[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12231-12232]
[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 10, 2007

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, 135 years to the day after President 
Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1872 General Mining Law, I am introducing 
legislation to provide much-needed fiscal and environmental oversight 
for the hardrock mining industry operating on Federal lands.
  This legislation would overhaul that antiquated statute penned 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. 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 it allows a mining company to 
purchase mineral rich public lands for no more than $2.50 or $5 an 
acre, irrespective of the land's true value.
  This legislation would bring the hardrock mining law into the 21st 
century.
  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 handed out over $245 billion in mineral rich public 
lands.
  To be sure, Congress has attempted to reform the Mining Law at 
various times over its history--only to be thwarted each time by 
powerful mining interests. Former Congressman Mo Udall came close to 
achieving reform of the mining law in the 1970's. During the 102nd 
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.
  It is time, well past time, that the Congress replace this archaic 
law with one that reflects our values and goals. Ensuring 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 goals that make sense if we are to 
be good stewards of America's lands and meet our responsibilities to 
the American people.

[[Page 12232]]

  Madam 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 do 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 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, 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 hard rock 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 coming, if not in a comprehensive fashion, certainly 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 Natural Resources Committee as a young 
freshman. I was confronted by legislation being advanced by my 
chairman, Mo Udall. And I 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. That is a legacy, I would submit, that we are faced with 
today 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.

                          ____________________