Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is well aware that when you extract oil, you pay a royalty; you pay us, the public, who owns the lands, something back.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. If the Senator from California had a mine and wanted to go in and dig coal out of our public lands, she would have to pay the public back something for that coal. It is ours, after all. But if you are going to dig for gold, hard rock mining, you do not have to give us anything back.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. If you are mining for coal, you have to pay 8 percent for underground mining and 12\1/2\ percent for surface mining. That is royalty that you pay back to the taxpayers for the use of that land.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. The standard criterion is absolutely correct. If you are going to dig coal, you have to have a detailed permitting and reclamation standard. But if you are going to mine hard rock, which we are talking about in this bill, this giveaway in this bill, you have to show reasonable measures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public land. It is very minimal.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct. Coal miners have to pay 8 percent for underground mining and 12\1/2\ percent for surface mining where hard rock pays none. I would think the Senators from States who have coal miners who are paying 8 percent would be rushing to the floor and saying: Where is the fairness here where you can mine hard rock for gold and pay not one dime back to the taxpayers for the use of that public land and for what you have extracted from that public land, and yet coal is 12\1/2\ percent?

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield, I have a chart that shows what you do if you are going to mine coal and what you do if you are going to mine hard rock. On the selection of the coal mining site, you have to get approval through a leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act. In comparison, if you are going to do hard rock mining, which we are talking about in this bill, it is self-initiation on the location. In the mining law based in 1872, there is no BLM approval that is required.

Mrs. MURRAY. I respond to the Senator from Illinois, I am as baffled as he is, that every Senator knows the 1872 mining law needs to be reformed. It needs to be reformed in a fair and responsible manner. If, indeed, the mining companies need more mill sites, then the taxpayers ought to get something in return. In fact, the mill site limitation is truly the only part of this law that allows us some control over what is left behind because the mining industry did not want to give and take, they just took, and got their rider put into this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct. The technology that is available today allows mining companies to haul out rock, pour cyanide through it, and come up with an ounce of gold. The price of gold today allows them to do that. It has been profitable for them. Therefore, they take tons of rock, and they are claiming of course that they need more acreage for mill sites because it takes so much more rock to get a small amount of gold.

Mrs. MURRAY. The outcome of this amendment is that we will have hundreds of acres in this country--maybe thousands of acres--with tailings on them and cyanide-leached rock left on them, and it will be our responsibility to clean it up. And the mining industry will not have given us a dime for that.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is exactly correct. If we allow the language that is in the Interior bill to move through and to become law, that is exactly correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. She may not agree they are paying enough, but they are paying something. Under the current mining laws in this country, hardrock mining pays nothing back to the taxpayers.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do intend to offer this amendment. My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, desires to speak first and then I will.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if my colleague from Washington State will yield for a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. We want to make sure that all the Members on the other side who wish to speak on this are ready to do so.

Mrs. MURRAY. With that understanding, I am happy to offer my amendment at this time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. We are absolutely referring to mining on our public land.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about some legislative language that is in the Interior bill, on which I will be offering an amendment shortly, which is going to give away more of our public lands for the benefit of a few and at a tremendous cost to all the rest of us. This is a cost to the American taxpayer and to our environment. I want to begin, as I talk about this, by expressing that I am not going to be attacking the mining industry, which this amendment will be speaking to. I believe mining is an important industry in our country. While most of us don't think about it a lot, mining does produce some important minerals that are vital in every one of our lives. Mining is not only important in individual routines, but it is vital to our industrial base and rural economies. We need an active mining industry in our country. Like all of my colleagues, I support a responsible mining act, but we, as citizens of this country, need a fair deal. Today the mining industry is treated exceptionally well by our very old laws. Unfortunately, the American taxpayers are not treated well. They receive next to nothing from this industry, and our public lands suffer as well. A fact that should both amaze and really appall the American public is that mining in this country is controlled by a law that was written in 1872. That law was written just a few short years after the Civil War, when Ulysses S. Grant was still President of the United States. The law of 1872 allows mining interests to buy our Federal lands for between $2.50 and $5 per acre. Guess what they are paying for that now, 130 years later. They are paying between $2.50 and $5 per acre. That is quite a bargain. And what does the hard rock mining industry pay in royalties back to us for using our land, for what they pull out of our land? Nothing, zero, zilch. The hard rock mining industry is the only extractive industry in this country that pays absolutely no royalties to the taxpayers for minerals that are coming from our public lands. In addition, over the course of these past 130 years since this law was written, the mining industry has caused tremendous environmental damage throughout the West. Mining waste dumps are responsible for poisoning streams, lakes, and ground water with toxic minerals such as lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Mining in the United States has left a legacy of 12,000 miles of polluted streams and 180,000 acres of polluted lakes. There are 500,000-plus abandoned mines in this country. Guess who pays for the cleanup. The taxpayers. That bill is estimated to be between $32 and $72 billion. We, the taxpayers, pay for the cleanup of these mines. The 1872 mining law did make sense when it was written 130 years ago. I think everybody here agrees that a lot has changed in 130 years. Our Nation is very different. The value of our public lands has increased dramatically, far more than $2.50 an acre. We no longer need incentives to get people to move out west, which is why that mining law was written. The West, I think, has been settled. Our commitment in this country to protect the environment is now extremely intense. It was nonexistent 130 years ago when this law was written, in part because our natural resources seemed unlimited 130 years ago. I think all of us know that is not true anymore. Mining technology has changed radically in 130 years. Today a lot more land is needed for every ounce of mineral that is extracted. When this law was written, an old man with a pony or a mule would ride up with his pickax and do his mining on his claim. Today we extract hundreds of pounds of rock that is waste. They use cyanide to leach through it to get just a tiny amount of gold. Technology has changed dramatically. No one can stand up and say we should continue to regulate the mining industry under the law that was written 130 years ago. Everyone knows it is time to make changes. The question is how and when. Do we engage in a comprehensive overhaul, or do we do as we have done in this bill and just fix the section of the 1872 law that offends the mining industry? Do we try to move forward with the 1872 mining law, or do we move backwards? There is one provision in the 1872 mining law that provides minimal protection for the environment and for the taxpayers. When someone stakes a mining claim, the law provides that that person can obtain up to, but no more than, 5 acres of additional nonmineral land for the purpose of dumping mining waste. You would think, given the incredible deal that the mining industry is getting on access to public lands, the industry would be more than willing to comply with that provision. Yet when the mining industry was faced with having to comply with the one and only environmental provision of the 1872 mining law, it went running to its champions in Congress to change that provision. The mining industry says it cannot mine if it is only given 5 acres of public land on which to dump its waste. Indeed, it argues, and Senator Craig's amendment in this Interior appropriation bill guarantees, the mining industry should get as much public land as it desires to dump its waste. The contention of the industry as well as the language in this bill is that the 5-acre limitation in the 1872 mining law is without meaning. They are wrong. The 5-acre provision provides a small amount of protection for our public lands, and this Senate should retain it. The Senate has already done some work on this issue. Senator Gorton amended the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that we passed a few months ago to exclude a mine in my home State of Washington from this 5-acre mill site limitation. Of course, other mining industries now want the same good deal. So Senator Craig put a rider on the Interior appropriations bill we are now considering, in full committee, that completely voids any limitation on mill sites for all current and future mining operations. We have to ask: Where is the balance? Where is the fairness in this limited approach? Where is the fix for the public and their lands to this outdated mining law? It is absolutely absent. The sort of reform to the 1872 mining law that we are witnessing in this bill is not taking us forward but it is taking us backwards. The environmental provisions in the mining law should be strengthened, not eliminated. Taxpayers should be compensated much more by the mining industry rather than being asked to expand the giveaway of public lands that we are doing in this bill. Senator Gorton's amendment on the supplemental appropriations bill and Senator Craig's amendment on the Interior bill give the mining industry everything it wants and give the American public larger dumps. Companies that paid next to nothing for the public land they are mining, $2.50 an acre, are still paying absolutely no royalties and dumping more waste rock than ever on our precious public lands. I am not going to stand by and let this industry dump waste rock on our public lands without limitation and without true compensation. We do need comprehensive mining law reform, but until then I am going to fight this effort to piecemeal reform, especially piecemeal reform that benefits the one side that already enjoys tremendous advantages under the current system. Let me show Senators a photo of Buckhorn Mountain in Washington State. This is the area in Washington State. It is a gorgeous piece of public land, our land. This is what it will look like once a mill moves forward, from this to this. What does it cost the mining industry to go from this to this? Mr. President, $2.50 an acre. They won't have to pay for the extra land to dump their rock, the cyanide-leached rock that they put there. They won't pay the taxpayers anything, and this is our public land. We know we need a mining industry, but if the mining industry wants to continue to make profits in this country, then they should at least compensate the public for what they are going to do. Let me show my colleagues what this area will look like in a few years. What will the mining industry pay us for changing it from the beautiful photo I showed to this? Just $2.50 an acre. Under this bill and under the bill that passed recently, they are going to get as much acreage as they want to dump their rocks onto our public lands. I want to make some points that I think are worth remembering. The mining industry has been very slow to embrace any mining law reform. Now that it has encountered a part of the law it doesn't like, it is trying to eliminate the one provision that can limit some of the damage that has been caused by the mining. The mining law permits mining companies to extract gold, silver, copper, and other hard rock minerals without paying a cent in royalties to the taxpayer. Hard rock mining is the only extractive industry to get this benefit. I will show this to my colleagues. Coal pays 8- percent royalties for underground mining. Hard rock mining, none; they pay nothing. As we look at this chart, we see that hard rock mining clearly has been given a great gift by the taxpayers of this country, and now in this bill, we see them wanting more and more public lands. Have they negotiated a change to the 1872 mining law in exchange for the more land on which they want to dump? No. They are not going to be paying any more royalties. They are not going to be paying any more for the land. We have simply given it away to all current and future mines in this bill. Coal, oil, and gas miners all pay 12.5-percent royalties from what they take from public lands. Since 1872, taxpayers have given away $240 billion worth of minerals to the hard rock mining industry. By contrast, all Western States collect a royalty or production fee for minerals removed from State lands. We are talking Federal lands in this bill. Western States collect a royalty or production fee on State lands, collecting between 2 and 10 percent on the gross income of mineral production. We collect nothing for Federal lands. The 1872 mining law is in need of environmental and fiscal reform. Congress should not overturn the mill site decision and expand it to allow more dumping of mining waste on public lands without getting something back. The mill site decision does not halt hard rock mining on public lands. I want to make that clear. The mill site decision does not halt hard rock mining. Don't believe the false rhetoric you will hear about the Solicitor's opinion enforcing a provision of the 1872 mining law, at the expense of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. That is simply not true. They can pay for it as everybody else does if they need more land. The Department of the Interior will not enforce the mill site waste limitation retroactively. For future mine proposals and mine expansion, the limitation will apply. The industry says the mill site decision is not consistent with existing law and instead is policy advocacy by the Interior Department. I am sure we will hear that from our colleagues. That is incorrect. The 1872 mining law clearly limits mill site claims to 5 acres for each lode or placer claim. If the industry is so sure of its legal position, it can fight the Solicitor's opinion in court. For the Record, let me show my colleagues what the law actually says. The mill site statute we referred to throughout this debate is right here. It says: Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith. And it goes on and it says: Such land may be included in application for a patent for such claim, and may be patented therewith subject to the same requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to placers. No location made of such nonmineral land shall exceed five acres. That was the law written back in 1872. It is very clear. Five acres. It says so right here. If the industry doesn't agree with the Solicitor's opinion that this law doesn't say exactly what we have just read, they can go to court and fight it. But to come and give this huge giveaway to an industry that already receives an awful lot from the taxpayers I believe is wrong. Clearly, we need to reform the mining law of 1872 and maybe, in fact, the mill site limitation needs revision, but not here, not in this way. We need to hold hearings and mark up an authorization bill. We ought to give the American public time to learn of the issue and revise input. If we are going to revise the 1872 law--and we should--we, the taxpayers, ought to give something back.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending legislative business?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts has the floor, but if I may clarify, is the Senator asking to divide the time equally between now and 7:40?

Mrs. MURRAY. I will not object to that.