Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of rule XVIII.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. 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. RAHALL. 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.

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

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

Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. 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. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. RAHALL. Yes.

Mr. RAHALL. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. RAHALL

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

Mr. RAHALL. I am not sure we are talking about the same definitions here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1483 back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 765, I call up the bill (H.R. 1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in summation, these are not good times for the ratings of the United States Congress in the public opinion polls. We all know that in this body; yet I think if the American people would see Congress in action this very moment that those poll ratings might very well go up. We've seen examples on this legislation of Members on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan, nonpartisan manner, working to preserve what is the best of America. I look at the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I look at the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I look at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) on the other side of the aisle, and I look at the many Members on this side of the aisle from different parts of the country, south, north, west, that have joined together in bringing this legislation to the floor today. Yes, we have respectful disagreements, and I respect the gentleman from Utah's position, but we also have worked very hard in what I think the American people want to see, and that is a nonpartisan effort to solve this country's problems. Now, if you looked up the word ``red herring'' in Webster's Dictionary, the definition would be the property rights arguments that the critics of this bill are using against this legislation. Heritage areas have no regulatory authority. Over 60 million Americans live in heritage areas. The entire State of Tennessee, for example, the entire State of Tennessee is a heritage area. Almost my entire congressional district is a heritage area. There have been no impacts on private property rights, mining, road building, economic development. I believe we've done quite well in each of those areas in my congressional district, most of which is a heritage area. And the gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, brought out very well where we've seen no instances where there have been private property issues, no instances where such problems have occurred. Now, those that have expressed concern about property provisions in this bill, let me be clear. In the 20 years plus of this program's existence, opponents have not been able to identify one single instance in which someone has been deprived of the use of their property as a result of such designations as we're considering in this bill. And nevertheless, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has quoted, we do, in this legislation, provide extensive property, private property provisions. These private property protections are the same language approved by the Senate, the same language proposed by the administration in heritage area systems bills under consideration in this Congress, and the same language included in heritage areas bills passed by the previous Congress under the other party's control. The history of this program, as we have seen in repeated debate on the floor and in committee, not to mention the GAO report which has been referenced, has proven that there are simply no legitimate private property issues here. It's time to move on, stop flogging this dead horse and bringing up this red herring. Now, the gentleman from Utah mentioned our late colleague, the gentleman that was elected to Congress with me, the late Representative Bruce Vento, the former chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. And the gentleman from Utah mentioned that he did not intend for the Federal heritage areas to last longer than 10 years. I'm reasonably sure, however, that our late colleague did not foresee these areas having to contend with close to $90 a barrel oil and the other increase in costs, I might add, that the numerous heritage areas created under Republican Congresses that were all authorized for 15 years. We have provided an increase in authorized funding for heritage areas to ensure that heritage areas have enough funds to get on their feet. So the issue here is not private property rights. The issue is not gaming in these areas. The issue is not earmarks. I would say to my colleagues, imagine, for example, if Yellowstone National Park did not exist and Members of Congress introduced legislation to provide for such a crown jewel of our national park system. Would that be called an earmark? The issue is not lobbying by local people, our local legislators. They have a right to try to secure that additional State and local funding necessary to match Federal funding. We provide protections. Federal law prohibits any other lobbying by local groups. So the issue, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, is not about earmarking, not about lobbying, not about private property rights; it's about the American people and protection of what is theirs and providing our American people a place in which they can take their families, can spend quality time of life in these times when it's so hard to spend quantity time together, that they spend quality time together. And that's what we're talking about in this legislation. That's what we're talking about in our heritage areas, in America's heritage. So I conclude by urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the nonpartisan, bipartisan spirit that has brought this bill to the floor and pass this legislation by a tremendous margin.

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 the bill, H.R. 1483.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 764, I call up the bill (H.R. 505) to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, 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. 1483, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.