[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1724-1725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              HARDROCK MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 27, 2009

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, last Friday, January 23, marks the passing 
of 137 years predecessors in the U.S. House of Representatives began to 
debate a bill to promote the development of mineral resources in the 
United States. One described the legislation as ``an experiment.''
  On that day in January 1872, Representative Sargent from the State of 
California noted prior fierce debate in the House over a core element 
of the proposed mining law--that the Federal Government would be 
selling off the mineral rights of the United States rather than holding 
onto Federal ownership and imposing a royalty on future production. 
Representative Maynard from the State of Tennessee questioned whether 
the law might encourage speculation.
  During an April 1872 debate in the U.S. Senate, Senator Cole from the 
State of California cautioned that the proposed mining law would allow 
a person to acquire large tracts of land ``which might be worth 
thousands of dollars per acre, perhaps millions . . .''. Senator Alcorn 
from the State of Mississippi acknowledged that he had never seen a 
gold mine in his life, while Senator Casserly, also from the State of 
California, warned of men who could not imagine the mineral deposits 
that ``lie to a fabulous extent in value between the Mississippi River 
and the Sierra Nevada.''
  Ultimately, however, our predecessors believed the bill would ``meet 
with universal favor'' and would prevent litigation among mining 
claimants. They liked the idea that the bill might, as Representative 
Sargent hoped, ``bring large amounts of money into the Treasury of the 
United States, causing the miners to settle themselves permanently, and 
improve and establish homes, to go deeper in the earth, to dig further 
into the Hills . . . and build up their communities and States.''
  And so, on May 10, 1872, Congress passed a law that encouraged people 
to go West, locate hardrock minerals and stake mining claims on Federal 
lands, and remove treasure troves of gold, silver, copper, and platinum 
from the public domain--for free.
  The General Mining Law of 1872, or the ``experiment,'' as some of our 
predecessors named it, has endured for more than one and a third 
centuries--a total of 137 years.
  Today, we can resoundingly assert that the experiment has lasted long 
enough.
  Consider some of the impacts of the 1872 Mining Law:
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, it allows the hardrock 
mining industry to remove $1 billion in precious metals every year from 
America's public lands, with no royalty payment or production fee to 
the Federal Government. By comparison, the coal, gas, and oil 
industries pay royalties of 8 percent to 18.75 percent.
  According to the Department of the Interior, it has allowed mining 
claimants to buy American public's lands for $2.50-$5 an acre--lands 
that could easily be worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars an 
acre today. Between 1994 and 2006, the U.S. government was forced to 
sell off more than 27,000 acres of public land holding valuable 
minerals for a pittance: $112,000.
  Finally, as detailed in several Government Accountability Office 
reports, there have been instances where American taxpayers have paid a 
fortune to buy back the very lands we once gave away. From Central 
Idaho's Thunder Mountain, to Telluride, CO, to land outside Yellowstone 
National Park, millions of public and private dollars have been spent 
to reacquire thousands of acres of mining claims to protect public 
access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities.
  Given our current economic crisis and the empty state of our national 
Treasury, it is ludicrous to be allowing this outmoded law to continue 
to exempt these lucrative mining activities from paying a fair return 
to the American people.
  Beyond that, the 1872 Mining Law has allowed unscrupulous owners of 
hardrock mines to abandon hundreds of thousands of mines--and to 
require American taxpayers to foot the bill because there is no 
``polluter-pays'' funding source, that is, a dedicated source of 
cleanup funding.
  In 2007, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that, with its current 
annual abandoned mine cleanup budget of $15 million, it would take 370 
years to complete its $5.5 billion in abandoned mine cleanup and safety 
mitigation work. In 2008, the inspector general of the Department of 
the Interior concluded that the public's health and safety is 
jeopardized by the unaddressed hazards posed by abandoned mines on 
Federal lands, including lands in the national parks. These old mines 
are not just eyesores, they are killers.
  Today, I, along with Representatives Miller, Waxman, Markey, Berman, 
Grijalva, Holt, Costa, Christensen, Stark, Kildee, Hinchey, Eshoo, 
Blumenauer, Kennedy, Kind, Capps, Schiff, Honda, Salazar, Tsongas, and 
Connolly, introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. 
This legislation would end the financial and environmental abuses 
permitted by the 1872 Mining Law--archaic provisions that fly in the 
face of logic, and are not what taxpayers, sportsmen, conservationists, 
and western communities want or need.
  This is the same bill that the House of Representatives passed by a 
bipartisan vote of 244-166 in 2007. It contains the same critical 
requirements, including:
  An 8 percent royalty on production from future hardrock mines on 
public lands, and a 4 percent royalty from current mines.
  A permanent end to the sell-off of public lands holding mineral 
resources.
  The establishment of a clean-up fund for abandoned hardrock mine 
sites, prioritizing the riskiest ones.
  Stronger review requirements, specifically for mines proposed near 
national parks, to help protect nationally significant areas such as 
Grand Canyon National Park, where miners had filed more than 1,100 
claims within five miles of the park as of October 2008.
  A threshold environmental standard for mining. This standard would 
not preclude mining, but it would make it possible to protect public 
lands if a mining proposal would irrevocably destroy other equally 
valuable resources.
  Every year, the mining industry's fear of losing the sweet deal they 
currently enjoy on U.S. public lands leads, predictably, to baseless 
arguments that reform will cause a large scale departure of mining from 
American soil.
  But we know there are many reasons companies will still want to mine 
for hardrock minerals in the United States. In an annual survey of 
metal mining and exploration companies published by the independent, 
Canadian-based Fraser Institute in 2008, Nevada ranked second out of 68 
jurisdictions worldwide for overall policy attractiveness. Utah and 
Wyoming also made the top 10, and Arizona the top 20. The survey 
highlighted why the U.S. has appeal. Relative to many other countries 
the U.S. offers good enforcement, good infrastructure, a stable 
political system, minimal risk of terrorism or guerrilla groups ruining 
a mining investment--and a predictable regulatory system. Imposition of 
a Federal royalty--or fee--on production--will not change those 
powerful advantages.
  We also know that the mining industry is clinging to an outdated 
boondoggle. Nearly every country in the world imposes a royalty--except 
the United States.
  Industry might also trot out the argument that this bill undermines 
our Nation's secure access to the minerals we use in everyday products. 
Yet, import reliance alone is not a problem, as the National Research 
Council of the National Academies asserted in a recent study of 
critical minerals. Some minerals we have always imported in significant 
quantities, simply because the ones we need do not exist in mineable 
quantities here.
  Furthermore, a 2008 Congressional Research Service report concluded 
that Mining Law reform legislation would not likely have much impact on 
domestic mining capacity or the import reliance of minerals like 
copper, uranium, platinum, and molybdenum, in large part because the 
vast majority of mining on federal lands is for gold--about 88 percent.
  Today, our goals for mining policy are no longer what they were in 
1872, when Representative Sargent hoped the mining law would encourage 
miners to ``dig deeper into the earth'' and ``further into the Hills.'' 
We can aspire to a law that does not merely promote mining, but one 
that also protects the other values of the hills themselves: clean 
water, wildlife, recreation, open space, and tourism. We should aim for 
a law that encourages mining but also encourages responsible corporate 
citizenship. And, a law that brings a fair return to the taxpayer. That 
would be a Mining Law worthy of the 21st--rather than the 19th--
century.

[[Page 1725]]



                          ____________________