[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S631-S632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 303. A bill to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
to require the Bureau of Land Management to provide a claimant of a 
small miner waiver from claim maintenance fees with a period of 60 days 
after written receipt of 1 or more defects is provided to the claimant 
by registered mail to cure the 1 or more defects or pay the claim 
maintenance fee, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce 
legislation, being cosponsored by my colleague Senator Mark Begich from 
Alaska, to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has 
arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.
  Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), 
holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee 
originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of 
September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per 
claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver 
for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do 
not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their 
claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the 
claim, Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more 
than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 
28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner 
waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the 
claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written 
notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management 
to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee 
due for such a period.''
  Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a 
series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their 
applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due 
to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained 
reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been 
received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate 
the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have 
argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has 
argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been 
received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy 
for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues 
resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications.
  There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to 
override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because 
of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely 
manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska 
case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. 
District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller 
v. United States. Legislation similar to this provision actually 
cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.
  This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas 
for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that 
miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of 
being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving 
them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of 
annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by 
BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the 
obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims 
still are subject to voidance.
  The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending 
cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai 
Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held 
from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record 
of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 
years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that 
the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks 
before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual 
labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, 
Alaska, lost title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of 
Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them 
receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time 
stamps of them having completed the paperwork 5 months before the 
deadline, but no other evidence

[[Page S632]]

of filing to meet BLM regulations. They lost their appeal in late 2009. 
These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and 
are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.
  This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association--S. 3175 
in the 111th Congress--clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting 
error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect 
process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have 
occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to 
clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications 
have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim 
defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights 
forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.
  Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department 
of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim 
holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this 
year.
                                 ______