[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12022-12023]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     MINING LAW REFORM LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 15, 2003

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, nearly 131 years to the day after President 
Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1872 General Mining Law, today I am 
introducing legislation to provide much needed environmental and fiscal 
oversight for the hardrock mining industry, the nation's largest toxic 
polluter. Joining me in sponsoring this bill are Christopher Shays, Jay 
Inslee, Earl Blumenauer, Brian Baird, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Dale Kildee, 
George Miller, Bill Lipinski, Mark Udall, Ron Kind, Barney Frank, Grace 
Napolitano, Eni Faleomavaega, Raul Grijalva, Hilda Solis, Betty 
McCollum, Adam Schiff, and Jim McDermott. I would add that our bill is 
endorsed by 43 organizations representing affected citizens and 
taxpayers across the Nation.
  This bipartisan legislation would overhaul an antiquated statute 
signed into law by President Grant on May 10, 1872--a law that contains 
no environmental protection provisions governing the mining of hardrock 
minerals such as platinum, gold, silver, and copper on public domain 
lands in the western States; prevents the federal government from 
stopping ill-advised proposed mines on federal lands; and has left the 
headwaters of 40 percent of western waterways polluted by mining. The 
1872 Mining Law also allows extraction of these minerals from the 
public domain without the payment of a royalty to the American 
taxpayers and allows a mining company to purchase mineral rich public 
lands for no more than $5 an acre irrespective of its true value.
  Our legislation would bring hardrock mining law into the 21st 
century. It would protect precious water resources from toxic mine 
waste with much needed environmental standards, and prevent mining 
industry ripoffs by requiring the industry to pay a royalty on the 
extraction of publicly owned minerals. It would also prevent mining 
operations from endangering federally designated wilderness areas and 
other special places by requiring land managers to weigh mine proposals 
against other potential land uses when making permitting decisions.
  The lack of a royalty in the 1872 Mining Law and the absence of 
deterrents or penalties for irresponsible mining have caused enormous 
taxpayer giveaways and liabilities. Under the Mining Law the federal 
government has given away over $245 billion in mineral rich public 
lands. And, in return, the mining industry has left taxpayers with a 
cleanup bill estimated to be in the range of $32 to $72 billion for 
hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that pollute the western 
landscape.
  To be sure, Congress has attempted to reform the Mining Law at 
various times over its history--each time to be thwarted by powerful 
mining interests. Former Congressman Mo Udall came close to achieving 
reform of the mining law in the 1970's. During the 102d Congress in 
1991, I introduced mining reform legislation and we came close to 
enacting legislation that would have reformed this archaic law in 1994. 
But, at the last moment, after both the House and the Senate had passed 
separate bills, the Conference failed to reach a compromise and the 
rest, as they say, is history. Since then, I have re-introduced reform 
legislation in each succeeding Congress.
  Many Americans support reform and question why Congress does not 
address this issue. These people believe that American taxpayers are 
being robbed every time a multinational conglomerate breaks U.S. ground 
and mines our valuable minerals for free. These people also wish to be 
protected from the poisoned streams and pockmarked vistas that are the 
historic legacy of the mining industry. Attached to my remarks is a 
letter signed by 43 organizations representing many of these affected 
citizens and taxpayers, all of whom endorse mining law reform.
  The Rock Creek Alliance, one of the endorsers of our bill, is an 
example of the growing grassroots support for mining reform. This 
Idaho-based organization is battling a proposed silver and copper mine 
on the Idaho-Montana border.
  If the plan is approved, as expected, the mining operator will bore 
two three mile tunnels underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness 
Area, one of the first areas protected under the Wilderness Act of 
1964. This mine will threaten one of the last remaining grizzly bear 
populations in the Lower 48 states, negatively impact populations of 
threatened native bull trout, and pollute rivers, lakes, and drinking 
water supplies including the famed Clark Fork River and Lake Pend 
Oreille. Mining is a legitimate use of the public domain. However, due 
to the pro-mining provisions of the 1872 mining law, the mine proposal 
outweighs any other consideration: proximity to a wilderness area, 
endangered species habitat, or degradation of regional water quality.
  The Great Basin Mine Watch, a Nevada-based organization, provides 
another example of local support for mining law reform. This group, 
along with local officials, is fighting a proposed clay mine that will 
produce kitty litter. In 2002, the Bush administration intervened in a 
dispute in Nevada involving a Chicago-based kitty litter company, which 
was attempting to use the Mining Law of 1872 to circumvent the county's 
denial of a permit for a mine. The Bush Department of Justice asserted 
that the county did not have the right to deny the permit because of 
the 1872 mining law. And, according to the Court, they were right--no 
Federal statute requires that an operator procure a state or local 
permit for such operations. In other words, kitty litter rules.
  It is time, well past time, that the Congress replace this archaic 
law with one that reflects our values and goals. Insuring a fair return 
to the public in exchange for the disposition of public resources, and 
properly managing our public lands are neither Republican nor 
Democratic issues. They are simply ones that make sense if we are to be 
good stewards of America's lands and meet our responsibilities to the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, during the years I have labored to reform the Mining Law 
of 1872 those who defend its privileges--and it is indeed a privilege 
to be deemed the highest and best use of our public domain lands--have 
often alleged that reform legislation fails to take into account the 
contribution of hardrock mining to area economies. They claim that 
reform would have dire consequences on the industry, that if we did not 
provide the industry with unfettered access to public lands and public 
minerals, the industry could no longer survive.
  Let me just say at the outset that there is no member in the House of 
Representatives

[[Page 12023]]

whose Congressional District is more dependent upon mining for 
employment and its economic benefits than this gentleman from West 
Virginia. And when we are talking about the effects of mining, I would 
suggest that there is little difference between coal mining, or gold 
mining. The effects, whether measured in terms of employment, or in 
terms of the environment, are the same.
  With that noted, I have 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, federal lands available almost for 
free and no comprehensive federal mining and reclamation standards. But 
also because I am pro-mining, 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 
continuing to come on a piecemeal basis.
  So I say to my colleagues from the western states who resist reform, 
I understand your concerns. I have been in your situation. In 1977 I 
served on what is now called the Resources Committee as a young 
freshman. I was confronted by legislation being advanced by my 
chairman, Mo Udall. And I will recall that the coal industry was 
dragged kicking and screaming into the debate that led to the enactment 
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
  I voted for that legislation. It was not an easy thing for me to do. 
But I voted for that bill because in my region of the country we were 
grappling with a legacy of acidified streams, highwalls, refuse piles, 
open mine shafts and other hazards associated with coal mining 
practices. A legacy, I would submit, that we are faced with on lands 
administered by the Forest Service and the BLM in the western states 
due to hardrock mining practices.
  The fact of the matter is that the gloom and doom predictions made by 
industry against the federal strip mining act all those years ago did 
not materialize. Predictions, I would note, that are almost to the word 
identical to those which industry has leveled at times against this 
Mining Law of 1872 reform legislation.
  Yet, today, the coalfields of this Nation are a much better place in 
which to live. And today, we are producing more coal than ever before.
  Certainly, coal continues to have its controversies, whether they 
involve mountaintop removal coal mining or the problems we are having 
with coal waste impoundments. But at least there are laws on the books 
to deal with those situations.
  At least there are in place basic federal mining and reclamation 
performance standards. At least when one mines coal on federal lands a 
royalty is paid to the federal government. And at least we are making 
provision for the restoration of lands left abandoned by past coal 
mining practices.
  None of this exists with respect to hardrock mining under the Mining 
Law of 1872.
  I believe that with enough courage, and fortitude, we can continue to 
address the problems facing mining, and dovetail our need for energy 
and 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 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.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier in these remarks I mentioned that this bill is 
endorsed by 43 organizations. In an April 11th letter to me, they 
noted: ``The real challenge will be to ensure that any mining on public 
lands takes place in a manner that protects crucial drinking water 
supplies and other natural resources, special places, taxpayers, fish 
and wildlife habitat, and the health and well being of our communities. 
These organizations are as follows:
  Alaska Wilderness League; American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Bear Creek 
Council; Clark Fork Coalition; Citizens for Victor; Colorado 
Environmental Coalition; Colorado Wild; Earthjustice Legal Defense 
Fund; Endangered Species Coalition; Environmental Working Group; 
Friends of Pinto Creek; Great Basin Mine Watch; Greater Yellowstone 
Coalition; Gila Resources Information Project; High Country Citizens' 
Alliance; Idaho Conservation League; The Lands Council; Maricopa 
Audubon Society; Mineral Policy Center; Mining Impact Coalition of 
Wisconsin; Montana Environmental Information Center; Montana Wilderness 
Association; National Environmental Trust; National Parks Conservation 
Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife 
Federation; New Mexico Environmental Law Center; Northern Alaska 
Environmental Center; Northern Plains Resource Council; Okanogan 
Highlands Alliance; Rock Creek Alliance; Scenic America; Sierra Club; 
San Juan Citizens' Alliance; Siskiyou Regional Education Project; 
Spearfish Canyon Preservation Trust; Taxpayers for Common Sense; 
Washington Public Interest Research Group; Western Organization of 
Resource Councils; The Wilderness Society; Women's Voices for the 
Earth; and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

                          ____________________