Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, it was the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 when the guns fell silent on European battlefields, echoing the cease-fire agreement between the Allied Nations and German Forces and America's first victory in a battle for freedom in a world at war. One year later, on November 11, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed and commemorated the first Armistice Day. Thirty-five years later, this day would come to be known as Veterans Day--a day in which our Nation takes the time to recognize the service and sacrifice of the men and women who have heeded the call to service in defense of our Nation. Over the years, our Nation has fought many battles, on many continents, amongst many enemies, and in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. Throughout these battles, our country has seen some of our best and brightest commit the ultimate sacrifice for a cause that they believe in, a cause called freedom. To many across the world, freedom is a work in progress, a quest toward the ability to do and say what you feel, and live in a world of peace, to provide for your family, and to live without the fear of persecution for your beliefs and ideas. As Americans, we enjoy these freedoms many others do not, because of the unyielding sacrifice made by our brave men and women in uniform who have served our Nation over the course of history to defend our liberty. Let us take this day to remember those who have served and those who have fallen, who selflessly gave of themselves, knowing that they were protecting and representing the greatest Nation on Earth. Let us remember that it is our duty to see that our veterans have access to quality and affordable healthcare. And let us remember to always honor and recognize all veterans with the respect and admiration that they have earned. Our veterans, as our soldiers fighting today, remain foremost in the thoughts and minds of West Virginians, and will always remain one of my top Congressional priorities. May God continue to bless all those who have returned and those who have not on this Veterans Day.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this year the week of November 18-24th has been designated ``National Bible Week,'' a week to renew our interest in the Bible and to recognize the influence that the Bible has had in our lives and on our nation throughout its history. As a child growing up in West Virginia, I was encouraged by my father to read the Bible daily, because he found such solace and comfort in the Word. As Paul wrote in Philippians 4:13, ``I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want, I can do everything through Christ who gives me strength.'' Knowing this soothes and comforts my soul in times of distress. It is my guiding light that keeps me centered and focused and I derive great joy from reading the scriptures during my time of mediation and reflection. Today, God's Word written in the Holy Scriptures of the Bible is important to me both as an individual and as a leader. It is the Bible that guides me through the day, as I seek to make decisions that will affect people in my state and in our nation--decisions that require a wisdom that is found throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. It is the Word of God written in the Bible that gives me the fortitude I need to carry out my responsibilities as a friend, a father, a husband, and a Congressman. The Bible provides the wisdom to know how to respond to my family and constituents during times of dire crisis. For these reasons, and many more, I thank God that we have a manual for our daily living in the Bible. As we face the unforeseen challenges that lie ahead, both at home and abroad, I encourage all Americans to read the Bible and read it often, to study its teachings, and to make it an important part of their lives.

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. 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.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. 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. RAHALL. May I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2262.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I first thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) and the Rules Committee for fashioning a rule today which provides for a free and open debate on a historic measure, refining the Mining Law of 1872. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) who has so ably taken the reins of leadership on the Subcommittee on Mines and Minerals, a subcommittee I once chaired over 20 years ago. We had extensive hearings at that time across the country, including in Alaska. And the gentleman from California has conducted himself in the same fashion and with the same knowledge of this bill. I certainly thank him for his help. This legislation, it should be noted, is sponsored by, or, rather, enjoys the support of a number of Members from both sides of the aisle and from all political persuasions. It should be noted that Members from mining States affected by this legislation support this bill, including the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), who just spoke. The rule does make a number of amendments sponsored by Members from the other side of the aisle in order that touch upon key features of the legislation. Indeed, the Rules Committee was very generous, extremely generous to the other side. We are going to have a vote on the amendment today that will continue the 19th century practice, for example, of giving away mineral-rich public lands, the deed of which lies with all American citizens, for $2.50 an acre. That is an amendment that we will debate at the proper time. I say to my colleagues that this is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. It is a nonpartisan issue. It is bipartisan. Indeed, similar legislation has passed this body, not this Congress, but previous Congresses, by large, overwhelming margins. We are dealing with a law that has been relatively unchanged that was enacted when Ulysses S. Grant resided in the White House. Union troops still occupied the South. The invention of the telephone and Custer's stand at Little Bighorn were still 4 years away. In 1872, Congress passed a law that allowed people to go on to public lands in the West, stake mining claims, and if any gold or silver were found, mine it for free or to purchase those claim mine lands for as little as $2.50 an acre. Let me speak for a moment on the process leading up to our consideration of this matter; a fair process, I might add. The genesis of H.R. 2262 dates back to 1879, 7 years after the enactment of the mining law of 1872. At that time, Congress created the first major public land commission to investigate land policy in the West. One of its major recommendations included a thorough rewrite of the 1872 law, which, even then, was believed by many to undermine efficient mineral development. Several decades later, in 1908, President Roosevelt created the National Conservation Commission to study Federal land policy in the West, and it, too, made a number of recommendations for reforming the mining law. Again, in 1921, a committee appointed by the Director of the Bureau of Mines recommended a series of reforms developed in concert with mining industry representatives interested in improving the mechanics of the law. Following this effort, the next call for reform came at the onset of World War II, when then Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, endorsed a leasing system for hardrock mining. In 1949, the Hoover Commission recommended a series of changes to the mining law. This effort was succeeded by the President's Materials Policy Commission in 1952, which also recommended revisions, including placing hardrock minerals under a leasing system. Once again, the criticism centered on inefficiencies in mineral development caused by the law. Beginning in 1964 and 1977, Congress went through another period of debate on the mining law reform until 1977, when efforts collapsed. In 1985, this gentleman from West Virginia became Chair of the Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources, and delved into the matter. I conducted a large number of hearings, including in four western States. It was not until 1992 that I brought a bill to the House floor for consideration. Following that effort, on November 18, 1993, the House passed my bill by a vote of 316-108. Unfortunately, during that 103rd Congress, a House-Senate conference committee on mining law reform was unable to reach a final agreement. We were then shut out, locked down on the consideration of any meaningful mining law reform during the 12 years of a Republican majority in this body. This Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) became the chairman of the subcommittee that I once chaired and took up the reform banner. He held a number of hearings, took testimony from 33 witnesses, and subsequently, the Committee on Natural Resources marked up H.R. 2262. Subsequently the Committee on Natural Resources marked up H.R. 2262 over one 2-day period and considered countless Republican amendments. Nobody was denied their ability to offer amendments. I repeat: nobody was denied their ability to offer amendments. The legislation considered at the time was offered to Members and their staffs well ahead of time for ample dissection. I will stack this record up to anyone's with respect to the consideration of the bill by this body. Again, I defend our process as fair, as accountable and as transparent as a process can be in the House of Representatives, just as this legislation is worked and drafted in the same manner. I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 788) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2262, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.