Mining Law billHouse Resources Committee approves Chairman’s Mining Law bill
To practically no one’s surprise, the House Natural Resources Committee Tuesday voted along party lines to send Chairman Nick Rahall’s Mining Law reform bill to a full vote of the House.
Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Wednesday , 24 Oct 2007
RENO, NV -
After a flurry of amendments by mostly Republican members of the House Natural Resources Committee-- most of which died within minutes after introduction--the Democratic committee members had the votes (23 yeas to 15 nays) and the political clout Tuesday to easily approve a tough new Mining Law reform bill out of committee and on to a vote of the House.
How tough is the bill? When a hefty portion of the nation's news media Tuesday described the 1872 Mining Law as "antiquated," one can pretty much guess that miners have their legislative work cut out for them.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, won approval for his amendment to impose the first U.S. mining royalty on public lands, a 4% gross royalty on all existing hardrock mining operations on federal lands, and 8% on all new mining operations.
Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, won the only unanimous approval that the Natural Resources Committee was able to muster in Tuesday's mark-up session on H.R. 2262, the legislation to reform the Mining Law, whose chief sponsor and advocate for the past two decades has been Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, who represents the coal mining state of West Virginia.
On a vote of 37 yeas and no nays, Grijalva won approved for his amendment which reinforces an existing regulation that Indian Tribes may petition the U.S. Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to withdraws federal lands from entry under the Mining Law. The tribes can also cite religious or cultural concerns that are important when petitioning the government for withdrawal of lands.
The Secretaries would also be required to establish regulations-in consultation with tribes-to determine the appropriate information needed for a tribal petition requesting withdrawal on land important for cultural and religious reasons. In a news release, Robert Shimek, Mining Projects Coordinator for the Indigenous Environmental Network declared these amendments "offer to tribes, for the first time, an opportunity to protect that which is important to the survival of our culture."
Representatives Jay Inslee, D-Washington, and Rush J. Holt, D-New Jersey, successfully won approval (21-18) for an amendment that they have previously inserted into other public lands legislation, which allows for the withdrawal of federal lands in national parks and national monuments from mining, geothermal or mineral activities.
Environmental NGO EARTHWORKS praised Rahall's bill for various provisions addressing pollution and impacts on habitat, which are already found in numerous other federal laws. However, the Rahall bill would place the following directly within the prevue of the Mining Law:
- Give federal lands managers' explicit authority to balance other public lands uses-such as drinking water, recreation, hunting, fishing and wildlife habitat-when deciding whether to permit a mine.
- Prohibit mines that would cause perpetual water pollution.
- Use newly enacted mining royalties to fund a $50 billion cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines.
- Give local governments the ability to petition to have lands withdrawn from mining activities.
However, National Mining Association President and CEO Kraig Naasz said, "In several key respects, the committee bill falls short of the reforms we have worked hard to achieve. Specifically:
· "By levying the highest royalty in the world on this nation's mining industry, the bill goes far beyond providing for a fair economic return to the taxpayers and will damage the growth prospects of the U.S. hardrock mining industry and the tens of thousands of jobs it supports;
· "Levying an arbitrary fee on existing operations that were not designed to bear this cost raises fairness issues and may be of doubtful legality."
It should be noted, however, that some of the world's largest hardrock mining companies currently operate on federal lands and have already threatened to file suit against a gross revenue U.S. hardrock mining royalty on federal lands. Apparently, Rahall had negotiated with mining companies to only impose hardrock royalties on future mining operations.
· Meanwhile, Naasz declared that "By imposing redundant environmental standards on the U.S. hardrock mining industry, which is already the world's most strictly regulated, the bill contradicts findings of the National Research Council that concluded current laws effectively protect the environment; and
· "The bill fails to provide the necessary assurance that significant mining investments on public lands will not be placed at risk by arbitrary and capricious restrictions from federal regulators," he concluded.
The Republican House Natural Resources Committee members-most of whom represent the western mining communities that have to live with the Rahall bill should it be enacted into law-lacked the votes to amend the vast majority of H.R. 2262. Among the failed amendments was language addressing renewable resources, global warming, mineral information services, royalties on industrial minerals, removal of citizen lawsuit provisions, and requiring state and legislative approval prior to withdrawing lands from mineral entry.
Other amendments rejected by the committee would have protected good Samaritans who clean up abandoned mine sites from environmental liability and limited the ability of federal regulators to consider past environmental violations by a company and/or its officers when deciding whether to permit new projects on public lands.
In the end, the vote to approve H.R. 2262 was 23 yeas and 15 nays. Those voting in favor of the bill included Rahall, George Miller, D-California, Dale Kildee, D-Michigan, Peter De Fazio, D-Oregon, Eni Faleomavaega, Democratic delegate for American Samoa, Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, Donna M. Christensen, Democratic delegate for the Virgin Islands, Grace Napolitano, D-California, Holt of New Jersey, Grijalva of Arizona, Madeline Bordallo, Democratic delegate from Guam, John Sarbanes, D-Maryland, Hinchey of New York, Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, Ron Kind, D-Wisconsin, Rep. Lois Capps, D-California, Mark Udall, D-Colorado, Joe Baca, D-California, Hilda Solis, D-California, Heather Shuler, D-North Carolina, and another vote which Mineweb was unable to identify as of deadline Wednesday morning.
Perhaps, the most disappointing vote in favor of the bill came from Jim Costa, D-California, who is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mining. During Tuesday's mark-up, Costa largely remained silent during the debate over the amendments offered by the minority committee members. However, during a field hearing on H.R. 2262 in Elko, Costa, a rancher, repeatedly told small miners and explorationists that he would strive to be fair and ensure their concerns would be considered during the amendment process.
Given the majority control of the House by Democrats, and the leadership of the same group of California Democrats, who have thus far supported the Rahall bill, it is probably a safe bet that H.R. 2262 will be approved by the House.
The real fight is expected to be in the Senate, where powerful Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Ranking Senate Energy and Mining Committee Sen. Pete Dominici, R-New Mexico, have already made clear their displeasure with the Rahall bill. The Senate is expected to draft its own legislation, which is already being shepherded by Dominici and his fellow New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Mining Committee.