[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4421-4422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           SCRAPPING MINING RULES WOULD BE A SERIOUS MISTAKE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 22, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that 
experience is what enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it 
again.
  If that's true, then the Bush Administration may be demonstrating its 
experience by repeating--for at least the third time--the serious 
mistake of lessening the protection of the environment.
  The first mistake was to break a promise that the Administration 
would work to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The second was to 
move to weaken the protection of drinking water from the risk of 
arsenic. And now it looks like there will be a third mistake, this time 
to weaken the regulation of mining on the public lands.
  Yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it will 
act to suspend recently-adopted regulations to limit adverse effects of 
mining on these lands, which are the property of all the American 
people. The announcement indicated that BLM would take public comments 
for 45 days, and then decide whether to replace these new regulations 
with prior regulations first adopted two decades ago.
  I understand why the new administration might want to review these 
new rules--but I hope that it will not make the mistake of simply 
trying to turn back the clock.
  I seriously doubt that there is a need for further delay in 
implementing rules that were years in the making and on which the 
mining industry and the public have had ample opportunity to be heard.
  And, as an editorial in today's Denver Post noted, if the Bush 
Administration overturns these rules, it would be ``committing the very 
mistake for which it eviscerated the Clinton regime: running roughshod 
over legitimate concerns of Western communities and putting the federal 
treasury at risk.''
  In Colorado, we understand the importance of mining--but we are also 
very aware of the damage that unregulated or careless mining can bring. 
From the 19th century's mineral rushes we have inherited a rich lore of 
history--and miles of poisoned streams and scarred slopes.
  And the dangers remain, even though the modem mining industry is more 
regulated and

[[Page 4422]]

much more responsible. So, the Bush Administration should proceed with 
caution, and avoid repeating the past mistakes of overly-lax safeguards 
against those dangers.
  For the information of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am attaching 
the Denver Post's editorial on this subject:

                          Mining Mistake Redux

       Mar. 22, 2001.--The Bush administration wants to toss out 
     important rules about mining on public lands, thereby 
     committing the very mistake for which it eviscerated the 
     Clinton regime: running roughshod over legitimate concerns of 
     Western communities and putting the federal treasury at risk.
       A decade ago, during the reign of George H.W. Bush, the 
     U.S. Bureau of Land Management tried to revamp environmental 
     rules and financial accountability standards for hard-rock 
     mines operating on public property. But the effort got 
     sidelined while Congress debated major changes to the 
     underlying federal statute. After the congressional push 
     fizzled in 1997, then-U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 
     started a formal process to modernize the mining rules.
       The old regulations were written in 1980, just before 
     technological changes revolutionized the modern mining 
     business. The old rules simply didn't reflect the new 
     realities--to leave them in place would be akin to regulating 
     jet airliners based on the concept of horse-drawn wagons.
       The tough administrative process took four years, generated 
     550 pages of public comments and survived several 
     congressional attempts to scuttle the effort. So while the 
     rules took effect just before President Clinton left office, 
     they'd been in the works for years and had been thoroughly 
     and publicly discussed.
       Despite the hyperbolic complaints leveled by partisan 
     critics, the new regulations won't prevent mining on public 
     lands. Instead, they just fixed glaring problems.
       For decades, the BLM said it couldn't block any mining 
     operation on public land, even if the mine would cause social 
     or environmental harm. Near Yarnell, Ariz., for instance, a 
     proposed mine would have opened within 500 feet of the town. 
     People would have had to evacuate their homes during 
     blasting, and would have suffered from mine dust, noise and 
     other problems. Yet under the 1980 rules, BLM couldn't either 
     stop it or do anything to help.
       Moreover, the old rules left taxpayers liable for cleaning 
     up environmental messes. The poster child for all mining 
     fiascoes is Summitville in southwestern Colorado, where in 
     the early 1990s poisons from a bankrupt mine devastated the 
     Rio Grande's high altitude headwaters. But other states have 
     suffered, too, Nevada alone has 36 bankrupt mine sites--all 
     recent, modern operations-- where taxpayers have been left 
     footing the environmental clean up bill. By contrast, the 
     Clinton-era rules require mines to put up adequate bonds, so 
     if the companies go bankrupt, taxpayers aren't stuck with the 
     tab.
       Yet the Bush administration's announcement Tuesday 
     indicates that the BLM may retreat to the old way of doing 
     business. It's hypocritical for the Bush team to pretend it 
     can provide more thought and public input on the matter in 
     just a 45-day comment period than the issue received during 
     four years of intense administrative and congressional 
     debate.

     

                          ____________________