Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes.

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Law of 1872 is the last of the frontier-era legislation to remain on the books, with the Homestead Act having long been repealed, not to mention laws regarding carrying your six-gun into a saloon or allowing a posse to hang horse thieves.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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation which imposes an 8 percent gross tax on all new mining claims made on Federal lands and will cause a significant reduction in domestic mineral production and future mining investments in the United States of America.

I do appreciate the lip service that the Democrat majority regularly pays to making America the top-ranked nation in the world on a number of fronts. However, after managing over what will surely rank as the least effective Congress in recent memory, I am surprised that there isn't more disappointment on their side of the aisle with this legislation because this bill fails to set new global standards for the highest tax on mining on the planet; it merely matches Germany's, which already holds the world record for the highest mining tax at 8 percent of gross receipts. Once again we see the new Democrat majority trying to equal what is done in the United Kingdom and across Europe, including Germany.

In the Committee on Natural Resources hearing held on this matter on October 2, James Cress testified: ``I am only aware of a single royalty that is as high as the royalty proposed in this bill, just one in my 20 years of practice. An 8 percent royalty would really be ruinous.''

I suppose that neither Mr. Cress nor anyone watching this debate should be surprised, though. In what will surely go down as the least- productive Congress in recent history, this new Democrat majority has failed for the first time since 1987 to even send a single appropriations bill to the President for his approval by this point in the year.

This is the same Democrat majority that recently set another record of dubious distinction, a record for the most legislative ``busy work'' with the least amount to show for it. Since the beginning of this Congress, Members of this House have voted on over 1,000 roll call votes with just barely a tenth of those bills having been signed into law.

And of the 106 bills that have actually made it to the President's desk, 46 named post offices, courthouses or roads; 44 bills were noncontroversial measures sponsored by Republicans or passed with overwhelming GOP support; and 14 bills extended preexisting public laws or laws passed during the Republican-led Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that with a track record as abysmal as this, the Democrat majority is eager to put just about anything on the floor in the hopes of claiming any kind of legislative victory. Unfortunately, the policies included in this legislation are quite simply wrong for America that will jeopardize the current and future domestic sourcing of minerals that are critical to our Nation's economic well-being and security.

In addition to imposing the world's highest royalty on mineral production, this legislation would also retroactively levy a 4 percent gross royalty on existing mines where business plans and investments have already been made without accounting for this after-the-fact cost. This provision, which is of doubtful legality but is doubtlessly unfair, is the legislative equivalent of one party changing the terms of a contract after it has already been signed. I believe that the Federal Government abusing its power to change the negotiated terms of these agreements is simply unfair, and I oppose it.

I also disagree with the inclusion of several provisions in this legislation that would empower political appointees to stop new mining projects even after these projects have met all applicable environmental and legal requirements.

No industry can or should be expected to operate with such regulatory uncertainty, and the net effect of all of these provisions will simply be to encourage companies to take their business overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation that harms the domestic American mining industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear it here again, every single member of the new Democrat majority talking about their desire to tax, a new tax of 8 percent on this industry which has been described as the final death nail which will disseminate the remnants of an already sadly diminished domestic mining industry, and here we go, tax them at 8 percent, put the death nail in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Speaker, day after day we come down to the floor and we hear about all the new taxes, all the new rules and regulations, all the things that have to take place by this new Democrat majority, but I think we fail to recognize that what happens is that when you tax something, you get less of it. When you put more rules and regulations on something, less good things happen.

In this case, we are going to have an 8 percent tax on the industry; 4 percent tax on the new operations, 4 percent tax on the existing operations. The overwhelming indication that we have is that it will make us look more like Europe, and we are told that's a good thing, I guess.

The bottom line is that we spend a lot of time gnashing our teeth together trying to talk about jobs in country. Just yesterday, the Rules Committee, after we had done this bill, we had a trade adjustment assistance bill. We tried to bend over backwards, which some of it I do support, trying to make sure that those workers who have lost their jobs as a result of world competition in trade and manufacturing, that we do all we can do to help these employees who lost their job.

Yet the very next bill is this bill that literally will decimate workers' jobs in the West. I am sure what we will do is in a few years we will come back and say, oh, my gosh, we just can't compete. Let's now give them what we just did yesterday, trade adjustment assistance. It just keeps going on and on and on.

I suggested yesterday, will suggest today, let's not tax this. Let's not tax this industry for the benefit of the government. Let's let the industry be healthy. Let's let the industry compete globally. Let's let this industry provide those necessary and needed resources, precious metals and precious resources to the development and the benefit of the United States of America, including our United States military.

Let's not tax this at 8 percent so that we allow manufacturing not to have to go overseas to get those precious, hard metal products that they need to ensure that manufacturing is taken care

of in this country. Let's not tax this industry to where it decimates it, to where there are no jobs in this country, to where America has to seek these precious metals and hard metals overseas.

We believe that what you have got today is a circumstance where the new Democrat majority can't wait to tax this industry at 8 percent, which will see the industry go into demise. We think that is an obvious plan that they have had. They didn't just pull this out. This is something that they have had, been working on a long time.

The Republican Party opposes this new tax. We oppose the diminishment of the industry. We oppose what will eventually happen as a result of American manufacturers having to go overseas to seek new markets, many times countries which are not close friends and allies of the United States. We see a day when we will not only lose jobs but will be held hostage for the precious minerals that we need, which will provide not only our country the things it needs but perhaps the military and our industrial complex with the things that will keep America strong.

We oppose this bill. I believe that what you have heard today is not only Members state that equivocally, but we will continue to say to the Members who are listening to this argument, please vote ``no'' on the rule, and please vote ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand this meaningful reform that's going on, a new 8 percent tax on the industry. We get that. The Republican Party understands that there will be a loss of jobs, loss of manufacturing base in the United States of America. And we know that that's part of the meaningful reform that the new Democrat majority wants and expects. This is not a new subject: taxation, spending at record levels that are taking place by this new Congress, combined with an incredibly poor record on efficiency for the bills that will be signed into law.

That's why the President of the United States has issued his administrative policy from OMB that says they're not going to sign this bill; they're not going to sign this into law because of the loss of industry jobs, the lack of competitiveness that the United States of America will have with hard metals, and the high taxation that would be imposed that will kill the industry.

We get it. Perhaps that's meaningful reform to the Democrat Party. That's loss of jobs, lack of ability for America to be competitive with the world and high taxation. And that's not our idea of good reform.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentlewoman from

California that I have no additional speakers at this time, and so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate not only the debate that's taken place today, but also your demeanor in this wise consideration. I appreciate the gentleman from New York very much.

Mr. Speaker, what we're debating here today is yet another opportunity for the new Democrat majority to raise taxes in this country, to put consumers at a disadvantage, and to raise more money for their Big Government plans and programs that they have.

New taxation is not something that is new to the Democrat Party. That's their mission: grow the size of government, to tax people.

What's interesting today is the debate that has taken place about the words ``meaningful reform'' that were necessary to justify the taxation that will take place.

The Republican Party opposes this bill. The Republican Party opposes new taxation. The Republican Party recognizes again today that we know that market forces will come into play yet again today, not only to further diminish this industry, which, by and large, is located in the west of our country, which means a loss of jobs in the west, which means that it will diminish, not only the few jobs that remain, but will make America in a less competitive circumstance as related to the marketplace of the world.

But what we've heard today that has been just very interesting were remarks by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) where he talked about his knowledge of what the manufacturing base of this country needs, and that is, many times, the hard minerals that are directly affected by what this bill will do.

Raising taxes means that there will be less opportunity for people to go and mine these operations because the cost efficiency as it relates to the world marketplace will not be available to those companies. So what will happen is there will be a new taxation, this 8 percent tax. There will be a diminishment of the mining industry in America, and then there will be those people who utilize those raw materials, they still have a need to produce the products which they need, which many times are not only in the best interest of the United States of America, but also to produce products that will help the United States military and our infrastructure who now will have to go overseas to do business with countries that are not exactly our closest of friends and buy their products.

So once again, what we see is a philosophy that is followed by the Democrat Party, not just the new majority of the Democratic Party, but an old philosophy that, let's go and find a way to reform an industry and to tax them out of existence, to lose jobs in this country to where we have to come down to the floor and beg for further government assistance to take care of people, and then we whine and moan about the jobs that have been lost overseas and how this had something to do with trade.

Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we had an opportunity, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier from California; the gentleman, Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida; the gentleman, Mr. Hastings from Washington; and myself and we said, why don't we do something that would be proactive to keep jobs in this country. Like, let's not do things that would put us at a disadvantage. Like, let's do things like lower taxation, for instance, with depreciation policies, tax policies that would allow us to be on an even footing with other countries who we compete with.

That fell on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. It fell on deaf ears because, really, what this is about is getting more money to run this Big Government policy that the new Democratic majority wants to put in place.

We recognize that what's happening is that at this time we have a log jam of all these bills as they try and get to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees and move forward on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.

This week, a number of news publications, including the National Journal, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play political games and to send a three-bill pile-up consisting of Labor- HHS, Defense and Veterans funding bills to President Bush so that they can try and leverage strong Republican support for the military and veterans funding to sneak a bloated Labor-HHS bill that proposes an 8 percent increase in spending over current funding past President Bush and this Congress. Once again, not just more taxation, more spending.

While the House Democrat leadership plays politics, however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has already done its work and appointed conferees for the Veterans appropriations bill. And for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding to languish without conferees for their own political advantage, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million that could be put to bear to help them for the intended reason why we're spending the money. That would be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important veterans support activities.

The American Legion and the VFW have already made multiple requests, along with Republican Members from this House, urged Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin work on this conference report for veterans funding. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the previous question so that we can put partisanship aside and move this important legislation forward without any further games or gimmicks. I know that this is a bold idea that hasn't yet been focused directly by Democrat pollsters or agreed to by moveon.org, but I think our veterans deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 780 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 780.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 780 provides for consideration of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. It also makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. My home State of California is what it is today because of the business of mining. When James Marshall discovered gold in the American River in my area more than two centuries ago, California was not yet a State.

The economic boom that followed the discovery of gold helped to remake the West. It infused our young Nation with renewed energy and capital. It began one of the most well-known episodes in our country's history: the Gold Rush.

Without mining, the City of Sacramento, which I represent proudly, would probably not be the capital of the largest State in the Union. Without mining, States like Nevada and Utah would be without the economic basis upon which they are now growing. Without mining, the western half of the United States would be a different place.

But in the West, Mr. Speaker, we have more than hardrock minerals. We also have rivers, streams, mountain ranges, and millions upon millions of people. These are natural resources just like gold and silver, and they must be protected from environmental harm.

Unfortunately, the law that currently governs mining operations is extremely outdated. It was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant. This was during the time when miners used shovels and pickaxes. Now, huge machines and industrial equipment are the tools of the mining trade.

Times have changed, Mr. Speaker. In the year 2007, we recognize that the term ``natural resources'' includes more than what we extract from the Earth. Its definition now encompasses the whole environment in which we live, from the water we drink, to the land we farm, to the air we breathe.

All Americans have a stake in preserving this environment, Mr. Speaker, and mining companies should contribute their fair share. However, they currently enjoy access to Federal land that no other industry does, not natural gas, not oil shale, not coal.

Under the 1872 law, mining companies pay next to nothing to extract metal from publicly owned lands. American taxpayers foot the bill for the extensive environmental remediation that many abandoned mines require.

Other old mines simply never get cleaned up. They sit empty and vacant, leaching chemicals into groundwater, polluting watersheds, and posing safety hazards for the public. After 135 years' worth of this subsidy, it is long past time for mining companies to pay their fair share.

This bill received three subcommittee hearings and a full committee hearing that stretched over 2 days. The rule makes in order seven total amendments, five of which are Republican.

This legislation has been considered and debated in the best tradition of the U.S. Congress. It is good environmental policy in the very same tradition. It is also good social policy. The bill also takes into account industry concerns and provides economic assistance to mining communities. One-third of the revenue created by this bill will go to a community assistance fund to help mitigate the social and economic impacts of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Sacramento grew up around a place called Sutter's Fort. It was originally built to be a base for agricultural trade. The discovery of gold in the foothills northeast of Sutter's Fort changed its history and the history of our Nation forever. Because of gold, what was once Mexican territory soon became our 31st and most prosperous State.

Mining has left a permanent imprint on this country. Yes, it has led to increased economic gain and the development of the western United States. At the same time, it has had negative impact on our public lands. As Members of Congress, we are stewards of this Federal land. We have the responsibility to update our laws so that the mining industry helps ensure that our public lands and natural resources are preserved for future Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side, so if the gentleman would like to close.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to say that we are discussing H.R. 2262, and it's about more than protecting water quality and preserving the environment, which it does. It also takes into account industry concerns and provides economic assistance from mining communities. One-

third of the revenue created by this bill will go to a community assistance fund to help mitigate the social and economic impacts of this legislation.

Both the Rules and Natural Resources Committees held hearings on this bill, during which time Republicans and Democrats were given the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, the Natural Resources Committee held four hearings on this bill that stretched over five different days. During this time, they adopted a bipartisan set of amendments.

After the bill made its way through the legislative process and maintained bipartisan support, the Rules Committee allowed for seven amendments to be considered on the floor. These seven amendments address major issues in the bill. This will give opponents the opportunity to debate on the floor the merits of key issues of the bill. Of the seven amendments allowed under this rule, more than half, five, are Republican amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill is long overdue. It should have been passed decades ago. But it's never too late to strengthen current law so that it preserves the environment, protects communities, and addresses public safety. This legislation does all three.

I commend Chairman Costa and Chairman Rahall on crafting a balanced and bipartisan bill. This legislation is proof that we can reap the benefits of our Nation's abundant natural resources while also preserving them for future generations.

Metals like gold, silver and copper help make this country what it is, Mr. Speaker. How we manage these resources going forward will make us what we are in the future.

With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.