[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 22523-22524]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 THE FEDERAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND PROTECTION EQUITY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 6, 2005

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant 
signed into law a bill creating the world's first national park: 
Yellowstone. Known from its inception as ``nature's wonderland'', 
Yellowstone has embodied a simple and straightforward concept of a 
place unexploited and unspoiled by economic or other development.
  In 1872, the vast wilderness of the west was viewed by most Americans 
as something to be tamed, to be explored, settled, mined, logged, 
ranched, and farmed. Most people at that time did not value the west 
for its wilderness, but rather for the material and economic treasures 
that it could yield. It is therefore remarkable that during such an 
age, Congress set aside an area roughly the size of my home State, West 
Virginia, as the world's first national park--an area that would be 
closed to farming, timbering, mining and open to all Americans for 
present and future recreation use.
  Several months after the 54th Congress created Yellowstone, they sent 
the General Mining Law to President Grant for signature. Following on 
the heels of the California Gold Rush, the Mining Law of 1872 was 
enacted in order to promote orderly mineral exploration and development 
of the West and to provide certainty and legal protections to those 
Americans willing to take on the task. It is first and foremost a land 
law; it does not contain environmental or public health and safety 
provisions.
  The Mining Law of 1872 has, like Yellowstone, remained largely intact 
and unchanged over the past 133 years. While most people would agree 
that the continued preservation of Yellowstone is a good thing, most 
would disagree that maintaining and preserving the Mining Law of 1872 
is a good thing. To keep a law on the books that has no environmental 
protection provisions, 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, is 
irresponsible and just plain ridiculous.
  Even more absurd, the 1872 Mining Law also allows extraction of 
valuable minerals from the public domain without payment of royalties 
to taxpayers and at the same time allows mining companies to purchase 
mineral rich public lands for no more than $5 an acre irrespective of 
lands true value. In recognition of the fiscal irresponsibility of this 
situation, Congress has since 1994, annually placed moratoria on 
mineral claim patents in appropriations bills, most recently in the 
fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, allowing only patents 
applied for prior to 1994 to be processed. However, it is far past the 
time for this moratorium to become permanent rather than being subject 
to annual renewal.
  To be sure, Congress has attempted to comprehensively 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 in 
the 1970s. During the 102nd Congress in 1991, I introduced mining 
reform legislation and we came close to enacting legislation in 1994 
that would have updated this archaic law. Unfortunately, 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.
  Today, Representatives Jay Inslee, Christopher Shays, and I, joined 
by our colleagues, Maurice Hinchey, Dennis Kucinich, Earl Blumenauer, 
George Miller, and Raul Grijalva are introducing legislation similar to 
what we introduced in earlier Congresses. However, this bill differs 
from past efforts in one significant way. The Federal Mineral 
Development and Land Protection Equity Act of

[[Page 22524]]

2005 has as its centerpiece, the recognition that there are special 
places, often sacred sites, that should be off-limits to hardrock 
mining. This simple but important provision is necessary because under 
the 1872 Mining Law, the Federal Government can not stop a valid mining 
claim from being developed on public lands, regardless of what other 
values are present.
  For example, the proposed site for a 1,600-acre, open-pit gold mine 
in Indian Pass, California, is the sacred place where Quechan Indian 
tribes ``dream trails'' were woven. The Bush administration revoked a 
Clinton-era ruling that said mining operations would cause undue 
impairment to these ancestral lands, an extremely sacred place to the 
Quechan Indian tribe. Now the tribe is left fighting for its religious 
and cultural history. Although the State of California has taken action 
to help protect this site, the Federal Government remains poised to 
permit the gold mine.
  Sadly, the threat to Indian Pass is not unique. American Indians, the 
first Americans, were the first stewards of this land. They respected 
the earth, water and air. They understood you take only what you need 
and leave the rest. They demonstrated that you do not desecrate that 
which is sacred. Most Americans understand a reverence for the great 
Sistine Chapel, or the United States Capitol. However, there are times 
when we have difficulty applying the same reverence we give to our 
sacred man-made places to a mountain, valley, stream or rock formation 
held sacred to Native Americans.
  The Federal Mineral Development and Land Protection Equity Act of 
2005 has as its centerpiece, the recognition that there are special 
places, often sacred sites, that should be off-limits to hardrock 
mining. Our mining law reform legislation also recognizes that there 
are other special places in the U.S. with spectacular natural and 
cultural resources and values that should be protected from the 
unavoidable, and often irreversible, damage caused by hardrock mining.
  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 rip-offs by requiring the industry to pay a production-related 
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. In return, the mining industry has left taxpayers with a cleanup 
bill, for their business and mining practices, estimated to be in the 
range of $32 to $72 billion for hundreds of thousands of abandoned 
mines that pollute the western landscape.
  It is time, well past time, that the Congress replace this archaic 
law with one that reflects contemporary economic, environmental and 
cultural values. 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 my mining 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 that there is no member in the House of 
Representatives 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 and gold mining. The effects, whether measured in terms of 
employment, or in terms of the environment or cultural values, 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--
the sins of giving away the public's valuable minerals mined for free, 
selling off Federal lands available almost for free and providing no 
comprehensive Federal mining and reclamation standards. But, I continue 
to wage this effort 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 if we do not make corrections to the law. 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 in a piecemeal manner.
  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 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.

                          ____________________