Equality for Workers under ERISA Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, over 135 years after President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Mining Law of 1872 into law, I bring before this body legislation to drag it into the 21st century. This legislation at long last provides badly needed fiscal and environmental reforms of mining for valuable minerals in the 11 western States and Alaska.

In bringing this measure before the House, I am pleased to have the strong support of our colleague from California (Mr. Costa), who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Natural Resources Committee. Jim chairs the subcommittee that I chaired 20 years ago when I first began this effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872. I am honored that he has taken up the mantle as well.

The Mining Law of 1872 is the last of the frontier-era legislation to remain on the books, with the Homestead Act having long been repealed, not to mention laws regarding carrying your six-gun into a saloon or allowing a posse to hang horse thieves. The basic goal of this law, almost free land and free minerals to help settle the West, has long been achieved. While the minerals produced under this law remain in demand, mining under an archaic 19th century regime is not compatible with modern land use philosophies or social values. This threatens mining, and mining jobs, and is one reason this law must be brought into the 21st century.

Today, as in the 1800s, the Mining Law allows claims to be staked on Federal lands in the West for valuable hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper. No royalty is paid to the true owners of these lands, the American people, from the production of their minerals. Except by dint of an annual appropriations rider, the claims can be sold to multinational mining conglomerates for $2.50 or $5 an acre.

Now, some listening to what I just said may think I am making this up. Free gold and land for $2.50 an acre? That sounds like a fairy tale. My friends, ladies and gentlemen, I am not making it up. This is no fairy tale. This is a pirate story, with the public lands profiteers robbing the American public blind.

Mr. Chairman, billions of dollars' worth of gold, silver, and copper have been produced from American soil without a royalty paid to the true owners of the land, the American people. Those that will recall history will know that the largest bank heists in the world have been the $900 million stolen from the Central Bank of Iraq in 2003; the $72 million stolen from Knightsbridge Security Deposit in England in 1987; and the $65 million stolen from the Banco Central in Brazil in 2005. But, my colleagues, those figures are chump change, chump change compared to the estimated $300 billion in valuable minerals given away for free from America's public lands under the Mining Law of 1872. Incredible. Simply incredible. But, it gets worse.

Being a 19th-century law, it contains no mining and reclamation standards. The result is a legacy of toxic streams, scarred landscapes, and health and safety threats to our citizens from abandoned mined lands. The mayor of Boise, Idaho, and let me restate that State, Idaho, wrote a letter to me recently to state that the city is powerless to protect the integrity of its source of drinking water, which is threatened by a cyanide heap-leach gold mining facility proposed by a Canadian, and I repeat that, a Canadian-based company.

This last September, a 13-year-old girl tragically plunged to her death in an Arizona mine shaft. In reference to an area pocketed with abandoned mine sites, an Arizona mine inspector was quoted as saying: ``It's just a death trap out there.''

The Mining Law of 1872 is the Jurassic Park of all Federal laws. It requires an extreme makeover. Environmental safeguards must be supersized. Federal lands must stop being given away for fast-food hamburger prices. The robbery of America's gold and silver must stop.

Mr. Chairman, the bill I am bringing before the House today would make commonsense reforms by imposing a royalty on the production of these hardrock minerals. Bear in mine that coal, oil, and gas produced from Federal lands have long paid these royalties. The legislation would also put a permanent end to what is known as patenting, the sale of mining claims for the price of a snack at Taco Bell.

Further, it would provide for statutory mining and reclamation standards that are performance-based rather than prescriptive. As well, this would establish a special fund to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines, address the health and human safety they propose, and provide for community impact assistance.

This is a historic debate, a debate that is long overdue. Those who support this legislation, the countless locally elected public officials across the West, concerned citizens across the West, sportsmen and -women across the West, taxpayer advocates across America, bring with them the new-century conviction that corporate interests can no longer have an unfettered ability to reap America's mineral wealth with no payment in return. There must be parameters set and rules to which industry must comply.

I am here to suggest that if we continue under the current regime, that if we do not make corrections, the ability of the mining industry to continue to operate on public domain lands in the future is questionable. The other side will bring up jobs, they will bring up the health of the industry that might be decimated by this legislation. I say we are here to protect mining jobs and to protect the health of the industry and to provide some certainty in the making of financial decisions by the mining industry.

While the Mining Law of 1872 over the years has helped develop the West and cause needed minerals to be extracted from the Earth, we have long passed the time when this 19th-century law can be depended upon to serve the country's 21st-century mineral needs, and do so in a manner accepted by society. Reform of the Mining Law of 1872, I tell my colleagues, is a matter of the public interest, the interest of the American taxpayer, the interest of all Americans who are true owners of these public lands. The name of every American is on the deed of these lands. I urge approval of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at this point a letter to me from Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a letter in response from myself to Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write with regard to H.R. 2262, the

``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''. I know it is

your wish for the bill to be considered on the House floor as

soon as possible.

Some of the provisions in the bill establish requirements

for the Environmental Protection Agency and concern the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980. Those provisions are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am

not, however, raising the issue with the Speaker because it

is my understanding that you have agreed that the referral

and consideration of the bill do not in any way serve as a

jurisdictional precedent as to our two committees.

Further, as to any conference on the bill, the Committee on

Energy and Commerce reserves the right to seek the

appointment of conferees for consideration of any portions of

the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. It is

my understanding that you have agreed to support a request by

the Committee with respect to serving as conferees on the

bill (or similar legislation).

I request that you send to me a letter confirming our

agreements and that our exchange of letters be inserted in

the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of the

bill.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss

this matter further.

Sincerely,

John D. Dingell,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costa from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I say to my colleague from across the river from me in Kentucky that, as he knows, jobs in both our hardrock mining industry and our coal industry are on the decline already. Those jobs have been declining; and as the gentleman so well knows, as well as my colleagues on the minority side, these jobs are declining today because of the technologies that are coming in place.

Look at our coal industry. We're mining more coal as we're producing more hardrock minerals, but with less man and woman power because of the technologies that are replacing man and woman power. It's that simple.

So while the jobs may be on the decline, the production is on the upswing.

I would say as well to my colleagues who raise the specter of here the Democrats go raising taxes again, note this week in the Wall Street Journal, this week the administration, the administration, not the Congress, announced that it's raising the royalty rates for oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico to 18.75 percent from 16.67 percent for offshore leases to be offered next year. Even with this increase, the gulf will remain one of the lowest tax oil basins in the world.

So let's put this proposed 8 percent royalty on hardrock mining in perspective, please. It's less than half. Let's also keep in mind that hardrock mining is the only industry that pays no royalty on public lands, and all other countries and all States, for that matter, charge a royalty. Companies impose royalties and private agreements on hardrock mines. Let's keep in perspective what we're doing here; and, remember, it was the administration this week that raised royalties on Gulf of Mexico leases.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished subcommittee Chair on Insular Affairs, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico if he has any additional speakers, because I am prepared to close, as I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, on January 28, 1872, Representative Sergeant brought to the House floor from the Committee on Mines and Mining H.R. 1016, the bill that was to be enacted as the Mining Law of 1872. He noted that debate had taken place whether it was worthwhile for the government to sell the mineral lands of the United States, some thought, on some idea of a royalty belonging to the government.

Instead, the Members debating that measure decided to allow for the patenting of mining claims for $2.50 or $5 an acre, depending on whether it was allowed to place their claim because, in the words of Representative Sergeant, ``We are inducing miners to purchase their claims so that large amounts of money are thereby brought into the Treasury of the United States.''

Well, now, perhaps back then $2.50 an acre represented a large amount of money. But I submit it does not today. And the royalty debated back when this law was passed is what, ironically, we are debating today.

Now, the gentleman from New Mexico has said that in order to pay that $2.50 an acre you have to mine the land. I would say that that is an inaccurate description of current law. You do not necessarily have to mine the land. You have to show that there's a valuable mineral that exists therein, which is not a very hard proposition to show these days.

With that noted, let me state that I've 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, the threats to health and human safety from abandoned mine lands, but also because I am pro-mining, I come from a coal mining State, 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 it will continue to come on a piecemeal basis.

As my colleagues come to the floor to vote on this issue, I hope they will ask their staffs just how many letters from how many mining groups have they received in opposition to the pending bill. I hope they'll bring those letters to the floor with them, because I submit there will not be many. And I submit the reason may be, using my intuition, could the responsible segments of the hardrock mining industry, which is the majority, could the responsible segment of that hardrock mining industry want to end the uncertainty that exists over this industry? Could it be that they want a finality to the arguments surrounding their industry? Could it be that they want a basis upon which to make business and future investment decisions?

And hardly today are they screaming pauper. Look at this week's Wall Street Journal headline: ``Gold Rush of 2007. Mining Mergers.''

The price is pretty well up there these days. I think these companies are doing quite well, and they would like to have some finality on this issue. I believe that, with enough courage, as we've seen from elected officials, hunters, sportsmen, fishermen from across the West, we can continue to address the problems facing mining and dovetail our need for 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 on 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.

I urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment by the form that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, following 2 days of committee consideration of the bill during which the committee debated 25 amendments, we continued a dialogue with several members of the committee, both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, in order to further perfect the underlying legislation and to keep the fairness of the process open.

This manager's amendment is a result of those deliberations. In summary, the manager's amendment would, one, clarify that valid existing rights associated with existing mining claims would be protected under the act.

Number two, this amendment clarifies that, in addition to paying a 4 percent royalty, existing operations would still need to come into compliance with the act within 10 years.

Number three, this amendment clarifies that the claim maintenance and location fees currently allotted to the administration of the mining claims will continue to be so allotted with the balance going to cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.

In addition, in this amendment, as requested by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), user fees assessed by the BLM to process mining permit applications would be used for administration of the mining law program.

The manager's amendment would further limit the purview of section 504 citizen suits to permits issued pursuant to title III of the act as suggested by Mr. Cannon of Utah.

The manager's amendment would clarify that nothing under this act will affect the sovereign immunity of any Indian tribe.

That concludes the summary explanation of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend from New Mexico in only the first three words of the statement he just made, and that being it's a simple amendment. Yes, it's a simple amendment. It helps liberate, it eradicates, it eliminates, it erases, it simply guts the fundamental environmental safeguard of this legislation.

We have struggled for many years to find a statutory standard by which hardrock mining on Federal lands must comply with. This bill states that mining must prevent ``undue degradation of public lands and resources.'' That term is defined as ``irreparable harm to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental resources on public lands that cannot be effectively mitigated.''

And let me stress the use of the words ``that cannot be effectively mitigated.'' It is common practice in this country to mitigate developments, whether it be the construction of a highway, a dam, or a mine. But under this bill, if a mining operation could not be configured under any circumstance to effectively mitigate irreparable harm to save the water supply of a major city, then the Interior Department would have the ability to just say no. The gentleman from New Mexico's amendment would strike the definition in the bill of this term. The amendment would continue a 19th century view that was fashioned in an era when there was no major metropolises in the West. The amendment harkens back to an era that no longer exists. This is a defining moment. This is what we are talking about in the overall thrust of the pending legislation.

Under this bill, we will continue to have mining on Federal lands. I personally believe it will flourish. But the bad actors in the industry, the minority, and I will be the first to readily admit it is a minority, will no longer be allowed on the stage. The responsible industries should be against this amendment because they are the ones, as I said earlier, that want some certainty to their planning decisions so that they can make the investment decisions necessary to run a responsible mining operation with the jobs attendant thereto.

I therefore would urge opposition to the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding and for offering this very important amendment that does improve and enhance our ability to restore abandoned mine lands and waters.

The underlying legislation would establish an abandoned hardrock mining reclamation fund which would be financed by the royalties that were imposed on operations under the mining law of 1872. The gentlewoman's amendment makes it clear that remedial activities could be done on a river watershed basis.

Again, I commend her for offering this amendment, and we are truly ready to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, during debate in committee over this legislation, the gentleman from Nevada conducted himself in a manner which I highly commend. He offered amendments that were aimed at addressing the concerns and interests of his State and his district. And, frankly, I recognize he has the most at stake here, representing Nevada, the largest gold-producing State in the Nation.

The gentleman offered two amendments. The one he is offering today was one of those amendments. In committee, I could not accept it because we had no discussions on it prior to its appearing as an amendment. But we did offer to continue to work with the gentleman from Nevada, as we have done.

And after having some time to consider the subject matter of his amendment, I am going to accept it, and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

This amendment would allocate 50 percent of the revenues received from the proposed new abandoned hardrock reclamation fund back to the States where those revenues were generated.

There is precedent for this arrangement in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund established for coal back in

1977 which so vitally affects my State. The other 50 percent of the revenues would be used by the Federal Government for national priorities.

So, in conclusion, I say to the gentleman from Nevada, you are looking out for your State. I appreciate that; I commend you for it. And I appreciate the manner in which you have approached this overall issue of mining law reform, and I accept your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

And I say I accept your amendment without soliciting a pledge for your vote on final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Utah's concern and his deep involvement in this legislation. What worries me with his pending amendment is the myriad of unintended consequences that may occur.

In 1947, and again in 1955, Congress took out from the operation of the Mining Law of 1872 mineral materials such as sand, stone, and gravel on Federal lands and provided that they could be sold under contracts. However, a loophole was inserted into the law. Under this loophole, if the sand, stone, or gravel was an uncommon variety, it would remain under the Mining Law of 1872.

Now, determining just what an ``uncommon variety'' is has since cost the American taxpayers countless millions of dollars in litigation. The legislation before us today eliminates the distinction and confusion. And we would make all of these mineral materials available through sales contracts. The gentleman's amendment would strike that provision.

In essence, the gentleman's amendment would continue to allow uncommon varieties of mineral materials to be claimed under the Mining Law as revised by this legislation.

I'm not sure the sponsor of the amendment realizes what the result would be for these uncommon variety mining claims to be then subject to the bill's royalty regime and the bill's environmental standards. As such, if we adopted the gentleman's amendment, an 8 percent royalty would then be slapped on any future production from these uncommon variety claims.

Be that as it may, I oppose this amendment. First, the American people receive a return from the disposition of mineral materials through the sales contract. Moreover, this distinction between uncommon and common varieties of sand, stone, and gravel is nothing but a scam. I well recall, as does the gentleman from Oregon, our colleague, Peter DeFazio, the ``great sand scam'' at the Oregon Dunes National Recreational Area. I conducted a subcommittee hearing in Oregon on this issue. One person plastered mining claims over 780 areas of the recreation area where the hearing was held claiming the sand was uncommon. As I recall, his contention was that it had unique silica virtues for making glass. He then demanded $11 million from the Federal Government to buy him out.

I well recall the ``stone-washed jeans scam,'' where this guy located mining claims for pumice in a wild scenic river in New Mexico. He claimed that the pumice was an uncommon variety because you could produce stone-washed jeans with it. Give me a break. I think the gentleman gets the idea.

And just because some special interests lobbyists got this loophole inserted into Federal law in 1955 does not mean it should be condoned today. I view it as a scam, a rip-off. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and merely would restate what I said earlier about the millions of dollars in litigation that the American people have shelled out to determine just what uncommon varieties are. And, therefore, the gentleman from Utah's amendment would merely continue allowing, without royalties being paid and allow being mined for free, these uncommon varieties of sand, stone and gravel being mined from Federal lands.

So I would urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that the gentleman continues to push. We had it offered in full committee markup, had debate on it at that time.

When it was offered in committee, I advised him that it did not belong in this bill and perhaps should be considered as a stand-alone piece of legislation after the subject of a hearing. We have not conducted that hearing yet on this matter.

As I said in committee, I do remind my colleagues on the other side that when Newt Gingrich and Company issued their Contract with America, one of its tenets was to reduce the Federal bureaucracy. What the Republican majority ultimately achieved in this regard was the elimination of two Federal entities, the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was then recreated as the STB within the Transportation Department. And the other Federal entity that the then- Republican majority eliminated was the Bureau of Mines at the Interior Department.

Now, in a stunning reversal, the Bureau of Mines would essentially be recreated under the guise of a Mineral Commodity Information Agency, I guess you would call that, MCIA. It would enlarge the bureaucracy and increase Federal spending. I repeat, it would enlarge the Federal bureaucracy and increase spending. I keep looking around for my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake). Where are you when we need you?

The gentleman's amendment would authorize $30 million a year for this new bureaucracy that the then-Republican majority eliminated when they ran the Congress. This new bureaucracy would have an associated administrator; it would have four assistant administrators; there would be an external affairs office, a public affairs office, even an international affairs office, and who knows how many other offices here and there.

The budget, financial, human resources offices, the human capital management office, the professional development office, the contract management office, yadda, yadda, yadda, I think you get the picture. So this is a whole lot of bureaucracy that would be created based on a proposal that never had a hearing and that was rejected by the Republicans when they were in the majority.

I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, do I not?

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Interior appropriations and my fellow classmate, Mr. Dicks of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is the day after Halloween and I recognize fully there are still tricks in the air, and this is another trick by the minority in this body. The amendment says report back to the House promptly. I am pretty sure that every Member of this body recognizes what the word ``promptly'' means. It is an amendment by the minority to substantially delay, if not outright kill, the pending legislation. So Members are well aware of this trick, and I urge defeat of this attempt to thwart passage by the House today of bipartisan legislation that has broad support at the local, State and Federal level.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the effect of this motion would also be to reduce the amount of royalties owed the American people under this bill, under the guise of advocating nuclear energy for that matter, and I see no relationship here. I urge defeat of this motion which would reduce the amount of royalties that would come in to the American taxpayers under this bill.

Now to the segment about loss of jobs.

Due to changes in demands today, it's every Member of this body's knowledge that we may see a decline in the hardrock mining industry and the demand for jobs because of the technology, because of the technologies that are coming online. There's not a one of us who is against those technologies. In many cases, they're cleaner. In many cases, they're safer and they're healthier for our workforce. But that technology does displace man and woman power. It's a fact of our economic realities today.

So the gentleman's motion to recommit is based on unfounded premises, scare tactics, and tricks that we should not adopt; and I would urge defeat of the gentleman's motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the chairman for his work on this bill and rise in opposition against that bill. There are no Third World countries. There are simply overregulated countries; there are overregulated economies. The debate that Members of this House are about to engage in will be passionate because the positions that we are fighting over are polarizing.

Mr. Chairman, it did not have to be this way. We all agree on the same principles, hardrock mining on Federal land should pay a royalty, should continue to operate in the most environmentally responsible manner in the world, and protect the health and financial security of the miners who bring the world's minerals to the surface.

As I mentioned earlier, if given a fair hearing, we would have agreed on these goals. Instead, right now at this moment the stock market is plunging in this country because of the rising energy prices. Oil hit $94. Our stock market is reacting. The price of our dollar has fallen. We are doing things in this body that will punish domestic jobs and domestic industries. They will not touch the mining industry outside of this country. Outside countries will have better access to our markets because of the things that are occurring in this legislation.

So, yes, we are passionate about our position, and, no, we do not listen to the arguments, no matter how well-conceived from the other side, because they are simply arguments; they are not truths. We are here to fight against a bill brought forth by the chairman which will send some of the highest paying jobs in the West overseas by making mining in the U.S. uneconomic.

Members from western States, like mine, will fight fiercely to keep these jobs because the West cannot survive off tourism alone.

I have a chart here that shows the relative wages in the mining industry. We have had hearings about the evolving West and what they hope the West looks like, but we in the West want these good, high- paying union jobs that exist now in the mines. The jobs in tourism do not pay nearly as much. That is what we are fighting for today.

By making mining in the U.S. uneconomic, the chairman's bill will give competitive advantage to countries like China and India. We Members who like the U.S. being number one and who don't like the current value of the dollar are fighting against that. I favor American exceptionalism.

By making mining in the U.S. uneconomic, the chairman's bill will compromise the readiness of our military because the military will have to further import the strategic minerals and materials it needs from hostile nations. It would be a sick twist of fate if the U.S. had to start importing uranium from Iran.

In order to defend the bill against job loss, the economic security and military security, you are going to hear some rhetoric that simply amounts to whoppers, the whoppers about the 1872 mining law on the House floor today, and I think it is important to set the record straight.

First, you will hear the law was passed in 1872, and at 135 years old it needs modernizing. I wonder where the chairman is when it comes time to modernize Yellowstone National Park, which was also created in that same year. But I will tell you that the chairman would be the first to argue against any changes in the acts that created our national parks, and Yellowstone in particular. Maybe the leaders back then believed that we needed to protect areas, but we also needed to use some of our lands to supply the materials for a growing Nation, because they understood we needed those materials. Maybe our politicians of today do not care if America's economy grows or not.

Secondly, you will hear that the law allows public lands to be purchased for $2.50 an acre, the ``price of a snack,'' I think were the words that were used. And yet I do not see any of our people in this Chamber or across the Nation standing up to say let me have some of that land for $2.50 an acre. Because the truth is that you have to mine that land to get it for $2.50 an acre. Maybe it is just not that easy to prove up on the mineral assets, on the mineral claims, as the chairman caused us to believe here.

Third, you will hear that energy companies pay 12 percent or more in royalties for coal, oil and gas on Federal lands; mineral mining companies don't.

Now, that seems fair, doesn't it? But you have to understand that many of our energy companies also tried to buy mining claims and tried to do mining, and they gave up on it because they simply could not do it. They did not have the economics right. They didn't understand how to do it. And no more than you and I can buy a claim for $2.50 and make a mining claim work, even our biggest oil companies could not do it. And these are the kinds of misinformation points that we are asked to believe today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I tell you, please, my friends, do not believe it, because we are about to export these jobs, these good high-paying jobs. We are going to export jobs.

Fourth, you are going to hear that the Mining Law needs modern environmental laws. The mining industry today is well regulated. The mining industry itself, the BLM, the regulatory agencies used to have mines that looked like this top chart; and this mine under current law, under current environmental regulations, has now looked like this. We had testimony to this in our committee, but the majority just decided that they didn't need to listen to what is going on already. They wanted to create new overlapping legislation.

Currently, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and all other Federal regulations apply to the mining industry. But you would believe, if you heard our friends on the other side of the aisle, that we are simply out here digging holes in the ground and we are polluting the streams with no oversight. It is just not true.

So, my friends, as we engage in this argument, listen to the passion from the West, because you will know that our jobs are at stake, our livelihoods are at stake. There are people who want to make the West simply the vacation ground for the rest of the country. And I am saying from the West, we just want jobs, good jobs. We want not only jobs, but careers for our families. We want careers for our kids. And the legislation today here is designed to take away the careers from the West.

Look at it very carefully, because today the stock market is plunging amid fears of high energy prices and unavailable access, no access to drilling lands to increase the supply; and our dollar is falling because the world believes that we are going to give away our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California said we want to get the facts right; and if I heard him correctly, he said this bill is a work in progress. Now, we've had 135 years, according to him, to work on this bill, and we're going to rush it while it is still in progress. I really don't understand why we're going to take such a serious step as risking all the jobs in mines with work in progress. I think those were the words used and the facts used.

The truth is we have a severe difference of opinion. I will quote from the chairman of the committee: No reason, no reason whatsoever why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product. That was in our markup hearing, and yet I would submit that energy production, timber production, water production, mineral production, they all affect the gross domestic product, and they are public land law.

So I really just believe that we have a complete disconnect in the committee between the majority and minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman again, the gentleman from California said let's talk about the facts. He said we do not have rare Earth. We do have rare Earth minerals; we don't have rare Earth mines. Those were shut down by the EPA due to lawsuits. U.S. companies developed the uses for rare Earths, and now we import them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali) who has done great work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the comments by the gentleman from West Virginia earlier about the administration, and I appreciate his praise.

Although I don't always agree with the administration, I would say that the same administration he was praising has issued a veto threat because there is a constitutional abridgement that's possible in this bill, a takings violation, from the royalty structure. That would be a violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

I believe that this work in progress should be sent back to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller) who has done great work on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, in order to, again, stick with facts that I think one of my colleagues mentioned we should, I would note that when we just heard the comment that no fees or dollars were taken from the mining industry, actually, $55 million was paid in claim maintenance fees.

But if we are to have this discussion about what effect this royalty is going to have, I think we should look at other circumstances. Again, these facts were presented in committee, in the committee hearings, but, somehow they did not get integrated into the bill, the knowledge, and again, it's the reason that we are passionate here on the floor about our points of view.

We had testimony from British Columbia that instituted a 2.5 percent royalty. Now we are looking at an 8 percent, almost three times as much.

Now, if, as our opponents claim, there is no effect, that we can expect nothing, then you would think nothing happened in British Columbia. Yet, after they instituted, in 1 year, 1 year, revenues from the mines didn't increase because of this royalty; it decreased from 28 to 15, almost a 50 percent decrease.

Exploration, likewise, fell dramatically from 38 to 15, far more than a 50 percent drop. That was in 1 year. The tax was repealed the next year because they found out exactly what we are claiming, that jobs were lost, 6,000 jobs were lost in 1 year. In 1972, the number of claims fell by 85 percent.

So when our opponents say there is not going to be any effect here, it's only right, we are asking them to pay the same amount that you pay for a snack at the grocery store. British Columbia did one-third of the tax that we are proposing. British Columbia found that they had to undo the tax because it was so destructive to the industry.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, again, just sticking with the facts, we had one of my colleagues talk about fluorspar, that's what's used to make toothpaste, as if there were no strategic minerals; yet when I look at the list of imported minerals, I see that we import 72 percent of titanium, which is used in jet aircraft, fighter jet aircraft, 72 percent.

I think when we are discussing these facts, we should be talking about the critical facts, as I am sure that the gentleman was correct that we do import fluorspar, and it probably is used on toothpaste, but we probably should be talking about the domestic security, about the security of our Nation, about the willingness of our industry and the capability of our industry to provide the instruments to defend this country.

We are at a time when terrorists are trying to overcome us, al Qaeda, radical jihad. The terrorists are trying every way they can, and we are going to put the source of critical minerals that are necessary for our Nation's offense outside the Nation's borders. It simply doesn't make sense. It actually does feel like a work in progress. It feels like we should have done more.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no additional speakers. I will close if the gentleman is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, when I look on the walls of this Chamber, I see the quote by Daniel Webster up above the Speaker's chair, and it says: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

Worthy to be remembered. I think our Founding Fathers had it right. They visualized a nation of tremendous promise, where the wealth of the Nation and the protection of the Nation would come together in the production of its resources and in the taking care of its land.

I don't find it unusual at all that the same generation protected Yellowstone and yet gave us the capability to create these mines, which take billions of dollars to promote and to produce. I don't find that unusual at all.

But what I do find unusual is that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not listening to their own testimony coming in their own hearings. We heard testimony from both Democrat and Republican witnesses alike saying 8 percent royalties are unprecedented. They are damaging, destructive, they will hurt. Those are the things that we heard in the committee.

I would suggest that we send this work in progress back to the committee and finish our work before we try to change 135-year-old policy.

Mr. Chairman, I include a letter for the Record from Governor Palin of Alaska, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and others, all in opposition to the legislation proposed here.

Department of Natural Resources,

Anchorage, AK, September 28, 2007.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: The State of Alaska has completed a

review of H.R. 2262,

the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. I attach the

resulting position paper for your consideration.

While we acknowledge the need to revise some of the same

federal laws that H.R. 2262 modifies, we believe the

legislation would unjustifiably harm the domestic mining

industry, and the Alaska mining industry in particular.

Our state produced almost $3 billion of minerals last year,

four percent of the nation's total. We can continue and even

expand this contribution indefinitely, but not without

predictable access, on reasonable fiscal terms, to the

federal domain in Alaska.

Your legislation, H.R. 2262, would create several obstacles

to such access and terms. Specifically:

Prohibiting mining exploration and development on lands

identified in the 2001 Forest Service ``roadless rule'' and

in other ``special areas'' would place millions of acres off

limits. These prohibitions are far too broad, particularly in

Alaska where the federal government owns so much land, yet

already offers so little of it to mineral exploration.

A flat royalty on gross revenues will cause unnecessary

mine shutdowns and job losses during periods of low prices.

The government should adopt a flexible royalty that adjusts

for high and low returns.

The proposed new permitting system would unnecessarily

duplicate existing laws while also creating great uncertainty

and thus great risk for mineral exploration and development.

We believe it could end exploration and mining on federal

lands.

Thank you for considering these views and the attached

position paper as Congress works to reform the nation's

mining laws.

Sincerely,

Tom Irwin,

Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and would yield back our time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually quite simple. It deletes the new definition for ``undue degradation.''

H.R. 2262 changes the current standard contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act from unnecessary and undue degradation to just undue degradation, which is defined to mean ``irreparable harm to significant, cultural or environmental resources on public lands that cannot be effectively managed.''

The new definition is dramatically different from the existing regulatory definition of unnecessary and undue. Under current law, unnecessary and undue degradation means impacts greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with current standards and regulations based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonable and available technology.

The definition now in this H.R. 2262 reinstates a Clinton-era change to regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands that was rescinded in 2001 after a very open, public review of the Clinton regulatory scheme.

The Clinton-era definition for undue degradation was specifically rejected. It was rejected by the Bureau of Land Management Environmental Impact Statement that reviewed the Clinton regulations and declared it to be too vague and too subjective. The BLM EIS process included scoping for the EIS, which included a formal 81-day comment period and 19 public meetings in 12 cities; placing the proposed regulations, draft EIS and related documents on BLM's Internet Web site; and finally, two public comment periods for the EIS, including 29 public hearings in 16 cities.

After this very thorough process, the BLM found that this definition was, essentially, an opportunity for the Secretary of the Interior to deny a mining company an operating permit, even though the proposed mining operation

would be in full compliance with Federal and State laws govern hardrock mining. This is what some people refer to as the ``mine veto.''

The BLM found that the requirement to avoid irreparable harm to significant resources values which cannot be effectively mitigated has the greatest potential for affecting mining activities, both large and small. In some cases this provision could preclude operations altogether.

The Clinton-era regulations were spearheaded by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Solicitor John Leshy. During the Elko, Nevada, field hearings this past summer, majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, made the following statements regarding the outcome of the changes to the regulation: ``Bruce Babbitt is a friend of mine. But for the mining he was awful.'' That's what Harry Reid said this year. It was in one of the hearings that we've referred to today.

``He had people there that--John Leshy . . . He tried to destroy mining. Really . . . he didn't believe in it. He wanted it gone. And that created uncertainty.''

This new definition for ``undue regulation'' is a lawyer's dream creating ambiguity fighting about whether we mine instead of how we mine. We don't need more litigation; we need more common sense.

This definition brings so much uncertainty to the regulatory process that we will see a further decline in investments and the exploration and development of our domestic mineral resources. And there is a potential when mines that are in production today transition into the new system outlined in title III or are in the permitting process to expand their operations that those operations could be denied a license to operate, leaving billions of dollars of infrastructure idle.

I can guarantee you that the coal industry, which has played such an important role in the economic well-being of the chairman's district, would not be able to operate under this definition.

This definition alone will drive more companies offshore, making us more dependent on foreign sources of mineral resources and adversely impacting the economic vitality of mining-dependent communities in the West, like Silver City, New Mexico.

Keep in mind that the mining industry pays the highest nonsupervisory wages in the country. It provides benefits including health care, retirement programs, college scholarships, and assistance for employees and their families. Tourism and recreation jobs cannot compete with these high-paying family-wage jobs.

I would urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, keeping the current standard, protecting American jobs and access to domestic mineral resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

Again, speaking today, we are wondering if the bill that we are talking about has an effect in all districts. And I would say we have a chart here which shows that rising commodity prices are driving people to stealing copper, stealing our minerals, and it is occurring in many of the districts, including the gentlewoman's district in California, where there has been a prosecution. And we have got 80 of these. We have a chart, but I won't show that.

The concept of cleaning up abandoned mine lands is one that we are deeply encouraged by and associate ourselves with, and especially as it affects watersheds. Nowhere are watersheds more important than in the West, and especially New Mexico, because so little water exists throughout the West. Anything we can do to clean up watersheds in general, but, again, the abandoned mine lands is something that we are very supportive of from this side. It relates back to the comments that we have made in our opening statement that I don't think that on the core issues that we are very far apart at all, that we could have gotten where we all would agree with the bill. So we would accept the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman for her work on this in abandoned mine lands and watersheds in general.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start talking about first what this amendment is not. First of all, it is not a cost increase. CBO has said there will be no cost associated with it. Also, it is not an effort to reestablish the Bureau of Mines at the Department of the Interior. Congress abolished the Bureau of Mines before I came to Congress; but a key component of that agency, the Minerals Information Team, was entrusted to the U.S. Geological Service. Unfortunately, USGS has not recognized the critical nature of this program or the importance of the information the MIT produces.

Today, at USGS, the Mineral Commodity Function is five steps below the USGS Director, and eight steps below the Secretary of the Interior. In contrast, the Energy Information Administrator is only one step below the Secretary of Energy. At DOI Minerals Information, it's just about like being a janitor; you have about that much access into the system.

The Resource Origin and Commodity Knowledge, ROCK, Act, takes the mineral commodity information function away from USGS and creates and funds a stand-alone agency using DOI resources. It restores and funds the function Congress sought to retain and protect in 1995.

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the hearings did occur last year on this bill, and I would remind the gentleman from West Virginia that existing resources inside DOI would be used. That is the reason the CBO said that no additional cost would be required.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that we did get into the discussion of the CBO here and the additional cost that would be implemented under this act. The underlying act actually has been scored at $441 million by CBO over 5 years, almost $100 million a year. I share the gentleman's concern about increasing expenditures, increasing bureaucracy, and would again request that we reconsider the

entire thing. But at the moment I would suggest that we do want to realize that two recent National Research Council reports stress that we are increasingly dependent on foreign nations for minerals critical to America and that we need to have an independent agency as called for in this ROCK Act amendment.

My amendment will establish the independent Minerals Commodity Information Administration and the Minerals Information Team to collect, analyze and disseminate information on the domestic and international supply of and demand for minerals, materials critical to the U.S. economy, and our national security.

U.S. businesses operate in a global economy, and virtually every manufacturing sector from aviation to textiles relies on the unbiased, comprehensive data reported by the MIT. This information enables American companies to use domestic resources effectively, forecast worldwide market conditions, develop informed strategic business plans, and respond effectively to short-term fluctuations and long-term trends in minerals prices, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is an honest, straightforward and commonsense motion which should be accepted unanimously. Its acceptance would help restore America's confidence in this body.

This motion addresses two issues Americans expect their elected representatives to address. Americans want more alternative energy sources so we are not dependent on people who hate us for our energy supplies. Americans want to make sure that their government does not take actions which destroy American jobs. The supporters of this bill promise it will not hurt jobs. My motion guarantees it will not hurt jobs.

They constantly promise that they want more clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies. My motion guarantees this clean energy.

Much of the controversy about this bill is about the importance of minerals and the jobs they support. Some say the bill will cost the kind of jobs this country needs and leave us begging other nations for the minerals necessary to produce cleaner energy right here at home. Others argue that it doesn't. My amendment resolves that question.

If adopted, my motion would ensure that the government is not taxing American production of important minerals used for solar power and nuclear power.

That makes sense. The government should not be taxing our efforts to produce more clean domestic energy. The last thing that we need to do is become more dependent on others for energy sources we plan to use to get off of dangerous foreign energy supplies. That's just common sense.

Secondly, my motion applies the ``first, do no harm'' standard to this bill as it relates to jobs.

As we have said here today, minerals mining jobs are the best nonsupervisory jobs available in the country today, according to government reports. This motion says that the government has to certify that this bill will not cost American jobs before it goes into effect. That's the least this country can do for working Americans, make sure that we don't lose their jobs because of our actions.

The supporters of this bill say it will not cost jobs. This gives them a chance to vote to ensure that it doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today on the House floor that this is a work in progress, that H.R. 2262 is a work in progress. I am saying that the Nation's security depends on our good work today and we should not submit a work in progress to the other Chamber. I hope that the supporters of this bill will take this olive branch and guarantee jobs to Americans, not just make more promises to Americans.

We have heard promises this bill won't hurt jobs; this motion guarantees it. We hear promises about more clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies. This motion guarantees it.

My motion turns a promise into a legal guarantee. I urge its adoption by all Members of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend from California for yielding.

As he mentioned, it is interesting that we are setting aside land for wilderness area to be managed by the Federal Government. It came out of the Committee on Natural Resources, but we are not using all our natural resources right now. We are not using some of the oil reserves that we have in ANWR. We are not using the oil that is on the Outer Continental Shelf. We are not using the shale coal that we have that we can convert to oil. We are not using the clean-burning coal to the best of our ability. We are not drilling for natural gas.

So we have natural resources in all parts of our country that we are not taking advantage of, and the reason that we are not taking advantage of it is because the new majority in the 110th Congress is being controlled or partly controlled by the radical environmentalists that don't want us to drive a Suburban or an extended cab pickup. They don't really care if gas goes to $10 a gallon.

So I would like for this House to concentrate on the majority of Americans who are tired of paying $4 a gallon for gas. They understood that when the new majority was elected, and you go back to April of 2006 and then minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, made the statement, that the Democrats had a commonsense plan for bringing down the skyrocketing price of gas.

Now, I think at the time, Mr. Speaker, gas was about $2.20 a gallon. I never thought we would lament or say, man, can you remember back when gas was $2 a gallon? But that is what it was when the Democrat majority said they had this new commonsense approach for bringing down the skyrocketing gas price.

Since that time, gas has almost doubled. It has almost doubled. So where is that commonsense plan? Where is it that we are using some of our natural resources to increase the supply of production that we have in this country, rather than being so dependent on foreign oil?

Now, the problem is that the majority passed in January of 2007 an energy bill, and that energy bill, which many on our side of the aisle called the ``no-energy bill,'' went into effect. So we thought that that was the secret plan. Mr. Speaker, we thought that was this commonsense approach.

Once we looked at the bill, we saw that gasoline was mentioned about five or six times, that crude oil was mentioned about maybe 12 times, and that nothing was mentioned about domestic drilling, nothing was mentioned about increasing the production or using our natural resources to make us less dependent on foreign oil. But what we saw were words like ``swimming pool'' was used 47 times, ``lamp'' or ``light bulb'' was used 350 times, ``renewable energy'' was used a number of times, ``greenhouse gases'' was used a number of times, but nothing was really in that ``no-energy bill'' that helps us today.

I think we see evidence of that today with gas being over $4 a gallon. There was nothing in there to help us bring down the price of gas, number one, and that was where the commonsense approach was to be, was to bring down the skyrocketing price of gasoline. Not only did we not bring it down, it has doubled.

So where is this commonsense approach? I think the American people are ready to see it. I know my constituents are. When I go home, just like we have been home during the Memorial Day break, I had people ask me, what are we doing about increasing our domestic production? What are we doing about having the ability to become less dependent on foreign oil?

I have to explain to them the ``no-energy bill'' that was passed by this Congress and the things that it mentioned and the things that were there, and really and truly, Mr. Speaker, they think I am lying to them or kidding them, that that is the commonsense plan that the majority had, because it wasn't a plan at all. It was some type of smoke and mirrors that was sold to the American people. Now that gas is more than twice what it was, what are we to tell them? Because I have not seen anything come out of the Democratic side.

Now we have come up with an energy proposal that makes sense. It allows us to use some of our natural resources. What the other part that my constituents don't believe is that we as a government will not allow drilling off the coast of Florida, and yet China is fixing to start drilling 45 miles off our coast.

They can use the slant drilling technology and probably get deeper into our oil reserves. Now, what are we to tell people? What am I to tell my constituents that this Congress is doing about that? They are doing nothing about it, not one single thing.

We are naming post offices, we are coming up with wilderness areas and many more days of honoring somebody or recognizing a week or recognizing a month, but we are not doing anything on this House floor, nor have we done anything on this House floor, to really bring down the price of gas, crude oil or come up with a commonsense plan for that American worker out there that's going to the pump, costing him $100 to fill up with gas.

Now, I don't know the answer to it, but I would suspect that if we pass some type of legislation that said we were going to start drilling, whether it be in ANWR, Outer Continental Shelf, wherever it is, that the oil speculators, that the bottom would fall out of that because people would say, you know what? They are finally doing something to become less dependent on somebody else's oil production.

So we don't have to hold them hostage anymore, and those prices would come down, just at the fact that we passed the legislation--not that we put the first drill bit in the ground--but just that these oil speculators and the American people saw that their elected officials were wanting to do something to take a positive step that we can meet our own energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask, what's wrong with that? I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think that the people that elect us deserve to know what our plan is. The Republican side has come out with a plan. They say, look, we are going to take advantage of our natural resources. We are going to take advantage of the things that we were God given in this land. We are going to take advantage of our oil reserves, of our natural gas, of our abundance of coal.

We are going to take advantage of those things, and we are going to use the technology that we have been so good about coming up with. We are going to take and convert this shale to oil, which Hitler did in the late 1920s--in the late 1920s--and we don't think that we can do that today?

There is a problem, and we need the courage, the political courage and the political guts to stand up and say we are going to--or at least I hope the majority party will go--we are going to go against those people that we owe so much to for being in the majority, and say we are going to do what's good for the American people. We are going to use our own natural resources. We are going to do what the people that elected us expect us to do, and that's what's the best for them, not the best for special interest groups.

I just hope that during this next conversation that we have on these upcoming bills that we will be on this floor discussing this issue, because we have not really had a debate on it. I wish that the majority party would bring a bill to this floor and have an open rule so we could vote on some of these things that are so important.

The truth of it is that our constituency doesn't really know how we believe on some of these issues, because the majority has never given us the ability to vote on it. Let's vote on drilling on ANWR, just a straight up or down vote, not anything else tied to it. Let's drill on our natural gas. Let's vote on our natural gas drilling, not anything else tied, just an up or down. Let's drill on the converting of coal- to-liquid oil. Let's vote on that, just an up or down, rather than tie so many things that's so confusing to the American people.

That's what I hope we will do.

Thank you for yielding.

To my other friend from California over there, I know that the gentleman is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, and I think that subcommittee has jurisdiction over the drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. Right now only 3 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is leased for oil and natural gas, and only 6 percent of the Bureau of Land Management public lands are leased.

So I think that it would be a good opportunity for the gentleman, for just my suggestion, that we look at that. I know that it has been looked at many times before.

The gentleman mentioned about the Republicans being in control for 12 years, I was only here for 2 of those years, so I was quite disappointed too that we never passed a comprehensive energy plan. You know, I am very concerned about that, and I hate that.

What I am proud of is that right now that we have come up with an energy plan that would help with our dependence on foreign oil, and maybe it took 12 years for us to wake up. I certainly hope that the majority party that's in

control now, that it doesn't take them 12 years to wake up to understand that we need an energy policy.

Now, if it's going to take them 12 years to wake up, we will be paying $12 a gallon like they are paying in the Netherlands or $9 a gallon like they are paying in Germany. I know that would make some of their base awfully happy if we were paying those gas prices, but your average American family, the man and the woman out there trying to make a living and trying to provide for their family, does not like paying $4 a gallon for gasoline when we are not doing anything, anything to reduce our dependence on that foreign oil.

I agree with Mr. Nunes from California in the fact that we need to bring some bills to the floor. We are doing 20 suspension bills on this floor today. The U.S. Congress is addressing 20 bills on this floor today, that most of them will be passed by a voice vote, and most Americans won't even know what we did.

Some of these pieces of legislation should be going through a regular rule, a regular order of process, where we can come in and make some amendments on some of these. There may be in these wilderness areas, there may be some spots where we have the potential for natural gas or oil, where we have potential for solar, where we have potential for wind power. Those are being restricted on just about every one of these pieces of legislation that we are doing today.

So let's have an open, honest--that's another promise that the majority made to the American people, that this was going to be the most open, honest Congress in history. I hate to say this, and I was only here for 2 years when we were in control, but that's not true. That's another falsehood and whether they did it purposefully or not, that this is not the most open, honest Congress that this country has ever seen, and it does not or has not or not yet come up with a commonsense approach to bring down the skyrocketing cost of gasoline when it was $2.20 a gallon, and now it's over $4 a gallon.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important legislation.

As a proud cosponsor of the bill, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman Rahall, the lead sponsor of H.R. 2262 and our leader on the Natural Resources Committee, for all he has done to make it possible for the House to consider the bill today.

For many years, he has worked to replace the ancient mining law of 1872 with a statute more attuned to this era than to the days of the Grant administration--a worthy task that remains unfinished through no fault of his.

For him, it is personal. And it is personal for me as well.

My uncle, Stewart Udall, had the honor of serving as Secretary of the Interior during the administrations of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. During his tenure, he accomplished a great deal, but he wanted to do more. He has often said that reform of the mining law of 1872 was the biggest unfinished business on the Nation's natural resources agenda, and

has never let me forget that one of his final actions as Secretary was to send to Congress proposed legislation to accomplish that goal.

And, as Chairman Rahall has reminded us all, my father, Representative Morris K. Udall, recognized the need for legislation such as the bill before us today. As chairman of what was then the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, he also accomplished a great deal, but he did not live to see that need fulfilled through its enactment.

So, I consider myself very fortunate to have the opportunity to join in supporting this bill and, by so doing, helping to accomplish what both my father and uncle recognized as a long-overdue step to provide the American people--owners of the Federal lands--with a fair return for development of ``hardrock'' minerals and to establish a better balance between the development of those minerals and the other uses of those lands.

Those are the purposes of this bill, and I think it is well designed to accomplish them.

Its enactment will replace the mining law of 1872 with a new statutory framework for the development of hardrock minerals on Federal lands.

Perhaps most notably, it will impose a royalty on gross income from hardrock mining on Federal land. Under current law, those who mine gold, silver, platinum, or other hardrock minerals from those lands pay no royalties at all--unlike those who extract oil, natural gas, or other minerals covered by the Mineral Leasing Act.

The royalty rate would be 8 percent of ``net smelter return'' for new mines and mine expansions, and a 4 percent net smelter rerun for production from existing mines. Those royalties, to the extent they exceed the costs of administering the new law, would go into a special fund in the Treasury and, along with certain administrative fees, would be available, subject to appropriation, to support reclamation programs and to provide assistance to State, local, and tribal governments.

I consider the establishment of this ``abandoned hardrock mine reclamation fund'' one of the most important features of the bill.

It is very important for Colorado because while mining brought many benefits to our State, it has also left us with too many worked-out and abandoned mines. Some of them are mere open pits or shafts that endanger hunters, hikers, or other visitors. And too many are the source of pollution that contaminates the nearby land and nearby streams or other bodies of water, and so are threats to public health as well as to the ranchers and farmers who depend on water to make a living and the fish and wildlife for whom it is life itself.

In fact, I have seen credible estimates indicating that the Western States have as many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mines, and that just in Colorado there are over 20,000 old mines, shafts, and exploration holes.

In short, Mr. Chairman, there is an urgent need to clean up and reclaim these abandoned mines. But there are two major obstacles to progress toward that goal.

One is a lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The reclamation fund established by this bill will be a major step toward remedying that problem.

The other obstacle is the fact that while many people would like to undertake the work of cleaning up abandoned mines, these would-be ``good Samaritans'' are deterred because they fear that under the Clean Water Act or other current law someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place.

Because that obstacle is not addressed by this bill, I have introduced a separate measure--H.R. 4011--that does address it. That bill, similar to ones I introduced in the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, reflects valuable input from representatives of the Western Governors' Association and other interested parties, including staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from abandoned mines. It is cosponsored by our colleague from New Mexico, Representative Pearce, whose help I greatly appreciate, and I will be seeking to have it considered as soon as practicable.

Another important aspect of the bill before us is the way it would modify the administrative and judicial procedures related to mining activities, including establishing a means for local governments to petition for withdrawal of Federal land from the staking of new mining claims.

That will enable local governments all over Colorado to have a much greater voice regarding activities that could have the potential to cause problems for their residents and for them to seek protection for such resources and values as watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildlife habitats, cultural or historic resources, scenic areas. In addition, Indian tribes will be able to seek protections for religious and cultural values.

I recognize that not everyone supports the bill as it stands. The Colorado Mining Association has informed me that while its members support reforming the 1872 mining law, they think the royalty rate that the bill would apply to new production is too high, and that they consider application of even a lower rate to existing production is unfair. I respect their views--although I don't think it is accurate to describe the royalty on existing production as ``retroactive,'' because it will not apply to any production occurring prior to the bill's enactment--and I am ready to consider supporting changes in the royalty rates as the legislative process continues.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, one that deserves our support. In the words of a recent editorial in the Daily Sentinel newspaper of Grand Junction, CO, it is ``long- overdue and much-needed legislation.'' I urge its passage, and for the benefit of all our colleagues I attach the complete text of the Daily Sentinel's editorial.

[From the (Grand Junction, CO) Daily Sentinel, Oct. 18, 2007]

Archaic Mining Law Needs 21st-Century Update

The mining industry that transformed huge swaths of western

Colorado's landscape in the latter part of the 19th century

was given a considerable boost by the 1872 Mining Law. And

that legal antique continues to transform public lands in the

state today.

However, long-overdue and much-needed legislation to

finally reform the 135-year-old law is to be marked up in the

House Natural Resources Committee today.

The mining legislation signed into law by President Ulysses

S. Grant was adopted when most Americans enthusiastically

supported both the development of the largely unpopulated

West by white settlers and full exploitation of its natural

resources. Along with laws such as the Homestead Act and the

Timber and Stone Act, the 1872 Mining Law helped drive that

effort.

Over time, however, public-lands laws passed in the late

19th century have been eliminated or superseded. Only the

1872 Mining Law remains in largely its original form,

allowing companies and individuals to stake mining claims on

federal lands and eventually purchase those lands for as

little as $5 an acre.

In Colorado since 1980, 17 companies and 40 individuals

have obtained mineral rights and deeds to more than 84,000

acres of once-public land under the 1872 law, according to a

study by the Environmental Working Group. Four more

applications are pending to acquire deeds to mining claims in

Colorado.

Moreover, unlike companies that lease the rights to recover

coal, oil and gas from public lands, those who obtain gold,

silver and other precious metals under the 1872 law

contribute nothing to the federal treasury through leasing or

royalty payments. And because there were no environmental

requirements in the law, U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill

to clean up thousands of old mine sites around the West.

The legislation before the committee would end the practice

of selling federal lands for hard-rock mining. People could

lease lands for mining--as they do with coal, oil and gas--

but they could not gain ownership of them, often for a tiny

fraction of their current value.

Additionally, the bill to reform the 1872 Mining Law would

establish an 8 percent royalty for new mines. It would

improve environmental rules, create reclamation bonding

requirements for mines and give federal land managers more

authority to balance hard-rock mining with other public-lands

activity. Not surprisingly, industry lobbyists are trying to

water it down.

Western Colorado's two House members, Mark Udall and John

Salazar, support the bill. Others should, too. It's long past

time this 19th century relic was revamped to reflect the new

realities of the 21st century.

I want to thank the ranking member for his hard work the last 10 months.

I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, for his efforts on the bill. He was very patient, very respectful. I appreciate his time and energy. We may disagree, but I certainly do appreciate him listening to my concerns and oppositions to this particular bill, so thank you so much.

Also, I thank the subcommittee chairman for a field hearing in Elko, Nevada. I certainly do appreciate that also, giving them a chance to be heard. I know that was appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, mining is the second largest industry in the State of Nevada, which employs approximately 32,000 Nevadans, supporting, obviously, countless numbers of families. These high-paying jobs and their related services are the backbone of the rural community in our State and other rural economies.

I would take, for example, a couple, Larry and Vickie Childs of Spring Creek, Nevada. Larry retired from the mining industry approximately 25 years ago and subsequently went to work for a company in Elko, Nevada, providing miners the tools and equipment that they need. Vickie works at a health clinic for miners and their families provided by the two largest mining companies in the area.

Vickie's clinic employs two pharmacists, four doctors, physician's assistants, nurses, lab technicians, maintenance and clerical people. Larry and Vickie raised four children in Elko, Nevada, one of whom currently today works in the mining industry.

When this bill closes down the local mining operations, the equipment suppliers and the health care clinics will have layoffs, and, obviously, close their doors. The Childs family will begin to lose their homes. The mining industry will join other domestic industry crushed by foreign competition and overregulation.

Despite opposition to this bill in Elko, one of the most affected communities by this bill, the new excessive taxes and burdensome regulations of this bill will kill this industry, and with that industry will go the towns and families that depend upon it.

Clearly, this was not the result of the field hearing that the community had hoped for. All of these measures, many of the supporters will say, are in the name of fairness.

The question is, fairness to whom? Fairness to Nevada? Fairness to New Mexico? Arizona? I know that China thinks it's fair. I would guess that South Africa thinks that this is a fair bill. I would probably even guess that Australia thinks it is a fair bill.

But do you think it's a fair bill to the Childs family in Spring Creek and the many thousands like them? I don't think so.

But just like this bill ignores the futures of the families in Nevada, H.R. 2262 also fails to embrace the realities of the future of our Nation. India and China, with their State-funded purchases of global mineral commodities, should make us consider the long-term ramifications of the health of the domestic mining industry. Also, the technological advances we all want in our future, such as alternative energy, rely heavily on minerals and metals. A hybrid car, for example, requires twice as much copper as a traditional SUV today.

Our national defense will rely on foreign sources of minerals to build our military equipment. Frankly, I don't want to rely on China when we are in a war-time situation.

I urge my colleagues to support rural communities, urge them to support our domestic mining industry for the sake of our families, our economy, and our national security by voting against H.R. 2262.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, more hardrock mining occurs in my district than in any other State; therefore, the remediation of abandoned mine lands is very important to my constituents.

As many of us are aware, abandoned mine lands are the unfortunate legacy of the irresponsible mining practices of the past. Fortunately, mining operations today are held accountable for their practices. So with bad practices of the past ended, we have an opportunity to focus on cleaning up the abandoned mine lands. And the amendment I am offering will do just that.

My amendment will direct half of the revenues deposited in the hardrock reclamation fund to States for the purposes of abandoned mine land remediation, while preserving the Federal Government's ability to fund the national priorities in the bill. My amendment allows the Federal Government to distribute half of the funds as it sees fit. The other half of the funds would go proportionately to States where production is occurring to fund in-place, successful AML programs.

In multiple committee hearings, we heard that States currently do a great job of remediating abandoned mine land sites. They often are only limited by their available resources to conduct remediation projects. To give some of you perspective of how effective State programs are, Nevada has identified more than 20,000 AML sites in need of remediation and is still in the process, of course, of identifying more. The good news is that to date we have secured more than 9,000 of those sites.

Likewise, in Colorado it is estimated that there are about 23,000 abandoned mines. More than 6,000 have been made safe by the State Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety.

So in an effort to get money on the ground to remediate abandoned land mine sites quickly and efficiently, a portion of these funds needs to be dedicated to States where production is occurring. Given that many States have already prioritized their AML needs, we should get funding to them as directly as possible, as quickly as possible. This amendment will expedite the cleanup process that we all want.

My amendment bolsters the ability of States to continue their good work on the ground while providing a way to remediate historic hardrock sites in States where mineral production will not generate sufficient funds to deal with current abandoned mine land issues.

I would urge support of the Heller amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, again thanking him for his respect and efforts on this particular bill and hard work, and giving me time and efforts for my comments and concerns that I shared during the committee.

I want to thank him for accepting this amendment.

Yes, I will.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.