Other Laws.--(1) Any reference in this
Act to the term general mining laws is a reference to those
Acts that generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and
sections 161 and 162, of title 30, United States Code.
(2) Any reference in this Act to the Act of July 23, 1955,
is a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act to amend the Act
of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681) and the mining laws to
provide for multiple use of the surface of the same tracts of
the public lands, and for other purposes'' (30 U.S.C. 601 and
following).
SEC. 3. APPLICATION RULES.
(a) In General.--This Act applies to any mining claim,
millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located under the
general mining laws, before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Preexisting Claims.--(1) Any unpatented mining claim or
millsite claim located under the general mining laws before
the date of enactment of this Act for which a plan of
operation has not been approved or a notice filed prior to
the date of enactment shall, upon the effective date of this
Act, be subject to the requirements of this Act, except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2)(A) If a plan of operations is approved for mineral
activities on any claim or site referred to in paragraph (1)
prior to the date of enactment of this Act but such
operations have not commenced prior to the date of enactment
of this Act--
(i) during the 10-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act, mineral activities at such claim or
site shall be subject to such plan of operations;
(ii) during such 10-year period, modifications of any such
plan may be made in accordance with the provisions of law
applicable prior to the enactment of this Act if such
modifications are deemed minor by the Secretary concerned;
and
(iii) the operator shall bring such mineral activities into
compliance with this Act by the end of such 10-year period.
(B) Where an application for modification of a plan of
operations referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) has been
timely submitted and an approved plan expires prior to
Secretarial action on the application, mineral activities and
reclamation may continue in accordance with the terms of the
expired plan until the Secretary makes an administrative
decision on the application.
(c) Federal Lands Subject to Existing Permit.--(1) Any
Federal land shall not be subject to the requirements of
section 102 if the land is--
(A) subject to an operations permit; and
(B) producing valuable locatable minerals in commercial
quantities prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Any Federal land added through a plan modification to
an operations permit on Federal land that is submitted after
the date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to the
terms of section 102.
(d) Application of Act to Beneficiation and Processing of
Non-Federal Minerals on Federal Lands.--The provisions of
this Act (including the environmental protection requirements
of title III) shall apply in the same manner and to the same
extent to mining claims, millsite claims, and tunnel site
claims used for beneficiation or processing activities for
any mineral without regard to whether or not the legal and
beneficial title to the mineral is held by the United States.
This subsection applies only to minerals that are locatable
minerals or minerals that would be locatable minerals if the
legal and beneficial title to such minerals were held by the
United States.
TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 101. LIMITATION ON PATENTS.
(a) Mining Claims.--
(1) Determinations required.--After the date of enactment
of this Act, no patent shall be issued by the United States
for any mining claim located under the general mining laws
unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim
concerned--
(A) a patent application was filed with the Secretary on or
before September 30, 1994; and
(B) all requirements established under sections 2325 and
2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein
or lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims
were fully complied with by that date.
(2) Right to patent.--If the Secretary makes the
determinations referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1) for any mining claim, the holder of the claim
shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the same
manner and degree to which such claim holder would have been
entitled to prior to the enactment of this Act, unless and
until such determinations are withdrawn or invalidated by the
Secretary or by a court of the United States.
(b) Millsite Claims.--
(1) Determinations required.--After the date of enactment
of this Act, no patent shall be issued by the United States
for any millsite claim located under the general mining laws
unless the Secretary determines that for the millsite
concerned--
(A) a patent application for such land was filed with the
Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and
(B) all requirements applicable to such patent application
were fully complied with by that date.
(2) Right to patent.--If the Secretary makes the
determinations referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1) for any millsite claim, the holder of the claim
shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the same
manner and degree to which such claim holder would have been
entitled to prior to the enactment of this Act, unless and
until such determinations are withdrawn or invalidated by the
Secretary or by a court of the United States.
SEC. 102. ROYALTY.
(a) Reservation of Royalty.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
subject to paragraph (3), production of all locatable
minerals from any mining claim located under the general
mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, or
mineral concentrates or products derived from locatable
minerals from any such mining claim, as the case may be,
shall be subject to a royalty of 8 percent of the gross
income from mining. The claim holder or any operator to whom
the claim holder has assigned the obligation to make royalty
payments under the claim and any person who controls such
claim holder or operator shall be liable for payment of such
royalties.
(2) Royalty for federal lands subject to existing permit.--
The royalty under paragraph (1) shall be 4 percent in the
case of any Federal land that--
(A) is subject to an operations permit on the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) produces valuable locatable minerals in commercial
quantities on the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Federal land added to existing operations permit.--Any
Federal land added through a plan modification to an
operations permit on Federal land that is submitted after the
date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to the royalty
that applies to other Federal land that is subject to the
operations permit before that submission under paragraph (1)
or (2), as applicable.
(4) Other application provision not effective.--Section
3(c) of this Act shall have no force or effect.
(5) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as
royalties under this subsection shall be deposited into the
account established under section 401.
(b) Duties of Claim Holders, Operators, and Transporters.--
(1) A person--
(A) who is required to make any royalty payment under this
section shall make such payments to the United States at such
times and in such manner as the Secretary may by rule
prescribe; and
(B) shall notify the Secretary, in the time and manner as
may be specified by the Secretary, of any assignment that
such person may have made of the obligation to make any
royalty or other payment under a mining claim.
(2) Any person paying royalties under this section shall
file a written instrument, together with the first royalty
payment, affirming that such person is responsible for making
proper payments for all amounts due for all time periods for
which such person has a payment responsibility. Such
responsibility for the periods referred to in the preceding
sentence shall include any and all additional amounts billed
by
[[Page H12412]]
the Secretary and determined to be due by final agency or
judicial action. Any person liable for royalty payments under
this section who assigns any payment obligation shall remain
jointly and severally liable for all royalty payments due for
the claim for the period.
(3) A person conducting mineral activities shall--
(A) develop and comply with the site security provisions in
the operations permit designed to protect from theft the
locatable minerals, concentrates or products derived
therefrom which are produced or stored on a mining claim, and
such provisions shall conform with such minimum standards as
the Secretary may prescribe by rule, taking into account the
variety of circumstances on mining claims; and
(B) not later than the 5th business day after production
begins anywhere on a mining claim, or production resumes
after more than 90 days after production was suspended,
notify the Secretary, in the manner prescribed by the
Secretary, of the date on which such production has begun or
resumed.
(4) The Secretary may by rule require any person engaged in
transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate, or product
derived therefrom to carry on his or her person, in his or
her vehicle, or in his or her immediate control,
documentation showing, at a minimum, the amount, origin, and
intended destination of the locatable mineral, concentrate,
or product derived therefrom in such circumstances as the
Secretary determines is appropriate.
(c) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.--(1) A claim
holder, operator, or other person directly involved in
developing, producing, processing, transporting, purchasing,
or selling locatable minerals, concentrates, or products
derived therefrom, subject to this Act, through the point of
royalty computation shall establish and maintain any records,
make any reports, and provide any information that the
Secretary may reasonably require for the purposes of
implementing this section or determining compliance with
rules or orders under this section. Such records shall
include, but not be limited to, periodic reports, records,
documents, and other data. Such reports may also include, but
not be limited to, pertinent technical and financial data
relating to the quantity, quality, composition volume,
weight, and assay of all minerals extracted from the mining
claim. Upon the request of any officer or employee duly
designated by the Secretary conducting an audit or
investigation pursuant to this section, the appropriate
records, reports, or information that may be required by this
section shall be made available for inspection and
duplication by such officer or employee. Failure by a claim
holder, operator, or other person referred to in the first
sentence to cooperate with such an audit, provide data
required by the Secretary, or grant access to information
may, at the discretion of the Secretary, result in
involuntary forfeiture of the claim.
(2) Records required by the Secretary under this section
shall be maintained for 7 years after release of financial
assurance under section 306 unless the Secretary notifies the
operator that the Secretary has initiated an audit or
investigation involving such records and that such records
must be maintained for a longer period. In any case when an
audit or investigation is underway, records shall be
maintained until the Secretary releases the operator of the
obligation to maintain such records.
(d) Audits.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct such
audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters,
purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or
indirectly involved in the production or sales of minerals
covered by this Act, as the Secretary deems necessary for the
purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of this
section. For purposes of performing such audits, the
Secretary shall, at reasonable times and upon request, have
access to, and may copy, all books, papers and other
documents that relate to compliance with any provision of
this section by any person.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary is
authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the
Secretary of Agriculture to share information concerning the
royalty management of locatable minerals, concentrates, or
products derived therefrom, to carry out inspection,
auditing, investigation, or enforcement (not including the
collection of royalties, civil or criminal penalties, or
other payments) activities under this section in cooperation
with the Secretary, and to carry out any other activity
described in this section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3)(A) of this
subsection (relating to trade secrets), and pursuant to a
cooperative agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall,
upon request, have access to all royalty accounting
information in the possession of the Secretary respecting the
production, removal, or sale of locatable minerals,
concentrates, or products derived therefrom from claims on
lands open to location under this Act.
(3) Trade secrets, proprietary, and other confidential
information protected from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code, popularly known as the Freedom
of Information Act, shall be made available by the Secretary
to other Federal agencies as necessary to assure compliance
with this Act and other Federal laws. The Secretary, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal officials
shall ensure that such information is provided protection in
accordance with the requirements of that section.
(f) Interest and Substantial Underreporting Assessments.--
(1) In the case of mining claims where royalty payments are
not received by the Secretary on the date that such payments
are due, the Secretary shall charge interest on such
underpayments at the same interest rate as the rate
applicable under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. In the case of an underpayment, interest shall
be computed and charged only on the amount of the deficiency
and not on the total amount.
(2) If there is any underreporting of royalty owed on
production from a claim for any production month by any
person liable for royalty payments under this section, the
Secretary shall assess a penalty of not greater than 25
percent of the amount of that underreporting.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term
``underreporting'' means the difference between the royalty
on the value of the production that should have been reported
and the royalty on the value of the production which was
reported, if the value that should have been reported is
greater than the value that was reported.
(4) The Secretary may waive or reduce the assessment
provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection if the person
liable for royalty payments under this section corrects the
underreporting before the date such person receives notice
from the Secretary that an underreporting may have occurred,
or before 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
section, whichever is later.
(5) The Secretary shall waive any portion of an assessment
under paragraph (2) of this subsection attributable to that
portion of the underreporting for which the person
responsible for paying the royalty demonstrates that--
(A) such person had written authorization from the
Secretary to report royalty on the value of the production on
basis on which it was reported,
(B) such person had substantial authority for reporting
royalty on the value of the production on the basis on which
it was reported,
(C) such person previously had notified the Secretary, in
such manner as the Secretary may by rule prescribe, of
relevant reasons or facts affecting the royalty treatment of
specific production which led to the underreporting, or
(D) such person meets any other exception which the
Secretary may, by rule, establish.
(6) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be
deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established under
title IV.
(g) Delegation.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior acting
through the Director of the Minerals Management Service.
(h) Expanded Royalty Obligations.--Each person liable for
royalty payments under this section shall be jointly and
severally liable for royalty on all locatable minerals,
concentrates, or products derived therefrom lost or wasted
from a mining claim located under the general mining laws and
maintained in compliance with this Act when such loss or
waste is due to negligence on the part of any person or due
to the failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order
issued under this section.
(i) Gross Income From Mining Defined.--For the purposes of
this section, for any locatable mineral, the term ``gross
income from mining'' has the same meaning as the term ``gross
income'' in section 613(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(j) Effective Date.--The royalty under this section shall
take effect with respect to the production of locatable
minerals after the enactment of this Act, but any royalty
payments attributable to production during the first 12
calendar months after the enactment of this Act shall be
payable at the expiration of such 12-month period.
(k) Failure To Comply With Royalty Requirements.--Any
person who fails to comply with the requirements of this
section or any regulation or order issued to implement this
section shall be liable for a civil penalty under section 109
of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (30 U.S.C.
1719) to the same extent as if the claim located under the
general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this
Act were a lease under that Act.
SEC. 103. HARDROCK MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.
(a) Fee.--
(1) Except as provided in section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (relating to oil shale claims), for each
unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site on federally
owned lands, whether located before, on, or after enactment
of this Act, each claimant shall pay to the Secretary, on or
before August 31 of each year, a claim maintenance fee of
$150 per claim to hold such unpatented mining claim, mill or
tunnel site for the assessment year beginning at noon on the
next day, September 1. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in
lieu of the assessment work requirement contained in the
Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) and the related
filing requirements contained in section 314(a) and (c) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1744(a) and (c)).
(2)(A) The claim maintenance fee required under this
subsection shall be waived for a claimant who certifies in
writing to the Secretary that on the date the payment was
due, the claimant and all related parties--
(i) held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, or
tunnel sites, or any combination thereof, on public lands;
and
(ii) have performed assessment work required under the
Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) to maintain the
mining claims held by the claimant and such related parties
for the assessment year ending on noon of September 1 of the
calendar year in which payment of the claim maintenance fee
was due.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to any
claimant, the term ``all related parties'' means--
(i) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in
section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the
claimant; or
(ii) a person affiliated with the claimant, including--
(I) a person controlled by, controlling, or under common
control with the claimant; or
(II) a subsidiary or parent company or corporation of the
claimant.
[[Page H12413]]
(3)(A) The Secretary shall adjust the fees required by this
subsection to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department
of Labor every 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an
adjustment to be reasonable.
(B) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any
adjustment made under this paragraph not later than July 1 of
any year in which the adjustment is made.
(C) A fee adjustment under this paragraph shall begin to
apply the calendar year following the calendar year in which
it is made.
(4) Monies received under this subsection shall be
deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established by this
Act.
(b) Location.--
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law, for every
unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site located after
the date of enactment of this Act and before September 30,
1998, the locator shall, at the time the location notice is
recorded with the Bureau of Land Management, pay to the
Secretary a location fee, in addition to the fee required by
subsection (a) of $50 per claim.
(2) Moneys received under this subsection that are not
otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws
by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the
Locatable Minerals Fund established by this Act.
(c) Co-Ownership.--The co-ownership provisions of the
Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) will remain in
effect except that the annual claim maintenance fee, where
applicable, shall replace applicable assessment requirements
and expenditures.
(d) Failure To Pay.--Failure to pay the claim maintenance
fee as required by subsection (a) shall conclusively
constitute a forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill
or tunnel site by the claimant and the claim shall be deemed
null and void by operation of law.
(e) Other Requirements.--
(1) Nothing in this section shall change or modify the
requirements of section 314(b) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(b)), or the
requirements of section 314(c) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(c)) related to filings
required by section 314(b), which remain in effect.
(2) Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States (30 U.S.C. 28) is amended by inserting ``or section
103(a) of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''
after ``Act of 1993,''.
SEC. 104. EFFECT OF PAYMENTS FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF CLAIMS.
Timely payment of the claim maintenance fee required by
section 103 of this Act or any related law relating to the
use of Federal land, asserts the claimant's authority to use
and occupy the Federal land concerned for prospecting and
exploration, consistent with the requirements of this Act and
other applicable law.
TITLE II--PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES
SEC. 201. LANDS OPEN TO LOCATION.
(a) Lands Open to Location.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), mining claims may be located under the
general mining laws only on such lands and interests as were
open to the location of mining claims under the general
mining laws immediately before the enactment of this Act.
(b) Lands Not Open to Location.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to valid existing rights, each
of the following shall not be open to the location of mining
claims under the general mining laws on or after the date of
enactment of this Act:
(1) Wilderness study areas.
(2) Areas of critical environmental concern.
(3) Areas designated for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), areas designated for potential
addition to such system pursuant to section 5(a) of that Act
(16 U.S.C. 1276(a)), and areas determined to be eligible for
inclusion in such system pursuant to section 5(d) of such Act
(16 U.S.C. 1276(d)).
(4) Any area identified in the set of inventoried roadless
areas maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area
Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2,
dated November 2000.
(c) Existing Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act
limits the authority granted the Secretary in section 204 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1714) to withdraw public lands.
SEC. 202. WITHDRAWAL PETITIONS BY STATES, POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, AND INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) In General.--Any State or political subdivision of a
State or an Indian tribe may submit a petition to the
Secretary for the withdrawal of a specific tract of Federal
land from the operation of the general mining laws, in order
to protect specific values identified in the petition that
are important to the State or political subdivision or Indian
tribe. Such values may include the value of a watershed to
supply drinking water, wildlife habitat value, cultural or
historic resources, or value for scenic vistas important to
the local economy, and other similar values. In the case of
an Indian tribe, the petition may also identify religious or
cultural values that are important to the Indian tribe. The
petition shall contain the information required by section
204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1714).
(b) Consideration of Petition.--The Secretary--
(1) shall solicit public comment on the petition;
(2) shall make a final decision on the petition within 180
days after receiving it; and
(3) shall grant the petition unless the Secretary makes and
publishes in the Federal Register specific findings why a
decision to grant the petition would be against the national
interest.
TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND
DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 301. GENERAL STANDARD FOR HARDROCK MINING ON FEDERAL
LAND.
Notwithstanding section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)), the first
section of the Act of June 4, 1897 (chapter 2; 30 Stat. 36 16
U.S.C. 478), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and in accordance with this title
and applicable law, unless expressly stated otherwise in this
Act, the Secretary--
(1) shall ensure that mineral activities on any Federal
land that is subject to a mining claim, millsite claim, or
tunnel site claim is carefully controlled to prevent undue
degradation of public lands and resources; and
(2) shall not grant permission to engage in mineral
activities if the Secretary, after considering the evidence,
makes and publishes in the Federal Register a determination
that undue degradation would result from such activities.
SEC. 302. PERMITS.
(a) Permits Required.--No person may engage in mineral
activities on Federal land that may cause a disturbance of
surface resources, including but not limited to land, air,
ground water and surface water, and fish and wildlife,
unless--
(1) the claim was properly located under the general mining
laws and maintained in compliance with such laws and this
Act; and
(2) a permit was issued to such person under this title
authorizing such activities.
(b) Negligible Disturbance.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a)(2), a permit under this title shall not be required for
mineral activities that are a casual use of the Federal land.
(c) Coordination With NEPA Process.--To the extent
practicable, the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture
shall conduct the permit processes under this Act in
coordination with the timing and other requirements under
section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332).
SEC. 303. EXPLORATION PERMIT.
(a) Authorized Exploration Activity.--Any claim holder may
apply for an exploration permit for any mining claim
authorizing the claim holder to remove a reasonable amount of
the locatable minerals from the claim for analysis, study and
testing. Such permit shall not authorize the claim holder to
remove any mineral for sale nor to conduct any activities
other than those required for exploration for locatable
minerals and reclamation.
(b) Permit Application Requirements.--An application for an
exploration permit under this section shall be submitted in a
manner satisfactory to the Secretary or, for National Forest
System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, and shall contain
an exploration plan, a reclamation plan for the proposed
exploration, and such documentation as necessary to ensure
compliance with applicable Federal and State environmental
laws and regulations.
(c) Reclamation Plan Requirements.--The reclamation plan
required to be included in a permit application under
subsection (b) shall include such provisions as may be
jointly prescribed by the Secretary and the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(d) Permit Issuance or Denial.--The Secretary, or for
National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall issue an exploration permit pursuant to an application
under this section unless such Secretary makes any of the
following determinations:
(1) The permit application, the exploration plan and
reclamation plan are not complete and accurate.
(2) The applicant has not demonstrated that proposed
reclamation can be accomplished.
(3) The proposed exploration activities and condition of
the land after the completion of exploration activities and
final reclamation would not conform with the land use plan
applicable to the area subject to mineral activities.
(4) The area subject to the proposed permit is included
within an area not open to location under section 201.
(5) The applicant has not demonstrated that the exploration
plan and reclamation plan will be in compliance with the
requirements of this Act and all other applicable Federal
requirements, and any State requirements agreed to by the
Secretary of the Interior (or Secretary of Agriculture, as
appropriate).
(6) The applicant has not demonstrated that the
requirements of section 306 (relating to financial assurance)
will be met.
(7) The applicant is eligible to receive a permit under
section 305.
(e) Term of Permit.--An exploration permit shall be for a
stated term. The term shall be no greater than that necessary
to accomplish the proposed exploration, and in no case for
more than 10 years.
(f) Permit Modification.--During the term of an exploration
permit the permit holder may submit an application to modify
the permit. To approve a proposed modification to the permit,
the Secretary concerned shall make the same determinations as
are required in the case of an original permit, except that
the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture may specify by
joint rule the extent to which requirements for initial
exploration permits under this section shall apply to
applications to modify an exploration permit based on whether
such modifications are deemed significant or minor.
(g) Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Rights.--(1) No
transfer, assignment, or sale of rights granted by a permit
issued under this section shall be made without the prior
written approval of the Secretary or for National Forest
System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture.
[[Page H12414]]
(2) Such Secretary shall allow a person holding a permit to
transfer, assign, or sell rights under the permit to a
successor, if the Secretary finds, in writing, that the
successor--
(A) is eligible to receive a permit in accordance with
section 304(d);
(B) has submitted evidence of financial assurance
satisfactory under section 306; and
(C) meets any other requirements specified by the
Secretary.
(3) The successor in interest shall assume the liability
and reclamation responsibilities established by the existing
permit and shall conduct the mineral activities in full
compliance with this Act, and the terms and conditions of the
permit as in effect at the time of transfer, assignment, or
sale.
(4) Each application for approval of a permit transfer,
assignment, or sale pursuant to this subsection shall be
accompanied by a fee payable to the Secretary of the Interior
in such amount as may be established by such Secretary. Such
amount shall be equal to the actual or anticipated cost to
the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture, as
appropriate, of reviewing and approving or disapproving such
transfer, assignment, or sale, as determined by the Secretary
of the Interior. All moneys received under this subsection
shall be deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established
under title IV of this Act.
SEC. 304. OPERATIONS PERMIT.
(a) Operations Permit.--(1) Any claim holder that is in
compliance with the general mining laws and section 103 of
this Act may apply to the Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, for an operations
permit authorizing the claim holder to carry out mineral
activities, other than casual use, on--
(A) any valid mining claim, valid millsite claim, or valid
tunnel site claim; and
(B) such additional Federal land as the Secretary may
determine is necessary to conduct the proposed mineral
activities, if the operator obtains a right-of-way permit for
use of such additional lands under title V of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761 et
seq.) and agrees to pay all fees required under that title
for the permit under that title.
(2) If the Secretary decides to issue such permit, the
permit shall include such terms and conditions as prescribed
by such Secretary to carry out this title.
(b) Permit Application Requirements.--An application for an
operations permit under this section shall be submitted in a
manner satisfactory to the Secretary concerned and shall
contain site characterization data, an operations plan, a
reclamation plan, monitoring plans, long-term maintenance
plans, to the extent necessary, and such documentation as
necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal and
State environmental laws and regulations. If the proposed
mineral activities will be carried out in conjunction with
mineral activities on adjacent non-Federal lands, information
on the location and nature of such operations may be required
by the Secretary.
(c) Permit Issuance or Denial.--(1) After providing for
public participation pursuant to subsection (i), the
Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary
of Agriculture, shall issue an operations permit if such
Secretary makes each of the following determinations in
writing, and shall deny a permit if such Secretary finds that
the application and applicant do not fully meet the following
requirements:
(A) The permit application, including the site
characterization data, operations plan, and reclamation plan,
are complete and accurate and sufficient for developing a
good understanding of the anticipated impacts of the mineral
activities and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation and
control.
(B) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
reclamation in the operation and reclamation plan can be and
is likely to be accomplished by the applicant and will not
cause undue degradation.
(C) The condition of the land, including the fish and
wildlife resources and habitat contained thereon, after the
completion of mineral activities and final reclamation, will
conform to the land use plan applicable to the area subject
to mineral activities and are returned to a productive use.
(D) The area subject to the proposed plan is open to
location for the types of mineral activities proposed.
(E) The proposed operation has been designed to prevent
material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit
area.
(F) The applicant will fully comply with the requirements
of section 306 (relating to financial assurance) prior to the
initiation of operations.
(G) Neither the applicant nor operator, nor any subsidiary,
affiliate, or person controlled by or under common control
with the applicant or operator, is ineligible to receive a
permit under section 305.
(H) The reclamation plan demonstrates that 10 years
following mine closure, no treatment of surface or ground
water for carcinogens or toxins will be required to meet
water quality standards at the point of discharge.
(2) With respect to any activities specified in the
reclamation plan referred to in subsection (b) that
constitutes a removal or remedial action under section 101 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following), the
Secretary shall consult with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency prior to the issuance of an
operations permit. The Administrator shall ensure that the
reclamation plan does not require activities that would
increase the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial
actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and
following) or corrective actions under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 and following).
(d) Term of Permit; Renewal.--
(1) An operations permit--
(A) shall be for a term that is no longer than the shorter
of--
(i) the period necessary to accomplish the proposed mineral
activities subject to the permit; and
(ii) 20 years; and
(B) shall be renewed for an additional 20-year period if
the operation is in compliance with the requirements of this
Act and other applicable law.
(2) Failure by the operator to commence mineral activities
within 2 years of the date scheduled in an operations permit
shall require a modification of the permit if the Secretary
concerned determines that modifications are necessary to
comply with section 201.
(e) Permit Modification.--
(1) During the term of an operations permit the operator
may submit an application to modify the permit (including the
operations plan or reclamation plan, or both).
(2) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the
Secretary of Agriculture, may, at any time, require
reasonable modification to any operations plan or reclamation
plan upon a determination that the requirements of this Act
cannot be met if the plan is followed as approved. Such
determination shall be based on a written finding and subject
to public notice and hearing requirements established by the
Secretary concerned.
(3) A permit modification is required before changes are
made to the approved plan of operations, or if unanticipated
events or conditions exist on the mine site, including in the
case of--
(A) development of acid or toxic drainage;
(B) loss of springs or water supplies;
(C) water quantity, water quality, or other resulting water
impacts that are significantly different than those predicted
in the application;
(D) the need for long-term water treatment;
(E) significant reclamation difficulties or reclamation
failure;
(F) the discovery of significant scientific, cultural, or
biological resources that were not addressed in the original
plan; or
(G) the discovery of hazards to public safety.
(f) Temporary Cessation of Operations.--(1) An operator
conducting mineral activities under an operations permit in
effect under this title may not temporarily cease mineral
activities for a period greater than 180 days unless the
Secretary concerned has approved such temporary cessation or
unless the temporary cessation is permitted under the
original permit. Any operator temporarily ceasing mineral
activities for a period greater than 90 days under an
operations permit issued before the date of the enactment of
this Act shall submit, before the expiration of such 90-day
period, a complete application for temporary cessation of
operations to the Secretary concerned for approval unless the
temporary cessation is permitted under the original permit.
(2) An application for approval of temporary cessation of
operations shall include such information required under
subsection (b) and any other provisions prescribed by the
Secretary concerned to minimize impacts on the environment.
After receipt of a complete application for temporary
cessation of operations such Secretary shall conduct an
inspection of the area for which temporary cessation of
operations has been requested.
(3) To approve an application for temporary cessation of
operations, the Secretary concerned shall make each of the
following determinations:
(A) A determination that the methods for securing surface
facilities and restricting access to the permit area, or
relevant portions thereof, will effectively ensure against
hazards to the health and safety of the public and fish and
wildlife.
(B) A determination that reclamation is in compliance with
the approved reclamation plan, except in those areas
specifically designated in the application for temporary
cessation of operations for which a delay in meeting such
standards is necessary to facilitate the resumption of
operations.
(C) A determination that the amount of financial assurance
filed with the permit application is sufficient to assure
completion of the reclamation activities identified in the
approved reclamation plan in the event of forfeiture.
(D) A determination that any outstanding notices of
violation and cessation orders incurred in connection with
the plan for which temporary cessation is being requested are
either stayed pursuant to an administrative or judicial
appeal proceeding or are in the process of being abated to
the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned.
(g) Permit Reviews.--The Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall review each
permit issued under this section every 10 years during the
term of such permit, shall provide public notice of the
permit review, and, based upon a written finding, such
Secretary shall require the operator to take such actions as
the Secretary deems necessary to assure that mineral
activities conform to the permit, including adjustment of
financial assurance requirements.
(h) Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Rights.--(1) No
transfer, assignment, or sale of rights granted by a permit
under this section shall be made without the prior written
approval of the Secretary, or for National Forest System
lands the Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the
Secretary of Agriculture, may allow a person holding a permit
to transfer, assign, or sell rights under the permit to a
successor, if such Secretary finds, in writing, that the
successor--
[[Page H12415]]
(A) has submitted information required and is eligible to
receive a permit in accordance with section 305;
(B) has submitted evidence of financial assurance
satisfactory under section 306; and
(C) meets any other requirements specified by such
Secretary.
(3) The successor in interest shall assume the liability
and reclamation responsibilities established by the existing
permit and shall conduct the mineral activities in full
compliance with this Act, and the terms and conditions of the
permit as in effect at the time of transfer, assignment, or
sale.
(4) Each application for approval of a permit transfer,
assignment, or sale pursuant to this subsection shall be
accompanied by a fee payable to the Secretary of the
Interior, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary
of Agriculture, in such amount as may be established by such
Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, by the
Secretary of Agriculture. Such amount shall be equal to the
actual or anticipated cost to the Secretary or, for National
Forest System lands, to the Secretary of Agriculture, of
reviewing and approving or disapproving such transfer,
assignment, or sale, as determined by such Secretary. All
moneys received under this subsection shall be deposited in
the Locatable Minerals Fund established under title IV.
(i) Public Participation.--The Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly promulgate
regulations to ensure transparency and public participation
in permit decisions required under this Act, consistent with
any requirements that apply to such decisions under section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332).
SEC. 305. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR PERMITS.
(a) Current Violations.--Unless corrective action has been
taken in accordance with subsection (c), no permit under this
title shall be issued or transferred to an applicant if the
applicant or any agent of the applicant, the operator (if
different than the applicant) of the claim concerned, any
claim holder (if different than the applicant) of the claim
concerned, or any affiliate or officer or director of the
applicant is currently in violation of any of the following:
(1) A provision of this Act or any regulation under this
Act.
(2) An applicable State or Federal toxic substance, solid
waste, air, water quality, or fish and wildlife conservation
law or regulation at any site where mining, beneficiation, or
processing activities are occurring or have occurred.
(3) The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(30 U.S.C. 1201 and following) or any regulation implementing
that Act at any site where surface coal mining operations
have occurred or are occurring.
(b) Suspension.--The Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall suspend an
operations permit, in whole or in part, if such Secretary
determines that any of the entities described in subsection
(a) were in violation of any requirement listed in subsection
(a) at the time the permit was issued.
(c) Correction.--(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue or
reinstate a permit under this title if the applicant submits
proof that the violation referred to in subsection (a) or (b)
has been corrected or is in the process of being corrected to
the satisfaction of such Secretary and the regulatory
authority involved or if the applicant submits proof that the
violator has filed and is presently pursuing, a direct
administrative or judicial appeal to contest the existence of
the violation. For purposes of this section, an appeal of any
applicant's relationship to an affiliate shall not constitute
a direct administrative or judicial appeal to contest the
existence of the violation.
(2) Any permit which is issued or reinstated based upon
proof submitted under this subsection shall be conditionally
approved or conditionally reinstated, as the case may be. If
the violation is not successfully abated or the violation is
upheld on appeal, the permit shall be suspended or revoked.
(d) Pattern of Willful Violations.--No permit under this
Act may be issued to any applicant if there is a demonstrated
pattern of willful violations of the environmental protection
requirements of this Act by the applicant, any affiliate of
the applicant, or the operator or claim holder if different
than the applicant.
SEC. 306. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.
(a) Financial Assurance Required.--(1) After a permit is
issued under this title and before any exploration or
operations begin under the permit, the operator shall file
with the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the
Secretary of Agriculture, evidence of financial assurance
payable to the United States. The financial assurance shall
be provided in the form of a surety bond, a trust fund,
letters of credits, government securities, certificates of
deposit, cash, or an equivalent form approved by such
Secretary.
(2) The financial assurance shall cover all lands within
the initial permit area and all affected waters that may
require restoration, treatment, or other management as a
result of mineral activities, and shall be extended to cover
all lands and waters added pursuant to any permit
modification made under section 303(f) (relating to
exploration permits) or section 304(e) (relating to
operations permits), or affected by mineral activities.
(b) Amount.--The amount of the financial assurance required
under this section shall be sufficient to assure the
completion of reclamation and restoration satisfying the
requirements of this Act if the work were to be performed by
the Secretary concerned in the event of forfeiture, including
the construction and maintenance costs for any treatment
facilities necessary to meet Federal and State environmental
requirements. The calculation of such amount shall take into
account the maximum level of financial exposure which shall
arise during the mineral activity and administrative costs
associated with a government agency reclaiming the site.
(c) Duration.--The financial assurance required under this
section shall be held for the duration of the mineral
activities and for an additional period to cover the
operator's responsibility for reclamation, restoration, and
long-term maintenance, and effluent treatment as specified in
subsection (g).
(d) Adjustments.--The amount of the financial assurance and
the terms of the acceptance of the assurance may be adjusted
by the Secretary concerned from time to time as the area
requiring coverage is increased or decreased, or where the
costs of reclamation or treatment change, or pursuant to
section 304(f) (relating to temporary cessation of
operations), but the financial assurance shall otherwise be
in compliance with this section. The Secretary concerned
shall review the financial guarantee every 3 years and as
part of the permit application review under section 304(c).
(e) Release.--Upon request, and after notice and
opportunity for public comment, and after inspection by the
Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary
of Agriculture, such Secretary may, after consultation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
release in whole or in part the financial assurance required
under this section if the Secretary makes both of the
following determinations:
(1) A determination that reclamation or restoration covered
by the financial assurance has been accomplished as required
by this Act.
(2) A determination that the terms and conditions of any
other applicable Federal requirements, and State requirements
applicable pursuant to cooperative agreements under section
308, have been fulfilled.
(f) Release Schedule.--The release referred to in
subsection (e) shall be according to the following schedule:
(1) After the operator has completed any required
backfilling, regrading, and drainage control of an area
subject to mineral activities and covered by the financial
assurance, and has commenced revegetation on the regraded
areas subject to mineral activities in accordance with the
approved plan, that portion of the total financial assurance
secured for the area subject to mineral activities
attributable to the completed activities may be released
except that sufficient assurance must be retained to address
other required reclamation and restoration needs and to
assure the long-term success of the revegetation.
(2) After the operator has completed successfully all
remaining mineral activities and reclamation activities and
all requirements of the operations plan and the reclamation
plan, and all other requirements of this Act have been fully
met, the remaining portion of the financial assurance may be
released.
During the period following release of the financial
assurance as specified in paragraph (1), until the remaining
portion of the financial assurance is released as provided in
paragraph (2), the operator shall be required to comply with
the permit issued under this title.
(g) Effluent.--Notwithstanding section 307(b)(4), where any
discharge or other water-related condition resulting from the
mineral activities requires treatment in order to meet the
applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards,
the financial assurance shall include the estimated cost of
maintaining such treatment for the projected period that will
be needed after the cessation of mineral activities. The
portion of the financial assurance attributable to such
estimated cost of treatment shall not be released until the
discharge has ceased for a period of 5 years, as determined
by ongoing monitoring and testing, or, if the discharge
continues, until the operator has met all applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards for 5 full years
without treatment.
(h) Environmental Hazards.--If the Secretary, or for
National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture,
determines, after final release of financial assurance, that
an environmental hazard resulting from the mineral activities
exists, or the terms and conditions of the explorations or
operations permit of this Act were not fulfilled in fact at
the time of release, such Secretary shall issue an order
under section 506 requiring the claim holder or operator (or
any person who controls the claim holder or operator) to
correct the condition such that applicable laws and
regulations and any conditions from the plan of operations
are met.
SEC. 307. OPERATION AND RECLAMATION.
(a) General Rule.--(1) The operator shall restore lands
subject to mineral activities carried out under a permit
issued under this title to a condition capable of
supporting--
(A) the uses which such lands were capable of supporting
prior to surface disturbance by the operator, or
(B) other beneficial uses which conform to applicable land
use plans as determined by the Secretary, or for National
Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) Reclamation shall proceed as contemporaneously as
practicable with the conduct of mineral activities. In the
case of a cessation of mineral activities beyond that
provided for as a temporary cessation under this Act,
reclamation activities shall begin immediately.
(b) Operation and Reclamation Standards.--The Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly
promulgate regulations that establish operation and
reclamation standards for mineral activities permitted under
this Act. The Secretaries may determine whether outcome-based
performance
[[Page H12416]]
standards or technology-based design standards are most
appropriate. The regulations shall address the following:
(1) Segregation, protection, and replacement of topsoil or
other suitable growth medium, and the prevention, where
possible, of soil contamination.
(2) Maintenance of the stability of all surface areas.
(3) Control of sediments to prevent erosion and manage
drainage.
(4) Minimization of the formation and migration of acidic,
alkaline, metal-bearing, or other deleterious leachate.
(5) Reduction of the visual impact of mineral activities to
the surrounding topography, including as necessary pit
backfill.
(6) Establishment of a diverse, effective, and permanent
vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the
area affected by mineral activities, and equal in extent of
cover to the natural vegetation of the area.
(7) Design and maintenance of leach operations,
impoundments, and excess waste according to standard
engineering standards to achieve and maintain stability and
reclamation of the site.
(8) Removal of structures and roads and sealing of drill
holes.
(9) Restoration of, or mitigation for, fish and wildlife
habitat disturbed by mineral activities.
(10) Preservation of cultural, paleontological, and cave
resources.
(11) Prevention and suppression of fire in the area of
mineral activities.
(c) Surface or Groundwater Withdrawals.--The Secretary
shall work with State and local governments with authority
over the allocation and use of surface and groundwater in the
area around the mine site as necessary to ensure that any
surface or groundwater withdrawals made as a result of mining
activities approved under this section do not cause undue
degradation.
(d) Special Rule.--Reclamation activities for a mining
claim that has been forfeited, relinquished, or lapsed, or a
plan that has expired or been revoked or suspended, shall
continue subject to review and approval by the Secretary, or
for National Forest System lands the Secretary of
Agriculture.
SEC. 308. STATE LAW AND REGULATION.
(a) State Law.--(1) Any reclamation, land use,
environmental, or public health protection standard or
requirement in State law or regulation that meets or exceeds
the requirements of this Act shall not be construed to be
inconsistent with any such standard.
(2) Any bonding standard or requirement in State law or
regulation that meets or exceeds the requirements of this Act
shall not be construed to be inconsistent with such
requirements.
(3) Any inspection standard or requirement in State law or
regulation that meets or exceeds the requirements of this Act
shall not be construed to be inconsistent with such
requirements.
(b) Applicability of Other State Requirements.--(1) Nothing
in this Act shall be construed as affecting any toxic
substance, solid waste, or air or water quality, standard or
requirement of any State, county, local, or tribal law or
regulation, which may be applicable to mineral activities on
lands subject to this Act.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in
any way the right of any person to enforce or protect, under
applicable law, such person's interest in water resources
affected by mineral activities on lands subject to this Act.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) Any State may enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Secretary, or for National
Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, for the
purposes of such Secretary applying such standards and
requirements referred to in subsection (a) and subsection (b)
to mineral activities or reclamation on lands subject to this
Act.
(2) In such instances where the proposed mineral activities
would affect lands not subject to this Act in addition to
lands subject to this Act, in order to approve a plan of
operations the Secretary concerned shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the State that sets forth a common
regulatory framework consistent with the requirements of this
Act for the purposes of such plan of operations. Any such
common regulatory framework shall not negate the authority of
the Federal Government to independently inspect mines and
operations and bring enforcement actions for violations.
(3) The Secretary concerned shall not enter into a
cooperative agreement with any State under this section until
after notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for
public comment and hearing.
(d) Prior Agreements.--Any cooperative agreement or such
other understanding between the Secretary concerned and any
State, or political subdivision thereof, relating to the
management of mineral activities on lands subject to this Act
that was in existence on the date of enactment of this Act
may only continue in force until 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act. During such 1-year period, the State
and the Secretary shall review the terms of the agreement and
make changes that are necessary to be consistent with this
Act.
SEC. 309. LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.
No permit shall be issued under this title that authorizes
mineral activities that would impair the land or resources of
the National Park System or a National Monument. For purposes
of this section, the term ``impair'' shall include any
diminution of the affected land including its scenic assets,
its water resources, its air quality, and its acoustic
qualities, or other changes that would impair a citizen's
experience at the National Park or National Monument.
TITLE IV--MINING MITIGATION
Subtitle A--Locatable Minerals Fund
SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established on the books of
the Treasury of the United States a separate account to be
known as the Locatable Minerals Fund (hereinafter in this
subtitle referred to as the ``Fund'').
(b) Investment.--The Secretary shall notify the Secretary
of the Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in the
Secretary's judgment, required to meet current withdrawals.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of
the Fund in public debt securities with maturities suitable
for the needs of such Fund and bearing interest at rates
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into
consideration current market yields on outstanding
marketplace obligations of the United States of comparable
maturities.
SEC. 402. CONTENTS OF FUND.
The following amounts shall be credited to the Fund:
(1) All moneys collected pursuant to section 506 (relating
to enforcement) and section 504 (relating to citizens suits).
(2) All permit fees and transfer fees received under
section 304.
(3) All donations by persons, corporations, associations,
and foundations for the purposes of this subtitle.
(4) All amounts deposited in the Fund under section 102
(relating to royalties and penalties for underreporting).
(5) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to
section 101 from issuance of patents.
(6) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to
section 103 as claim maintenance and location fees.
(7) All income on investments under section 401(b).
SEC. 403. SUBACCOUNTS.
There shall be in the Fund 2 subaccounts, as follows:
(1) The Hardrock Reclamation Account, which shall consist
of \2/3\ of the amounts credited to the Fund under section
402 and which shall be administered by the Secretary acting
through the Director of the Office of Surface Mining and
Enforcement.
(2) The Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account, which
shall consist of \1/3\ of the amounts credited to the Fund
under section 402 and which shall be administered by the
Secretary acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management.
Subtitle B--Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account
SEC. 411. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, subject to
appropriations, to use moneys in the Hardrock Reclamation
Account for the reclamation and restoration of land and water
resources adversely affected by past mineral activities on
lands the legal and beneficial title to which resides in the
United States, land within the exterior boundary of any
national forest system unit, or other lands described in
subsection (d) or section 412, including any of the
following:
(1) Protecting public health and safety.
(2) Preventing, abating, treating, and controlling water
pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
(3) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned surface and
underground mined areas.
(4) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned milling and
processing areas.
(5) Backfilling, sealing, or otherwise controlling,
abandoned underground mine entries.
(6) Revegetating land adversely affected by past mineral
activities in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation, to
enhance wildlife habitat, and for any other reclamation
purpose.
(7) Controlling of surface subsidence due to abandoned
underground mines.
(b) Priorities.--Expenditures of moneys from the Hardrock
Reclamation Account shall reflect the following priorities in
the order stated:
(1) The protection of public health and safety, from
extreme danger from the adverse effects of past mineral
activities, especially as relates to surface water and
groundwater contaminants.
(2) The protection of public health and safety, from the
adverse effects of past mineral activities.
(3) The restoration of land, water, and fish and wildlife
resources previously degraded by the adverse effects of past
mineral activities.
(c) Habitat.--Reclamation and restoration activities under
this subtitle, particularly those identified under subsection
(a)(4), shall include appropriate mitigation measures to
provide for the continuation of any established habitat for
wildlife in existence prior to the commencement of such
activities.
(d) Other Affected Lands.--Where mineral exploration,
mining, beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities
have been carried out with respect to any mineral which would
be a locatable mineral if the legal and beneficial title to
the mineral were in the United States, if such activities
directly affect lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management as well as other lands and if the legal and
beneficial title to more than 50 percent of the affected
lands resides in the United States, the Secretary is
authorized, subject to appropriations, to use moneys in the
Hardrock Reclamation Account for reclamation and restoration
under subsection (a) for all directly affected lands.
(e) Response or Removal Actions.--Reclamation and
restoration activities under this subtitle which constitute a
removal or remedial action under section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), shall be conducted
with the concurrence of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Secretary and the
Administrator shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
to establish procedures for consultation, concurrence,
training, exchange of technical expertise and
[[Page H12417]]
joint activities under the appropriate circumstances, that
provide assurances that reclamation or restoration activities
under this subtitle shall not be conducted in a manner that
increases the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial
actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and
following), and that avoid oversight by multiple agencies to
the maximum extent practicable.
SEC. 412. ELIGIBLE LANDS AND WATERS.
(a) Eligibility.--Reclamation expenditures under this
subtitle may only be made with respect to Federal lands or
Indian lands or water resources that traverse or are
contiguous to Federal lands or Indian lands where such lands
or water resources have been affected by past mineral
activities, including any of the following:
(1) Lands and water resources which were used for, or
affected by, mineral activities and abandoned or left in an
inadequate reclamation status before the effective date of
this Act.
(2) Lands for which the Secretary makes a determination
that there is no continuing reclamation responsibility of a
claim holder, operator, or other person who abandoned the
site prior to completion of required reclamation under State
or other Federal laws.
(3) Lands for which it can be established that such lands
do not contain locatable minerals which could economically be
extracted through the reprocessing or remining of such lands,
unless such considerations are in conflict with the
priorities set forth under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
302(b).
(b) Specific Sites and Areas Not Eligible.--The provisions
of section 411(d) of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(d)) shall apply to
expenditures made from the Hardrock Reclamation Account.
(c) Inventory.--The Secretary shall prepare and maintain a
publicly available inventory of abandoned locatable minerals
mines on public lands and any abandoned mine on Indian lands
that may be eligible for expenditures under this subtitle,
and shall deliver a yearly report to the Congress on the
progress in cleanup of such sites.
SEC. 413. EXPENDITURES.
Moneys available from the Hardrock Reclamation Account may
be expended for the purposes specified in section 411
directly by the Director of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement. The Director may also make such
money available for such purposes to the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, the Chief of the United States
Forest Service, the Director of the National Park Service, or
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to
any other agency of the United States, to an Indian tribe, or
to any public entity that volunteers to develop and
implement, and that has the ability to carry out, all or a
significant portion of a reclamation program under this
subtitle.
SEC. 414. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Amounts credited to the Hardrock Reclamation Account are
authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of this
subtitle without fiscal year limitation.
Subtitle C--Use of Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account
SEC. 421. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT.
Amounts in the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account
shall be available to the Secretary, subject to
appropriations, to provide assistance for the planning,
construction, and maintenance of public facilities and the
provision of public services to States, political
subdivisions and Indian tribes that are socially or
economically impacted by mineral activities conducted under
the general mining laws.
SEC. 422. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
Moneys deposited into the Hardrock Community Impact
Assistance Account shall be allocated by the Secretary for
purposes of section 421 among the States within the
boundaries of which occurs production of locatable minerals
from mining claims located under the general mining laws and
maintained in compliance with this Act, or mineral
concentrates or products derived from locatable minerals from
mining claims located under the general mining laws and
maintained in compliance with this Act, as the case may be,
in proportion to the amount of such production in each such
State.
TITLE V--ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Administrative Provisions
SEC. 501. POLICY FUNCTIONS.
(a) Minerals Policy.--Section 101 of the Mining and
Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``and to ensure that mineral
extraction and processing not cause undue degradation of the
natural and cultural resources of the public lands''; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following: ``It shall
also be the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out the policy provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section.''.
(b) Mineral Data.--Section 5(e)(3) of the National
Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act
of 1980 (30 U.S.C. 1604(e)(3)) is amended by inserting before
the period the following: ``, except that for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture shall promptly
initiate actions to improve the availability and analysis of
mineral data in public land use decisionmaking''.
SEC. 502. USER FEES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
Agriculture may each establish and collect from persons
subject to the requirements of this Act such user fees as may
be necessary to reimburse the United States for the expenses
incurred in administering such requirements. Fees may be
assessed and collected under this section only in such manner
as may reasonably be expected to result in an aggregate
amount of the fees collected during any fiscal year which
does not exceed the aggregate amount of administrative
expenses referred to in this section.
(b) Adjustment.--(1) The Secretary shall adjust the fees
required by this section to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the Department of Labor every 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, or more frequently if the Secretary
determines an adjustment to be reasonable.
(2) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any
adjustment made under this subsection not later than July 1
of any year in which the adjustment is made.
(3) A fee adjustment under this subsection shall begin to
apply the calendar year following the calendar year in which
it is made.
SEC. 503. INSPECTION AND MONITORING.
(a) Inspections.--(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall make
inspections of mineral activities so as to ensure compliance
with the requirements of this Act.
(2) The Secretary concerned shall establish a frequency of
inspections for mineral activities conducted under a permit
issued under title III, but in no event shall such inspection
frequency be less than one complete inspection per calendar
quarter or, two per calendar quarter in the case of a permit
for which the Secretary concerned approves an application
under section 304(f) (relating to temporary cessation of
operations). After revegetation has been established in
accordance with a reclamation plan, such Secretary shall
conduct annually 2 complete inspections. Such Secretary shall
have the discretion to modify the inspection frequency for
mineral activities that are conducted on a seasonal basis.
Inspections shall continue under this subsection until final
release of financial assurance.
(3)(A) Any person who has reason to believe he or she is or
may be adversely affected by mineral activities due to any
violation of the requirements of a permit approved under this
Act may request an inspection. The Secretary, or for National
Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall
determine within 10 working days of receipt of the request
whether the request states a reason to believe that a
violation exists. If the person alleges and provides reason
to believe that an imminent threat to the environment or
danger to the health or safety of the public exists, the 10-
day period shall be waived and the inspection shall be
conducted immediately. When an inspection is conducted under
this paragraph, the Secretary concerned shall notify the
person requesting the inspection, and such person shall be
allowed to accompany the Secretary concerned or the
Secretary's authorized representative during the inspection.
The Secretary shall not incur any liability for allowing such
person to accompany an authorized representative. The
identity of the person supplying information to the Secretary
relating to a possible violation or imminent danger or harm
shall remain confidential with the Secretary if so requested
by that person, unless that person elects to accompany an
authorized representative on the inspection.
(B) The Secretaries shall, by joint rule, establish
procedures for the review of (i) any decision by an
authorized representative not to inspect; or (ii) any refusal
by such representative to ensure that remedial actions are
taken with respect to any alleged violation. The Secretary
concerned shall furnish such persons requesting the review a
written statement of the reasons for the Secretary's final
disposition of the case.
(b) Monitoring.--(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall require all
operators to develop and maintain a monitoring and evaluation
system that shall identify compliance with all requirements
of a permit approved under this Act. The Secretary concerned
may require additional monitoring to be conducted as
necessary to assure compliance with the reclamation and other
environmental standards of this Act. Such plan must be
reviewed and approved by the Secretary and shall become a
part of the explorations or operations permit.
(2) The operator shall file reports with the Secretary, or
for National Forest System lands the Secretary of
Agriculture, on a frequency determined by the Secretary
concerned, on the results of the monitoring and evaluation
process, except that if the monitoring and evaluation show a
violation of the requirements of a permit approved under this
Act, it shall be reported immediately to the Secretary
concerned. The Secretary shall evaluate the reports submitted
pursuant to this paragraph, and based on those reports and
any necessary inspection shall take enforcement action
pursuant to this section. Such reports shall be maintained by
the operator and by the Secretary and shall be made available
to the public.
(3) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall determine what information
shall be reported by the operator pursuant to paragraph (3).
A failure to report as required by the Secretary concerned
shall constitute a violation of this Act and subject the
operator to enforcement action pursuant to section 506.
SEC. 504. CITIZENS SUITS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any
person may commence a civil action on his or her own behalf
to compel compliance--
(1) against any person (including the Secretary or the
Secretary of Agriculture) who is allged to be in violation of
any of the provisions
[[Page H12418]]
of this Act or any regulation promulgated pursuant to this
Act or any term or condition of any permit issued under this
Act; or
(2) against the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture
where there is alleged a failure of such Secretary to perform
any act or duty under this Act, or to promulgate any
regulation under this Act, which is not within the discretion
of the Secretary concerned.
The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction
over actions brought under this section, without regard to
the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties,
including actions brought to apply any civil penalty under
this Act. The district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to compel agency action unreasonably delayed,
except that an action to compel agency action reviewable
under section 505 may only be filed in a United States
district court within the circuit in which such action would
be reviewable under section 505.
(b) Exceptions.--(1) No action may be commenced under
subsection (a) before the end of the 60-day period beginning
on the date the plaintiff has given notice in writing of such
alleged violation to the the alleged violator and the
Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary
of Agriculture, except that any such action may be brought
immediately after such notification if the violation
complained of constitutes an imminent threat to the
environment or to the health or safety of the public.
(2) No action may be brought against any person other than
the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture under
subsection (a)(1) if such Secretary has commenced and is
diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court
of the United States to require compliance.
(3) No action may be commenced under paragraph (2) of
subsection (a) against either Secretary to review any rule
promulgated by, or to any permit issued or denied by such
Secretary if such rule or permit issuance or denial is
judicially reviewable under section 505 or under any other
provision of law at any time after such promulgation,
issuance, or denial is final.
(c) Venue.--Venue of all actions brought under this section
shall be determined in accordance with section 1391 of title
28, United States Code.
(d) Costs.--The court, in issuing any final order in any
action brought pursuant to this section may award costs of
litigation (including attorney and expert witness fees) to
any party whenever the court determines such award is
appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order
or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a
bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
(e) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of persons) may have
under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, under this
section, or under any other statute or common law to bring an
action to seek any relief against the Secretary or the
Secretary of Agriculture or against any other person,
including any action for any violation of this Act or of any
regulation or permit issued under this Act or for any failure
to act as required by law. Nothing in this section shall
affect the jurisdiction of any court under any provision of
title 28, United States Code, including any action for any
violation of this Act or of any regulation or permit issued
under this Act or for any failure to act as required by law.
SEC. 505. ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Review by Secretary.--(1)(A) Any person issued a notice
of violation or cessation order under section 506, or any
person having an interest which is or may be adversely
affected by such notice or order, may apply to the Secretary,
or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of
Agriculture, for review of the notice or order within 30 days
after receipt thereof, or as the case may be, within 30 days
after such notice or order is modified, vacated, or
terminated.
(B) Any person who is subject to a penalty assessed under
section 506 may apply to the Secretary concerned for review
of the assessment within 45 days of notification of such
penalty.
(C) Any person may apply to such Secretary for review of
the decision within 30 days after it is made.
(D) Pending a review by the Secretary or resolution of an
administrative appeal, final decisions (except enforcement
actions under section 506) shall be stayed.
(2) The Secretary concerned shall provide an opportunity
for a public hearing at the request of any party to the
proceeding as specified in paragraph (1). The filing of an
application for review under this subsection shall not
operate as a stay of any order or notice issued under section
506.
(3) For any review proceeding under this subsection, the
Secretary concerned shall make findings of fact and shall
issue a written decision incorporating therein an order
vacating, affirming, modifying, or terminating the notice,
order, or decision, or with respect to an assessment, the
amount of penalty that is warranted. Where the application
for review concerns a cessation order issued under section
506 the Secretary concerned shall issue the written decision
within 30 days of the receipt of the application for review
or within 30 days after the conclusion of any hearing
referred to in paragraph (2), whichever is later, unless
temporary relief has been granted by the Secretary concerned
under paragraph (4).
(4) Pending completion of any review proceedings under this
subsection, the applicant may file with the Secretary, or for
National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, a
written request that the Secretary grant temporary relief
from any order issued under section 506 together with a
detailed statement giving reasons for such relief. The
Secretary concerned shall expeditiously issue an order or
decision granting or denying such relief. The Secretary
concerned may grant such relief under such conditions as he
or she may prescribe only if such relief shall not adversely
affect the health or safety of the public or cause imminent
environmental harm to land, air, or water resources.
(5) The availability of review under this subsection shall
not be construed to limit the operation of rights under
section 504 (relating to citizen suits).
(b) Judicial Review.--(1) Any final action by the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture in promulgating
regulations to implement this Act, or any other final actions
constituting rulemaking to implement this Act, shall be
subject to judicial review only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Any action subject to
judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed
unless the court concludes that such action is arbitrary,
capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law. A petition
for review of any action subject to judicial review under
this subsection shall be filed within 60 days from the date
of such action, or after such date if the petition is based
solely on grounds arising after the 60th day. Any such
petition may be made by any person who commented or otherwise
participated in the rulemaking or any person who may be
adversely affected by the action of the Secretaries.
(2) Final agency action under this subsection, including
such final action on those matters described under subsection
(a), shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with
paragraph (4) and pursuant to section 1391 of title 28,
United States Code, on or before 60 days from the date of
such final action. Any action subject to judicial review
under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court
concludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or
otherwise inconsistent with law.
(3) The availability of judicial review established in this
subsection shall not be construed to limit the operations of
rights under section 504 (relating to citizens suits).
(4) The court shall hear any petition or complaint filed
under this subsection solely on the record made before the
Secretary or Secretaries concerned. The court may affirm or
vacate any order or decision or may remand the proceedings to
the Secretary or Secretaries for such further action as it
may direct.
(5) The commencement of a proceeding under this section
shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate
as a stay of the action, order, or decision of the Secretary
or Secretaries concerned.
(c) Costs.--Whenever a proceeding occurs under subsection
(a) or (b), at the request of any person, a sum equal to the
aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including
attorney fees) as determined by the Secretary or Secretaries
concerned or the court to have been reasonably incurred by
such person for or in connection with participation in such
proceedings, including any judicial review of the proceeding,
may be assessed against either party as the court, in the
case of judicial review, or the Secretary or Secretaries
concerned in the case of administrative proceedings, deems
proper if it is determined that such party prevailed in whole
or in part, achieving some success on the merits, and that
such party made a substantial contribution to a full and fair
determination of the issues.
SEC. 506. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Orders.--(1) If the Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, or an authorized
representative of such Secretary, determines that any person
is in violation of any environmental protection requirement
under title III or any regulation issued by the Secretaries
to implement this Act, such Secretary or authorized
representative shall issue to such person a notice of
violation describing the violation and the corrective
measures to be taken. The Secretary concerned, or the
authorized representative of such Secretary, shall provide
such person with a period of time not to exceed 30 days to
abate the violation. Such period of time may be extended by
the Secretary concerned upon a showing of good cause by such
person. If, upon the expiration of time provided for such
abatement, the Secretary concerned, or the authorized
representative of such Secretary, finds that the violation
has not been abated he or she shall immediately order a
cessation of all mineral activities or the portion thereof
relevant to the violation.
(2) If the Secretary concerned, or the authorized
representative of the Secretary concerned, determines that
any condition or practice exists, or that any person is in
violation of any requirement under a permit approved under
this Act, and such condition, practice or violation is
causing, or can reasonably be expected to cause--
(A) an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public; or
(B) significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air,
water, or fish or wildlife resources;
such Secretary or authorized representative shall immediately
order a cessation of mineral activities or the portion
thereof relevant to the condition, practice, or violation.
(3)(A) A cessation order pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2)
shall remain in effect until such Secretary, or authorized
representative, determines that the condition, practice, or
violation has been abated, or until modified, vacated or
terminated by the Secretary or authorized representative. In
any such order, the Secretary or authorized representative
shall determine the steps necessary to abate the violation in
the most expeditious manner possible and shall include the
necessary measures in the order. The Secretary concerned
shall require appropriate financial assurances to ensure that
the abatement obligations are met.
[[Page H12419]]
(B) Any notice or order issued pursuant to paragraphs (1)
or (2) may be modified, vacated, or terminated by the
Secretary concerned or an authorized representative of such
Secretary. Any person to whom any such notice or order is
issued shall be entitled to a hearing on the record.
(4) If, after 30 days of the date of the order referred to
in paragraph (3)(A) the required abatement has not occurred,
the Secretary concerned shall take such alternative
enforcement action against the claim holder or operator (or
any person who controls the claim holder or operator) as will
most likely bring about abatement in the most expeditious
manner possible. Such alternative enforcement action may
include, but is not necessarily limited to, seeking
appropriate injunctive relief to bring about abatement.
Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the Secretary, or
for National Forest System lands the Secretary of
Agriculture, from taking alternative enforcement action prior
to the expiration of 30 days.
(5) If a claim holder or operator (or any person who
controls the claim holder or operator) fails to abate a
violation or defaults on the terms of the permit, the
Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary
of Agriculture, shall forfeit the financial assurance for the
plan as necessary to ensure abatement and reclamation under
this Act. The Secretary concerned may prescribe conditions
under which a surety may perform reclamation in accordance
with the approved plan in lieu of forfeiture.
(6) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall not cause forfeiture of the
financial assurance while administrative or judicial review
is pending.
(7) In the event of forfeiture, the claim holder, operator,
or any affiliate thereof, as appropriate as determined by the
Secretary by rule, shall be jointly and severally liable for
any remaining reclamation obligations under this Act.
(b) Compliance.--The Secretary, or for National Forest
System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may request the
Attorney General to institute a civil action for relief,
including a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining
order, or any other appropriate enforcement order, including
the imposition of civil penalties, in the district court of
the United States for the district in which the mineral
activities are located whenever a person--
(1) violates, fails, or refuses to comply with any order
issued by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a); or
(2) interferes with, hinders, or delays the Secretary
concerned in carrying out an inspection under section 503.
Such court shall have jurisdiction to provide such relief as
may be appropriate. Any relief granted by the court to
enforce an order under paragraph (1) shall continue in effect
until the completion or final termination of all proceedings
for review of such order unless the district court granting
such relief sets it aside.
(c) Delegation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary may utilize personnel of the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to ensure
compliance with the requirements of this Act.
(d) Penalties.--(1) Any person who fails to comply with any
requirement of a permit approved under this Act or any
regulation issued by the Secretaries to implement this Act
shall be liable for a penalty of not more than $25,000 per
violation. Each day of violation may be deemed a separate
violation for purposes of penalty assessments.
(2) A person who fails to correct a violation for which a
cessation order has been issued under subsection (a) within
the period permitted for its correction shall be assessed a
civil penalty of not less than $1,000 per violation for each
day during which such failure continues.
(3) Whenever a corporation is in violation of a requirement
of a permit approved under this Act or any regulation issued
by the Secretaries to implement this Act or fails or refuses
to comply with an order issued under subsection (a), any
director, officer, or agent of such corporation who knowingly
authorized, ordered, or carried out such violation, failure,
or refusal shall be subject to the same penalties as may be
imposed upon the person referred to in paragraph (1).
(e) Suspensions or Revocations.--The Secretary, or for
National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall suspend or revoke a permit issued under title III, in
whole or in part, if the operator--
(1) knowingly made or knowingly makes any false,
inaccurate, or misleading material statement in any mining
claim, notice of location, application, record, report, plan,
or other document filed or required to be maintained under
this Act;
(2) fails to abate a violation covered by a cessation order
issued under subsection (a);
(3) fails to comply with an order of the Secretary
concerned;
(4) refuses to permit an audit pursuant to this Act;
(5) fails to maintain an adequate financial assurance under
section 306;
(6) fails to pay claim maintenance fees or other moneys due
and owing under this Act; or
(7) with regard to plans conditionally approved under
section 305(c)(2), fails to abate a violation to the
satisfaction of the Secretary concerned, or if the validity
of the violation is upheld on the appeal which formed the
basis for the conditional approval.
(f) False Statements; Tampering.--Any person who
knowingly--
(1) makes any false material statement, representation, or
certification in, or omits or conceals material information
from, or unlawfully alters, any mining claim, notice of
location, application, record, report, plan, or other
documents filed or required to be maintained under this Act;
or
(2) falsifies, tampers with, renders inaccurate, or fails
to install any monitoring device or method required to be
maintained under this Act,
shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by
both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such person under this
subsection, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than
$20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more
than 4 years, or both. Each day of continuing violation may
be deemed a separate violation for purposes of penalty
assessments.
(g) Knowing Violations.--Any person who knowingly--
(1) engages in mineral activities without a permit required
under title III, or
(2) violates any other requirement of a permit issued under
this Act, or any condition or limitation thereof,
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than
$5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after the
first conviction of such person under this subsection,
punishment shall be a fine of not less than $10,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or
both.
(h) Knowing and Willful Violations.--Any person who
knowingly and willfully commits an act for which a civil
penalty is provided in paragraph (1) of subsection (g) shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$50,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or
both.
(i) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``person'' includes any officer, agent, or employee of a
person.
SEC. 507. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue
such regulations as are necessary to implement this Act. The
regulations implementing title II, title III, title IV, and
title V that affect the Forest Service shall be joint
regulations issued by both Secretaries, and shall be issued
no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 508. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act.
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 511. OIL SHALE CLAIMS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL RULES.
(a) Application of Section 511.--Section 511 shall apply to
oil shale claims referred to in section 2511(e)(2) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486).
(b) Amendment.--Section 2511(f) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (Public Law 102-486) is amended as follows:
(1) By striking ``as prescribed by the Secretary''.
(2) By inserting before the period the following: ``in the
same manner as if such claim was subject to title II and
title III of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of
2007''.
SEC. 512. PURCHASING POWER ADJUSTMENT.
The Secretary shall adjust all location fees, claim
maintenance rates, penalty amounts, and other dollar amounts
established in this Act for changes in the purchasing power
of the dollar no less frequently than every 5 years following
the date of enactment of this Act, employing the Consumer
Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the
Department of Labor as the basis for adjustment, and rounding
according to the adjustment process of conditions of the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (104
Stat. 890).
SEC. 513. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
(a) Special Application of Mining Laws.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed as repealing or modifying any Federal
law, regulation, order, or land use plan, in effect prior to
the date of enactment of this Act that prohibits or restricts
the application of the general mining laws, including laws
that provide for special management criteria for operations
under the general mining laws as in effect prior to the date
of enactment of this Act, to the extent such laws provide for
protection of natural and cultural resources and the
environment greater than required under this Act, and any
such prior law shall remain in force and effect with respect
to claims located (or proposed to be located) or converted
under this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
applying to or limiting mineral investigations, studies, or
other mineral activities conducted by any Federal or State
agency acting in its governmental capacity pursuant to other
authority. Nothing in this Act shall affect or limit any
assessment, investigation, evaluation, or listing pursuant to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following), or the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3251 and following).
(b) Effect on Other Federal Laws.--The provisions of this
Act shall supersede the general mining laws, except for those
parts of the general mining laws respecting location of
mining claims that are not expressly modified by this Act.
Except for the general mining laws, nothing in this Act shall
be construed as superseding, modifying, amending, or
repealing any provision of Federal law not expressly
superseded, modified, amended, or repealed by this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as altering,
affecting, amending, modifying, or changing, directly or
indirectly, any law which refers to and provides authorities
or responsibilities for, or is administered by, the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, including the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, title XIV of the Public Health Service
Act
[[Page H12420]]
(the Safe Drinking Water Act), the Clean Air Act, the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, the Atomic Energy Act, the Noise Control Act of
1972, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, the
Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, and the Federal Facilities
Compliance Act of 1992, or any statute containing an
amendment to any of such Acts. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as modifying or affecting any provision of the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Public Law 101-601) or any provision of the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).
(c) Protection of Conservation Areas.--In order to protect
the resources and values of National Conservation System
units, the Secretary, as appropriate, shall utilize authority
under this Act and other applicable law to the fullest extent
necessary to prevent mineral activities that could have an
adverse impact on the resources or values for which such
units were established.
SEC. 514. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORDS.
Copies of records, reports, inspection materials, or
information obtained by the Secretary or the Secretary of
Agriculture under this Act shall be made immediately
available to the public, consistent with section 552 of title
5, United States Code, in central and sufficient locations in
the county, multicounty, and State area of mineral activity
or reclamation so that such items are conveniently available
to residents in the area proposed or approved for mineral
activities and on the Internet.
SEC. 515. MISCELLANEOUS POWERS.
(a) In General.--In carrying out his or her duties under
this Act, the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands
the Secretary of Agriculture, may conduct any investigation,
inspection, or other inquiry necessary and appropriate and
may conduct, after notice, any hearing or audit, necessary
and appropriate to carrying out his or her duties.
(b) Ancillary Powers.--In connection with any hearing,
inquiry, investigation, or audit under this Act, the
Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary
of Agriculture, is authorized to take any of the following
actions:
(1) Require, by special or general order, any person to
submit in writing such affidavits and answers to questions as
the Secretary concerned may reasonably prescribe, which
submission shall be made within such reasonable period and
under oath or otherwise, as may be necessary.
(2) Administer oaths.
(3) Require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and the production of all books, papers, records,
documents, matter, and materials, as such Secretary may
request.
(4) Order testimony to be taken by deposition before any
person who is designated by such Secretary and who has the
power to administer oaths, and to compel testimony and the
production of evidence in the same manner as authorized under
paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(5) Pay witnesses the same fees and mileage as are paid in
like circumstances in the courts of the United States.
(c) Enforcement.--In cases of refusal to obey a subpoena
served upon any person under this section, the district court
of the United States for any district in which such person is
found, resides, or transacts business, upon application by
the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary
concerned and after notice to such person, shall have
jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to
appear and produce documents before the Secretary concerned.
Any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished
by such court as contempt thereof and subject to a penalty of
up to $10,000 a day.
(d) Entry and Access.--Without advance notice and upon
presentation of appropriate credentials, the Secretary, or
for National Forest System lands the Secretary of
Agriculture, or any authorized representative thereof--
(1) shall have the right of entry to, upon, or through the
site of any claim, mineral activities, or any premises in
which any records required to be maintained under this Act
are located;
(2) may at reasonable times, and without delay, have access
to records, inspect any monitoring equipment, or review any
method of operation required under this Act;
(3) may engage in any work and do all things necessary or
expedient to implement and administer the provisions of this
Act;
(4) may, on any mining claim located under the general
mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, and
without advance notice, stop and inspect any motorized form
of transportation that such Secretary has probable cause to
believe is carrying locatable minerals, concentrates, or
products derived therefrom from a claim site for the purpose
of determining whether the operator of such vehicle has
documentation related to such locatable minerals,
concentrates, or products derived therefrom as required by
law, if such documentation is required under this Act; and
(5) may, if accompanied by any appropriate law enforcement
officer, or an appropriate law enforcement officer alone,
stop and inspect any motorized form of transportation which
is not on a claim site if he or she has probable cause to
believe such vehicle is carrying locatable minerals,
concentrates, or products derived therefrom from a claim site
on Federal lands or allocated to such claim site. Such
inspection shall be for the purpose of determining whether
the operator of such vehicle has the documentation required
by law, if such documentation is required under this Act.
SEC. 516. MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SURFACE RESOURCES.
The provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Act of August 13,
1954 (30 U.S.C. 524 and 526), commonly known as the Multiple
Minerals Development Act, and the provisions of section 4 of
the Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), shall apply to all
mining claims located under the general mining laws and
maintained in compliance with such laws and this Act.
SEC. 517. MINERAL MATERIALS.
(a) Determinations.--Section 3 of the Act of July 23, 1955
(30 U.S.C. 611), is amended as follows:
(1) By inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence.
(2) By inserting ``mineral materials, including but not
limited to'' after ``varieties of'' in the first sentence.
(3) By striking ``or cinders'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``cinders, and clay''.
(4) By adding the following new subsection at the end
thereof:
``(b)(1) Subject to valid existing rights, after the date
of enactment of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of
2007, notwithstanding the reference to common varieties in
subsection (a) and to the exception to such term relating to
a deposit of materials with some property giving it distinct
and special value, all deposits of mineral materials referred
to in such subsection, including the block pumice referred to
in such subsection, shall be subject to disposal only under
the terms and conditions of the Materials Act of 1947.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `valid
existing rights' means that a mining claim located for any
such mineral material--
``(A) had and still has some property giving it the
distinct and special value referred to in subsection (a), or
as the case may be, met the definition of block pumice
referred to in such subsection;
``(B) was properly located and maintained under the general
mining laws prior to the date of enactment of the Hardrock
Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007;
``(C) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral
deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws as in
effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007; and
``(D) that such claim continues to be valid under this
Act.''.
(b) Mineral Materials Disposal Clarification.--Section 4 of
the Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), is amended as
follows:
(1) In subsection (b) by inserting ``and mineral material''
after ``vegetative''.
(2) In subsection (c) by inserting ``and mineral material''
after ``vegetative''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1 of the Act of July 31,
1947, entitled ``An Act to provide for the disposal of
materials on the public lands of the United States'' (30
U.S.C. 601 and following) is amended by striking ``common
varieties of'' in the first sentence.
(d) Short Titles.--
(1) Surface resources.--The Act of July 23, 1955, is
amended by inserting after section 7 the following new
section:
``Sec. 8. This Act may be cited as the `Surface Resources
Act of 1955'.''.
(2) Mineral materials.--The Act of July 31, 1947, entitled
``An Act to provide for the disposal of materials on the
public lands of the United States'' (30 U.S.C. 601 and
following) is amended by inserting after section 4 the
following new section:
``Sec. 5. This Act may be cited as the `Materials Act of
1947'.''.
(e) Repeals.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights, the Act
of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat. 348, 30 U.S.C. 161), commonly
known as the Building Stone Act, is hereby repealed.
(2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Act of January
31, 1901 (30 U.S.C. 162), commonly known as the Saline Placer
Act, is hereby repealed.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 110-416. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-416.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
Amend section 2(b) to read as follows:
(b) Valid Existing Rights.--As used in this Act, the term
``valid existing rights'' means a mining claim or millsite
claim located on lands described in section 201(b), that--
[[Page H12421]]
(1) was properly located and maintained under the general
mining laws prior to the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral
deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws on the
date of enactment of this Act, or satisfied the limitations
under existing law for millsite claims; and
(3) continues to be valid under this Act.
In section 3(c)(1), strike the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) and insert ``Any Federal land shall be
subject to the requirements of section 102(a)(2) if the land
is--''.
In section 3(c)(2), strike ``section 102'' and insert
``section 102(a)(3)''.
Amend section 102(a)(3) to read as follows:
(3) Federal land added to existing operations permit.--Any
Federal land added through a plan modification to an
operations permit that is submitted after the date of
enactment of this Act shall be subject to the royalty that
applies to Federal land under paragraph (1).
Strike section 102(a)(4) (and redesignate the subsequent
paragraph accordingly).
Amend section 103(a)(4) to read as follows:
(4) Moneys received under this subsection that are not
otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws
by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the
Locatable Minerals Fund established by this Act.
In section 202(a), strike ``Any State'' and insert
``Subject to valid existing rights, any State''.
In section 202(b)(3), after ``petition'' insert ``subject
to valid existing rights,''.
In section 303(g)(4), strike ``All moneys'' and all that
follows through the end of the sentence.
In section 304(h)(4), strike ``All moneys'' and all that
follows through the end of the sentence.
In section 309, strike ``the National Park System'' and
insert ``a National Park''.
In section 309, strike ``including its scenic assets, its
water resources, its air quality, and its acoustic qualities,
or other changes'' and insert ``including wildlife, scenic
assets, water resources, air quality, and acoustic qualities,
or other changes''.
Amend section 402(2) to read as follows:
(2) All fees received under section 304(a)(1)(B).
Amend section 402(6) to read as follows:
(6) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to
section 103 as claim maintenance and location fees minus the
moneys allocated for administration of the mining laws by the
Department of the Interior.
In section 504(a)(1), strike ``allged'' and insert
``alleged''.
In section 504(a)(1), strike ``pursuant to this Act'' and
insert ``pursuant to title III of this Act''.
In section 504(a)(1), strike ``under this Act'' and insert
``under title III of this Act''.
Amend section 511 to read as follows (and conform the table
of contents in section 1(b)):
SEC. 511. OIL SHALE CLAIMS.
Section 2511(f) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public
Law 102-486) is amended as follows:
(1) By striking ``as prescribed by the Secretary''.
(2) By inserting before the period the following: ``in the
same manner as required by title II and title III of the
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''.
At the end of section 513, add the following:
(d) Sovereign Immunity of Indian Tribes.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed so as to waive the sovereign
immunity of any Indian tribe.
Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment by the form that I have placed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
In the instruction relating to section 202(b)(3), insert
before the word ``insert'' the following phrase: ``in the
first place it appears''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, following 2 days of committee consideration
of the bill during which the committee debated 25 amendments, we
continued a dialogue with several members of the committee, both sides
of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, in order to further perfect the
underlying legislation and to keep the fairness of the process open.
This manager's amendment is a result of those deliberations. In
summary, the manager's amendment would, one, clarify that valid
existing rights associated with existing mining claims would be
protected under the act.
Number two, this amendment clarifies that, in addition to paying a 4
percent royalty, existing operations would still need to come into
compliance with the act within 10 years.
Number three, this amendment clarifies that the claim maintenance and
location fees currently allotted to the administration of the mining
claims will continue to be so allotted with the balance going to
cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.
In addition, in this amendment, as requested by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), user fees assessed by the BLM to process mining
permit applications would be used for administration of the mining law
program.
The manager's amendment would further limit the purview of section
504 citizen suits to permits issued pursuant to title III of the act as
suggested by Mr. Cannon of Utah.
The manager's amendment would clarify that nothing under this act
will affect the sovereign immunity of any Indian tribe.
That concludes the summary explanation of the manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and
would yield back our time.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 110-416.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Pearce:
In section 2(a), strike paragraph (19).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually quite simple. It
deletes the new definition for ``undue degradation.''
H.R. 2262 changes the current standard contained in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act from unnecessary and undue degradation to
just undue degradation, which is defined to mean ``irreparable harm to
significant, cultural or environmental resources on public lands that
cannot be effectively managed.''
The new definition is dramatically different from the existing
regulatory definition of unnecessary and undue. Under current law,
unnecessary and undue degradation means impacts greater than those that
would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in
compliance with current standards and regulations based on sound
practices, including use of the best reasonable and available
technology.
The definition now in this H.R. 2262 reinstates a Clinton-era change
to regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands that was
rescinded in 2001 after a very open, public review of the Clinton
regulatory scheme.
The Clinton-era definition for undue degradation was specifically
rejected. It was rejected by the Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Impact Statement that reviewed the Clinton regulations
and declared it to be too vague and too subjective. The BLM EIS process
included scoping for the EIS, which included a formal 81-day comment
period and 19 public meetings in 12 cities; placing the proposed
regulations, draft EIS and related documents on BLM's Internet Web
site; and finally, two public comment periods for the EIS, including 29
public hearings in 16 cities.
After this very thorough process, the BLM found that this definition
was, essentially, an opportunity for the Secretary of the Interior to
deny a mining company an operating permit, even though the proposed
mining operation
[[Page H12422]]
would be in full compliance with Federal and State laws govern hardrock
mining. This is what some people refer to as the ``mine veto.''
The BLM found that the requirement to avoid irreparable harm to
significant resources values which cannot be effectively mitigated has
the greatest potential for affecting mining activities, both large and
small. In some cases this provision could preclude operations
altogether.
The Clinton-era regulations were spearheaded by Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt and Solicitor John Leshy. During the Elko,
Nevada, field hearings this past summer, majority leader, Senator Harry
Reid, made the following statements regarding the outcome of the
changes to the regulation: ``Bruce Babbitt is a friend of mine. But for
the mining he was awful.'' That's what Harry Reid said this year. It
was in one of the hearings that we've referred to today.
{time} 1315
``He had people there that--John Leshy . . . He tried to destroy
mining. Really . . . he didn't believe in it. He wanted it gone. And
that created uncertainty.''
This new definition for ``undue regulation'' is a lawyer's dream
creating ambiguity fighting about whether we mine instead of how we
mine. We don't need more litigation; we need more common sense.
This definition brings so much uncertainty to the regulatory process
that we will see a further decline in investments and the exploration
and development of our domestic mineral resources. And there is a
potential when mines that are in production today transition into the
new system outlined in title III or are in the permitting process to
expand their operations that those operations could be denied a license
to operate, leaving billions of dollars of infrastructure idle.
I can guarantee you that the coal industry, which has played such an
important role in the economic well-being of the chairman's district,
would not be able to operate under this definition.
This definition alone will drive more companies offshore, making us
more dependent on foreign sources of mineral resources and adversely
impacting the economic vitality of mining-dependent communities in the
West, like Silver City, New Mexico.
Keep in mind that the mining industry pays the highest nonsupervisory
wages in the country. It provides benefits including health care,
retirement programs, college scholarships, and assistance for employees
and their families. Tourism and recreation jobs cannot compete with
these high-paying family-wage jobs.
I would urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, keeping the
current standard, protecting American jobs and access to domestic
mineral resources.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend from New
Mexico in only the first three words of the statement he just made, and
that being it's a simple amendment. Yes, it's a simple amendment. It
helps liberate, it eradicates, it eliminates, it erases, it simply guts
the fundamental environmental safeguard of this legislation.
We have struggled for many years to find a statutory standard by
which hardrock mining on Federal lands must comply with. This bill
states that mining must prevent ``undue degradation of public lands and
resources.'' That term is defined as ``irreparable harm to significant
scientific, cultural, or environmental resources on public lands that
cannot be effectively mitigated.''
And let me stress the use of the words ``that cannot be effectively
mitigated.'' It is common practice in this country to mitigate
developments, whether it be the construction of a highway, a dam, or a
mine. But under this bill, if a mining operation could not be
configured under any circumstance to effectively mitigate irreparable
harm to save the water supply of a major city, then the Interior
Department would have the ability to just say no. The gentleman from
New Mexico's amendment would strike the definition in the bill of this
term. The amendment would continue a 19th century view that was
fashioned in an era when there was no major metropolises in the West.
The amendment harkens back to an era that no longer exists. This is a
defining moment. This is what we are talking about in the overall
thrust of the pending legislation.
Under this bill, we will continue to have mining on Federal lands. I
personally believe it will flourish. But the bad actors in the
industry, the minority, and I will be the first to readily admit it is
a minority, will no longer be allowed on the stage. The responsible
industries should be against this amendment because they are the ones,
as I said earlier, that want some certainty to their planning decisions
so that they can make the investment decisions necessary to run a
responsible mining operation with the jobs attendant thereto.
I therefore would urge opposition to the gentleman from New Mexico's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Matsui
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 110-416.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Matsui:
In section 411--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), before the period insert ``,
including in river watershed areas''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(3), before the period insert ``,
which may include restoration activities in river watershed
areas''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment to this much-needed legislation.
My amendment clarifies that river watersheds will be eligible to
receive some of the cleanup funding that will be generated by this
bill.
Watersheds are crucial for the health of our Nation. They help move
our goods, preserve our ecosystems, and protect our communities from
flooding. Managing our Nation's watersheds in a holistic and
responsible way is essential. If we do not protect and maintain them,
we jeopardize critical parts of our environment that support commerce
and recreation.
In arid States like California, Nevada, and Utah, river watersheds
are even more important to economic and environmental health.
Watersheds support a variety of agricultural, economic, and
recreational activities. In my home State of California, for example,
the Sacramento River Watershed forms the basis for fertile farmland,
thriving urban areas, and outdoor recreational opportunities.
However, many watersheds are located near active and abandoned mines.
Years ago rivers represented great economic opportunity. Rivers are
where many precious metals are located. But the drive for these
minerals has left a negative environmental legacy.
In Nevada, more than 7,000 tons of mercury were deposited into the
Carson River Watershed during the quest for silver. In the California
foothills, tens of thousands of mines were dug for the gold that was
discovered in the watershed running through my district. More than
4,000 of these abandoned mines pose environmental hazards.
We must protect these river watersheds that are vital to our way of
life. That is why my amendment is needed. It does not change the
underlying structure of this very good bill. But it does make it
crystal clear that cleaning up watersheds affected by mining is a
priority.
[[Page H12423]]
Mr. Chairman, mining impacts water all across the West. Our river
watersheds feel the effects of mining to a great degree. Addressing
these impacts requires a comprehensive management approach. My
amendment is crafted, and offered today, with this in mind. And it
acknowledges that good watershed management is a critical tool of
maintaining our natural resource. It recognizes that by protecting
watersheds, we are investing in a public good that all Americans use.
And it ensures that this public good will be maintained for future
generations.
I urge all Members to support my amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding and
for offering this very important amendment that does improve and
enhance our ability to restore abandoned mine lands and waters.
The underlying legislation would establish an abandoned hardrock
mining reclamation fund which would be financed by the royalties that
were imposed on operations under the mining law of 1872. The
gentlewoman's amendment makes it clear that remedial activities could
be done on a river watershed basis.
Again, I commend her for offering this amendment, and we are truly
ready to accept it.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
Again, speaking today, we are wondering if the bill that we are
talking about has an effect in all districts. And I would say we have a
chart here which shows that rising commodity prices are driving people
to stealing copper, stealing our minerals, and it is occurring in many
of the districts, including the gentlewoman's district in California,
where there has been a prosecution. And we have got 80 of these. We
have a chart, but I won't show that.
The concept of cleaning up abandoned mine lands is one that we are
deeply encouraged by and associate ourselves with, and especially as it
affects watersheds. Nowhere are watersheds more important than in the
West, and especially New Mexico, because so little water exists
throughout the West. Anything we can do to clean up watersheds in
general, but, again, the abandoned mine lands is something that we are
very supportive of from this side. It relates back to the comments that
we have made in our opening statement that I don't think that on the
core issues that we are very far apart at all, that we could have
gotten where we all would agree with the bill. So we would accept the
amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman for her work on this in
abandoned mine lands and watersheds in general.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Heller of Nevada
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 110-416.
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Heller of Nevada:
In section 411(b), amend the matter preceding paragraph (1)
to read as follows:
(b) Allocation.--Of the amounts deposited into the Hardrock
Reclamation Account, 50 percent shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the States within the boundaries of which
occurs production of locatable minerals from mining claims
located under the general mining laws and maintained in
compliance with this Act, or mineral concentrates or products
derived from locatable minerals from mining claims located
under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance
with this Act, as the case may be, in proportion to the
amount of such production in each such State. Expenditures of
the remainder of such amounts shall reflect the following
priorities in the order stated:
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Heller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, more hardrock mining occurs in my
district than in any other State; therefore, the remediation of
abandoned mine lands is very important to my constituents.
As many of us are aware, abandoned mine lands are the unfortunate
legacy of the irresponsible mining practices of the past. Fortunately,
mining operations today are held accountable for their practices. So
with bad practices of the past ended, we have an opportunity to focus
on cleaning up the abandoned mine lands. And the amendment I am
offering will do just that.
My amendment will direct half of the revenues deposited in the
hardrock reclamation fund to States for the purposes of abandoned mine
land remediation, while preserving the Federal Government's ability to
fund the national priorities in the bill. My amendment allows the
Federal Government to distribute half of the funds as it sees fit. The
other half of the funds would go proportionately to States where
production is occurring to fund in-place, successful AML programs.
In multiple committee hearings, we heard that States currently do a
great job of remediating abandoned mine land sites. They often are only
limited by their available resources to conduct remediation projects.
To give some of you perspective of how effective State programs are,
Nevada has identified more than 20,000 AML sites in need of remediation
and is still in the process, of course, of identifying more. The good
news is that to date we have secured more than 9,000 of those sites.
Likewise, in Colorado it is estimated that there are about 23,000
abandoned mines. More than 6,000 have been made safe by the State
Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety.
So in an effort to get money on the ground to remediate abandoned
land mine sites quickly and efficiently, a portion of these funds needs
to be dedicated to States where production is occurring. Given that
many States have already prioritized their AML needs, we should get
funding to them as directly as possible, as quickly as possible. This
amendment will expedite the cleanup process that we all want.
My amendment bolsters the ability of States to continue their good
work on the ground while providing a way to remediate historic hardrock
sites in States where mineral production will not generate sufficient
funds to deal with current abandoned mine land issues.
I would urge support of the Heller amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise only to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, during debate in committee over this
legislation, the gentleman from Nevada conducted himself in a manner
which I highly commend. He offered amendments that were aimed at
addressing the concerns and interests of his State and his district.
And, frankly, I recognize he has the most at stake here, representing
Nevada, the largest gold-producing State in the Nation.
The gentleman offered two amendments. The one he is offering today
was one of those amendments. In committee, I could not accept it
because we had no discussions on it prior to its appearing as an
amendment. But we did offer to continue to work with the gentleman from
Nevada, as we have done.
And after having some time to consider the subject matter of his
amendment, I am going to accept it, and I would urge my colleagues to
do likewise.
This amendment would allocate 50 percent of the revenues received
from the proposed new abandoned hardrock reclamation fund back to the
States where those revenues were generated.
{time} 1330
There is precedent for this arrangement in the Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund established for coal back in
[[Page H12424]]
1977 which so vitally affects my State. The other 50 percent of the
revenues would be used by the Federal Government for national
priorities.
So, in conclusion, I say to the gentleman from Nevada, you are
looking out for your State. I appreciate that; I commend you for it.
And I appreciate the manner in which you have approached this overall
issue of mining law reform, and I accept your amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. I want to express my appreciation to the
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, again thanking him for his
respect and efforts on this particular bill and hard work, and giving
me time and efforts for my comments and concerns that I shared during
the committee.
I want to thank him for accepting this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Yes, I will.
Mr. RAHALL. And I say I accept your amendment without soliciting a
pledge for your vote on final passage.
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Cannon
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be
offered.
Therefore, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 110-416.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Cannon:
Strike section 517.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee.
We have worked on this bill or ideas surrounding this bill for, I
think, over 10 years now. It is now on the floor. It has been done with
grace and with dignity, and I appreciate the gentleman's approach.
We come from very, very different districts. About two-thirds of my
State is public lands, very little of the gentleman's State is public
lands. And so we differ. We have a different approach, and I think
that's very appropriate, just as the gentleman pointed out with regard
to Mr. Heller and his district.
So we have differences, and we come at these things differently. And
in that context, I hope that the gentleman will consider accepting my
amendment. On the other hand, our colleagues here today will recognize
the importance of this amendment.
My amendment would strike section 517 of the bill before us. The
amendment is necessary so common consumer products remain affordable.
If section 517 is not stricken, Americans will see an increase in the
cost of everyday products, such as glass, ceramics, paper, plastics,
rubber, detergents, insulation, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, to name
just a few.
Section 517 deals with common varieties of industrial minerals.
Unfortunately, this provision would put industrial minerals that are
clearly identifiable as unique, and thus ``locatable,'' under the
mining law into this category despite existing law that has labeled
them as locatable.
Industrial minerals have been classified as locatable since 1872
under the General Mining Law. These minerals were never intended to be
included in the Mineral Materials Act. The Mineral Materials Act was
designed to deal with bulk sales of common deposits of sand and gravel.
Moving industrial minerals into the Mineral Materials Act would make it
impossible for these operations to continue to extract these unique
industrial minerals.
Industrial minerals should not be treated the same as rocks and sand
and gravel that can be loaded in the back of a truck and hauled away.
Yet section 517 would do just that. Under the Mineral Materials Act,
minerals are disposed of by non-competitive processes for small
quantities and by competitive bidding contracts for terms of 10 years
or less. However, it can take 50 years to extract industrial minerals,
and the investment for doing that tends to be in the 50 to $100 million
range.
Competitive bidding contracts of a maximum term of 10 years will
remove any incentive by industrial mineral companies to research and
explore for new reserves.
After spending resources to discover reserves; and if also awarded
the contract, the company will not be guaranteed the necessary time to
actually extract the minerals and develop the resource. This will force
our mining industry to move overseas and will result in the loss of
thousands of high-paying jobs here in America.
Not only will section 517 create uncertainty for mine operators but
will also impose a significant administrative burden on BLM.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman from
Utah's concern and his deep involvement in this legislation. What
worries me with his pending amendment is the myriad of unintended
consequences that may occur.
In 1947, and again in 1955, Congress took out from the operation of
the Mining Law of 1872 mineral materials such as sand, stone, and
gravel on Federal lands and provided that they could be sold under
contracts. However, a loophole was inserted into the law. Under this
loophole, if the sand, stone, or gravel was an uncommon variety, it
would remain under the Mining Law of 1872.
Now, determining just what an ``uncommon variety'' is has since cost
the American taxpayers countless millions of dollars in litigation. The
legislation before us today eliminates the distinction and confusion.
And we would make all of these mineral materials available through
sales contracts. The gentleman's amendment would strike that provision.
In essence, the gentleman's amendment would continue to allow
uncommon varieties of mineral materials to be claimed under the Mining
Law as revised by this legislation.
I'm not sure the sponsor of the amendment realizes what the result
would be for these uncommon variety mining claims to be then subject to
the bill's royalty regime and the bill's environmental standards. As
such, if we adopted the gentleman's amendment, an 8 percent royalty
would then be slapped on any future production from these uncommon
variety claims.
Be that as it may, I oppose this amendment. First, the American
people receive a return from the disposition of mineral materials
through the sales contract. Moreover, this distinction between uncommon
and common varieties of sand, stone, and gravel is nothing but a scam.
I well recall, as does the gentleman from Oregon, our colleague, Peter
DeFazio, the ``great sand scam'' at the Oregon Dunes National
Recreational Area. I conducted a subcommittee hearing in Oregon on this
issue. One person plastered mining claims over 780 areas of the
recreation area where the hearing was held claiming the sand was
uncommon. As I recall, his contention was that it had unique silica
virtues for making glass. He then demanded $11 million from the Federal
Government to buy him out.
I well recall the ``stone-washed jeans scam,'' where this guy located
mining claims for pumice in a wild scenic river in New Mexico. He
claimed that the pumice was an uncommon variety because you could
produce stone-washed jeans with it. Give me a break. I think the
gentleman gets the idea.
And just because some special interests lobbyists got this loophole
inserted into Federal law in 1955 does not mean it should be condoned
today. I view it as a scam, a rip-off. I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H12425]]
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
In the first place, I believe that what the gentleman was just
talking about was metallurgical-grade silica and different from the
summary we've just had.
I think, though, in response to his main argument, it is an amazing
comment on the bulk of this bill that the producers of industrial
minerals prefer to be under the new regime than to be under the
uncertainty that would be created. They need certainty to develop
minerals over 50 years instead of 10 years. And so while the
gentleman's comment is well taken, I would suggest to him that the
industry actually prefers my amendment, regardless of the fact that it
incurs these other burdens.
And, finally, I would take exception to the reference of this as a
scam. The fact that we don't have tax dollars coming to the Treasury
based upon reserves that are being developed does not mean that
Americans aren't better off because they have lower prices for paper,
which requires kaolin, a locatable clay that makes paper cheaper.
So this is a matter of policy; it is not a matter of scams. And I
urge my colleagues to recognize that, to recognize the burdens that
this would create on very common products that we produce with these
locatable minerals, and to vote in support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and
merely would restate what I said earlier about the millions of dollars
in litigation that the American people have shelled out to determine
just what uncommon varieties are. And, therefore, the gentleman from
Utah's amendment would merely continue allowing, without royalties
being paid and allow being mined for free, these uncommon varieties of
sand, stone and gravel being mined from Federal lands.
So I would urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cannon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Pearce
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 110-416.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Pearce:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MINERAL COMMODITY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as ``Resources Origin and Commodity
Knowledge Act''.
SEC. _02. FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Mineral commodities are essential to the United States
economy.
(2) The United States is the world's leading user of
mineral commodities.
(3) Mineral commodities processed domestically accounted
for $478,000,000,000 in the United States economy in 2005.
(4) The value of imports of raw and processed mineral
commodities totaled $103,000,000,000 in 2005.
(5) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve uses
mineral commodity information data and reports to calculate
the indexes of industrial production, capacity, and capacity
utilization, which are among the most widely followed monthly
indicators of the United States economy.
(6) Manufacturers and consumers of mineral commodities in
the United States depended on foreign countries for 100
percent of 16 mineral commodities and for more than 50
percent of 42 mineral commodities that are critical to the
United States economy.
(7) The Department of Defense requires mineral commodity
information on strategic minerals to manage the National
Defense Stockpile.
(8) Mineral specialists assist the Department of State
fulfill United States obligations under the Clean Diamond
Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) and as a signatory to the
Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, which is a
multinational effort to stop the flow of conflict diamonds.
(9) New and innovative uses of minerals are vital to
maintaining the high quality of both the natural environment
and human environment in the United States.
(10) Knowledge and understanding of mineral mining,
processing, and usage, both domestically and internationally,
is important for maintaining the national security and
economic security of the United States.
(b) Purposes.--The purpose of this title is to create the
Mineral Commodity Information Administration to ensure
information vital to the United States economy, domestic
security, and the high quality of life enjoyed by all
residents of the United States continues to be provided to
the many customers that rely upon the data.
(c) Policy.--The Congress declares that--
(1) it is in the national interest to maintain and
disseminate information on domestically produced mineral
commodities, regardless of ownership of the reserves and
resources involved; and
(2) it is in the national interest to maintain and
disseminate information on international mineral commodities,
reserves, and resources, international mineral industry
activities, and international mineral commodity markets.
SEC. _03. ESTABLISHMENT OF MINERAL COMMODITY INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Mineral
Commodity Information Administration, which shall be under
the general direction and supervision of the Secretary of the
Interior and shall not be affiliated with or be within any
other agency or bureau of the Department of the Interior.
(b) Administrator.--The management of the Administration
shall be vested in an Administrator, who shall be appointed
from by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, from among individuals who have outstanding
qualifications with a broad background and substantial
experience in the mineral industries and in the management of
mineral resources.
(c) Other Officials and Employees.--
(1) In general.--There shall be in the Administration an
Associate Administrator and 4 Assistant Administrators who
shall perform, in accordance with applicable law, such
functions as the Administrator shall assign to them in
accordance with this title. The functions the Administrator
shall assign to the Assistant Administrators shall include
the following functions:
(A) Commodity information and analysis, including
development and maintenance of--
(i) historical and current mineral commodity information,
including the degree of import dependence of the United
States;
(ii) international mineral commodity, reserve, and resource
information;
(iii) domestic mineral commodity, reserve, and resource
information by State, county, and region;
(iv) material flow and recycling analysis, showing
disposition in the United States of mined materials into
stocks in use, waste, and residuals; and
(v) ongoing analysis of United States mineral commodity
exports, and analysis of imports of mineral commodities and
processed materials of mineral origin that are destined for
consumption in the United States, categorized by the country
of origin.
(B) Global mineral supply analysis for critical commodities
of greatest long-term concern, including collecting and
developing--
(i) location, reserve, resource, technology, and economic
data for major discovered deposits;
(ii) engineering and cost, mini-feasibility studies on the
most significant deposits; and
(iii) supply analyses combining the engineering and
economic data on groups of deposits.
(C) Mineral materials technology assessment including
tracking worldwide research, development, and utilization of
advanced technologies that will permit discovery of new
deposits, mining and processing of minerals from lower-grade
deposits, and recovery of minerals from waste streams.
(D) Mineral industry analysis, including the continuing
assessment and analysis of events, trends, and issues
affecting the minerals sector of the domestic economy,
including exploration spending and activity, mineral
production trends, mineral stocks and inventories, merger and
acquisitions activity, and labor and workforce trends.
(E) Data acquisition and analysis, including management of
data collection, statistical analysis, analytical forecasting
and modeling, and regular data quality assessments.
(F) Information systems and services, including information
technology management, publications and production
dissemination, and library services.
(G) External affairs, including congressional and
legislative liaison, communications, and public affairs, and
international and intergovernmental affairs.
(H) Budget, financial, and human resource management,
including budget and financial management, human capital
management, employee training, professional development,
procurement and contract management, and small business
support.
(2) Transfer of existing positions.--Within 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall transfer to the Administrator the following
positions:
[[Page H12426]]
(A) United states geological survey.--From the United
States Geological Survey, not less than 200 full-time
equivalent positions, including all filled and unfilled
commodity and country specialists within the United States
Geological Survey Minerals Information Team immediately
before the enactment of this Act.
(B) Department of interior, generally.--From the Department
of the Interior generally not less that 100 full time
equivalent positions of an administrative nature, including
communications and public affairs specialists, congressional
and legislative liaison specialists, human resources
personnel, librarians, administrative assistants, information
technology management specialists, publication service
specialists, and budget analysts.
(3) Subsequent appointments.--The Administrator may appoint
such employees as may be necessary to positions that are
transferred under paragraph (2), but vacant on the date of
the transfer of the positions. Such appointments shall be
subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service. Such
positions shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
(d) Written and Electronic Materials.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall transfer to the Administrator all existing
written and electronic materials under the control of the
Department pertaining to mineral commodities and mineral
resources, including mineral commodity time series data,
library materials, maps, unpublished data files, and existing
mineral commodity reports prepared or held by the United
States Geological Survey and its predecessor agency, the
Bureau of Mines.
SEC. _04. DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) Mineral Commodity Data and Information Program.--The
Administrator shall carry out a central, comprehensive, and
unified mineral commodity data and information program to
collect, evaluate, assemble, analyze, and disseminate data
and information regarding mineral resources and reserves,
mineral commodity production, consumption, and technology,
and related economic and statistical information, that is
relevant to the adequacy of mineral resources to meet demands
in the near term and longer term future for the Nation's
economic and social needs.
(b) Mineral Commodity Data Time Series.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall continue to
maintain all existing mineral commodity data time series
maintained by the Department of the Interior immediately
before the enactment of this Act, and shall develop such new
mineral commodity data time series as the Administrator finds
useful and proper after consulting with other Federal and
State agencies and the public.
(2) Public comment.--The Administrator shall--
(A) provide for public review and comment regarding all
mineral commodity data time series maintained by the
Department of the Interior immediately before the enactment
of this Act, by not later than 15 years after such date of
enactment; and
(B) seek public comments on a continuing basis on the
adequacy and accuracy of any time series added after the date
of the enactment of this Act, not later than 5 years after
the inception of such new series.
(c) Projections of Supply and Usage Patterns.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
(A) not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, prepare and make available to the public an
analysis of projected mineral commodity supply and usage
patterns by the United States at 10, 25, and 50 year
intervals following such date of enactment; and
(B) update such analysis and make it publicly available
every 5 years thereafter.
(2) Considerations.--In preparing such analyses, the
Administrator shall take into consideration--
(A) market trends;
(B) geopolitical considerations; and
(C) the reasonably foreseeable advances in basic
industries, high technology, material sciences, and energy
usage.
(d) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall annually
publish and submit to the Congress a report on the state of
the domestic mining, minerals, and mineral reclamation
industries, including a statement of the trend in utilization
and depletion of the domestic supplies of mineral
commodities.
(e) Mineral Commodity Reports.--The Administrator--
(1) shall continue to prepare and distribute all series of
mineral commodity reports prepared and published by the
Bureau of Mines and the United States Geological Survey as of
the date of the enactment of this Act, including--
(A) all volumes of the Minerals Yearbook;
(B) Mineral Commodity Summaries;
(C) Mineral Industry Surveys;
(D) Metal Industry Indicators;
(E) Nonmetallic Mineral Product Industry Indexes;
(F) minerals supply analyses for selected commodities;
(G) material flow studies and recycling reports; and
(H) Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material
Commodities;
(2) may develop, prepare, and publish additional reports
related to mineral commodities as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
(f) Analysis With Respect Sustaining Energy Usage.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Mineral Commodity
Information Administration shall, in 2007 and each year
thereafter, following the issuance of the Annual Energy
Outlook analysis prepared by the Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration, prepare and publish an analysis
of the foreign and domestic mineral commodities that will be
required by the United States to sustain the energy supply,
demand, and prices projected by such Annual Energy Outlook
analysis.
(2) Joint agreement.--The Administrator of the Energy
Information Agency and the Administrator of the Mineral
Commodity Information Administration may, at their sole
discretion, enter into a joint agreement for preparation of a
unified analysis to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(g) Other Approval Not Required.--The Administrator--
(1) shall not be required to obtain the approval of any
other officer or employee of the United States in connection
with the collection or analysis of any information; and
(2) shall not be required, prior to publication, to obtain
the approval of any other officer or employee of the United
States with respect to the substance of any analytical
studies, statistical, or forecasting technical reports that
the Administrator has prepared in accordance with law.
SEC. _05. EXCEPTIONS TO INFORMATION AVAILABILITY.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5,
United States Code, and except as provided in subsection (b),
data and information provided to the Administrator by persons
or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral-material
production or large-scale consumption shall not be disclosed
outside of the Administration in a nonaggregated form in such
a manner as may disclose data and information supplied by an
individual or other person, unless such person authorizes
such disclosure after the person is provided notice and an
opportunity to object.
(b) Disclosure to Federal Defense or Homeland Security
Agencies.--The Administrator may disclose nonaggregated data
and information to any agency of the Department of Homeland
Security or the Department of Defense, upon written request
by the head of the agency for appropriate purposes.
SEC. _06. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish
an advisory committee to be known as the Mineral Commodity
Advisory Committee.
(b) Functions.--The Advisory Committee--
(1) shall respond to all questions referred to it by the
Administrator regarding any matter related to the activities
authorized by this title;
(2) shall undertake such studies and inquiries as are
necessary to provide answers, advice, and recommendations on
matters referred to it by the Administrator; and
(3) in carrying out such studies, may seek information from
individuals, business enterprises, colleges, universities,
and any State or Federal agency.
(c) Participation in Reviews of Materials.--The
Administrator shall invite the Advisory Committee to
participate in any public review of materials prepared
pursuant to section _04.
(d) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Advisory Committee--
(A) shall consist of 15 individuals appointed in accordance
with paragraph (2); and
(B) shall include--
(i) one representative from each of a mineral exploration
company, a metallic mineral producer, an industrial mineral
producer, and an aggregate producer;
(ii) one representative from each of the State geologists,
mining labor organizations, and the mining finance industry;
(iii) two representatives from small businesses;
(iv) three representatives from manufacturing industries;
and
(v) three purchasing professionals.
(2) Appointment.--The Administrator shall appoint the
members of the Advisory Committee from among individuals
who--
(A) are not officers or employees of the Federal
Government; and
(B) are United States citizens.
(3) Term.--Each member of the Advisory Committee shall be
appointed to serve a term of 4 years.
(e) Organization and Meetings.--The Advisory Committee--
(1) shall select a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from among
its members;
(2) shall organize itself into such subcommittees as the
members determine to be necessary; and
(3) shall meet not less than 2 times each year.
(f) Compensation and Expenses.--Subject to the availability
of appropriations, each member of the Advisory Committee--
(1) shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which such member is engaged in the performance
of the duties of the Advisory Committee; and
[[Page H12427]]
(2) shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of
agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code, while away from the member's home or regular
place of business in the performance of services for the
Committee.
(g) Support and Records Maintenance.--The Administrator--
(1) shall provide administrative and technical support for
the Advisory Committee; and
(2) shall maintain the records of the Advisory Committee.
(h) FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.) shall apply to the Advisory Committee only to the
extent that the provisions of such Act do not conflict with
the requirements of this section.
SEC. _07. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Mineral Commodity Information Administration established by
this title.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Administration.
(3) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee''
means the Mineral Commodity Advisory Committee established by
this title.
SEC. _08. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator to carry out this title $30,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years through 2008 through 2018.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start talking about first what this
amendment is not. First of all, it is not a cost increase. CBO has said
there will be no cost associated with it. Also, it is not an effort to
reestablish the Bureau of Mines at the Department of the Interior.
Congress abolished the Bureau of Mines before I came to Congress; but a
key component of that agency, the Minerals Information Team, was
entrusted to the U.S. Geological Service. Unfortunately, USGS has not
recognized the critical nature of this program or the importance of the
information the MIT produces.
Today, at USGS, the Mineral Commodity Function is five steps below
the USGS Director, and eight steps below the Secretary of the Interior.
In contrast, the Energy Information Administrator is only one step
below the Secretary of Energy. At DOI Minerals Information, it's just
about like being a janitor; you have about that much access into the
system.
The Resource Origin and Commodity Knowledge, ROCK, Act, takes the
mineral commodity information function away from USGS and creates and
funds a stand-alone agency using DOI resources. It restores and funds
the function Congress sought to retain and protect in 1995.
Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that the gentleman
continues to push. We had it offered in full committee markup, had
debate on it at that time.
When it was offered in committee, I advised him that it did not
belong in this bill and perhaps should be considered as a stand-alone
piece of legislation after the subject of a hearing. We have not
conducted that hearing yet on this matter.
As I said in committee, I do remind my colleagues on the other side
that when Newt Gingrich and Company issued their Contract with America,
one of its tenets was to reduce the Federal bureaucracy. What the
Republican majority ultimately achieved in this regard was the
elimination of two Federal entities, the ICC, the Interstate Commerce
Commission, which was then recreated as the STB within the
Transportation Department. And the other Federal entity that the then-
Republican majority eliminated was the Bureau of Mines at the Interior
Department.
Now, in a stunning reversal, the Bureau of Mines would essentially be
recreated under the guise of a Mineral Commodity Information Agency, I
guess you would call that, MCIA. It would enlarge the bureaucracy and
increase Federal spending. I repeat, it would enlarge the Federal
bureaucracy and increase spending. I keep looking around for my
colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake). Where are you when we need you?
The gentleman's amendment would authorize $30 million a year for this
new bureaucracy that the then-Republican majority eliminated when they
ran the Congress. This new bureaucracy would have an associated
administrator; it would have four assistant administrators; there would
be an external affairs office, a public affairs office, even an
international affairs office, and who knows how many other offices here
and there.
{time} 1345
The budget, financial, human resources offices, the human capital
management office, the professional development office, the contract
management office, yadda, yadda, yadda, I think you get the picture. So
this is a whole lot of bureaucracy that would be created based on a
proposal that never had a hearing and that was rejected by the
Republicans when they were in the majority.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, the hearings did occur last year on this
bill, and I would remind the gentleman from West Virginia that existing
resources inside DOI would be used. That is the reason the CBO said
that no additional cost would be required.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Pearce
amendment to H.R. 2262, which establishes the Minerals Commodity
Information Administration at the Department of the Interior. The MIT
collects and disseminates data on virtually every commercially
important nonfuel mineral commodity produced worldwide, information
that is critical to businesses, the government, and importantly, the
Department of Defense to help manage the National Defense Stockpile.
Due to the importance of the data, the MIT should be an independent
agency reporting to the Secretary of the Interior.
This information from the MIT is critical to the effective use of the
Nation's natural resources and for accurate forecasting. Without a
reliable source of worldwide commodity information, the U.S. would be
blind to any impending supply shortages.
One of the most fundamental functions of the Federal Government is to
provide for the common defense. There is an undeniable nexus between
our Nation's minerals policy and national security policy. Currently,
24 strategic and critical military materials are imported at no less
than 40 percent from our foreign trading partners. For example, the
U.S. imports 54 percent of its magnesium. This mineral is vitally
important in constructing airplanes and missiles. Requiring our
military to import the strategic and critical minerals it needs from
foreign nations, some of whom may be hostile, puts our military at a
significant disadvantage and weakens our ability to adequately sustain
our national defense.
At a time when defense needs are determined in terms of capabilities-
based planning instead of threat-based planning, an accurate assessment
of our Nation's minerals is vitally important. The Pearce ROCK Act
amendment is a means to that end.
I urge my colleagues to support the Pearce ROCK Act amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, do I not?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that we did get into the
discussion of the CBO here and the additional cost that would be
implemented under this act. The underlying act actually has been scored
at $441 million by CBO over 5 years, almost $100 million a year. I
share the gentleman's concern about increasing expenditures, increasing
bureaucracy, and would again request that we reconsider the
[[Page H12428]]
entire thing. But at the moment I would suggest that we do want to
realize that two recent National Research Council reports stress that
we are increasingly dependent on foreign nations for minerals critical
to America and that we need to have an independent agency as called for
in this ROCK Act amendment.
My amendment will establish the independent Minerals Commodity
Information Administration and the Minerals Information Team to
collect, analyze and disseminate information on the domestic and
international supply of and demand for minerals, materials critical to
the U.S. economy, and our national security.
U.S. businesses operate in a global economy, and virtually every
manufacturing sector from aviation to textiles relies on the unbiased,
comprehensive data reported by the MIT. This information enables
American companies to use domestic resources effectively, forecast
worldwide market conditions, develop informed strategic business plans,
and respond effectively to short-term fluctuations and long-term trends
in minerals prices, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Interior appropriations
and my fellow classmate, Mr. Dicks of Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This
amendment is unnecessary. The country does not need a new bureau to
create minerals information. The current situation in which the U.S.
Geologic Survey administers the minerals information works perfectly
fine.
As chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations
Subcommittee, I have examined the Bush administration proposals to
eliminate funding for the USGS minerals information function. Even
during these difficult budgetary times, our subcommittee has
appreciated the important function of the minerals assessment team at
the USGS and refused the administration's recommendation to eliminate
its funding.
The Pearce amendment would nearly double the size of the new agency.
It would create a new bureaucracy with at least 300 staff and a yearly
cost of $30 million or more. So please join me in rejecting this
amendment.
I yield to the former chairman of the Interior subcommittee, Mr.
Regula from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this. When I was
chairman of the committee, we eliminated the Bureau of Mines in 1995.
Nobody missed it. The functions are carried on by the USGS very
effectively. It is just one of those things that is not needed. I think
it would be a big mistake to put it back in place.
The amendment provides for 200 employees out of USGS. Why take them
away from where they are doing a good job? The mining programs have
worked very effectively since 1995, the time at which we eliminated
this. It saves about $100 million. I think it would be a big mistake to
put another, put it back in place.
I hope that the Members will join me in opposing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pearce amendment. This
amendment would simply re-create an agency that was dismantled in 1995.
As Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee at that
time, I worked to close the Bureau of Mines which the proposed
amendment's agency resembles, in an effort to balance the budget
through smaller, more effective government. With its closure, almost
$100 million, or 66%, of the Bureau of Mines' 1995 programs ceased.
However, certain critical minerals information activities moved to the
US Geological Survey. This meant we receive the needed information on
our mineral resources using far less money than in the past.
Since taking over the minerals information functions, the USGS has
done an excellent job of producing critical minerals information and in
fact has broadened the role of the minerals information group by
providing vital statistics and insight to help commerce, industry, and
security.
The USGS is the sole provider of mineral resource assessments and
information in the federal government. To fragment this program once
again by creating a new bureaucracy in government would not improve its
functionality or serve American taxpayers' interests.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not create anything new that is
substantive. The only thing the amendment will create is a title of new
agency, move some people around, and employ 100 new bureaucrats in
administrative positions. Why do we need 100 administrative positions
to oversee 200 scientists who were already working effectively at the
USGS?
Further, the amendment proposes a $30 million budget, which is more
than double the current funding for this function. In our current
budget climate, it makes no sense to add this new agency burden to
government when the work this agency is proposed to do is already being
done at the USGS effectively, with less expense to the taxpayer.
This amendment will only fracture our current system of attaining
knowledge on our country's mineral resources, create a new bureaucracy
and waste tax dollars. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's comment.
I want to congratulate the chairman for doing an outstanding job as
one of my classmates.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was rejected.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-416 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Cannon of Utah.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 244, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 1030]
AYES--173
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Issa
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H12429]]
NOES--244
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Ackerman
Alexander
Bachus
Burgess
Butterfield
Cardoza
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Faleomavaega
Gohmert
Hensarling
Hunter
Jindal
Jones (OH)
Paul
Shadegg
Shuler
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.
{time} 1416
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, ABERCROMBIE, TAYLOR, LYNCH and Ms.
HIRONO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TANCREDO and Mr. BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cannon
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 240, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 1031]
AYES--175
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--240
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Ackerman
Alexander
Bachus
Burgess
Butterfield
Cardoza
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Faleomavaega
Gohmert
Hensarling
Hunter
Jindal
Lowey
McNerney
Paul
Saxton
Shadegg
Shuler
Weller
Wilson (OH)
[[Page H12430]]
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute is left
in this vote.
{time} 1421
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ross) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2262) to
modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public
domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of
mining claims, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
780, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Pearce
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. PEARCE. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Pearce moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2262 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House promptly with the following
amendments:
At the end of section 102(a) add the following:
(6) Limitation on application.--No royalty under this
section shall apply to any mineral that is used in the
manufacture of any technology used for the production of
solar energy or nuclear energy.
At the end of the bill add the following:
SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate
Federal agencies, certifies that nothing in this Act would
result in a loss of jobs in the United States associated with
mining-related activities to which this Act applies.
Mr. PEARCE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, this is an honest, straightforward and
commonsense motion which should be accepted unanimously. Its acceptance
would help restore America's confidence in this body.
This motion addresses two issues Americans expect their elected
representatives to address. Americans want more alternative energy
sources so we are not dependent on people who hate us for our energy
supplies. Americans want to make sure that their government does not
take actions which destroy American jobs. The supporters of this bill
promise it will not hurt jobs. My motion guarantees it will not hurt
jobs.
They constantly promise that they want more clean energy to reduce
our dependence on foreign supplies. My motion guarantees this clean
energy.
Much of the controversy about this bill is about the importance of
minerals and the jobs they support. Some say the bill will cost the
kind of jobs this country needs and leave us begging other nations for
the minerals necessary to produce cleaner energy right here at home.
Others argue that it doesn't. My amendment resolves that question.
If adopted, my motion would ensure that the government is not taxing
American production of important minerals used for solar power and
nuclear power.
That makes sense. The government should not be taxing our efforts to
produce more clean domestic energy. The last thing that we need to do
is become more dependent on others for energy sources we plan to use to
get off of dangerous foreign energy supplies. That's just common sense.
Secondly, my motion applies the ``first, do no harm'' standard to
this bill as it relates to jobs.
As we have said here today, minerals mining jobs are the best
nonsupervisory jobs available in the country today, according to
government reports. This motion says that the government has to certify
that this bill will not cost American jobs before it goes into effect.
That's the least this country can do for working Americans, make sure
that we don't lose their jobs because of our actions.
The supporters of this bill say it will not cost jobs. This gives
them a chance to vote to ensure that it doesn't.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard today on the House floor that this is a
work in progress, that H.R. 2262 is a work in progress. I am saying
that the Nation's security depends on our good work today and we should
not submit a work in progress to the other Chamber. I hope that the
supporters of this bill will take this olive branch and guarantee jobs
to Americans, not just make more promises to Americans.
We have heard promises this bill won't hurt jobs; this motion
guarantees it. We hear promises about more clean energy to reduce our
dependence on foreign supplies. This motion guarantees it.
My motion turns a promise into a legal guarantee. I urge its adoption
by all Members of the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this is the day after Halloween and I
recognize fully there are still tricks in the air, and this is another
trick by the minority in this body. The amendment says report back to
the House promptly. I am pretty sure that every Member of this body
recognizes what the word ``promptly'' means. It is an amendment by the
minority to substantially delay, if not outright kill, the pending
legislation. So Members are well aware of this trick, and I urge defeat
of this attempt to thwart passage by the House today of bipartisan
legislation that has broad support at the local, State and Federal
level.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the effect of this motion would also be to
reduce the amount of royalties owed the American people under this
bill, under the guise of advocating nuclear energy for that matter, and
I see no relationship here. I urge defeat of this motion which would
reduce the amount of royalties that would come in to the American
taxpayers under this bill.
Now to the segment about loss of jobs.
{time} 1430
Due to changes in demands today, it's every Member of this body's
knowledge that we may see a decline in the hardrock mining industry and
the demand for jobs because of the technology, because of the
technologies that are coming online. There's not a one of us who is
against those technologies. In many cases, they're cleaner. In many
cases, they're safer and they're healthier for our workforce. But that
technology does displace man and woman power. It's a fact of our
economic realities today.
So the gentleman's motion to recommit is based on unfounded premises,
scare tactics, and tricks that we should not adopt; and I would urge
defeat of the gentleman's motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H12431]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170,
nays 240, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 1032]
YEAS--170
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--240
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Ackerman
Alexander
Bachus
Boehner
Burgess
Butterfield
Cardoza
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
English (PA)
Gohmert
Hensarling
Jindal
McNulty
Myrick
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Shadegg
Shuler
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1447
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 166, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 1033]
YEAS--244
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NAYS--166
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
[[Page H12432]]
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Schmidt
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--22
Ackerman
Alexander
Bachus
Burgess
Butterfield
Cardoza
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Hastert
Hensarling
Jindal
Kaptur
McNulty
Myrick
Paul
Shadegg
Shuler
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1454
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________