Amendment Text: H.Amdt.878 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (11/01/2007)

This Amendment appears on page H12422 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H12397-H12432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              HARDROCK MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 780 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2262.

                              {time}  1158


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union 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, with Mr. Serrano 
in the chair.

[[Page H12398]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

                              {time}  1200

  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remain on the books, with the Homestead Act having long been repealed, 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. PEARCE. 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.

[[Page H12399]]

  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. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend, the 
gentleman from West Virginia, on his legislation that substantially 
reforms the governance of hardrock mining on public lands.
  Abandoned mine sites pose serious environmental and safety hazards. 
Currently, there are more than 80 hardrock abandoned mines or mine-
related sites on the EPA's Superfund National Priorities List. 
Polluters should pay to clean up the pollution they leave behind.
  I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman from West Virginia 
to clarify the use of federally appropriated funds from the Hardrock 
Reclamation Account under sections 411, 412 and 413 of the bill.
  Does the gentleman from West Virginia agree that moneys in the 
Hardrock Reclamation Account shall not be provided in a manner that 
reduces the financial responsibilities of any party that is responsible 
or potentially responsible for contamination on any real property?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes.
  Mr. WEINER. Does the gentleman also agree that the provision of 
assistance pursuant to this act or section shall not in any way relieve 
any part of liability with respect to such contamination, including 
liability for removal and remediation costs?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes.
  Mr. WEINER. I thank the chairman. I urge passage of this bill.
  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.

[[Page H12400]]

     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, October 30, 2007.
     Hon. John Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce over H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and 
     Reclamation Act. As you know, some sections of H.R. 2262 as 
     reported by the Committee on Natural Resources relate to the 
     application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and others 
     establish requirements for the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, both of which fall under the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       It is my understanding that you will not seek a sequential 
     referral of H.R. 2262 based on the inclusion of these 
     provisions in the bill. Of course, this waiver is not 
     intended to prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over 
     these sections or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to 
     support your request for appointment of conferees from the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce if a conference is held on 
     this matter.
       Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have 
     worked regarding this matter and others between our 
     respective committees. At your request, I will include this 
     exchange of letters in the Congressional Record as part of 
     consideration of the bill.
       With warm regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                      Nick Rahall,
                                                         Chairman.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. PEARCE. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
what could have been responsible bipartisan legislation. I have a great 
deal of respect for the chairman of the committee; he is a good friend 
of mine. But this is a bad bill.
  As the gentleman on our side, the ranking member, Mr. Pearce, has 
done an outstanding job, he mentioned in his statement to listen to the 
chairman of the committee and those who are promoting this bill that 
the mining industry has no regulations, no laws, they just run rampant, 
which is pure nonsense. We are not really addressing an 1872 mining law 
here. It is not about the royalty. They offered the chairman if he 
would strike title III, we might be able to work a bill, and he turned 
it down.
  This is about driving our industry, our mining industry overseas and 
away from our shores. This bill will do it. Just as I have heard in the 
past about legislation from that side of the aisle when you were in 
power that we are not trying to stop the logging industry in Alaska, we 
are just trying to make sure that we get our fair share. We went from 
15,000 jobs down to less than 300 jobs. That was from the previous 
chairman.
  I also heard all the time about how when they were in power, how we 
were going to be energy independent. And now we are paying $93 a barrel 
for oil, $93 a barrel, because you have not acted and we didn't do 
also. But we didn't try to stop the mining industry in this country as 
this bill will do.
  This is not just about mining; this is about national security. Where 
do you think the metals come from to build our airplanes? Right now we 
are probably importing most of it. And I guarantee you, we will import 
all of it under this bill. We know, Mr. Rahall, this doesn't affect 
West Virginia. It doesn't affect his coal mines or any of the east 
coast States. But it does affect public lands in the West where our 
minerals are derived from.
  I say wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America and my colleagues. Wake up. China 
has gone into Chile now, and they control the copper that we must have 
for our hybrid cars.
  Yes, all of you, as I watch my good friend there working his 
BlackBerry, where do you think the metals and minerals came from for 
this? As we vote electronically today, the metals and minerals make 
that electronic system work.
  We are not talking about the royalty, here; although, I do think it 
is unconstitutional as the bill came out of committee because you 
rewrote the contract under the bill. It will be taken to court and that 
part of the bill will be struck. It will be struck. I tried to say 
that. But no, again this is not a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that 
was written primarily by the leadership of this House that in reality 
takes away the ability for the western States to produce the minerals 
that are needed. That is what this bill does.
  It does affect my State probably more than any other bill that has 
come out other than the Alaskan National Lands Act that put 147 million 
acres of land off limits. What remaining BLM land we have where we are 
trying to develop a mining industry will be precluded, taking away the 
benefit of the mining industry in the State of Alaska as it does in the 
western States. But it affects my State more, probably.
  Yes, we probably could have written a bill that would have recovered 
the dollars necessary to straighten out hardrock mining. But no, we 
have a bill that stops the ability of this Nation to be self-sufficient 
in minerals. Later on you will see a display about just how dependent 
we have become.
  I am hoping that this bill will be killed in the Senate, as most 
bills will be killed from the House side because no one wants to work 
with the Republicans at all. That is why you have an 11 percent rating 
of favorability. No ability to work across the aisle and say what will 
work and what are we trying to achieve. What are we trying to achieve?
  If you were looking for money from royalties, we could have talked 
about that; prospective, not retroactive, because that will go to 
court. But that didn't happen, and you left title III in, which 
requires so much impossibility of achieving a mining claim that they 
will go abroad. They will go abroad, and that's not right for this 
country.
  I have said all along, and I am going to be around here a lot longer 
than most people expect, and most of you probably don't like that, but 
I will be here just to say ``I told you so'' like I have done with the 
logging, what you did in my State and the logging industry and the west 
coast and on public lands. There is no timber industry. We are now 
importing our timber with no regulations. We have private timber in the 
eastern States, but not in the western States.
  I listen to you. We just voted on a bill yesterday to help out people 
who are going to be displaced because of losing jobs overseas, and you 
voted for that. And that is what this bill does. It will drive the 
industry out of the United States of America and we will be dependent 
upon China and Russia and all of the other countries for the metals and 
minerals we must have in our Nation to make sure we are economically 
strong, and then we cannot become strong.
  So as much as I love you, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad piece of 
legislation. I have been told don't worry about it, we will take care 
of it later on down the line. Well, I have been down that road before, 
too.
  So I am asking my colleagues on my side of the aisle and anybody that 
is thinking on that side of the aisle to vote against this legislation 
if you believe in this Nation. If you believe in this Nation being 
strong, if you believe in jobs in our country and not abroad, then you 
will vote ``no'' for this bill.
  If you don't believe that, then vote ``yes'' for the bill. And then 
go home and say, ``I repealed the 1872 mining law. Look what I did for 
you, Mr. Backpacker.'' But think of our country and our Nation. Think 
of our future. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costa from California.
  Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for all your hard work 
on this issue, not just this year, but for the last two decades. I also 
want to thank the ranking Republican member, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), and the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), for all of their hard work over the last 
10 months.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation and it 
provides a balanced approach to public lands. It recognizes that 
hardrock minerals to our lives are important, but they are also 
important as a public trust that belong to all Americans.
  During this process over the last 10 months, we held numerous 
hearings at which over 33 witnesses testified. For example, in Pima 
County, Arizona, earlier this year, we had local government

[[Page H12401]]

and citizens talk about the important values, as well as the impacts to 
water, wildlife and recreational opportunities. We also listened to 
State and local government and tribes and gave them the option to close 
sensitive lands which are critical to their communities, or to have 
restraint. Lands that provide, in fact, drinking water supplies.
  In Elko, Nevada, the subcommittee received additional testimony from 
people to understand how important the mining is to those communities 
in those towns. Let's make it clear. We do not want to put those mining 
operations out of business. They provide a viable industry to this 
Nation which has already been substantiated. We gained a better 
understanding on the ways that industry strives, and they are doing a 
marvelous job for the most part in being responsible and following 
regulations which they must comply with.
  Many States have already taken initiatives. The committee listened. 
We have taken amendments which make mineral exploration provisions to 
benefit an important part of the industry to keep the momentum and the 
motivation there. We also took changes in title III to set forth strong 
national standards for mining but make sure that we are not duplicating 
existing State law and regulations. The subcommittee hearings in 
Washington also focused on the issue of royalties, which has been much 
talked about.
  Let me address some of those criticisms at this time about it 
decimating the mining industry. Some of us are old enough to remember 
Sergeant Friday from Dragnet. Remember what he used to say: ``Just the 
facts, ma'am.'' Well, the facts are this: These are multinational 
companies that mine in areas throughout the world, and they pay 
royalties in those countries. They pay royalties in those countries, 
and they are existing and doing fine, as they are doing fine in this 
country.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the total income 
subject to the proposed royalty, which I would submit is a work in 
progress, would average roughly $1 billion a year. These are public 
lands. We require the same for oil and gas production. It is a 
relatively small number when you take into account that the total U.S. 
mining industry produces $23 billion each year.
  The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that the cost of this 
legislation, should it become law, would approximately be, with this 
royalty, $200 million over a period of 5 years. That is $200 million 
over a period of 5 years, a $23 billion a year industry in this 
country. We think that is a fair shake for these lands that are owned 
by all Americans, and it makes a serious opportunity to resolve 
something that has been contentious for two decades.
  The industry will tell you that they want certainty. They don't want 
the vagaries from administration to administration. They know this is a 
work in process. They know the issue of royalties are subject to 
negotiation between us and the Senate as this measure moves on.
  So let's be clear about it. This measure, in short, I think reflects 
a thoughtful and informed process. Did everybody get everything they 
wanted? No. Is the process still moving along? Yes. We will continue to 
work with our colleagues of the loyal opposition as we try to endeavor 
to create a bill that reflects the best interests of America.
  Let me quickly respond to the issue of the precious metals. This 
chart explains it very clearly. The U.S. Geologic Survey ranks the 
import reliance for nonfuel mineral materials. According to the USGS, 
there are 30 nonfuel minerals on which we are 80 to 100 percent reliant 
on imports. Simply put, we almost completely import these minerals, as 
has been stated, rather than produce them domestically.
  Now, that sounds worrisome, and the Republicans have noted that. But 
it is important that we realize that 19 of these 30 minerals, two-
thirds of them, are not ``locatable'' and therefore are not subject to 
the 1872 mining law. So the reform of this law will have no effect on 
the production or the imports of those minerals. They will not be 
subject to the royalty we propose or the environmental standards.
  Of the other 11, all but one are simply not available in terms of 
commercially marketable quantities in the United States. We depend on 
imports of these minerals. Ones like graphite and rare earths do not 
exist in deposits where it is economical to produce them or they don't 
exist on public lands, so they are not subject to the legislation.
  So if it ain't here, you can't mine it.
  The only mineral among those 30 that are 100 percent import reliant 
into this country and impacts both the 1872 mining law and that are 
``locatable'' minerals, the only one that is actually located in 
deposits large enough to be economically produced is fluorspar. 
Fluorspar. We are dependent upon fluorspar. Now let me tell you what we 
use fluorspar for: Toothpaste. We get fluorspar from China, Mexico, 
South Africa and Mongolia. We don't need to worry that the cleanliness 
of our teeth is in jeopardy because of this mining law.

                              {time}  1230

  The last time I checked, tooth decay, while distasteful, is not a 
national security issue. I ask that we support this measure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will note that the gentleman from New Mexico 
has 16 minutes remaining and the gentleman from West Virginia has 15\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect and 
admiration for my neighbor, the chairman from West Virginia, for work 
that we've done in our river industries and supporting local 
industries; but I have to rise in objection to this bill. I think in 
some ways we might entitle it the Exporting America's Jobs Overseas 
Act.
  I grew up around the American mining industry at the working-class 
end and got to see it from that side, one of the great transformations 
that took place during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; and I think there 
are three core issues.
  The law needs to be reformed, I agree, to adapt it to a 21st-century 
economy within which we live. However, the issue of competitiveness, 
the issue of American jobs and the issue of fundamental social justice 
all militate against this bill.
  First of all, for the Democratic Caucus, from my friends on the other 
side who are committed to protecting jobs, I think it's amazing that we 
want to raise taxes on a core industry that's important to our supply 
chain, for our technology industry, to drive jobs overseas. It's going 
to increase material costs, increase our dependency on foreign hardrock 
minerals which has doubled over the last 10 years according to the U.S. 
Geological Survey.
  Secondly, there is a significant impact on jobs. Mining jobs and the 
mining support and supply chain jobs and industries that support that 
cannot be replaced by hospitality jobs. That is a flawed logic, in my 
mind; and it's very critical that we maintain the robustness of this 
industry as a strategic asset and a strategic resource.
  For our future in energy, our future in manufacturing, we have to use 
the resources that we have in an environmentally friendly way to not 
only protect our jobs but to grow their jobs.
  Finally, I think the one thing I found in trade agreements through 
the years here in the House, there's always the discussion about a 
social justice component in establishing trade agreements with 
countries that may have

[[Page H12402]]

sweatshops, may abuse men, women and especially children. In this case, 
I would point out that areas where we get strategic materials now that 
will increase their industry are abusive of children. Specifically, you 
can see a picture here of a child who's a Peruvian miner, children who 
are Colombian miners, and a Ugandan miner, all of whom are young 
children, all of whom are having their futures closed down because of 
this.
  I oppose this bill. I ask that we yield back to the principles 
expounded by the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman from 
Alaska.
  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. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2262 so we can, after 135 years, update the 
1872 Mining Law. Since Ulysses S. Grant's administration in 1872, the 
Mining Law has governed hardrock mining on our public lands, public 
lands. Those are lands which you, the taxpayers, own.
  For nearly 100 years, those lands have been debated in Congress about 
changing policies that give away public resources and leave each new 
generation with a larger legacy of unreclaimed lands and degraded 
streams.
  Debate has continued. It's continued while northern California's Iron 
Mountain spewed nearly a quarter of the copper and zinc discharged by 
industries to the Nation's surface waters; during the decades of 
efforts to control acidic, metal-laden discharges from old sulfur mines 
southeast of Lake Tahoe; as historic lands of the Indian Pass in the 
area of Southern California in the desert area faced destruction from 
the proposed Glamis mine; and as California cities spend millions of 
dollars to treat hazardous mine discharges and fight giant mining 
corporations in court.
  Like the pollution problems it creates, the 1872 Mining Law persists, 
but that will now change with passage of this bill, and we owe that 
hard work to Chairman Rahall and to my colleague Jim Costa from 
California.
  While this congressional debate has continued after all these years, 
we've allowed mining companies to take billions of dollars' worth of 
gold, silver, and other minerals from our public lands for free. 
However, we will no longer treat that as we have not treated oil, coal, 
natural gas. So they will all now have to pay.
  While countless hearings have been held, nearly 3.5 million acres of 
public lands have been deeded to mining claim holders for as little as 
$2.50 an acre. We've had to buy back some of this land to protect the 
unique ecological, recreational and cultural values, paying prices much 
higher than those set in the Mining Law.
  And during our long deliberation, the price tag for mining cleanup 
has risen astronomically. Since the House last acted on reform 
legislation, more than 20 mines and mills have been added to the 
infamous Superfund National Priority List, and the EPA Inspector 
General has warned that nearly $24 billion in cleanup costs from mine 
sites now exists, some of which will require treatment in perpetuity.
  However, this is about to change. For today, the Hardrock Mining 
Reclamation Act of 2007 will do what it should have done years ago. I 
urge the passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
before us.
  Plain and simple, this bill is bad for America because it is bad 
policy. My concern centers around the long-lasting impacts that this 
bill will have on the First District of Idaho and on America's future.
  The bill imposes a royalty that will threaten the existence of 
domestic mineral production. Please note that mining is already one of 
the most regulated industries in the United States. Everyone believes 
that we need safe, productive, and environmentally responsible mineral 
development and that there needs to be a logical and efficient way to 
deal with abandoned mines. We all agree on those goals. But this bill 
takes an environmental cause, like abandoned mines, and uses it as a 
cover for a tax hike that will accomplish nothing less than outsourcing 
our domestic mining industry. That is bad policy.
  Hardrock mining is dangerous. It takes a lot of grit to engage in it. 
Today, hardworking professionals do it here in the United States. This 
bill, however, will send American production overseas, where there are 
limited or no environmental standards and where child labor is used.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky before me mentioned, H.R. 2262 makes 
America more dependent on child miners from around the world for our 
minerals and metal needs. The International Labor Organization 
estimates there are over 1 million children that are working in mines 
and quarries around the world. This bill will not only ship our mining 
industry jobs overseas; it will ensure that American mineral needs are 
satisfied by child labor. That is just plain wrong; it is bad policy.
  My colleagues across the aisle have made a commitment to the American 
people to combat global warming. This bill will ensure that they cannot 
meet that commitment. How are they going to combat global warming if 
they do not have the very minerals that they need to do it? Alternative 
energy is dependent on minerals that we mine here in the U.S. For 
instance, copper is used for wind, solar power, and fuel cells, just to 
name a few items. Currently, domestic production cannot meet domestic 
demand. This is kind of like having the Democrats promise us sand 
castles but banning domestic sand. They're cutting off the domestic 
supply of minerals that they need to deliver on their commitment to 
fight global warming. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.
  Mining industry jobs are important in the First District in Idaho. 
H.R. 2262 will outsource these good-paying jobs that America and Idaho 
needs. H.R. 2262 will take these jobs away from hardworking American 
professionals and force them on child laborers. Once again, H.R. 2262 
is bad policy.
  My final point is this: our national defense depends on minerals 
mined in America. This bill will result in an importation of the very 
minerals we need to keep America safe from every unfriendly country 
from which we are protecting ourselves. Yes, that is right, we'll be 
asking our enemies to supply

[[Page H12403]]

us with the minerals used for the very weapons we will be using to 
defend ourselves from them. Once again, H.R. 2262 is bad policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2262.
  It is an understatement to say that the West has changed dramatically 
since 1872, but this law that we are reforming today has not kept pace. 
Those of us from the West need this legislation to pass to protect the 
health of our communities, our scarce water supplies and our public 
lands, which are under continuing threat from an outdated mining law.
  In my home State of Arizona, hardrock mining has left behind a legacy 
of contaminated lands and rivers, abandoned mines leaching poisonous 
metals into groundwater and other hazards to the public, with hundreds 
upon hundreds of millions of dollars to reclaim and cleanup the mess 
left behind.
  Only a few months ago, a young girl was killed when she and her 
sister drove their vehicle into a mine shaft that had been left exposed 
after the site was abandoned. The mine shaft was hidden by brush, had 
no signs or barriers to warn anyone about the danger. The younger 
sister was trapped overnight with her sister's body before rescuers 
found them the next morning.
  This is just one heartbreaking example of the impacts of a law left 
over from another era, an era when the West was not populated and when 
our value system was far different from what it is now.

                              {time}  1245

  The law simply must be updated to today's modern-day values and 
environmental standards. The issue of employment has been raised over 
and over again, exporting our jobs and importing our vital metals. I 
agree, mining jobs are good jobs, but I would suggest they are not the 
only jobs in the West. We need to have a diversified workforce, and 
that workforce needs what the population needs, diversified 
opportunities.
  Chairman Rahall's bill puts standards in place, requiring cleanup and 
reclamation of mining sites. This bill makes certain that lands are off 
limits to mining, as they should be, but it also ends the free-for-all 
that this law has created over the years, where companies have used a 
patenting process to purchase inholdings within national forests and 
other public lands for a few dollars per acre, only to have the Federal 
Government later buy them out for millions of dollars when they 
threaten to develop the land.
  The Federal Government has spent billions of dollars over the years 
rebuying patented mining lands, and taxpayers' are served much better 
for their money. They deserve a fairness and an equitable return for 
their tax dollars.
  I strongly support the balanced approach that the chairman has taken 
with this bill. I am also pleased that the committee approved 
amendments I offered to allow Native American tribes to petition the 
Secretary to withdraw from mining lands of cultural, historic or 
religious importance to them. Tribes have been just as impacted as 
other communities by the impacts of mining and should be able to weigh 
in on these important matters.
  There is an urgency here that cannot be understated. I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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. HELLER of Nevada. I want to thank the ranking member for his hard 
work the last 10 months.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, for 
his efforts on the bill. He was very patient, very respectful. I 
appreciate his time and energy. We may disagree, but I certainly do 
appreciate him listening to my concerns and oppositions to this 
particular bill, so thank you so much.
  Also, I thank the subcommittee chairman for a field hearing in Elko, 
Nevada. I certainly do appreciate that also, giving them a chance to be 
heard. I know that was appreciated.
  Mr. Chairman, mining is the second largest industry in the State of 
Nevada, which employs approximately 32,000 Nevadans, supporting, 
obviously, countless numbers of families. These high-paying jobs and 
their related services are the backbone of the rural community in our 
State and other rural economies.
  I would take, for example, a couple, Larry and Vickie Childs of 
Spring Creek, Nevada. Larry retired from the mining industry 
approximately 25 years ago and subsequently went to work for a company 
in Elko, Nevada, providing miners the tools and equipment that they 
need. Vickie works at a health clinic for miners and their families 
provided by the two largest mining companies in the area.
  Vickie's clinic employs two pharmacists, four doctors, physician's 
assistants, nurses, lab technicians, maintenance and clerical people. 
Larry and Vickie raised four children in Elko, Nevada, one of whom 
currently today works in the mining industry.
  When this bill closes down the local mining operations, the equipment 
suppliers and the health care clinics will have layoffs, and, 
obviously, close their doors. The Childs family will begin to lose 
their homes. The mining industry will join other domestic industry 
crushed by foreign competition and overregulation.
  Despite opposition to this bill in Elko, one of the most affected 
communities by this bill, the new excessive taxes and burdensome 
regulations of this bill will kill this industry, and with that 
industry will go the towns and families that depend upon it.
  Clearly, this was not the result of the field hearing that the 
community had hoped for. All of these measures, many of the supporters 
will say, are in the name of fairness.
  The question is, fairness to whom? Fairness to Nevada? Fairness to 
New Mexico? Arizona? I know that China thinks it's fair. I would guess 
that South Africa thinks that this is a fair bill. I would probably 
even guess that Australia thinks it is a fair bill.
  But do you think it's a fair bill to the Childs family in Spring 
Creek and the many thousands like them? I don't think so.
  But just like this bill ignores the futures of the families in 
Nevada, H.R. 2262 also fails to embrace the realities of the future of 
our Nation. India and China, with their State-funded purchases of 
global mineral commodities, should make us consider the long-term 
ramifications of the health of the domestic mining industry. Also, the 
technological advances we all want in our future, such as alternative 
energy, rely heavily on minerals and metals. A hybrid car, for example, 
requires twice as much copper as a traditional SUV today.
  Our national defense will rely on foreign sources of minerals to 
build our military equipment. Frankly, I don't want to rely on China 
when we are in a war-time situation.
  I urge my colleagues to support rural communities, urge them to 
support our domestic mining industry for the sake of our families, our 
economy, and our national security by voting against H.R. 2262.
  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).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.
  In doing so, I want to congratulate its lead sponsor, the chairman of 
the Committee on Natural Resources, Nick Rahall. For 20 years now, Nick 
has led

[[Page H12404]]

the effort to reform mining laws which have been unchanged since 1872.
  It is high time that the 19th century mining law be updated to 
reflect our 21st century needs and goals. The current law was enacted 
before the invention of the telephone and was designed to promote 
mineral development in the age of the pick-and-shovel prospector.
  Unlike virtually any other use of public lands, the 1872 mining law 
allows mining on public lands for hardrock minerals such as gold and 
copper without any compensation or royalty. It is time that this law be 
changed to reflect modern mining technologies and newer social values 
that question whether mineral extraction is always the best or highest 
use of the land.
  As a long-term member of the Natural Resources Committee, I want to 
once again commend Chairman Rahall for his commitment to mining reform, 
and he and Mr. Costa for producing a balanced bill which benefits 
American taxpayers who own the land, the environment and the mining 
industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2262.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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. 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. HOLT. I thank the chairman and commend my colleague from West 
Virginia for bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, we are doing a good thing here. The Mining Act of 1872 
is as archaic and as deserving of updating as the name suggests. It was 
written at a time of manifest destiny, the belief of our predecessors, 
who held that we should expand from coast to coast and that mining was 
recognized as one of the best uses of public lands when the country 
seemed so vast that no one could imagine that human actions would 
affect the world.
  Many things have changed over 135 years. Our Nation is settled. We 
have come to realize the worth of our natural environment. We have come 
to comprehend the effects of human actions on the resources that we 
will pass down to future generations.
  This legislation is governing hardrock mining, an industry that's 
remained exempt from environmental regulations despite the fact that 
the U.S. EPA's toxic release inventory has determined that hardrock 
mining is a primary source of toxic pollution in the United States.
  I am pleased that in committee we have included language, important 
language, I would say, to restrict permits for activities that would 
harm national parks and national monuments. There are thousands of 
claims and could be thousands more in the close environment of national 
parks and national monuments, some of our most treasured lands. This 
legislation will provide vital protection for those lands.
  We all know well the costs to American taxpayers of refusing to look 
after the environment. This language about national parks, I think, 
will also save the taxpayer money, because we will have to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up damage to water supplies 
and so forth.
  I commend the chairman for bringing such a good bill forward and urge 
its passage.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico has 3 minutes left. The 
gentleman from West Virginia has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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.

                              {time}  1300

  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. PEARCE. 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,

[[Page H12405]]

     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.
                                  ____



                                  National Mining Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Abercrombie: The National Mining 
     Association (NMA) supports updating the Mining Law in a 
     manner that produces a fair and predictable public policy 
     capable of sustaining a healthy domestic hard rock mining 
     industry and providing a fair return to the taxpayer for the 
     use of federal lands. House members will soon be asked to 
     vote on the ``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007'' 
     (H.R. 2262). NMA opposes H.R. 2262 because it jeopardizes 
     current and future sources of domestic minerals that are 
     critical to our nation's economic well-being and security.
       NMA believes that the Mining Law can be responsibly updated 
     in way that does not sacrifice American jobs or endanger the 
     nation's security. Our domestic mineral and mining industry 
     supports 169,500 direct and indirect jobs, produces metals 
     valued at more than $16 billion and pays direct personal and 
     payroll taxes totaling $830 million.
       NMA finds the following features of H.R. 2262 particularly 
     objectionable.
       Excessive Royalty (Tax): The bill would impose the world's 
     highest royalty on mineral production--a new tax on America's 
     minerals that are critical to our economic vitality and 
     national security. The tax would take the form of an 8 
     percent gross royalty, which would cause a significant 
     reduction in mineral and mining investments. NMA supports a 
     fair return to the public in the form of a net income 
     production payment for minerals produced from new mining 
     claims on federal lands.
       Retroactive Levy on Existing Mines: The bill would 
     retroactively levy a 4 percent gross royalty on existing 
     mines where business plans and investments were implemented 
     without this significant cost in mind. Apart from the 
     doubtful legality of such a levy, it virtually guarantees the 
     closure of some mines and the export of high-paying mining-
     related jobs.
       Confiscation of Investments: Several provisions of H.R. 
     2262 would empower political appointees to stop new mining 
     projects even when such projects have met all applicable 
     environmental and legal requirements. No business can attract 
     the necessary capital or operate with such regulatory 
     uncertainty and, as you would expect, those investments and 
     projects will move overseas.
       Our country is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign 
     sources of minerals critical to virtually every sector of our 
     economy. Our national minerals policy should support, not 
     destroy, the investments, jobs and infrastructure necessary 
     to supply our domestic mineral needs. We urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 2262 so a more balanced measure can be developed.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Kraig R. Naasz,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                                 October 30, 2007.
       Dear Representatives: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade 
     association representing small and large manufacturers in 
     every industrial sector and in all 50 states, I urge vou to 
     oppose H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 
     2007.
       The U.S. mining industry currently provides about 50 
     percent of the metals American manufacturers need to operate, 
     including iron ore, copper, gold, phosphate, zinc, silver and 
     molybdenum. The U.S. has become increasingly dependent upon 
     foreign sources of minerals for products that are 
     strategically important to both our national and economic 
     security.
       Rather than encouraging environmentally safe mineral 
     development, H.R. 2262 would impose new taxes on the mining 
     industry, including an eight percent royalty on new mining 
     and a retroactive four percent royalty on existing mining 
     operations. The bill would also establish new prohibitions on 
     future mining on certain public lands and set highly 
     prescriptive environmental standards that sometimes conflict 
     with existing state and federal regulations.
       Not only would the bill seriously impact the U.S. mining 
     industry, it would increase the cost of raw materials for 
     U.S. manufacturers, make our products less competitive in 
     global markets and adversely affect thousands of high-paying 
     manufacturing jobs. Moreover, we remain concerned that this 
     sets an unwise precedent in targeting specific industries 
     with new and burdensome tax increases.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on H.R. 2262 will be considered for designation as Key 
     Manufacturing Votes in the 110th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Jay Timmons,

                                  Senior Vice President for Policy
     and Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                          Chevron Mining Inc.,

                                  Englewood, CO, October 30, 2007.
       Dear Congressmen: as an operator of two domestic metal 
     mines with over 500 employees, I would like to urge you to 
     vote ``NO'' on the ``Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 
     2007'' (H.R. 2262). As longstanding members of the mining 
     community in the United States, we are concerned that H.R. 
     2262 as it currently stands will negatively affect domestic 
     supply of the metals and minerals needed to ensure our future 
     economic prosperity. The new taxes imposed, and more 
     importantly, the retroactive taxes proposed, will have a 
     chilling effect on our industry. The uncertainty of mining 
     rights will make domestic investment in new mines difficult, 
     undoubtedly increasing our dependence on foreign minerals and 
     eliminating countless jobs in the US.
       Today, American hard rock miners are the highest paid in 
     the world earning excellent salaries and receiving unmatched 
     benefits. Congress will drive these jobs overseas if it 
     approves H.R. 2262, which impose the highest minerals tax in 
     the world!
       We are dedicated to reforming Mining Law to ensure a fair 
     return to taxpayers and allow businesses to stay open, 
     preserve high-wage American jobs and prevent further 
     increases in our dependence on foreign minerals.
       On behalf of our 500 employees, I urge you to vote ``NO'' 
     on the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Mark A. Smith,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                               American Copper Policy Council,

                                 Washington, DC, October 30, 2007.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Abercrombie: I am writing on behalf of the 
     members of the American Copper Policy Council (ACPC) to 
     indicate our opposition to H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and 
     Reclamation Act of 2007. Reform of the mining law is long 
     over-due, but this legislation in its present form would 
     impose new costs and regulatory burdens that would make the 
     U.S. mining industry uncompetitive in the world marketplace. 
     In addition to stifling new mining investment, H.R. 2262 
     would increase our domestic manufacturing sectors dependence 
     on imported raw materials, particularly from manufacturing 
     economies such as China. In the case of copper, this could 
     discourage the use of a valuable material that positively 
     contributes to green construction and improved energy 
     efficiency.
       ACPC members are involved in all facets of copper mining, 
     production, fabrication and distribution and as such play a 
     critical role in nearly all domestic manufacturing, which is 
     vital to the national economy and defense. Mining law 
     amendments must recognize the need to strike a balance 
     between providing a fair return to the public for minerals 
     extracted on federal lands and ensuring that our U.S. mining 
     industry can continue to compete and provide our industrial 
     base with a reliable supply of domestic minerals.
       H.R. 2262 would impose a royalty that is higher than any 
     other mining country in the world. A royalty is imposed on 
     new mines and also retroactively on existing mines on federal 
     lands. The bill fails to provide assurances that significant 
     investments on public lands will not be placed at risk by 
     arbitrary and capricious restrictions by regulators, and it 
     imposes redundant and conflicting environmental standards on 
     mining contrary to a finding by the National Research Council 
     that current laws protect the environment.
       We support reform but let's make sure it is good reform. At 
     a time when our manufacturing base is struggling to compete 
     in a world marketplace that is not always level, we need to 
     consider the ramifications of legislation on our industrial 
     base.

[[Page H12406]]

       Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Linda D. Findlay,
                            Chair, American Copper Policy Council.

       The American Copper Policy Council's members include the 
     Copper Development Association, the Copper and Brass 
     Fabricators Council, the Copper and Brass Servicenter 
     Association, the International Copper Association, the 
     National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rio Tinto, and 
     Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.

  I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  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. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in very strong support of 
H.R. 2262, and I congratulate its sponsor, Chairman Nick Rahall.
  The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 will finally end the 
give-away of our public lands and minerals. The bill secures a fair 
return for taxpayers on minerals taken from public lands, and it will 
provide for environmental standards and cleanup for hardrock mining.
  For 135 years, American hardrock mining policy has given away public 
resources, and it has left each new generation a larger legacy of 
unreclaimed lands and degraded streams.
  The 1872 mining law is long overdue for comprehensive reform.
  The American taxpayers deserve an updated mining policy, and so does 
our natural environment.
  Chairman Rahall and I have been striving to update this antiquated 
law for decades, and thanks to his leadership, we are closer today to 
success than we have ever been.
  The Natural Resources Committee's effort to reform mining law began 
in the early 1990s, when I chaired the committee, but we were derailed 
by the Republican rule.
  Chairman Rahall has spent 20 years introducing bills in this House to 
get to this point. He has persevered against indifference, opposition, 
and intensive lobbying.
  Today, he has brought a bill to the floor of the House that takes a 
major step towards reform after many long years of struggle.
  The 1872 mining law allows mining companies to take billions of 
dollars worth of gold, silver and other minerals from public lands for 
free.
  We no longer treat any other resource that way--not coal, oil, or 
gas--yet under the archaic mining law, we still give away gold with no 
compensation to the taxpayers who own it.
  And over the years, the price tag for mining cleanup has risen 
astronomically. Since the House last acted on reform legislation, more 
than 20 mines and mills have been added to the Superfund National 
Priority List.
  The EPA Inspector General has warned of nearly $24 billion in cleanup 
costs for mine sites, some of which will require treatment ``in 
perpetuity.''
  The 1872 law's failings have had a serious impact on California and 
the West. The mining law has remained in effect while Northern 
California's Iron Mountain mine spewed out nearly a quarter of the 
copper and zinc discharged by industries to the Nation's surface 
waters; as historic lands of the Indian Pass area in the southern 
California desert faced destruction from the proposed Glamis mine; 
during decades of efforts to control acidic, metal-laden discharges 
from an old sulfur mine southeast of Tahoe; and as the city of Grass 
Valley spends millions to treat hazardous mine discharges and fight a 
giant mining corporation in court.
  The bill that is before us today, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation 
Act of 2007, will: put certain irreplaceable public lands off limits to 
mining, secure a fair return for taxpayers with a royalty on minerals 
taken from public lands, halt the sale of public lands to mining 
claimholders, adopt modern environmental standards for hardrock mining; 
and establish a program to clean up abandoned mines.
  I congratulate the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Nick 
Rahall, and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa, our California 
colleague, for their leadership on this issue.
  I also want to commend the staff of the Natural Resources committee 
for their years of hard work to get us to this point.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this major legislative 
accomplishment, which will be celebrated by future generations of 
Americans.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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

[[Page H12407]]

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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, introduced by my 
good friend, Chairman Rahall. In 1991, I introduced the Mining Law 
Reform Act of 1991, which was very similar to the legislation that we 
are considering today. The following year, I introduced an amendment to 
another mining reform bill--also introduced by Chairman Rahall--that 
would have put a 12.5 percent royalty on hardrock minerals mined on 
Federal public lands. It is beyond belief that for the past 135 years, 
the law has allowed these minerals to be extracted with no royalty paid 
to the American people, unlike the royalties paid by oil, gas, and coal 
developers.
  So, I am very familiar with the issues involved in hardrock mining 
and the efforts to reform the antiquated 1872 mining law.
  Unfortunately, none of these previous measures became law. Today, 
however, we have a real chance at mining reform. I am glad for that.
  H.R. 2262 is a vast improvement over the 1872 mining law that 
currently guides mineral development on our public lands. Still, it 
could be improved further.
  In the markup of this bill held by the Natural Resources Committee, I 
offered an amendment that would have clarified that the royalty

[[Page H12408]]

provisions of H.R. 2262 do not apply to small miners, many of whom 
reside in my district in Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management 
estimates that there are approximately 3,400 small miners in Oregon 
that hold 10 or fewer claims, who engage in casual use of the public 
lands for hand panning, nonmotorized sluicing, and other small, 
recreational mining activities. Unfortunately, my amendment was not 
approved by the committee, although Chairman Rahall agreed to work with 
me to address my concerns.
  I intended to offer the same amendment to H.R. 2262 here today on the 
floor, to do just that. The Rules Committee, however, did not make my 
amendment in order. Therefore, I rise today to speak on this issue.
  I am told by Chairman Rahall and his staff that the underlying bill 
does not apply to recreational miners, or those miners engaged in 
casual use of the public lands; i.e., those mining activities that do 
not ordinarily result in any disturbance of public lands and resources. 
Sections 302 and 304 of H.R. 2622 indicate that miners engaged in 
casual use do not have to get a permit to mine, and section 103 states 
that miners who hold less than 10 claims are exempt from paying the 
maintenance fee required under the act.
  I am told that this language, combined with existing regulations, 
means that recreational miners are not subject to the royalty 
provisions of H.R. 2622. I remain unconvinced that this is the case, 
which is why I wanted to offer my amendment. If it is true that small 
miners are not covered by this legislation, then adding clarifying 
language should not have been a problem. If the bill is in fact 
unclear, my amendment would have clarified it. In addition, my 
amendment would have addressed concerns raised by Chairman Rahall that 
exempting small miners from royalty payments was a slippery slope, and 
that the exemption would have reduced revenues to the Federal 
Government. Nevertheless, I was not permitted to offer my amendment.
  Therefore, let me be clear now, it is not my intention that the 
royalty provisions of H.R. 2622--specifically, section 102 of the 
legislation--apply to small recreational miners engaged in casual use 
of the public lands for mining. Hand panning, the use of hand tools, 
and other similar activities that work public lands for enjoyment or to 
supplement one's income is a time-honored tradition in this country, 
and explicitly anticipated by a variety of Federal laws governing the 
multiple use of these lands. While a revamp of the 1872 mining law is 
more than overdue, including placing royalties on the minerals 
extracted from Federal lands, we must ensure that small, recreational 
mining opportunities are not lost. My amendment would have guaranteed 
protection for small miners. I am disappointed that I was unable to 
offer it today.
  I have made my concerns known to my colleagues in the Senate, and 
have provided them with copies of my amendment. When this legislation 
reaches their Chamber, I will call on them to ensure that small miners 
are not subject to the royalty provisions of this bill. Until then, I 
will reserve my judgment on whether I will support a final conference 
report on mining reform.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to applaud and congratulate my 
good friend, Chairman Rahall for his efforts to bring this legislation 
to the House floor. He has worked over many years to reform the mining 
law and because of his persistence, we have a better chance of finally 
securing reform than we ever have. Reform is long overdue.
  I am supporting this legislation, but I wish to continue to work with 
the chairman and follow the actions of the Senate to make sure final 
legislation does not inadvertently create a system that makes our 
domestic industry unable to compete in the world marketplace. Mining 
has a long and colorful history in the State of Arizona and it provides 
great benefit to the State's economy. I believe we can have reform and 
also preserve a healthy industry.
  I know the chairman shares that objective, and again I applaud him 
and his staff for making this issue a priority.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.
  H.R. 2262 will put new royalty rates on production from hardrock 
mining. For the other side, of course, royalty rates is a fun, new 
catchword meaning taxes. But, unlike the coal and petroleum industry 
who are taxed on production of product, H.R. 2262 will place the tax on 
the amount of material extracted. For example, if ``Joe Voter Mining'' 
moves 1 cubic yard of rock weighing in the neighborhood of 800 pounds 
to retrieve \1/10\th or 1 ounce of gold, Joe would not be taxed on the 
gold recovered, but on the amount of rock moved. By raising taxes like 
this, the bill will cripple American production.
  Since the 110th Congress convened, the Pelosi-led majority has been 
talking about the need for ``renewable'' energy.
  The energy bills, that were rammed through the House and put large 
tax increases on the oil and natural gas industries placed a large 
emphasis on renewable energy; wind and solar. So why would this bill 
punish renewable energy?
  Now, western Iowa does not have a hardrock mining industry. 
Thankfully for our farmers, we don't have much hardrock in western 
Iowa. But what we do have is large-scale production of renewable 
energy. The Fifth District of Iowa is the leader in production of BTU's 
of renewable energy: ethanol, biodiesel, and wind. However, this bill 
will put a cramp on further production of renewable energy. I want to 
let my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in on a little secret, 
those ethanol and biodiesel plants require steel and copper. Those wind 
chargers that produce clean, renewable electricity from the air sit on 
large steel columns. The electricity that is produced by wind chargers 
and solar panels is transported via copper wires.
  Mr. Chairman, steel and copper come from the ground. So I want to try 
and figure out the Democrat logic. They are going to tax the raw 
resources that are used by the renewable industry to make a product the 
Democrats want to see more of? That doesn't sound like sound logic to 
me. I would just hope that what my Democrat colleagues realize is that 
which you tax, you get less of. If they want less renewable energy, 
then taxing the resources used in its production is a sure way to make 
that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, today, oil is over $90 a barrel and natural gas is over 
$8 per million cubic feet because of Democrat energy policies. And in 
an absurd response, the Democrats aim to crush the renewable industry 
by raising the rates on the materials the renewable energy industry is 
built on. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining 
and Reclamation Act of 2007.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to mark the 
passage of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. H.R. 
2262 takes long overdue action to reform the 1872 Mining Act. That law, 
the General Mining Act of 1872, was written to encourage westward 
expansion and to generate the supply of minerals needed in our Nation. 
Back in 1872, a charge of $5 an acre to mine hard rock minerals in 
remote areas of the undeveloped west was probably a pretty fair price. 
The fact that the price is still the same today is simply ludicrous.
  As a result, private companies, both domestic and foreign, have been 
able to profit handsomely by mining on public lands without the need to 
pay the American people any royalties or to even clean up the messes 
they leave behind. By some estimates, the antiquated 1872 Mining Act 
has allowed over $245 billion worth of minerals to be extracted from 
more than 3.4 million acres of public lands without returning to the 
American people, the owners of those lands, a single cent in royalties. 
Today, we took a necessary step toward bringing this policy into the 
modern era.
  H.R. 2262, introduced by Representative Nick Rahall, the chairman of 
the Natural Resources Committee, requires mining companies to pay 
royalties to the American people for the minerals they mine from public 
lands and to properly reclaim lands damaged by mining. It also allows 
for the prohibition of mining on environmentally sensitive lands, and 
it creates a fund to begin the clean up of nearly a half million 
abandoned mine sites.
  I sincerely hope that the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act sees 
swift passage in the other Chamber so we can send it to the President 
to be signed into law. Even though we have already waited 135 years to 
take action on this matter, time is truly of the essence. In 1872, 
hardrock mining mostly took place in the middle of vast undeveloped 
lands. Today, however, with over 375,000 mining claims spread 
throughout the rapidly developing West, some of our last pieces of 
unspoiled lands are threatened. According to the New York Times, many 
of those 375,000 claims are within 5 miles of 11 major national parks, 
including Death Valley and the Grand Canyon.
  Over 89,000 of those claims were staked in 2006, largely due to the 
renewed interest in nuclear energy and the concomitant increase in the 
price of uranium. In New Mexico alone, almost 2,000 claims were staked 
in 2006. Many New Mexicans, most particularly members of the Navajo 
Nation, have already suffered devastating injuries from uranium mining 
in the past. H.R. 2262 will bring some much needed balance to the use 
of our public lands and, in so doing, help protect the health of our 
citizens. I am proud to support Chairman Rahall's efforts and I 
encourage our colleagues in the other Chamber to do the same.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2262, the 
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, which will reform the General 
Mining Law of 1872 and provide a fair return to the American taxpayer 
of publicly owned minerals on Federal lands.
  By charging a royalty for publicly owned minerals, the American 
taxpayer will no longer have to bear the cost of reclaiming and 
restoring abandoned hardrock mines. H.R. 2262 will

[[Page H12409]]

assure that future mines operate in a manner that conserves the 
environment and our valuable natural resources, including fish and 
wildlife habitats.
  H.R. 2262 addresses the financial needs of our Nation. By charging a 
royalty fee on existing and future mining operations, along with filing 
and maintenance fees, the Congressional Budget Office has determined 
this legislation would reduce our country's deficit, which has spiraled 
out of control under the current administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues today to update the 1872 Mining 
Law for the 21st century and vote for this important legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of reforming one of 
the most antiquated laws still on the books. The General Mining Law of 
1872 has remained essentially unchanged since Ulysses S. Grant was 
President. Originally intended to spur westward expansion, the law has 
become an environmental and fiscal train wreck. Today we have a chance 
to reform this relic by passing the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act 
of 2007 (H.R. 2262).
  Back in 1872 individual miners used hand tools to look for gold and 
silver; now multi-national corporations blast the tops off of mountains 
and produce chemicals such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury that leach 
into streams and groundwater long after mining operations cease. Much 
has changed, but the law has not.
  For 135 years, mining companies have been the beneficiaries of public 
largesse that would make even Haliburton blush: over $245 billion worth 
of minerals have been removed from public lands virtually free of 
charge. Taxpayers have then been expected to foot the bill for the 
massive cleanup of abandoned mines to the tune of at least $30 billion. 
Under the 1872 law, mining takes precedence over ever other concern--
environmental protection, recreation, or safety. The mining industry, 
which is responsible for more Federal Superfund sites than any other 
industry, pays no royalties on extracted metals. In addition, through 
the ``patent'' process, companies can force the sale of public lands 
for as little as $2.50 per acre. Patenting has resulted in the sale of 
over 3 million acres of public property at far below market value.
  In my home State of California, a recent study found over 21,000 
existing mining claims within 10 miles of national parks, monuments, 
and wilderness areas. The 285 claims within 10 miles of Yosemite 
threaten one of the Nation's most visited and spectacular parks.
  The bill before us protects sensitive lands in California and 
throughout the West by creating environmental safeguards, transparency, 
and public participation. Some lands, such as wilderness study areas, 
would be completely off-limits. In other areas, new mines would be 
permitted only after a showing that they are not environmentally 
destructive. Local governments can also challenge new projects. The 
bill restores fiscal sanity by ending the practice of ``patenting'' and 
requiring that new mines pay an 8 percent royalty and existing mines 
pay 4 percent, both reasonable rates and well below what the coal and 
oil industries pay. These royalties are then put into a fund to pay for 
the cleanup of old mines.
  It is time to fix a law that deserves to disappear into the dustbin 
of history. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for reform.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2262 
because it will finally compensate American taxpayers for the minerals 
that are extracted from public federal lands and, at the same time, 
dedicate this revenue to restoring wildlife habitat, drinking water 
supplies, and other natural resources that have been ruined by mining 
operations. Mr. Chairman, these changes are long overdue, and I commend 
Chairman Rahall for bringing this bill to the floor today.
  The importance of mining to the settlement and development of the 
West and to western economies today cannot be overstated. Therefore, 
this bill does not seek to destroy the U.S. mining industry, but to 
bring it out of the 19th century and into the 21st. The Hardrock Mining 
and Reclamation Act at long last will force U.S. law to recognize that 
our public lands belong to all U.S. citizens, and any activities or 
industries that utilize those lands must do so for the benefit of all 
Americans. This bill will hold the mining industry responsible for the 
public minerals it extracts and for the environmental consequences of 
their operations.
  For the past 135 years, the mining industry has had easy access to 
federal lands and was free to take what it wanted and then leave the 
lands in whatever condition they chose. The American taxpayer gave up 
their rights to these minerals and then took up the bill for cleaning 
up lands polluted with toxic chemicals. H.R. 2262 rightfully imposes a 
royalty fee on mining companies, similar to that paid by oil, coal, and 
natural gas companies who drill and mine on federal lands, which the 
Department of the Interior will use to fund environmental restoration 
and reclamation of abandoned mines. It is only fair that the mining 
industry pay to repair the damage it has done to natural resources, 
including drinking water supplies and prime habitat for wildlife and 
outdoor recreation.
  This last point is very important to me. As an avid hunter and 
outdoorsman, it is critically important to me that we maintain our 
Nation's natural heritage for current and future generations. Federal 
lands harbor some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat and 
provide some of the finest hunting and angling opportunities in the 
country. For example, public lands contain more than 50 percent of the 
Nation's blue-ribbon trout streams and are strongholds for imperiled 
trout and salmon in the western United States. More than 80 percent of 
the most critical habitat for elk is found on lands managed by the 
Forest Service and the BLM, alone. Pronghorn antelope, sage grouse, 
mule deer, salmon and steelhead, and countless other fish and wildlife 
species are similarly dependent on public lands.
  That is why sportsmen's organizations around the country support 
reform of the Mining Law of 1872. By passing this bill today, we will 
ensure the continued viability of wildlife habitat and the continued 
ability of hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts to pursue and pass 
on our sporting heritage.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2262 just makes good sense. By holding the mining 
industry accountable for its own actions and making it live up to 
certain basic environmental standards, this bill will protect the 
rights of all American citizens while ensuring that mining will 
continue in a balanced and responsible manner. I support H.R. 2262, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2262, the 
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. Reform of this 135-year-old law is 
long overdue, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this needed 
legislation.
  In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the General Mining Law. 
The intention of the law was to promote the settlement of the American 
West. Under the 1872 law, mining companies do not pay any royalties for 
the publicly-owned ``hardrock'' minerals mined on federal lands. Over 
the years, mining companies have been able to extract hundreds of 
billions of dollars in gold, silver, platinum, copper, and uranium 
without paying royalties.
  It is time to overhaul this archaic law. Let me be clear that this 
bill does not affect privately-owned land, but rather federal lands 
that belong to all Americans. The American people deserve a fair return 
for the minerals extracted from the lands they own. By comparison, the 
coal, oil, and gas companies already pay royalties for their operations 
on federal lands. Why should hardrock mining be any different? 
Virtually every other nation that allows mining on public lands imposes 
some form of royalty.
  Opponents of this bill claim that charging an 8 percent royalty on 
new hardrock mines and setting some basic environmental standards will 
devastate the domestic mining industry and send mining jobs overseas. I 
read in the paper this morning that the price of gold hit just hit a 
27-year high of $800 an ounce. Platinum is now selling for $1,447 an 
ounce. The worldwide demand for copper is so high that thieves have 
taken to stealing phone lines in some areas so they can sell the copper 
at recycling yards. Yet, in the face of these facts, opponents of the 
bill implausibly argue that the mining industry in this country will 
collapse if we don't continue to give away publicly-owned minerals for 
free.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to bring this 19th 
century mining law into the 21st century.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2262, 
the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, which requires hardrock mining 
companies to pay the government royalties for their operations on 
federal land.
  Currently, the General Mining Law of 1872 allows mining companies to 
stake claims on public lands without paying royalties to the 
government. Claimholders are able to purchase public lands where their 
mines are located for as little as $2.50 an acre.
  The bottom line is that there is no good reason that hardrock mining 
companies should be exempt from royalties for using land that belongs 
to all Americans. It is time we treat the hardrock mining industry just 
as we do coal, oil, and gas companies who operate on public lands.
  For example, miners of coal on public lands pay 8 percent on 
underground deposits and 12.5 percent on surface deposits. Drillers of 
oil and natural gas pay 8 percent to 16.7 percent.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1 billion in hardrock 
minerals are extracted annually from federal lands. Under this bill, 
future mine operations would pay an 8 percent royalty and existing 
mines would pay a 4 percent royalty. It would also end the 
``patenting'' practice, allows claimholders to purchase public lands 
where their mines are located for as little as $2.50 an acre.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has identified hardrock 
mining as a leading source of toxic pollution in the United States.

[[Page H12410]]

  According to the EPA, it will cost approximately $50 billion to clean 
up abandoned hardrock mines, and 40 percent of the headwaters of 
western watersheds have been polluted by mining.
  Mining practices have changed since 1872. Today, mining companies 
often dig holes over one mile in diameter and 1,000 feet deep, using 
cyanide and other chemicals to extract metals from tons of low-grade 
ore. These chemicals and the toxic metals they dissolve from the rocks 
can leach into water sources. Acid mine drainage filled with heavy 
metals is difficult and expensive to clean up. When spills occur, 
taxpayers bear the brunt of cleaning them up.
  The royalties collected under this bill would be directed towards 
much needed environmental protection measures. Two-thirds of the 
royalties, fees, and penalties paid by hardrock mining companies would 
help to mitigate the harmful effects of past mining activities on water 
supplies and public health. The funds would be used to restore land, 
water, and wildlife harmed by mining, and to clean up the abandoned 
mines and toxic waste materials.
  The remaining one-third would go to assist states and localities 
impacted by hardrock mining to provide public facilities and services.
  H.R. 2662 also expands the types of land on which mining would be 
prohibited to include wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and 
certain roadless areas in national forests, adding necessary 
protections to some of our national treasures.
  H.R. 2262 brings much needed reforms to hardrock mining operations. 
The bill ends priority status for mining interests, and ensures that 
mining on public lands takes place in a manner that protects taxpayers 
and the environment, and I urge its support.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 2262

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Hardrock 
     Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and references.
Sec. 3. Application rules.

              TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 101. Limitation on patents.
Sec. 102. Royalty.
Sec. 103. Hardrock mining claim maintenance fee.
Sec. 104. Effect of payments for use and occupancy of claims.

                 TITLE II--PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES

Sec. 201. Lands open to location.
Sec. 202. Withdrawal petitions by States, political subdivisions, and 
              Indian tribes.

  TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 301. General standard for hardrock mining on Federal land.
Sec. 302. Permits.
Sec. 303. Exploration permit.
Sec. 304. Operations permit.
Sec. 305. Persons ineligible for permits.
Sec. 306. Financial assurance.
Sec. 307. Operation and reclamation.
Sec. 308. State law and regulation.
Sec. 309. Limitation on the issuance of permits.

                      TITLE IV--MINING MITIGATION

                  Subtitle A--Locatable Minerals Fund

Sec. 401. Establishment of Fund.
Sec. 402. Contents of Fund.
Sec. 403. Subaccounts.

            Subtitle B--Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account

Sec. 411. Use and objectives of the Account.
Sec. 412. Eligible lands and waters.
Sec. 413. Expenditures.
Sec. 414. Authorization of appropriations.

    Subtitle C--Use of Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account

Sec. 421. Use and objectives of the Account.
Sec. 422. Allocation of funds.

          TITLE V--ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                 Subtitle A--Administrative Provisions

Sec. 501. Policy functions.
Sec. 502. User fees.
Sec. 503. Inspection and monitoring.
Sec. 504. Citizens suits.
Sec. 505. Administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 506. Enforcement.
Sec. 507. Regulations.
Sec. 508. Effective date.

                  Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 511. Oil shale claims subject to special rules.
Sec. 512. Purchasing power adjustment.
Sec. 513. Savings clause.
Sec. 514. Availability of public records.
Sec. 515. Miscellaneous powers.
Sec. 516. Multiple mineral development and surface resources.
Sec. 517. Mineral materials.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES.

       (a) In General.--As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``affiliate'' means with respect to any 
     person, any of the following:
       (A) Any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under 
     common control with such person.
       (B) Any partner of such person.
       (C) Any person owning at least 10 percent of the voting 
     shares of such person.
       (2) The term ``applicant'' means any person applying for a 
     permit under this Act or a modification to or a renewal of a 
     permit under this Act.
       (3) The term ``beneficiation'' means the crushing and 
     grinding of locatable mineral ore and such processes as are 
     employed to free the mineral from other constituents, 
     including but not necessarily limited to, physical and 
     chemical separation techniques.
       (4) The term ``casual use''--
       (A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means mineral 
     activities that do not ordinarily result in any disturbance 
     of public lands and resources;
       (B) includes collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or 
     mineral specimens using handtools, hand panning, or 
     nonmotorized sluicing; and
       (C) does not include--
       (i) the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, suction 
     dredging, or explosives;
       (ii) the use of motor vehicles in areas closed to off-road 
     vehicles;
       (iii) the construction of roads or drill pads; and
       (iv) the use of toxic or hazardous materials.
       (5) The term ``claim holder'' means a person holding a 
     mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located 
     under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance 
     with such laws and this Act. Such term may include an agent 
     of a claim holder.
       (6) The term ``control'' means having the ability, directly 
     or indirectly, to determine (without regard to whether 
     exercised through one or more corporate structures) the 
     manner in which an entity conducts mineral activities, 
     through any means, including without limitation, ownership 
     interest, authority to commit the entity's real or financial 
     assets, position as a director, officer, or partner of the 
     entity, or contractual arrangement.
       (7) The term ``exploration''--
       (A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means creating 
     surface disturbance other than casual use, to evaluate the 
     type, extent, quantity, or quality of minerals present;
       (B) includes mineral activities associated with sampling, 
     drilling, and analyzing locatable mineral values; and
       (C) does not include extraction of mineral material for 
     commercial use or sale.
       (8) The term ``Federal land'' means any land, and any 
     interest in land, that is owned by the United States and open 
     to location of mining claims under the general mining laws 
     and title II of this Act.
       (9) The term ``Indian lands'' means lands held in trust for 
     the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual or held by an 
     Indian tribe or individual subject to a restriction by the 
     United States against alienation.
       (10) The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe, 
     band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community, 
     including any Alaska Native village or regional corporation 
     as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 and following), that is 
     recognized as eligible for the special programs and services 
     provided by the United States to Indians because of their 
     status as Indians.
       (11) The term ``locatable mineral''--
       (A) subject to subparagraph (B), means any mineral, the 
     legal and beneficial title to which remains in the United 
     States and that is not subject to disposition under any of--
       (i) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
       (ii) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 and 
     following);
       (iii) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the 
     Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
       (iv) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 
     351 and following); and
       (B) does not include any mineral that is subject to a 
     restriction against alienation imposed by the United States 
     and is--
       (i) held in trust by the United States for any Indian or 
     Indian tribe, as defined in section 2 of the Indian Mineral 
     Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101); or
       (ii) owned by any Indian or Indian tribe, as defined in 
     that section.
       (12) The term ``mineral activities'' means any activity on 
     a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim for, 
     related to, or incidental to, mineral exploration, mining, 
     beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities for any 
     locatable mineral.
       (13) The term ``National Conservation System unit'' means 
     any unit of the National Park System, National Wildlife 
     Refuge System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or 
     National Trails System, or a National Conservation Area, a 
     National Recreation Area, a National Monument, or any unit of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (14) The term ``operator'' means any person proposing or 
     authorized by a permit issued under this Act to conduct 
     mineral activities and any agent of such person.
       (15) The term ``person'' means an individual, Indian tribe, 
     partnership, association, society,

[[Page H12411]]

     joint venture, joint stock company, firm, company, 
     corporation, cooperative, or other organization and any 
     instrumentality of State or local government including any 
     publicly owned utility or publicly owned corporation of State 
     or local government.
       (16) The term ``processing'' means processes downstream of 
     beneficiation employed to prepare locatable mineral ore into 
     the final marketable product, including but not limited to 
     smelting and electrolytic refining.
       (17) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior, unless otherwise specified.
       (18) The term ``temporary cessation'' means a halt in mine-
     related production activities for a continuous period of no 
     longer than 5 years.
       (19) The term ``undue degradation'' means irreparable harm 
     to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental 
     resources on public lands that cannot be effectively 
     mitigated.
       (b) Title II.--
       (1) Valid existing rights.--As used in title II, the term 
     ``valid existing rights'' means a mining claim or millsite 
     claim located on lands described in section 201(b), that--
       (A) was properly located and maintained under this Act 
     prior to and on the applicable date; or
       (B)(i) was properly located and maintained under the 
     general mining laws prior to the applicable date;
       (ii) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral 
     deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws on the 
     applicable date, or satisfied the limitations under existing 
     law for millsite claims; and
       (iii) continues to be valid under this Act.
       (2) Applicable date.--As used in paragraph (1), the term 
     ``applicable date'' means one of the following:
       (A) For lands described in paragraph (1) of section 201(b), 
     the date of the recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) 
     of that section if such recommendation is made on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) For lands described in paragraph (1) of section 201(b), 
     if the recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) of that 
     section is made before the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the earlier of--
       (i) the date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) the date of any withdrawal of such lands from mineral 
     activities.
       (C) For lands described in paragraph (3)(B) of section 
     201(b), the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (D) For lands described in paragraph (3)(A) or (3)(C) of 
     section 201(b), the date of the enactment of the amendment to 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 and following) 
     listing the river segment for study.
       (E) For lands described in paragraph (3)(B) of section 
     201(b), the date of the determination of eligibility of such 
     lands for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System.
       (F) For lands described in paragraph (4) of section 201(b), 
     the date of the withdrawal under other law.
       (c) References to Other Laws.--(1) Any reference in this 
     Act to the term general mining laws is a reference to those 
     Acts that generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and 
     sections 161 and 162, of title 30, United States Code.
       (2) Any reference in this Act to the Act of July 23, 1955, 
     is a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act to amend the Act 
     of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681) and the mining laws to 
     provide for multiple use of the surface of the same tracts of 
     the public lands, and for other purposes'' (30 U.S.C. 601 and 
     following).

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION RULES.

       (a) In General.--This Act applies to any mining claim, 
     millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located under the 
     general mining laws, before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, except as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Preexisting Claims.--(1) Any unpatented mining claim or 
     millsite claim located under the general mining laws before 
     the date of enactment of this Act for which a plan of 
     operation has not been approved or a notice filed prior to 
     the date of enactment shall, upon the effective date of this 
     Act, be subject to the requirements of this Act, except as 
     provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (2)(A) If a plan of operations is approved for mineral 
     activities on any claim or site referred to in paragraph (1) 
     prior to the date of enactment of this Act but such 
     operations have not commenced prior to the date of enactment 
     of this Act--
       (i) during the 10-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, mineral activities at such claim or 
     site shall be subject to such plan of operations;
       (ii) during such 10-year period, modifications of any such 
     plan may be made in accordance with the provisions of law 
     applicable prior to the enactment of this Act if such 
     modifications are deemed minor by the Secretary concerned; 
     and
       (iii) the operator shall bring such mineral activities into 
     compliance with this Act by the end of such 10-year period.
       (B) Where an application for modification of a plan of 
     operations referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) has been 
     timely submitted and an approved plan expires prior to 
     Secretarial action on the application, mineral activities and 
     reclamation may continue in accordance with the terms of the 
     expired plan until the Secretary makes an administrative 
     decision on the application.
       (c) Federal Lands Subject to Existing Permit.--(1) Any 
     Federal land shall not be subject to the requirements of 
     section 102 if the land is--
       (A) subject to an operations permit; and
       (B) producing valuable locatable minerals in commercial 
     quantities prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Any Federal land added through a plan modification to 
     an operations permit on Federal land that is submitted after 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to the 
     terms of section 102.
       (d) Application of Act to Beneficiation and Processing of 
     Non-Federal Minerals on Federal Lands.--The provisions of 
     this Act (including the environmental protection requirements 
     of title III) shall apply in the same manner and to the same 
     extent to mining claims, millsite claims, and tunnel site 
     claims used for beneficiation or processing activities for 
     any mineral without regard to whether or not the legal and 
     beneficial title to the mineral is held by the United States. 
     This subsection applies only to minerals that are locatable 
     minerals or minerals that would be locatable minerals if the 
     legal and beneficial title to such minerals were held by the 
     United States.

              TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 101. LIMITATION ON PATENTS.

       (a) Mining Claims.--
       (1) Determinations required.--After the date of enactment 
     of this Act, no patent shall be issued by the United States 
     for any mining claim located under the general mining laws 
     unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim 
     concerned--
       (A) a patent application was filed with the Secretary on or 
     before September 30, 1994; and
       (B) all requirements established under sections 2325 and 
     2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein 
     or lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims 
     were fully complied with by that date.
       (2) Right to patent.--If the Secretary makes the 
     determinations referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (1) for any mining claim, the holder of the claim 
     shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the same 
     manner and degree to which such claim holder would have been 
     entitled to prior to the enactment of this Act, unless and 
     until such determinations are withdrawn or invalidated by the 
     Secretary or by a court of the United States.
       (b) Millsite Claims.--
       (1) Determinations required.--After the date of enactment 
     of this Act, no patent shall be issued by the United States 
     for any millsite claim located under the general mining laws 
     unless the Secretary determines that for the millsite 
     concerned--
       (A) a patent application for such land was filed with the 
     Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and
       (B) all requirements applicable to such patent application 
     were fully complied with by that date.
       (2) Right to patent.--If the Secretary makes the 
     determinations referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (1) for any millsite claim, the holder of the claim 
     shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the same 
     manner and degree to which such claim holder would have been 
     entitled to prior to the enactment of this Act, unless and 
     until such determinations are withdrawn or invalidated by the 
     Secretary or by a court of the United States.

     SEC. 102. ROYALTY.

       (a) Reservation of Royalty.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     subject to paragraph (3), production of all locatable 
     minerals from any mining claim located under the general 
     mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, or 
     mineral concentrates or products derived from locatable 
     minerals from any such mining claim, as the case may be, 
     shall be subject to a royalty of 8 percent of the gross 
     income from mining. The claim holder or any operator to whom 
     the claim holder has assigned the obligation to make royalty 
     payments under the claim and any person who controls such 
     claim holder or operator shall be liable for payment of such 
     royalties.
       (2) Royalty for federal lands subject to existing permit.--
     The royalty under paragraph (1) shall be 4 percent in the 
     case of any Federal land that--
       (A) is subject to an operations permit on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) produces valuable locatable minerals in commercial 
     quantities on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Federal land added to existing operations permit.--Any 
     Federal land added through a plan modification to an 
     operations permit on Federal land that is submitted after the 
     date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to the royalty 
     that applies to other Federal land that is subject to the 
     operations permit before that submission under paragraph (1) 
     or (2), as applicable.
       (4) Other application provision not effective.--Section 
     3(c) of this Act shall have no force or effect.
       (5) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as 
     royalties under this subsection shall be deposited into the 
     account established under section 401.
       (b) Duties of Claim Holders, Operators, and Transporters.--
     (1) A person--
       (A) who is required to make any royalty payment under this 
     section shall make such payments to the United States at such 
     times and in such manner as the Secretary may by rule 
     prescribe; and
       (B) shall notify the Secretary, in the time and manner as 
     may be specified by the Secretary, of any assignment that 
     such person may have made of the obligation to make any 
     royalty or other payment under a mining claim.
       (2) Any person paying royalties under this section shall 
     file a written instrument, together with the first royalty 
     payment, affirming that such person is responsible for making 
     proper payments for all amounts due for all time periods for 
     which such person has a payment responsibility. Such 
     responsibility for the periods referred to in the preceding 
     sentence shall include any and all additional amounts billed 
     by

[[Page H12412]]

     the Secretary and determined to be due by final agency or 
     judicial action. Any person liable for royalty payments under 
     this section who assigns any payment obligation shall remain 
     jointly and severally liable for all royalty payments due for 
     the claim for the period.
       (3) A person conducting mineral activities shall--
       (A) develop and comply with the site security provisions in 
     the operations permit designed to protect from theft the 
     locatable minerals, concentrates or products derived 
     therefrom which are produced or stored on a mining claim, and 
     such provisions shall conform with such minimum standards as 
     the Secretary may prescribe by rule, taking into account the 
     variety of circumstances on mining claims; and
       (B) not later than the 5th business day after production 
     begins anywhere on a mining claim, or production resumes 
     after more than 90 days after production was suspended, 
     notify the Secretary, in the manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary, of the date on which such production has begun or 
     resumed.
       (4) The Secretary may by rule require any person engaged in 
     transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate, or product 
     derived therefrom to carry on his or her person, in his or 
     her vehicle, or in his or her immediate control, 
     documentation showing, at a minimum, the amount, origin, and 
     intended destination of the locatable mineral, concentrate, 
     or product derived therefrom in such circumstances as the 
     Secretary determines is appropriate.
       (c) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.--(1) A claim 
     holder, operator, or other person directly involved in 
     developing, producing, processing, transporting, purchasing, 
     or selling locatable minerals, concentrates, or products 
     derived therefrom, subject to this Act, through the point of 
     royalty computation shall establish and maintain any records, 
     make any reports, and provide any information that the 
     Secretary may reasonably require for the purposes of 
     implementing this section or determining compliance with 
     rules or orders under this section. Such records shall 
     include, but not be limited to, periodic reports, records, 
     documents, and other data. Such reports may also include, but 
     not be limited to, pertinent technical and financial data 
     relating to the quantity, quality, composition volume, 
     weight, and assay of all minerals extracted from the mining 
     claim. Upon the request of any officer or employee duly 
     designated by the Secretary conducting an audit or 
     investigation pursuant to this section, the appropriate 
     records, reports, or information that may be required by this 
     section shall be made available for inspection and 
     duplication by such officer or employee. Failure by a claim 
     holder, operator, or other person referred to in the first 
     sentence to cooperate with such an audit, provide data 
     required by the Secretary, or grant access to information 
     may, at the discretion of the Secretary, result in 
     involuntary forfeiture of the claim.
       (2) Records required by the Secretary under this section 
     shall be maintained for 7 years after release of financial 
     assurance under section 306 unless the Secretary notifies the 
     operator that the Secretary has initiated an audit or 
     investigation involving such records and that such records 
     must be maintained for a longer period. In any case when an 
     audit or investigation is underway, records shall be 
     maintained until the Secretary releases the operator of the 
     obligation to maintain such records.
       (d) Audits.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct such 
     audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters, 
     purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or 
     indirectly involved in the production or sales of minerals 
     covered by this Act, as the Secretary deems necessary for the 
     purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of this 
     section. For purposes of performing such audits, the 
     Secretary shall, at reasonable times and upon request, have 
     access to, and may copy, all books, papers and other 
     documents that relate to compliance with any provision of 
     this section by any person.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary is 
     authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to share information concerning the 
     royalty management of locatable minerals, concentrates, or 
     products derived therefrom, to carry out inspection, 
     auditing, investigation, or enforcement (not including the 
     collection of royalties, civil or criminal penalties, or 
     other payments) activities under this section in cooperation 
     with the Secretary, and to carry out any other activity 
     described in this section.
       (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3)(A) of this 
     subsection (relating to trade secrets), and pursuant to a 
     cooperative agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, 
     upon request, have access to all royalty accounting 
     information in the possession of the Secretary respecting the 
     production, removal, or sale of locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom from claims on 
     lands open to location under this Act.
       (3) Trade secrets, proprietary, and other confidential 
     information protected from disclosure under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code, popularly known as the Freedom 
     of Information Act, shall be made available by the Secretary 
     to other Federal agencies as necessary to assure compliance 
     with this Act and other Federal laws. The Secretary, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal officials 
     shall ensure that such information is provided protection in 
     accordance with the requirements of that section.
       (f) Interest and Substantial Underreporting Assessments.--
     (1) In the case of mining claims where royalty payments are 
     not received by the Secretary on the date that such payments 
     are due, the Secretary shall charge interest on such 
     underpayments at the same interest rate as the rate 
     applicable under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986. In the case of an underpayment, interest shall 
     be computed and charged only on the amount of the deficiency 
     and not on the total amount.
       (2) If there is any underreporting of royalty owed on 
     production from a claim for any production month by any 
     person liable for royalty payments under this section, the 
     Secretary shall assess a penalty of not greater than 25 
     percent of the amount of that underreporting.
       (3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``underreporting'' means the difference between the royalty 
     on the value of the production that should have been reported 
     and the royalty on the value of the production which was 
     reported, if the value that should have been reported is 
     greater than the value that was reported.
       (4) The Secretary may waive or reduce the assessment 
     provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection if the person 
     liable for royalty payments under this section corrects the 
     underreporting before the date such person receives notice 
     from the Secretary that an underreporting may have occurred, 
     or before 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, whichever is later.
       (5) The Secretary shall waive any portion of an assessment 
     under paragraph (2) of this subsection attributable to that 
     portion of the underreporting for which the person 
     responsible for paying the royalty demonstrates that--
       (A) such person had written authorization from the 
     Secretary to report royalty on the value of the production on 
     basis on which it was reported,
       (B) such person had substantial authority for reporting 
     royalty on the value of the production on the basis on which 
     it was reported,
       (C) such person previously had notified the Secretary, in 
     such manner as the Secretary may by rule prescribe, of 
     relevant reasons or facts affecting the royalty treatment of 
     specific production which led to the underreporting, or
       (D) such person meets any other exception which the 
     Secretary may, by rule, establish.
       (6) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established under 
     title IV.
       (g) Delegation.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior acting 
     through the Director of the Minerals Management Service.
       (h) Expanded Royalty Obligations.--Each person liable for 
     royalty payments under this section shall be jointly and 
     severally liable for royalty on all locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom lost or wasted 
     from a mining claim located under the general mining laws and 
     maintained in compliance with this Act when such loss or 
     waste is due to negligence on the part of any person or due 
     to the failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order 
     issued under this section.
       (i) Gross Income From Mining Defined.--For the purposes of 
     this section, for any locatable mineral, the term ``gross 
     income from mining'' has the same meaning as the term ``gross 
     income'' in section 613(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (j) Effective Date.--The royalty under this section shall 
     take effect with respect to the production of locatable 
     minerals after the enactment of this Act, but any royalty 
     payments attributable to production during the first 12 
     calendar months after the enactment of this Act shall be 
     payable at the expiration of such 12-month period.
       (k) Failure To Comply With Royalty Requirements.--Any 
     person who fails to comply with the requirements of this 
     section or any regulation or order issued to implement this 
     section shall be liable for a civil penalty under section 109 
     of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (30 U.S.C. 
     1719) to the same extent as if the claim located under the 
     general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this 
     Act were a lease under that Act.

     SEC. 103. HARDROCK MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.

       (a) Fee.--
       (1) Except as provided in section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (relating to oil shale claims), for each 
     unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site on federally 
     owned lands, whether located before, on, or after enactment 
     of this Act, each claimant shall pay to the Secretary, on or 
     before August 31 of each year, a claim maintenance fee of 
     $150 per claim to hold such unpatented mining claim, mill or 
     tunnel site for the assessment year beginning at noon on the 
     next day, September 1. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in 
     lieu of the assessment work requirement contained in the 
     Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) and the related 
     filing requirements contained in section 314(a) and (c) of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1744(a) and (c)).
       (2)(A) The claim maintenance fee required under this 
     subsection shall be waived for a claimant who certifies in 
     writing to the Secretary that on the date the payment was 
     due, the claimant and all related parties--
       (i) held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, or 
     tunnel sites, or any combination thereof, on public lands; 
     and
       (ii) have performed assessment work required under the 
     Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) to maintain the 
     mining claims held by the claimant and such related parties 
     for the assessment year ending on noon of September 1 of the 
     calendar year in which payment of the claim maintenance fee 
     was due.
       (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to any 
     claimant, the term ``all related parties'' means--
       (i) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in 
     section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the 
     claimant; or
       (ii) a person affiliated with the claimant, including--
       (I) a person controlled by, controlling, or under common 
     control with the claimant; or
       (II) a subsidiary or parent company or corporation of the 
     claimant.

[[Page H12413]]

       (3)(A) The Secretary shall adjust the fees required by this 
     subsection to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department 
     of Labor every 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an 
     adjustment to be reasonable.
       (B) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any 
     adjustment made under this paragraph not later than July 1 of 
     any year in which the adjustment is made.
       (C) A fee adjustment under this paragraph shall begin to 
     apply the calendar year following the calendar year in which 
     it is made.
       (4) Monies received under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established by this 
     Act.
       (b) Location.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any provision of law, for every 
     unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site located after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and before September 30, 
     1998, the locator shall, at the time the location notice is 
     recorded with the Bureau of Land Management, pay to the 
     Secretary a location fee, in addition to the fee required by 
     subsection (a) of $50 per claim.
       (2) Moneys received under this subsection that are not 
     otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws 
     by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the 
     Locatable Minerals Fund established by this Act.
       (c) Co-Ownership.--The co-ownership provisions of the 
     Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) will remain in 
     effect except that the annual claim maintenance fee, where 
     applicable, shall replace applicable assessment requirements 
     and expenditures.
       (d) Failure To Pay.--Failure to pay the claim maintenance 
     fee as required by subsection (a) shall conclusively 
     constitute a forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill 
     or tunnel site by the claimant and the claim shall be deemed 
     null and void by operation of law.
       (e) Other Requirements.--
       (1) Nothing in this section shall change or modify the 
     requirements of section 314(b) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(b)), or the 
     requirements of section 314(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(c)) related to filings 
     required by section 314(b), which remain in effect.
       (2) Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (30 U.S.C. 28) is amended by inserting ``or section 
     103(a) of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007'' 
     after ``Act of 1993,''.

     SEC. 104. EFFECT OF PAYMENTS FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF CLAIMS.

       Timely payment of the claim maintenance fee required by 
     section 103 of this Act or any related law relating to the 
     use of Federal land, asserts the claimant's authority to use 
     and occupy the Federal land concerned for prospecting and 
     exploration, consistent with the requirements of this Act and 
     other applicable law.

                 TITLE II--PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PLACES

     SEC. 201. LANDS OPEN TO LOCATION.

       (a) Lands Open to Location.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), mining claims may be located under the 
     general mining laws only on such lands and interests as were 
     open to the location of mining claims under the general 
     mining laws immediately before the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Lands Not Open to Location.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law and subject to valid existing rights, each 
     of the following shall not be open to the location of mining 
     claims under the general mining laws on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act:
       (1) Wilderness study areas.
       (2) Areas of critical environmental concern.
       (3) Areas designated for inclusion in the National Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers System pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), areas designated for potential 
     addition to such system pursuant to section 5(a) of that Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)), and areas determined to be eligible for 
     inclusion in such system pursuant to section 5(d) of such Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1276(d)).
       (4) Any area identified in the set of inventoried roadless 
     areas maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area 
     Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, 
     dated November 2000.
       (c) Existing Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act 
     limits the authority granted the Secretary in section 204 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1714) to withdraw public lands.

     SEC. 202. WITHDRAWAL PETITIONS BY STATES, POLITICAL 
                   SUBDIVISIONS, AND INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) In General.--Any State or political subdivision of a 
     State or an Indian tribe may submit a petition to the 
     Secretary for the withdrawal of a specific tract of Federal 
     land from the operation of the general mining laws, in order 
     to protect specific values identified in the petition that 
     are important to the State or political subdivision or Indian 
     tribe. Such values may include the value of a watershed to 
     supply drinking water, wildlife habitat value, cultural or 
     historic resources, or value for scenic vistas important to 
     the local economy, and other similar values. In the case of 
     an Indian tribe, the petition may also identify religious or 
     cultural values that are important to the Indian tribe. The 
     petition shall contain the information required by section 
     204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1714).
       (b) Consideration of Petition.--The Secretary--
       (1) shall solicit public comment on the petition;
       (2) shall make a final decision on the petition within 180 
     days after receiving it; and
       (3) shall grant the petition unless the Secretary makes and 
     publishes in the Federal Register specific findings why a 
     decision to grant the petition would be against the national 
     interest.

  TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MINERAL EXPLORATION AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 301. GENERAL STANDARD FOR HARDROCK MINING ON FEDERAL 
                   LAND.

       Notwithstanding section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)), the first 
     section of the Act of June 4, 1897 (chapter 2; 30 Stat. 36 16 
     U.S.C. 478), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 
     (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and in accordance with this title 
     and applicable law, unless expressly stated otherwise in this 
     Act, the Secretary--
       (1) shall ensure that mineral activities on any Federal 
     land that is subject to a mining claim, millsite claim, or 
     tunnel site claim is carefully controlled to prevent undue 
     degradation of public lands and resources; and
       (2) shall not grant permission to engage in mineral 
     activities if the Secretary, after considering the evidence, 
     makes and publishes in the Federal Register a determination 
     that undue degradation would result from such activities.

     SEC. 302. PERMITS.

       (a) Permits Required.--No person may engage in mineral 
     activities on Federal land that may cause a disturbance of 
     surface resources, including but not limited to land, air, 
     ground water and surface water, and fish and wildlife, 
     unless--
       (1) the claim was properly located under the general mining 
     laws and maintained in compliance with such laws and this 
     Act; and
       (2) a permit was issued to such person under this title 
     authorizing such activities.
       (b) Negligible Disturbance.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(2), a permit under this title shall not be required for 
     mineral activities that are a casual use of the Federal land.
       (c) Coordination With NEPA Process.--To the extent 
     practicable, the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall conduct the permit processes under this Act in 
     coordination with the timing and other requirements under 
     section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332).

     SEC. 303. EXPLORATION PERMIT.

       (a) Authorized Exploration Activity.--Any claim holder may 
     apply for an exploration permit for any mining claim 
     authorizing the claim holder to remove a reasonable amount of 
     the locatable minerals from the claim for analysis, study and 
     testing. Such permit shall not authorize the claim holder to 
     remove any mineral for sale nor to conduct any activities 
     other than those required for exploration for locatable 
     minerals and reclamation.
       (b) Permit Application Requirements.--An application for an 
     exploration permit under this section shall be submitted in a 
     manner satisfactory to the Secretary or, for National Forest 
     System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, and shall contain 
     an exploration plan, a reclamation plan for the proposed 
     exploration, and such documentation as necessary to ensure 
     compliance with applicable Federal and State environmental 
     laws and regulations.
       (c) Reclamation Plan Requirements.--The reclamation plan 
     required to be included in a permit application under 
     subsection (b) shall include such provisions as may be 
     jointly prescribed by the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (d) Permit Issuance or Denial.--The Secretary, or for 
     National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     shall issue an exploration permit pursuant to an application 
     under this section unless such Secretary makes any of the 
     following determinations:
       (1) The permit application, the exploration plan and 
     reclamation plan are not complete and accurate.
       (2) The applicant has not demonstrated that proposed 
     reclamation can be accomplished.
       (3) The proposed exploration activities and condition of 
     the land after the completion of exploration activities and 
     final reclamation would not conform with the land use plan 
     applicable to the area subject to mineral activities.
       (4) The area subject to the proposed permit is included 
     within an area not open to location under section 201.
       (5) The applicant has not demonstrated that the exploration 
     plan and reclamation plan will be in compliance with the 
     requirements of this Act and all other applicable Federal 
     requirements, and any State requirements agreed to by the 
     Secretary of the Interior (or Secretary of Agriculture, as 
     appropriate).
       (6) The applicant has not demonstrated that the 
     requirements of section 306 (relating to financial assurance) 
     will be met.
       (7) The applicant is eligible to receive a permit under 
     section 305.
       (e) Term of Permit.--An exploration permit shall be for a 
     stated term. The term shall be no greater than that necessary 
     to accomplish the proposed exploration, and in no case for 
     more than 10 years.
       (f) Permit Modification.--During the term of an exploration 
     permit the permit holder may submit an application to modify 
     the permit. To approve a proposed modification to the permit, 
     the Secretary concerned shall make the same determinations as 
     are required in the case of an original permit, except that 
     the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture may specify by 
     joint rule the extent to which requirements for initial 
     exploration permits under this section shall apply to 
     applications to modify an exploration permit based on whether 
     such modifications are deemed significant or minor.
       (g) Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Rights.--(1) No 
     transfer, assignment, or sale of rights granted by a permit 
     issued under this section shall be made without the prior 
     written approval of the Secretary or for National Forest 
     System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture.

[[Page H12414]]

       (2) Such Secretary shall allow a person holding a permit to 
     transfer, assign, or sell rights under the permit to a 
     successor, if the Secretary finds, in writing, that the 
     successor--
       (A) is eligible to receive a permit in accordance with 
     section 304(d);
       (B) has submitted evidence of financial assurance 
     satisfactory under section 306; and
       (C) meets any other requirements specified by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) The successor in interest shall assume the liability 
     and reclamation responsibilities established by the existing 
     permit and shall conduct the mineral activities in full 
     compliance with this Act, and the terms and conditions of the 
     permit as in effect at the time of transfer, assignment, or 
     sale.
       (4) Each application for approval of a permit transfer, 
     assignment, or sale pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     accompanied by a fee payable to the Secretary of the Interior 
     in such amount as may be established by such Secretary. Such 
     amount shall be equal to the actual or anticipated cost to 
     the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture, as 
     appropriate, of reviewing and approving or disapproving such 
     transfer, assignment, or sale, as determined by the Secretary 
     of the Interior. All moneys received under this subsection 
     shall be deposited in the Locatable Minerals Fund established 
     under title IV of this Act.

     SEC. 304. OPERATIONS PERMIT.

       (a) Operations Permit.--(1) Any claim holder that is in 
     compliance with the general mining laws and section 103 of 
     this Act may apply to the Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, for an operations 
     permit authorizing the claim holder to carry out mineral 
     activities, other than casual use, on--
       (A) any valid mining claim, valid millsite claim, or valid 
     tunnel site claim; and
       (B) such additional Federal land as the Secretary may 
     determine is necessary to conduct the proposed mineral 
     activities, if the operator obtains a right-of-way permit for 
     use of such additional lands under title V of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761 et 
     seq.) and agrees to pay all fees required under that title 
     for the permit under that title.
       (2) If the Secretary decides to issue such permit, the 
     permit shall include such terms and conditions as prescribed 
     by such Secretary to carry out this title.
       (b) Permit Application Requirements.--An application for an 
     operations permit under this section shall be submitted in a 
     manner satisfactory to the Secretary concerned and shall 
     contain site characterization data, an operations plan, a 
     reclamation plan, monitoring plans, long-term maintenance 
     plans, to the extent necessary, and such documentation as 
     necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal and 
     State environmental laws and regulations. If the proposed 
     mineral activities will be carried out in conjunction with 
     mineral activities on adjacent non-Federal lands, information 
     on the location and nature of such operations may be required 
     by the Secretary.
       (c) Permit Issuance or Denial.--(1) After providing for 
     public participation pursuant to subsection (i), the 
     Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, shall issue an operations permit if such 
     Secretary makes each of the following determinations in 
     writing, and shall deny a permit if such Secretary finds that 
     the application and applicant do not fully meet the following 
     requirements:
       (A) The permit application, including the site 
     characterization data, operations plan, and reclamation plan, 
     are complete and accurate and sufficient for developing a 
     good understanding of the anticipated impacts of the mineral 
     activities and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation and 
     control.
       (B) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed 
     reclamation in the operation and reclamation plan can be and 
     is likely to be accomplished by the applicant and will not 
     cause undue degradation.
       (C) The condition of the land, including the fish and 
     wildlife resources and habitat contained thereon, after the 
     completion of mineral activities and final reclamation, will 
     conform to the land use plan applicable to the area subject 
     to mineral activities and are returned to a productive use.
       (D) The area subject to the proposed plan is open to 
     location for the types of mineral activities proposed.
       (E) The proposed operation has been designed to prevent 
     material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit 
     area.
       (F) The applicant will fully comply with the requirements 
     of section 306 (relating to financial assurance) prior to the 
     initiation of operations.
       (G) Neither the applicant nor operator, nor any subsidiary, 
     affiliate, or person controlled by or under common control 
     with the applicant or operator, is ineligible to receive a 
     permit under section 305.
       (H) The reclamation plan demonstrates that 10 years 
     following mine closure, no treatment of surface or ground 
     water for carcinogens or toxins will be required to meet 
     water quality standards at the point of discharge.
       (2) With respect to any activities specified in the 
     reclamation plan referred to in subsection (b) that 
     constitutes a removal or remedial action under section 101 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following), the 
     Secretary shall consult with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency prior to the issuance of an 
     operations permit. The Administrator shall ensure that the 
     reclamation plan does not require activities that would 
     increase the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial 
     actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and 
     following) or corrective actions under the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 and following).
       (d) Term of Permit; Renewal.--
       (1) An operations permit--
       (A) shall be for a term that is no longer than the shorter 
     of--
       (i) the period necessary to accomplish the proposed mineral 
     activities subject to the permit; and
       (ii) 20 years; and
       (B) shall be renewed for an additional 20-year period if 
     the operation is in compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act and other applicable law.
       (2) Failure by the operator to commence mineral activities 
     within 2 years of the date scheduled in an operations permit 
     shall require a modification of the permit if the Secretary 
     concerned determines that modifications are necessary to 
     comply with section 201.
       (e) Permit Modification.--
       (1) During the term of an operations permit the operator 
     may submit an application to modify the permit (including the 
     operations plan or reclamation plan, or both).
       (2) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, may, at any time, require 
     reasonable modification to any operations plan or reclamation 
     plan upon a determination that the requirements of this Act 
     cannot be met if the plan is followed as approved. Such 
     determination shall be based on a written finding and subject 
     to public notice and hearing requirements established by the 
     Secretary concerned.
       (3) A permit modification is required before changes are 
     made to the approved plan of operations, or if unanticipated 
     events or conditions exist on the mine site, including in the 
     case of--
       (A) development of acid or toxic drainage;
       (B) loss of springs or water supplies;
       (C) water quantity, water quality, or other resulting water 
     impacts that are significantly different than those predicted 
     in the application;
       (D) the need for long-term water treatment;
       (E) significant reclamation difficulties or reclamation 
     failure;
       (F) the discovery of significant scientific, cultural, or 
     biological resources that were not addressed in the original 
     plan; or
       (G) the discovery of hazards to public safety.
       (f) Temporary Cessation of Operations.--(1) An operator 
     conducting mineral activities under an operations permit in 
     effect under this title may not temporarily cease mineral 
     activities for a period greater than 180 days unless the 
     Secretary concerned has approved such temporary cessation or 
     unless the temporary cessation is permitted under the 
     original permit. Any operator temporarily ceasing mineral 
     activities for a period greater than 90 days under an 
     operations permit issued before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act shall submit, before the expiration of such 90-day 
     period, a complete application for temporary cessation of 
     operations to the Secretary concerned for approval unless the 
     temporary cessation is permitted under the original permit.
       (2) An application for approval of temporary cessation of 
     operations shall include such information required under 
     subsection (b) and any other provisions prescribed by the 
     Secretary concerned to minimize impacts on the environment. 
     After receipt of a complete application for temporary 
     cessation of operations such Secretary shall conduct an 
     inspection of the area for which temporary cessation of 
     operations has been requested.
       (3) To approve an application for temporary cessation of 
     operations, the Secretary concerned shall make each of the 
     following determinations:
       (A) A determination that the methods for securing surface 
     facilities and restricting access to the permit area, or 
     relevant portions thereof, will effectively ensure against 
     hazards to the health and safety of the public and fish and 
     wildlife.
       (B) A determination that reclamation is in compliance with 
     the approved reclamation plan, except in those areas 
     specifically designated in the application for temporary 
     cessation of operations for which a delay in meeting such 
     standards is necessary to facilitate the resumption of 
     operations.
       (C) A determination that the amount of financial assurance 
     filed with the permit application is sufficient to assure 
     completion of the reclamation activities identified in the 
     approved reclamation plan in the event of forfeiture.
       (D) A determination that any outstanding notices of 
     violation and cessation orders incurred in connection with 
     the plan for which temporary cessation is being requested are 
     either stayed pursuant to an administrative or judicial 
     appeal proceeding or are in the process of being abated to 
     the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned.
       (g) Permit Reviews.--The Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall review each 
     permit issued under this section every 10 years during the 
     term of such permit, shall provide public notice of the 
     permit review, and, based upon a written finding, such 
     Secretary shall require the operator to take such actions as 
     the Secretary deems necessary to assure that mineral 
     activities conform to the permit, including adjustment of 
     financial assurance requirements.
       (h) Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Rights.--(1) No 
     transfer, assignment, or sale of rights granted by a permit 
     under this section shall be made without the prior written 
     approval of the Secretary, or for National Forest System 
     lands the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (2) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, may allow a person holding a permit 
     to transfer, assign, or sell rights under the permit to a 
     successor, if such Secretary finds, in writing, that the 
     successor--

[[Page H12415]]

       (A) has submitted information required and is eligible to 
     receive a permit in accordance with section 305;
       (B) has submitted evidence of financial assurance 
     satisfactory under section 306; and
       (C) meets any other requirements specified by such 
     Secretary.
       (3) The successor in interest shall assume the liability 
     and reclamation responsibilities established by the existing 
     permit and shall conduct the mineral activities in full 
     compliance with this Act, and the terms and conditions of the 
     permit as in effect at the time of transfer, assignment, or 
     sale.
       (4) Each application for approval of a permit transfer, 
     assignment, or sale pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     accompanied by a fee payable to the Secretary of the 
     Interior, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, in such amount as may be established by such 
     Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture. Such amount shall be equal to the 
     actual or anticipated cost to the Secretary or, for National 
     Forest System lands, to the Secretary of Agriculture, of 
     reviewing and approving or disapproving such transfer, 
     assignment, or sale, as determined by such Secretary. All 
     moneys received under this subsection shall be deposited in 
     the Locatable Minerals Fund established under title IV.
       (i) Public Participation.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly promulgate 
     regulations to ensure transparency and public participation 
     in permit decisions required under this Act, consistent with 
     any requirements that apply to such decisions under section 
     102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332).

     SEC. 305. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR PERMITS.

       (a) Current Violations.--Unless corrective action has been 
     taken in accordance with subsection (c), no permit under this 
     title shall be issued or transferred to an applicant if the 
     applicant or any agent of the applicant, the operator (if 
     different than the applicant) of the claim concerned, any 
     claim holder (if different than the applicant) of the claim 
     concerned, or any affiliate or officer or director of the 
     applicant is currently in violation of any of the following:
       (1) A provision of this Act or any regulation under this 
     Act.
       (2) An applicable State or Federal toxic substance, solid 
     waste, air, water quality, or fish and wildlife conservation 
     law or regulation at any site where mining, beneficiation, or 
     processing activities are occurring or have occurred.
       (3) The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
     (30 U.S.C. 1201 and following) or any regulation implementing 
     that Act at any site where surface coal mining operations 
     have occurred or are occurring.
       (b) Suspension.--The Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall suspend an 
     operations permit, in whole or in part, if such Secretary 
     determines that any of the entities described in subsection 
     (a) were in violation of any requirement listed in subsection 
     (a) at the time the permit was issued.
       (c) Correction.--(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue or 
     reinstate a permit under this title if the applicant submits 
     proof that the violation referred to in subsection (a) or (b) 
     has been corrected or is in the process of being corrected to 
     the satisfaction of such Secretary and the regulatory 
     authority involved or if the applicant submits proof that the 
     violator has filed and is presently pursuing, a direct 
     administrative or judicial appeal to contest the existence of 
     the violation. For purposes of this section, an appeal of any 
     applicant's relationship to an affiliate shall not constitute 
     a direct administrative or judicial appeal to contest the 
     existence of the violation.
       (2) Any permit which is issued or reinstated based upon 
     proof submitted under this subsection shall be conditionally 
     approved or conditionally reinstated, as the case may be. If 
     the violation is not successfully abated or the violation is 
     upheld on appeal, the permit shall be suspended or revoked.
       (d) Pattern of Willful Violations.--No permit under this 
     Act may be issued to any applicant if there is a demonstrated 
     pattern of willful violations of the environmental protection 
     requirements of this Act by the applicant, any affiliate of 
     the applicant, or the operator or claim holder if different 
     than the applicant.

     SEC. 306. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.

       (a) Financial Assurance Required.--(1) After a permit is 
     issued under this title and before any exploration or 
     operations begin under the permit, the operator shall file 
     with the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, evidence of financial assurance 
     payable to the United States. The financial assurance shall 
     be provided in the form of a surety bond, a trust fund, 
     letters of credits, government securities, certificates of 
     deposit, cash, or an equivalent form approved by such 
     Secretary.
       (2) The financial assurance shall cover all lands within 
     the initial permit area and all affected waters that may 
     require restoration, treatment, or other management as a 
     result of mineral activities, and shall be extended to cover 
     all lands and waters added pursuant to any permit 
     modification made under section 303(f) (relating to 
     exploration permits) or section 304(e) (relating to 
     operations permits), or affected by mineral activities.
       (b) Amount.--The amount of the financial assurance required 
     under this section shall be sufficient to assure the 
     completion of reclamation and restoration satisfying the 
     requirements of this Act if the work were to be performed by 
     the Secretary concerned in the event of forfeiture, including 
     the construction and maintenance costs for any treatment 
     facilities necessary to meet Federal and State environmental 
     requirements. The calculation of such amount shall take into 
     account the maximum level of financial exposure which shall 
     arise during the mineral activity and administrative costs 
     associated with a government agency reclaiming the site.
       (c) Duration.--The financial assurance required under this 
     section shall be held for the duration of the mineral 
     activities and for an additional period to cover the 
     operator's responsibility for reclamation, restoration, and 
     long-term maintenance, and effluent treatment as specified in 
     subsection (g).
       (d) Adjustments.--The amount of the financial assurance and 
     the terms of the acceptance of the assurance may be adjusted 
     by the Secretary concerned from time to time as the area 
     requiring coverage is increased or decreased, or where the 
     costs of reclamation or treatment change, or pursuant to 
     section 304(f) (relating to temporary cessation of 
     operations), but the financial assurance shall otherwise be 
     in compliance with this section. The Secretary concerned 
     shall review the financial guarantee every 3 years and as 
     part of the permit application review under section 304(c).
       (e) Release.--Upon request, and after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, and after inspection by the 
     Secretary, or for National Forest System lands, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, such Secretary may, after consultation with 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     release in whole or in part the financial assurance required 
     under this section if the Secretary makes both of the 
     following determinations:
       (1) A determination that reclamation or restoration covered 
     by the financial assurance has been accomplished as required 
     by this Act.
       (2) A determination that the terms and conditions of any 
     other applicable Federal requirements, and State requirements 
     applicable pursuant to cooperative agreements under section 
     308, have been fulfilled.
       (f) Release Schedule.--The release referred to in 
     subsection (e) shall be according to the following schedule:
       (1) After the operator has completed any required 
     backfilling, regrading, and drainage control of an area 
     subject to mineral activities and covered by the financial 
     assurance, and has commenced revegetation on the regraded 
     areas subject to mineral activities in accordance with the 
     approved plan, that portion of the total financial assurance 
     secured for the area subject to mineral activities 
     attributable to the completed activities may be released 
     except that sufficient assurance must be retained to address 
     other required reclamation and restoration needs and to 
     assure the long-term success of the revegetation.
       (2) After the operator has completed successfully all 
     remaining mineral activities and reclamation activities and 
     all requirements of the operations plan and the reclamation 
     plan, and all other requirements of this Act have been fully 
     met, the remaining portion of the financial assurance may be 
     released.

     During the period following release of the financial 
     assurance as specified in paragraph (1), until the remaining 
     portion of the financial assurance is released as provided in 
     paragraph (2), the operator shall be required to comply with 
     the permit issued under this title.
       (g) Effluent.--Notwithstanding section 307(b)(4), where any 
     discharge or other water-related condition resulting from the 
     mineral activities requires treatment in order to meet the 
     applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards, 
     the financial assurance shall include the estimated cost of 
     maintaining such treatment for the projected period that will 
     be needed after the cessation of mineral activities. The 
     portion of the financial assurance attributable to such 
     estimated cost of treatment shall not be released until the 
     discharge has ceased for a period of 5 years, as determined 
     by ongoing monitoring and testing, or, if the discharge 
     continues, until the operator has met all applicable effluent 
     limitations and water quality standards for 5 full years 
     without treatment.
       (h) Environmental Hazards.--If the Secretary, or for 
     National Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     determines, after final release of financial assurance, that 
     an environmental hazard resulting from the mineral activities 
     exists, or the terms and conditions of the explorations or 
     operations permit of this Act were not fulfilled in fact at 
     the time of release, such Secretary shall issue an order 
     under section 506 requiring the claim holder or operator (or 
     any person who controls the claim holder or operator) to 
     correct the condition such that applicable laws and 
     regulations and any conditions from the plan of operations 
     are met.

     SEC. 307. OPERATION AND RECLAMATION.

       (a) General Rule.--(1) The operator shall restore lands 
     subject to mineral activities carried out under a permit 
     issued under this title to a condition capable of 
     supporting--
       (A) the uses which such lands were capable of supporting 
     prior to surface disturbance by the operator, or
       (B) other beneficial uses which conform to applicable land 
     use plans as determined by the Secretary, or for National 
     Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (2) Reclamation shall proceed as contemporaneously as 
     practicable with the conduct of mineral activities. In the 
     case of a cessation of mineral activities beyond that 
     provided for as a temporary cessation under this Act, 
     reclamation activities shall begin immediately.
       (b) Operation and Reclamation Standards.--The Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly 
     promulgate regulations that establish operation and 
     reclamation standards for mineral activities permitted under 
     this Act. The Secretaries may determine whether outcome-based 
     performance

[[Page H12416]]

     standards or technology-based design standards are most 
     appropriate. The regulations shall address the following:
       (1) Segregation, protection, and replacement of topsoil or 
     other suitable growth medium, and the prevention, where 
     possible, of soil contamination.
       (2) Maintenance of the stability of all surface areas.
       (3) Control of sediments to prevent erosion and manage 
     drainage.
       (4) Minimization of the formation and migration of acidic, 
     alkaline, metal-bearing, or other deleterious leachate.
       (5) Reduction of the visual impact of mineral activities to 
     the surrounding topography, including as necessary pit 
     backfill.
       (6) Establishment of a diverse, effective, and permanent 
     vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the 
     area affected by mineral activities, and equal in extent of 
     cover to the natural vegetation of the area.
       (7) Design and maintenance of leach operations, 
     impoundments, and excess waste according to standard 
     engineering standards to achieve and maintain stability and 
     reclamation of the site.
       (8) Removal of structures and roads and sealing of drill 
     holes.
       (9) Restoration of, or mitigation for, fish and wildlife 
     habitat disturbed by mineral activities.
       (10) Preservation of cultural, paleontological, and cave 
     resources.
       (11) Prevention and suppression of fire in the area of 
     mineral activities.
       (c) Surface or Groundwater Withdrawals.--The Secretary 
     shall work with State and local governments with authority 
     over the allocation and use of surface and groundwater in the 
     area around the mine site as necessary to ensure that any 
     surface or groundwater withdrawals made as a result of mining 
     activities approved under this section do not cause undue 
     degradation.
       (d) Special Rule.--Reclamation activities for a mining 
     claim that has been forfeited, relinquished, or lapsed, or a 
     plan that has expired or been revoked or suspended, shall 
     continue subject to review and approval by the Secretary, or 
     for National Forest System lands the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.

     SEC. 308. STATE LAW AND REGULATION.

       (a) State Law.--(1) Any reclamation, land use, 
     environmental, or public health protection standard or 
     requirement in State law or regulation that meets or exceeds 
     the requirements of this Act shall not be construed to be 
     inconsistent with any such standard.
       (2) Any bonding standard or requirement in State law or 
     regulation that meets or exceeds the requirements of this Act 
     shall not be construed to be inconsistent with such 
     requirements.
       (3) Any inspection standard or requirement in State law or 
     regulation that meets or exceeds the requirements of this Act 
     shall not be construed to be inconsistent with such 
     requirements.
       (b) Applicability of Other State Requirements.--(1) Nothing 
     in this Act shall be construed as affecting any toxic 
     substance, solid waste, or air or water quality, standard or 
     requirement of any State, county, local, or tribal law or 
     regulation, which may be applicable to mineral activities on 
     lands subject to this Act.
       (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in 
     any way the right of any person to enforce or protect, under 
     applicable law, such person's interest in water resources 
     affected by mineral activities on lands subject to this Act.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) Any State may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the Secretary, or for National 
     Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, for the 
     purposes of such Secretary applying such standards and 
     requirements referred to in subsection (a) and subsection (b) 
     to mineral activities or reclamation on lands subject to this 
     Act.
       (2) In such instances where the proposed mineral activities 
     would affect lands not subject to this Act in addition to 
     lands subject to this Act, in order to approve a plan of 
     operations the Secretary concerned shall enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the State that sets forth a common 
     regulatory framework consistent with the requirements of this 
     Act for the purposes of such plan of operations. Any such 
     common regulatory framework shall not negate the authority of 
     the Federal Government to independently inspect mines and 
     operations and bring enforcement actions for violations.
       (3) The Secretary concerned shall not enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with any State under this section until 
     after notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for 
     public comment and hearing.
       (d) Prior Agreements.--Any cooperative agreement or such 
     other understanding between the Secretary concerned and any 
     State, or political subdivision thereof, relating to the 
     management of mineral activities on lands subject to this Act 
     that was in existence on the date of enactment of this Act 
     may only continue in force until 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. During such 1-year period, the State 
     and the Secretary shall review the terms of the agreement and 
     make changes that are necessary to be consistent with this 
     Act.

     SEC. 309. LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.

       No permit shall be issued under this title that authorizes 
     mineral activities that would impair the land or resources of 
     the National Park System or a National Monument. For purposes 
     of this section, the term ``impair'' shall include any 
     diminution of the affected land including its scenic assets, 
     its water resources, its air quality, and its acoustic 
     qualities, or other changes that would impair a citizen's 
     experience at the National Park or National Monument.

                      TITLE IV--MINING MITIGATION

                  Subtitle A--Locatable Minerals Fund

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established on the books of 
     the Treasury of the United States a separate account to be 
     known as the Locatable Minerals Fund (hereinafter in this 
     subtitle referred to as the ``Fund'').
       (b) Investment.--The Secretary shall notify the Secretary 
     of the Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in the 
     Secretary's judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. 
     The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of 
     the Fund in public debt securities with maturities suitable 
     for the needs of such Fund and bearing interest at rates 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into 
     consideration current market yields on outstanding 
     marketplace obligations of the United States of comparable 
     maturities.

     SEC. 402. CONTENTS OF FUND.

       The following amounts shall be credited to the Fund:
       (1) All moneys collected pursuant to section 506 (relating 
     to enforcement) and section 504 (relating to citizens suits).
       (2) All permit fees and transfer fees received under 
     section 304.
       (3) All donations by persons, corporations, associations, 
     and foundations for the purposes of this subtitle.
       (4) All amounts deposited in the Fund under section 102 
     (relating to royalties and penalties for underreporting).
       (5) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to 
     section 101 from issuance of patents.
       (6) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to 
     section 103 as claim maintenance and location fees.
       (7) All income on investments under section 401(b).

     SEC. 403. SUBACCOUNTS.

       There shall be in the Fund 2 subaccounts, as follows:
       (1) The Hardrock Reclamation Account, which shall consist 
     of \2/3\ of the amounts credited to the Fund under section 
     402 and which shall be administered by the Secretary acting 
     through the Director of the Office of Surface Mining and 
     Enforcement.
       (2) The Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account, which 
     shall consist of \1/3\ of the amounts credited to the Fund 
     under section 402 and which shall be administered by the 
     Secretary acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.

            Subtitle B--Use of Hardrock Reclamation Account

     SEC. 411. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, subject to 
     appropriations, to use moneys in the Hardrock Reclamation 
     Account for the reclamation and restoration of land and water 
     resources adversely affected by past mineral activities on 
     lands the legal and beneficial title to which resides in the 
     United States, land within the exterior boundary of any 
     national forest system unit, or other lands described in 
     subsection (d) or section 412, including any of the 
     following:
       (1) Protecting public health and safety.
       (2) Preventing, abating, treating, and controlling water 
     pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
       (3) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned surface and 
     underground mined areas.
       (4) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned milling and 
     processing areas.
       (5) Backfilling, sealing, or otherwise controlling, 
     abandoned underground mine entries.
       (6) Revegetating land adversely affected by past mineral 
     activities in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation, to 
     enhance wildlife habitat, and for any other reclamation 
     purpose.
       (7) Controlling of surface subsidence due to abandoned 
     underground mines.
       (b) Priorities.--Expenditures of moneys from the Hardrock 
     Reclamation Account shall reflect the following priorities in 
     the order stated:
       (1) The protection of public health and safety, from 
     extreme danger from the adverse effects of past mineral 
     activities, especially as relates to surface water and 
     groundwater contaminants.
       (2) The protection of public health and safety, from the 
     adverse effects of past mineral activities.
       (3) The restoration of land, water, and fish and wildlife 
     resources previously degraded by the adverse effects of past 
     mineral activities.
       (c) Habitat.--Reclamation and restoration activities under 
     this subtitle, particularly those identified under subsection 
     (a)(4), shall include appropriate mitigation measures to 
     provide for the continuation of any established habitat for 
     wildlife in existence prior to the commencement of such 
     activities.
       (d) Other Affected Lands.--Where mineral exploration, 
     mining, beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities 
     have been carried out with respect to any mineral which would 
     be a locatable mineral if the legal and beneficial title to 
     the mineral were in the United States, if such activities 
     directly affect lands managed by the Bureau of Land 
     Management as well as other lands and if the legal and 
     beneficial title to more than 50 percent of the affected 
     lands resides in the United States, the Secretary is 
     authorized, subject to appropriations, to use moneys in the 
     Hardrock Reclamation Account for reclamation and restoration 
     under subsection (a) for all directly affected lands.
       (e) Response or Removal Actions.--Reclamation and 
     restoration activities under this subtitle which constitute a 
     removal or remedial action under section 101 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), shall be conducted 
     with the concurrence of the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. The Secretary and the 
     Administrator shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 
     to establish procedures for consultation, concurrence, 
     training, exchange of technical expertise and

[[Page H12417]]

     joint activities under the appropriate circumstances, that 
     provide assurances that reclamation or restoration activities 
     under this subtitle shall not be conducted in a manner that 
     increases the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial 
     actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and 
     following), and that avoid oversight by multiple agencies to 
     the maximum extent practicable.

     SEC. 412. ELIGIBLE LANDS AND WATERS.

       (a) Eligibility.--Reclamation expenditures under this 
     subtitle may only be made with respect to Federal lands or 
     Indian lands or water resources that traverse or are 
     contiguous to Federal lands or Indian lands where such lands 
     or water resources have been affected by past mineral 
     activities, including any of the following:
       (1) Lands and water resources which were used for, or 
     affected by, mineral activities and abandoned or left in an 
     inadequate reclamation status before the effective date of 
     this Act.
       (2) Lands for which the Secretary makes a determination 
     that there is no continuing reclamation responsibility of a 
     claim holder, operator, or other person who abandoned the 
     site prior to completion of required reclamation under State 
     or other Federal laws.
       (3) Lands for which it can be established that such lands 
     do not contain locatable minerals which could economically be 
     extracted through the reprocessing or remining of such lands, 
     unless such considerations are in conflict with the 
     priorities set forth under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 
     302(b).
       (b) Specific Sites and Areas Not Eligible.--The provisions 
     of section 411(d) of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(d)) shall apply to 
     expenditures made from the Hardrock Reclamation Account.
       (c) Inventory.--The Secretary shall prepare and maintain a 
     publicly available inventory of abandoned locatable minerals 
     mines on public lands and any abandoned mine on Indian lands 
     that may be eligible for expenditures under this subtitle, 
     and shall deliver a yearly report to the Congress on the 
     progress in cleanup of such sites.

     SEC. 413. EXPENDITURES.

       Moneys available from the Hardrock Reclamation Account may 
     be expended for the purposes specified in section 411 
     directly by the Director of the Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement. The Director may also make such 
     money available for such purposes to the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management, the Chief of the United States 
     Forest Service, the Director of the National Park Service, or 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to 
     any other agency of the United States, to an Indian tribe, or 
     to any public entity that volunteers to develop and 
     implement, and that has the ability to carry out, all or a 
     significant portion of a reclamation program under this 
     subtitle.

     SEC. 414. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Amounts credited to the Hardrock Reclamation Account are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of this 
     subtitle without fiscal year limitation.

    Subtitle C--Use of Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account

     SEC. 421. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNT.

       Amounts in the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account 
     shall be available to the Secretary, subject to 
     appropriations, to provide assistance for the planning, 
     construction, and maintenance of public facilities and the 
     provision of public services to States, political 
     subdivisions and Indian tribes that are socially or 
     economically impacted by mineral activities conducted under 
     the general mining laws.

     SEC. 422. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       Moneys deposited into the Hardrock Community Impact 
     Assistance Account shall be allocated by the Secretary for 
     purposes of section 421 among the States within the 
     boundaries of which occurs production of locatable minerals 
     from mining claims located under the general mining laws and 
     maintained in compliance with this Act, or mineral 
     concentrates or products derived from locatable minerals from 
     mining claims located under the general mining laws and 
     maintained in compliance with this Act, as the case may be, 
     in proportion to the amount of such production in each such 
     State.

          TITLE V--ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                 Subtitle A--Administrative Provisions

     SEC. 501. POLICY FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Minerals Policy.--Section 101 of the Mining and 
     Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``and to ensure that mineral 
     extraction and processing not cause undue degradation of the 
     natural and cultural resources of the public lands''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following: ``It shall 
     also be the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     carry out the policy provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     this section.''.
       (b) Mineral Data.--Section 5(e)(3) of the National 
     Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act 
     of 1980 (30 U.S.C. 1604(e)(3)) is amended by inserting before 
     the period the following: ``, except that for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture shall promptly 
     initiate actions to improve the availability and analysis of 
     mineral data in public land use decisionmaking''.

     SEC. 502. USER FEES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may each establish and collect from persons 
     subject to the requirements of this Act such user fees as may 
     be necessary to reimburse the United States for the expenses 
     incurred in administering such requirements. Fees may be 
     assessed and collected under this section only in such manner 
     as may reasonably be expected to result in an aggregate 
     amount of the fees collected during any fiscal year which 
     does not exceed the aggregate amount of administrative 
     expenses referred to in this section.
       (b) Adjustment.--(1) The Secretary shall adjust the fees 
     required by this section to reflect changes in the Consumer 
     Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of 
     the Department of Labor every 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, or more frequently if the Secretary 
     determines an adjustment to be reasonable.
       (2) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any 
     adjustment made under this subsection not later than July 1 
     of any year in which the adjustment is made.
       (3) A fee adjustment under this subsection shall begin to 
     apply the calendar year following the calendar year in which 
     it is made.

     SEC. 503. INSPECTION AND MONITORING.

       (a) Inspections.--(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall make 
     inspections of mineral activities so as to ensure compliance 
     with the requirements of this Act.
       (2) The Secretary concerned shall establish a frequency of 
     inspections for mineral activities conducted under a permit 
     issued under title III, but in no event shall such inspection 
     frequency be less than one complete inspection per calendar 
     quarter or, two per calendar quarter in the case of a permit 
     for which the Secretary concerned approves an application 
     under section 304(f) (relating to temporary cessation of 
     operations). After revegetation has been established in 
     accordance with a reclamation plan, such Secretary shall 
     conduct annually 2 complete inspections. Such Secretary shall 
     have the discretion to modify the inspection frequency for 
     mineral activities that are conducted on a seasonal basis. 
     Inspections shall continue under this subsection until final 
     release of financial assurance.
       (3)(A) Any person who has reason to believe he or she is or 
     may be adversely affected by mineral activities due to any 
     violation of the requirements of a permit approved under this 
     Act may request an inspection. The Secretary, or for National 
     Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall 
     determine within 10 working days of receipt of the request 
     whether the request states a reason to believe that a 
     violation exists. If the person alleges and provides reason 
     to believe that an imminent threat to the environment or 
     danger to the health or safety of the public exists, the 10-
     day period shall be waived and the inspection shall be 
     conducted immediately. When an inspection is conducted under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary concerned shall notify the 
     person requesting the inspection, and such person shall be 
     allowed to accompany the Secretary concerned or the 
     Secretary's authorized representative during the inspection. 
     The Secretary shall not incur any liability for allowing such 
     person to accompany an authorized representative. The 
     identity of the person supplying information to the Secretary 
     relating to a possible violation or imminent danger or harm 
     shall remain confidential with the Secretary if so requested 
     by that person, unless that person elects to accompany an 
     authorized representative on the inspection.
       (B) The Secretaries shall, by joint rule, establish 
     procedures for the review of (i) any decision by an 
     authorized representative not to inspect; or (ii) any refusal 
     by such representative to ensure that remedial actions are 
     taken with respect to any alleged violation. The Secretary 
     concerned shall furnish such persons requesting the review a 
     written statement of the reasons for the Secretary's final 
     disposition of the case.
       (b) Monitoring.--(1) The Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, shall require all 
     operators to develop and maintain a monitoring and evaluation 
     system that shall identify compliance with all requirements 
     of a permit approved under this Act. The Secretary concerned 
     may require additional monitoring to be conducted as 
     necessary to assure compliance with the reclamation and other 
     environmental standards of this Act. Such plan must be 
     reviewed and approved by the Secretary and shall become a 
     part of the explorations or operations permit.
       (2) The operator shall file reports with the Secretary, or 
     for National Forest System lands the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, on a frequency determined by the Secretary 
     concerned, on the results of the monitoring and evaluation 
     process, except that if the monitoring and evaluation show a 
     violation of the requirements of a permit approved under this 
     Act, it shall be reported immediately to the Secretary 
     concerned. The Secretary shall evaluate the reports submitted 
     pursuant to this paragraph, and based on those reports and 
     any necessary inspection shall take enforcement action 
     pursuant to this section. Such reports shall be maintained by 
     the operator and by the Secretary and shall be made available 
     to the public.
       (3) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall determine what information 
     shall be reported by the operator pursuant to paragraph (3). 
     A failure to report as required by the Secretary concerned 
     shall constitute a violation of this Act and subject the 
     operator to enforcement action pursuant to section 506.

     SEC. 504. CITIZENS SUITS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any 
     person may commence a civil action on his or her own behalf 
     to compel compliance--
       (1) against any person (including the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture) who is allged to be in violation of 
     any of the provisions

[[Page H12418]]

     of this Act or any regulation promulgated pursuant to this 
     Act or any term or condition of any permit issued under this 
     Act; or
       (2) against the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture 
     where there is alleged a failure of such Secretary to perform 
     any act or duty under this Act, or to promulgate any 
     regulation under this Act, which is not within the discretion 
     of the Secretary concerned.

     The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction 
     over actions brought under this section, without regard to 
     the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, 
     including actions brought to apply any civil penalty under 
     this Act. The district courts of the United States shall have 
     jurisdiction to compel agency action unreasonably delayed, 
     except that an action to compel agency action reviewable 
     under section 505 may only be filed in a United States 
     district court within the circuit in which such action would 
     be reviewable under section 505.
       (b) Exceptions.--(1) No action may be commenced under 
     subsection (a) before the end of the 60-day period beginning 
     on the date the plaintiff has given notice in writing of such 
     alleged violation to the the alleged violator and the 
     Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, except that any such action may be brought 
     immediately after such notification if the violation 
     complained of constitutes an imminent threat to the 
     environment or to the health or safety of the public.
       (2) No action may be brought against any person other than 
     the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     subsection (a)(1) if such Secretary has commenced and is 
     diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court 
     of the United States to require compliance.
       (3) No action may be commenced under paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (a) against either Secretary to review any rule 
     promulgated by, or to any permit issued or denied by such 
     Secretary if such rule or permit issuance or denial is 
     judicially reviewable under section 505 or under any other 
     provision of law at any time after such promulgation, 
     issuance, or denial is final.
       (c) Venue.--Venue of all actions brought under this section 
     shall be determined in accordance with section 1391 of title 
     28, United States Code.
       (d) Costs.--The court, in issuing any final order in any 
     action brought pursuant to this section may award costs of 
     litigation (including attorney and expert witness fees) to 
     any party whenever the court determines such award is 
     appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order 
     or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a 
     bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (e) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall restrict 
     any right which any person (or class of persons) may have 
     under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, under this 
     section, or under any other statute or common law to bring an 
     action to seek any relief against the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture or against any other person, 
     including any action for any violation of this Act or of any 
     regulation or permit issued under this Act or for any failure 
     to act as required by law. Nothing in this section shall 
     affect the jurisdiction of any court under any provision of 
     title 28, United States Code, including any action for any 
     violation of this Act or of any regulation or permit issued 
     under this Act or for any failure to act as required by law.

     SEC. 505. ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Review by Secretary.--(1)(A) Any person issued a notice 
     of violation or cessation order under section 506, or any 
     person having an interest which is or may be adversely 
     affected by such notice or order, may apply to the Secretary, 
     or for National Forest System lands the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, for review of the notice or order within 30 days 
     after receipt thereof, or as the case may be, within 30 days 
     after such notice or order is modified, vacated, or 
     terminated.
       (B) Any person who is subject to a penalty assessed under 
     section 506 may apply to the Secretary concerned for review 
     of the assessment within 45 days of notification of such 
     penalty.
       (C) Any person may apply to such Secretary for review of 
     the decision within 30 days after it is made.
       (D) Pending a review by the Secretary or resolution of an 
     administrative appeal, final decisions (except enforcement 
     actions under section 506) shall be stayed.
       (2) The Secretary concerned shall provide an opportunity 
     for a public hearing at the request of any party to the 
     proceeding as specified in paragraph (1). The filing of an 
     application for review under this subsection shall not 
     operate as a stay of any order or notice issued under section 
     506.
       (3) For any review proceeding under this subsection, the 
     Secretary concerned shall make findings of fact and shall 
     issue a written decision incorporating therein an order 
     vacating, affirming, modifying, or terminating the notice, 
     order, or decision, or with respect to an assessment, the 
     amount of penalty that is warranted. Where the application 
     for review concerns a cessation order issued under section 
     506 the Secretary concerned shall issue the written decision 
     within 30 days of the receipt of the application for review 
     or within 30 days after the conclusion of any hearing 
     referred to in paragraph (2), whichever is later, unless 
     temporary relief has been granted by the Secretary concerned 
     under paragraph (4).
       (4) Pending completion of any review proceedings under this 
     subsection, the applicant may file with the Secretary, or for 
     National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, a 
     written request that the Secretary grant temporary relief 
     from any order issued under section 506 together with a 
     detailed statement giving reasons for such relief. The 
     Secretary concerned shall expeditiously issue an order or 
     decision granting or denying such relief. The Secretary 
     concerned may grant such relief under such conditions as he 
     or she may prescribe only if such relief shall not adversely 
     affect the health or safety of the public or cause imminent 
     environmental harm to land, air, or water resources.
       (5) The availability of review under this subsection shall 
     not be construed to limit the operation of rights under 
     section 504 (relating to citizen suits).
       (b) Judicial Review.--(1) Any final action by the 
     Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture in promulgating 
     regulations to implement this Act, or any other final actions 
     constituting rulemaking to implement this Act, shall be 
     subject to judicial review only in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia. Any action subject to 
     judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed 
     unless the court concludes that such action is arbitrary, 
     capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law. A petition 
     for review of any action subject to judicial review under 
     this subsection shall be filed within 60 days from the date 
     of such action, or after such date if the petition is based 
     solely on grounds arising after the 60th day. Any such 
     petition may be made by any person who commented or otherwise 
     participated in the rulemaking or any person who may be 
     adversely affected by the action of the Secretaries.
       (2) Final agency action under this subsection, including 
     such final action on those matters described under subsection 
     (a), shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with 
     paragraph (4) and pursuant to section 1391 of title 28, 
     United States Code, on or before 60 days from the date of 
     such final action. Any action subject to judicial review 
     under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court 
     concludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or 
     otherwise inconsistent with law.
       (3) The availability of judicial review established in this 
     subsection shall not be construed to limit the operations of 
     rights under section 504 (relating to citizens suits).
       (4) The court shall hear any petition or complaint filed 
     under this subsection solely on the record made before the 
     Secretary or Secretaries concerned. The court may affirm or 
     vacate any order or decision or may remand the proceedings to 
     the Secretary or Secretaries for such further action as it 
     may direct.
       (5) The commencement of a proceeding under this section 
     shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate 
     as a stay of the action, order, or decision of the Secretary 
     or Secretaries concerned.
       (c) Costs.--Whenever a proceeding occurs under subsection 
     (a) or (b), at the request of any person, a sum equal to the 
     aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including 
     attorney fees) as determined by the Secretary or Secretaries 
     concerned or the court to have been reasonably incurred by 
     such person for or in connection with participation in such 
     proceedings, including any judicial review of the proceeding, 
     may be assessed against either party as the court, in the 
     case of judicial review, or the Secretary or Secretaries 
     concerned in the case of administrative proceedings, deems 
     proper if it is determined that such party prevailed in whole 
     or in part, achieving some success on the merits, and that 
     such party made a substantial contribution to a full and fair 
     determination of the issues.

     SEC. 506. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Orders.--(1) If the Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, or an authorized 
     representative of such Secretary, determines that any person 
     is in violation of any environmental protection requirement 
     under title III or any regulation issued by the Secretaries 
     to implement this Act, such Secretary or authorized 
     representative shall issue to such person a notice of 
     violation describing the violation and the corrective 
     measures to be taken. The Secretary concerned, or the 
     authorized representative of such Secretary, shall provide 
     such person with a period of time not to exceed 30 days to 
     abate the violation. Such period of time may be extended by 
     the Secretary concerned upon a showing of good cause by such 
     person. If, upon the expiration of time provided for such 
     abatement, the Secretary concerned, or the authorized 
     representative of such Secretary, finds that the violation 
     has not been abated he or she shall immediately order a 
     cessation of all mineral activities or the portion thereof 
     relevant to the violation.
       (2) If the Secretary concerned, or the authorized 
     representative of the Secretary concerned, determines that 
     any condition or practice exists, or that any person is in 
     violation of any requirement under a permit approved under 
     this Act, and such condition, practice or violation is 
     causing, or can reasonably be expected to cause--
       (A) an imminent danger to the health or safety of the 
     public; or
       (B) significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air, 
     water, or fish or wildlife resources;
     such Secretary or authorized representative shall immediately 
     order a cessation of mineral activities or the portion 
     thereof relevant to the condition, practice, or violation.
       (3)(A) A cessation order pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2) 
     shall remain in effect until such Secretary, or authorized 
     representative, determines that the condition, practice, or 
     violation has been abated, or until modified, vacated or 
     terminated by the Secretary or authorized representative. In 
     any such order, the Secretary or authorized representative 
     shall determine the steps necessary to abate the violation in 
     the most expeditious manner possible and shall include the 
     necessary measures in the order. The Secretary concerned 
     shall require appropriate financial assurances to ensure that 
     the abatement obligations are met.

[[Page H12419]]

       (B) Any notice or order issued pursuant to paragraphs (1) 
     or (2) may be modified, vacated, or terminated by the 
     Secretary concerned or an authorized representative of such 
     Secretary. Any person to whom any such notice or order is 
     issued shall be entitled to a hearing on the record.
       (4) If, after 30 days of the date of the order referred to 
     in paragraph (3)(A) the required abatement has not occurred, 
     the Secretary concerned shall take such alternative 
     enforcement action against the claim holder or operator (or 
     any person who controls the claim holder or operator) as will 
     most likely bring about abatement in the most expeditious 
     manner possible. Such alternative enforcement action may 
     include, but is not necessarily limited to, seeking 
     appropriate injunctive relief to bring about abatement. 
     Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the Secretary, or 
     for National Forest System lands the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, from taking alternative enforcement action prior 
     to the expiration of 30 days.
       (5) If a claim holder or operator (or any person who 
     controls the claim holder or operator) fails to abate a 
     violation or defaults on the terms of the permit, the 
     Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, shall forfeit the financial assurance for the 
     plan as necessary to ensure abatement and reclamation under 
     this Act. The Secretary concerned may prescribe conditions 
     under which a surety may perform reclamation in accordance 
     with the approved plan in lieu of forfeiture.
       (6) The Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall not cause forfeiture of the 
     financial assurance while administrative or judicial review 
     is pending.
       (7) In the event of forfeiture, the claim holder, operator, 
     or any affiliate thereof, as appropriate as determined by the 
     Secretary by rule, shall be jointly and severally liable for 
     any remaining reclamation obligations under this Act.
       (b) Compliance.--The Secretary, or for National Forest 
     System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, may request the 
     Attorney General to institute a civil action for relief, 
     including a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining 
     order, or any other appropriate enforcement order, including 
     the imposition of civil penalties, in the district court of 
     the United States for the district in which the mineral 
     activities are located whenever a person--
       (1) violates, fails, or refuses to comply with any order 
     issued by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a); or
       (2) interferes with, hinders, or delays the Secretary 
     concerned in carrying out an inspection under section 503.

     Such court shall have jurisdiction to provide such relief as 
     may be appropriate. Any relief granted by the court to 
     enforce an order under paragraph (1) shall continue in effect 
     until the completion or final termination of all proceedings 
     for review of such order unless the district court granting 
     such relief sets it aside.
       (c) Delegation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may utilize personnel of the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to ensure 
     compliance with the requirements of this Act.
       (d) Penalties.--(1) Any person who fails to comply with any 
     requirement of a permit approved under this Act or any 
     regulation issued by the Secretaries to implement this Act 
     shall be liable for a penalty of not more than $25,000 per 
     violation. Each day of violation may be deemed a separate 
     violation for purposes of penalty assessments.
       (2) A person who fails to correct a violation for which a 
     cessation order has been issued under subsection (a) within 
     the period permitted for its correction shall be assessed a 
     civil penalty of not less than $1,000 per violation for each 
     day during which such failure continues.
       (3) Whenever a corporation is in violation of a requirement 
     of a permit approved under this Act or any regulation issued 
     by the Secretaries to implement this Act or fails or refuses 
     to comply with an order issued under subsection (a), any 
     director, officer, or agent of such corporation who knowingly 
     authorized, ordered, or carried out such violation, failure, 
     or refusal shall be subject to the same penalties as may be 
     imposed upon the person referred to in paragraph (1).
       (e) Suspensions or Revocations.--The Secretary, or for 
     National Forest System lands the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     shall suspend or revoke a permit issued under title III, in 
     whole or in part, if the operator--
       (1) knowingly made or knowingly makes any false, 
     inaccurate, or misleading material statement in any mining 
     claim, notice of location, application, record, report, plan, 
     or other document filed or required to be maintained under 
     this Act;
       (2) fails to abate a violation covered by a cessation order 
     issued under subsection (a);
       (3) fails to comply with an order of the Secretary 
     concerned;
       (4) refuses to permit an audit pursuant to this Act;
       (5) fails to maintain an adequate financial assurance under 
     section 306;
       (6) fails to pay claim maintenance fees or other moneys due 
     and owing under this Act; or
       (7) with regard to plans conditionally approved under 
     section 305(c)(2), fails to abate a violation to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary concerned, or if the validity 
     of the violation is upheld on the appeal which formed the 
     basis for the conditional approval.
       (f) False Statements; Tampering.--Any person who 
     knowingly--
       (1) makes any false material statement, representation, or 
     certification in, or omits or conceals material information 
     from, or unlawfully alters, any mining claim, notice of 
     location, application, record, report, plan, or other 
     documents filed or required to be maintained under this Act; 
     or
       (2) falsifies, tampers with, renders inaccurate, or fails 
     to install any monitoring device or method required to be 
     maintained under this Act,

     shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than 
     $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by 
     both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation 
     committed after a first conviction of such person under this 
     subsection, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than 
     $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more 
     than 4 years, or both. Each day of continuing violation may 
     be deemed a separate violation for purposes of penalty 
     assessments.
       (g) Knowing Violations.--Any person who knowingly--
       (1) engages in mineral activities without a permit required 
     under title III, or
       (2) violates any other requirement of a permit issued under 
     this Act, or any condition or limitation thereof,

     shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than 
     $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by 
     imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. If a 
     conviction of a person is for a violation committed after the 
     first conviction of such person under this subsection, 
     punishment shall be a fine of not less than $10,000 per day 
     of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or 
     both.
       (h) Knowing and Willful Violations.--Any person who 
     knowingly and willfully commits an act for which a civil 
     penalty is provided in paragraph (1) of subsection (g) shall, 
     upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than 
     $50,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or 
     both.
       (i) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``person'' includes any officer, agent, or employee of a 
     person.

     SEC. 507. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue 
     such regulations as are necessary to implement this Act. The 
     regulations implementing title II, title III, title IV, and 
     title V that affect the Forest Service shall be joint 
     regulations issued by both Secretaries, and shall be issued 
     no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 508. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act.

                  Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 511. OIL SHALE CLAIMS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL RULES.

       (a) Application of Section 511.--Section 511 shall apply to 
     oil shale claims referred to in section 2511(e)(2) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486).
       (b) Amendment.--Section 2511(f) of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (Public Law 102-486) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``as prescribed by the Secretary''.
       (2) By inserting before the period the following: ``in the 
     same manner as if such claim was subject to title II and 
     title III of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 512. PURCHASING POWER ADJUSTMENT.

       The Secretary shall adjust all location fees, claim 
     maintenance rates, penalty amounts, and other dollar amounts 
     established in this Act for changes in the purchasing power 
     of the dollar no less frequently than every 5 years following 
     the date of enactment of this Act, employing the Consumer 
     Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the 
     Department of Labor as the basis for adjustment, and rounding 
     according to the adjustment process of conditions of the 
     Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (104 
     Stat. 890).

     SEC. 513. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       (a) Special Application of Mining Laws.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed as repealing or modifying any Federal 
     law, regulation, order, or land use plan, in effect prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act that prohibits or restricts 
     the application of the general mining laws, including laws 
     that provide for special management criteria for operations 
     under the general mining laws as in effect prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act, to the extent such laws provide for 
     protection of natural and cultural resources and the 
     environment greater than required under this Act, and any 
     such prior law shall remain in force and effect with respect 
     to claims located (or proposed to be located) or converted 
     under this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     applying to or limiting mineral investigations, studies, or 
     other mineral activities conducted by any Federal or State 
     agency acting in its governmental capacity pursuant to other 
     authority. Nothing in this Act shall affect or limit any 
     assessment, investigation, evaluation, or listing pursuant to 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following), or the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3251 and following).
       (b) Effect on Other Federal Laws.--The provisions of this 
     Act shall supersede the general mining laws, except for those 
     parts of the general mining laws respecting location of 
     mining claims that are not expressly modified by this Act. 
     Except for the general mining laws, nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed as superseding, modifying, amending, or 
     repealing any provision of Federal law not expressly 
     superseded, modified, amended, or repealed by this Act. 
     Nothing in this Act shall be construed as altering, 
     affecting, amending, modifying, or changing, directly or 
     indirectly, any law which refers to and provides authorities 
     or responsibilities for, or is administered by, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, including the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, title XIV of the Public Health Service 
     Act

[[Page H12420]]

     (the Safe Drinking Water Act), the Clean Air Act, the 
     Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
     the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the 
     Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973, the Atomic Energy Act, the Noise Control Act of 
     1972, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 
     1986, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Environmental Research, 
     Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, the 
     Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, and the Federal Facilities 
     Compliance Act of 1992, or any statute containing an 
     amendment to any of such Acts. Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting any provision of the 
     Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 
     (Public Law 101-601) or any provision of the American Indian 
     Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).
       (c) Protection of Conservation Areas.--In order to protect 
     the resources and values of National Conservation System 
     units, the Secretary, as appropriate, shall utilize authority 
     under this Act and other applicable law to the fullest extent 
     necessary to prevent mineral activities that could have an 
     adverse impact on the resources or values for which such 
     units were established.

     SEC. 514. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORDS.

       Copies of records, reports, inspection materials, or 
     information obtained by the Secretary or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under this Act shall be made immediately 
     available to the public, consistent with section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code, in central and sufficient locations in 
     the county, multicounty, and State area of mineral activity 
     or reclamation so that such items are conveniently available 
     to residents in the area proposed or approved for mineral 
     activities and on the Internet.

     SEC. 515. MISCELLANEOUS POWERS.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out his or her duties under 
     this Act, the Secretary, or for National Forest System lands 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, may conduct any investigation, 
     inspection, or other inquiry necessary and appropriate and 
     may conduct, after notice, any hearing or audit, necessary 
     and appropriate to carrying out his or her duties.
       (b) Ancillary Powers.--In connection with any hearing, 
     inquiry, investigation, or audit under this Act, the 
     Secretary, or for National Forest System lands the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, is authorized to take any of the following 
     actions:
       (1) Require, by special or general order, any person to 
     submit in writing such affidavits and answers to questions as 
     the Secretary concerned may reasonably prescribe, which 
     submission shall be made within such reasonable period and 
     under oath or otherwise, as may be necessary.
       (2) Administer oaths.
       (3) Require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of all books, papers, records, 
     documents, matter, and materials, as such Secretary may 
     request.
       (4) Order testimony to be taken by deposition before any 
     person who is designated by such Secretary and who has the 
     power to administer oaths, and to compel testimony and the 
     production of evidence in the same manner as authorized under 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection.
       (5) Pay witnesses the same fees and mileage as are paid in 
     like circumstances in the courts of the United States.
       (c) Enforcement.--In cases of refusal to obey a subpoena 
     served upon any person under this section, the district court 
     of the United States for any district in which such person is 
     found, resides, or transacts business, upon application by 
     the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary 
     concerned and after notice to such person, shall have 
     jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to 
     appear and produce documents before the Secretary concerned. 
     Any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished 
     by such court as contempt thereof and subject to a penalty of 
     up to $10,000 a day.
       (d) Entry and Access.--Without advance notice and upon 
     presentation of appropriate credentials, the Secretary, or 
     for National Forest System lands the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, or any authorized representative thereof--
       (1) shall have the right of entry to, upon, or through the 
     site of any claim, mineral activities, or any premises in 
     which any records required to be maintained under this Act 
     are located;
       (2) may at reasonable times, and without delay, have access 
     to records, inspect any monitoring equipment, or review any 
     method of operation required under this Act;
       (3) may engage in any work and do all things necessary or 
     expedient to implement and administer the provisions of this 
     Act;
       (4) may, on any mining claim located under the general 
     mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, and 
     without advance notice, stop and inspect any motorized form 
     of transportation that such Secretary has probable cause to 
     believe is carrying locatable minerals, concentrates, or 
     products derived therefrom from a claim site for the purpose 
     of determining whether the operator of such vehicle has 
     documentation related to such locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom as required by 
     law, if such documentation is required under this Act; and
       (5) may, if accompanied by any appropriate law enforcement 
     officer, or an appropriate law enforcement officer alone, 
     stop and inspect any motorized form of transportation which 
     is not on a claim site if he or she has probable cause to 
     believe such vehicle is carrying locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom from a claim site 
     on Federal lands or allocated to such claim site. Such 
     inspection shall be for the purpose of determining whether 
     the operator of such vehicle has the documentation required 
     by law, if such documentation is required under this Act.

     SEC. 516. MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SURFACE RESOURCES.

       The provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Act of August 13, 
     1954 (30 U.S.C. 524 and 526), commonly known as the Multiple 
     Minerals Development Act, and the provisions of section 4 of 
     the Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), shall apply to all 
     mining claims located under the general mining laws and 
     maintained in compliance with such laws and this Act.

     SEC. 517. MINERAL MATERIALS.

       (a) Determinations.--Section 3 of the Act of July 23, 1955 
     (30 U.S.C. 611), is amended as follows:
       (1) By inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence.
       (2) By inserting ``mineral materials, including but not 
     limited to'' after ``varieties of'' in the first sentence.
       (3) By striking ``or cinders'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``cinders, and clay''.
       (4) By adding the following new subsection at the end 
     thereof:
       ``(b)(1) Subject to valid existing rights, after the date 
     of enactment of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 
     2007, notwithstanding the reference to common varieties in 
     subsection (a) and to the exception to such term relating to 
     a deposit of materials with some property giving it distinct 
     and special value, all deposits of mineral materials referred 
     to in such subsection, including the block pumice referred to 
     in such subsection, shall be subject to disposal only under 
     the terms and conditions of the Materials Act of 1947.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `valid 
     existing rights' means that a mining claim located for any 
     such mineral material--
       ``(A) had and still has some property giving it the 
     distinct and special value referred to in subsection (a), or 
     as the case may be, met the definition of block pumice 
     referred to in such subsection;
       ``(B) was properly located and maintained under the general 
     mining laws prior to the date of enactment of the Hardrock 
     Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007;
       ``(C) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral 
     deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws as in 
     effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the 
     Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007; and
       ``(D) that such claim continues to be valid under this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Mineral Materials Disposal Clarification.--Section 4 of 
     the Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In subsection (b) by inserting ``and mineral material'' 
     after ``vegetative''.
       (2) In subsection (c) by inserting ``and mineral material'' 
     after ``vegetative''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1 of the Act of July 31, 
     1947, entitled ``An Act to provide for the disposal of 
     materials on the public lands of the United States'' (30 
     U.S.C. 601 and following) is amended by striking ``common 
     varieties of'' in the first sentence.
       (d) Short Titles.--
       (1) Surface resources.--The Act of July 23, 1955, is 
     amended by inserting after section 7 the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 8.  This Act may be cited as the `Surface Resources 
     Act of 1955'.''.
       (2) Mineral materials.--The Act of July 31, 1947, entitled 
     ``An Act to provide for the disposal of materials on the 
     public lands of the United States'' (30 U.S.C. 601 and 
     following) is amended by inserting after section 4 the 
     following new section:
       ``Sec. 5.  This Act may be cited as the `Materials Act of 
     1947'.''.
       (e) Repeals.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights, the Act 
     of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat. 348, 30 U.S.C. 161), commonly 
     known as the Building Stone Act, is hereby repealed.
       (2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Act of January 
     31, 1901 (30 U.S.C. 162), commonly known as the Saline Placer 
     Act, is hereby repealed.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-416. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-416.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       Amend section 2(b) to read as follows:
       (b) Valid Existing Rights.--As used in this Act, the term 
     ``valid existing rights'' means a mining claim or millsite 
     claim located on lands described in section 201(b), that--

[[Page H12421]]

       (1) was properly located and maintained under the general 
     mining laws prior to the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral 
     deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, or satisfied the limitations 
     under existing law for millsite claims; and
       (3) continues to be valid under this Act.
       In section 3(c)(1), strike the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) and insert ``Any Federal land shall be 
     subject to the requirements of section 102(a)(2) if the land 
     is--''.
       In section 3(c)(2), strike ``section 102'' and insert 
     ``section 102(a)(3)''.
       Amend section 102(a)(3) to read as follows:
       (3) Federal land added to existing operations permit.--Any 
     Federal land added through a plan modification to an 
     operations permit that is submitted after the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be subject to the royalty that 
     applies to Federal land under paragraph (1).
       Strike section 102(a)(4) (and redesignate the subsequent 
     paragraph accordingly).
       Amend section 103(a)(4) to read as follows:
       (4) Moneys received under this subsection that are not 
     otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws 
     by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the 
     Locatable Minerals Fund established by this Act.
       In section 202(a), strike ``Any State'' and insert 
     ``Subject to valid existing rights, any State''.
       In section 202(b)(3), after ``petition'' insert ``subject 
     to valid existing rights,''.
       In section 303(g)(4), strike ``All moneys'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the sentence.
       In section 304(h)(4), strike ``All moneys'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the sentence.
       In section 309, strike ``the National Park System'' and 
     insert ``a National Park''.
       In section 309, strike ``including its scenic assets, its 
     water resources, its air quality, and its acoustic qualities, 
     or other changes'' and insert ``including wildlife, scenic 
     assets, water resources, air quality, and acoustic qualities, 
     or other changes''.
       Amend section 402(2) to read as follows:
       (2) All fees received under section 304(a)(1)(B).
       Amend section 402(6) to read as follows:
       (6) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to 
     section 103 as claim maintenance and location fees minus the 
     moneys allocated for administration of the mining laws by the 
     Department of the Interior.
       In section 504(a)(1), strike ``allged'' and insert 
     ``alleged''.
       In section 504(a)(1), strike ``pursuant to this Act'' and 
     insert ``pursuant to title III of this Act''.
       In section 504(a)(1), strike ``under this Act'' and insert 
     ``under title III of this Act''.
       Amend section 511 to read as follows (and conform the table 
     of contents in section 1(b)):

     SEC. 511. OIL SHALE CLAIMS.

       Section 2511(f) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-486) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``as prescribed by the Secretary''.
       (2) By inserting before the period the following: ``in the 
     same manner as required by title II and title III of the 
     Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007''.
       At the end of section 513, add the following:
       (d) Sovereign Immunity of Indian Tribes.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed so as to waive the sovereign 
     immunity of any Indian tribe.


         Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment by the form that I have placed at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       In the instruction relating to section 202(b)(3), insert 
     before the word ``insert'' the following phrase: ``in the 
     first place it appears''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  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. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and 
would yield back our time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-416.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       In section 2(a), strike paragraph (19).
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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

[[Page H12422]]

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.

                              {time}  1315

  ``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. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Matsui

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-416.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Matsui:
       In section 411--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), before the period insert ``, 
     including in river watershed areas''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(3), before the period insert ``, 
     which may include restoration activities in river watershed 
     areas''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to this much-needed legislation. 
My amendment clarifies that river watersheds will be eligible to 
receive some of the cleanup funding that will be generated by this 
bill.
  Watersheds are crucial for the health of our Nation. They help move 
our goods, preserve our ecosystems, and protect our communities from 
flooding. Managing our Nation's watersheds in a holistic and 
responsible way is essential. If we do not protect and maintain them, 
we jeopardize critical parts of our environment that support commerce 
and recreation.
  In arid States like California, Nevada, and Utah, river watersheds 
are even more important to economic and environmental health. 
Watersheds support a variety of agricultural, economic, and 
recreational activities. In my home State of California, for example, 
the Sacramento River Watershed forms the basis for fertile farmland, 
thriving urban areas, and outdoor recreational opportunities.
  However, many watersheds are located near active and abandoned mines. 
Years ago rivers represented great economic opportunity. Rivers are 
where many precious metals are located. But the drive for these 
minerals has left a negative environmental legacy.
  In Nevada, more than 7,000 tons of mercury were deposited into the 
Carson River Watershed during the quest for silver. In the California 
foothills, tens of thousands of mines were dug for the gold that was 
discovered in the watershed running through my district. More than 
4,000 of these abandoned mines pose environmental hazards.
  We must protect these river watersheds that are vital to our way of 
life. That is why my amendment is needed. It does not change the 
underlying structure of this very good bill. But it does make it 
crystal clear that cleaning up watersheds affected by mining is a 
priority.

[[Page H12423]]

  Mr. Chairman, mining impacts water all across the West. Our river 
watersheds feel the effects of mining to a great degree. Addressing 
these impacts requires a comprehensive management approach. My 
amendment is crafted, and offered today, with this in mind. And it 
acknowledges that good watershed management is a critical tool of 
maintaining our natural resource. It recognizes that by protecting 
watersheds, we are investing in a public good that all Americans use. 
And it ensures that this public good will be maintained for future 
generations.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  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.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Heller of Nevada

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 110-416.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Heller of Nevada:
       In section 411(b), amend the matter preceding paragraph (1) 
     to read as follows:
       (b) Allocation.--Of the amounts deposited into the Hardrock 
     Reclamation Account, 50 percent shall be allocated by the 
     Secretary among the States within the boundaries of which 
     occurs production of locatable minerals from mining claims 
     located under the general mining laws and maintained in 
     compliance with this Act, or mineral concentrates or products 
     derived from locatable minerals from mining claims located 
     under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance 
     with this Act, as the case may be, in proportion to the 
     amount of such production in each such State. Expenditures of 
     the remainder of such amounts shall reflect the following 
     priorities in the order stated:

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Heller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, more hardrock mining occurs in my 
district than in any other State; therefore, the remediation of 
abandoned mine lands is very important to my constituents.
  As many of us are aware, abandoned mine lands are the unfortunate 
legacy of the irresponsible mining practices of the past. Fortunately, 
mining operations today are held accountable for their practices. So 
with bad practices of the past ended, we have an opportunity to focus 
on cleaning up the abandoned mine lands. And the amendment I am 
offering will do just that.
  My amendment will direct half of the revenues deposited in the 
hardrock reclamation fund to States for the purposes of abandoned mine 
land remediation, while preserving the Federal Government's ability to 
fund the national priorities in the bill. My amendment allows the 
Federal Government to distribute half of the funds as it sees fit. The 
other half of the funds would go proportionately to States where 
production is occurring to fund in-place, successful AML programs.
  In multiple committee hearings, we heard that States currently do a 
great job of remediating abandoned mine land sites. They often are only 
limited by their available resources to conduct remediation projects. 
To give some of you perspective of how effective State programs are, 
Nevada has identified more than 20,000 AML sites in need of remediation 
and is still in the process, of course, of identifying more. The good 
news is that to date we have secured more than 9,000 of those sites.
  Likewise, in Colorado it is estimated that there are about 23,000 
abandoned mines. More than 6,000 have been made safe by the State 
Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety.
  So in an effort to get money on the ground to remediate abandoned 
land mine sites quickly and efficiently, a portion of these funds needs 
to be dedicated to States where production is occurring. Given that 
many States have already prioritized their AML needs, we should get 
funding to them as directly as possible, as quickly as possible. This 
amendment will expedite the cleanup process that we all want.
  My amendment bolsters the ability of States to continue their good 
work on the ground while providing a way to remediate historic hardrock 
sites in States where mineral production will not generate sufficient 
funds to deal with current abandoned mine land issues.
  I would urge support of the Heller amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise only to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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.

                              {time}  1330

  There is precedent for this arrangement in the Abandoned Mine 
Reclamation Fund established for coal back in

[[Page H12424]]

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. HELLER of Nevada. I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, again thanking him for his 
respect and efforts on this particular bill and hard work, and giving 
me time and efforts for my comments and concerns that I shared during 
the committee.
  I want to thank him for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Yes, I will.
  Mr. RAHALL. And I say I accept your amendment without soliciting a 
pledge for your vote on final passage.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Cannon

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be 
offered.
  Therefore, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 110-416.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Cannon:
       Strike section 517.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee. 
We have worked on this bill or ideas surrounding this bill for, I 
think, over 10 years now. It is now on the floor. It has been done with 
grace and with dignity, and I appreciate the gentleman's approach.
  We come from very, very different districts. About two-thirds of my 
State is public lands, very little of the gentleman's State is public 
lands. And so we differ. We have a different approach, and I think 
that's very appropriate, just as the gentleman pointed out with regard 
to Mr. Heller and his district.
  So we have differences, and we come at these things differently. And 
in that context, I hope that the gentleman will consider accepting my 
amendment. On the other hand, our colleagues here today will recognize 
the importance of this amendment.
  My amendment would strike section 517 of the bill before us. The 
amendment is necessary so common consumer products remain affordable. 
If section 517 is not stricken, Americans will see an increase in the 
cost of everyday products, such as glass, ceramics, paper, plastics, 
rubber, detergents, insulation, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, to name 
just a few.
  Section 517 deals with common varieties of industrial minerals. 
Unfortunately, this provision would put industrial minerals that are 
clearly identifiable as unique, and thus ``locatable,'' under the 
mining law into this category despite existing law that has labeled 
them as locatable.
  Industrial minerals have been classified as locatable since 1872 
under the General Mining Law. These minerals were never intended to be 
included in the Mineral Materials Act. The Mineral Materials Act was 
designed to deal with bulk sales of common deposits of sand and gravel. 
Moving industrial minerals into the Mineral Materials Act would make it 
impossible for these operations to continue to extract these unique 
industrial minerals.
  Industrial minerals should not be treated the same as rocks and sand 
and gravel that can be loaded in the back of a truck and hauled away. 
Yet section 517 would do just that. Under the Mineral Materials Act, 
minerals are disposed of by non-competitive processes for small 
quantities and by competitive bidding contracts for terms of 10 years 
or less. However, it can take 50 years to extract industrial minerals, 
and the investment for doing that tends to be in the 50 to $100 million 
range.
  Competitive bidding contracts of a maximum term of 10 years will 
remove any incentive by industrial mineral companies to research and 
explore for new reserves.
  After spending resources to discover reserves; and if also awarded 
the contract, the company will not be guaranteed the necessary time to 
actually extract the minerals and develop the resource. This will force 
our mining industry to move overseas and will result in the loss of 
thousands of high-paying jobs here in America.
  Not only will section 517 create uncertainty for mine operators but 
will also impose a significant administrative burden on BLM.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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.

[[Page H12425]]

  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  In the first place, I believe that what the gentleman was just 
talking about was metallurgical-grade silica and different from the 
summary we've just had.
  I think, though, in response to his main argument, it is an amazing 
comment on the bulk of this bill that the producers of industrial 
minerals prefer to be under the new regime than to be under the 
uncertainty that would be created. They need certainty to develop 
minerals over 50 years instead of 10 years. And so while the 
gentleman's comment is well taken, I would suggest to him that the 
industry actually prefers my amendment, regardless of the fact that it 
incurs these other burdens.
  And, finally, I would take exception to the reference of this as a 
scam. The fact that we don't have tax dollars coming to the Treasury 
based upon reserves that are being developed does not mean that 
Americans aren't better off because they have lower prices for paper, 
which requires kaolin, a locatable clay that makes paper cheaper.
  So this is a matter of policy; it is not a matter of scams. And I 
urge my colleagues to recognize that, to recognize the burdens that 
this would create on very common products that we produce with these 
locatable minerals, and to vote in support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cannon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Pearce

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 110-416.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       Add at the end the following:

         TITLE __--MINERAL COMMODITY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as ``Resources Origin and Commodity 
     Knowledge Act''.

     SEC. _02. FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Mineral commodities are essential to the United States 
     economy.
       (2) The United States is the world's leading user of 
     mineral commodities.
       (3) Mineral commodities processed domestically accounted 
     for $478,000,000,000 in the United States economy in 2005.
       (4) The value of imports of raw and processed mineral 
     commodities totaled $103,000,000,000 in 2005.
       (5) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve uses 
     mineral commodity information data and reports to calculate 
     the indexes of industrial production, capacity, and capacity 
     utilization, which are among the most widely followed monthly 
     indicators of the United States economy.
       (6) Manufacturers and consumers of mineral commodities in 
     the United States depended on foreign countries for 100 
     percent of 16 mineral commodities and for more than 50 
     percent of 42 mineral commodities that are critical to the 
     United States economy.
       (7) The Department of Defense requires mineral commodity 
     information on strategic minerals to manage the National 
     Defense Stockpile.
       (8) Mineral specialists assist the Department of State 
     fulfill United States obligations under the Clean Diamond 
     Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) and as a signatory to the 
     Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, which is a 
     multinational effort to stop the flow of conflict diamonds.
       (9) New and innovative uses of minerals are vital to 
     maintaining the high quality of both the natural environment 
     and human environment in the United States.
       (10) Knowledge and understanding of mineral mining, 
     processing, and usage, both domestically and internationally, 
     is important for maintaining the national security and 
     economic security of the United States.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this title is to create the 
     Mineral Commodity Information Administration to ensure 
     information vital to the United States economy, domestic 
     security, and the high quality of life enjoyed by all 
     residents of the United States continues to be provided to 
     the many customers that rely upon the data.
       (c) Policy.--The Congress declares that--
       (1) it is in the national interest to maintain and 
     disseminate information on domestically produced mineral 
     commodities, regardless of ownership of the reserves and 
     resources involved; and
       (2) it is in the national interest to maintain and 
     disseminate information on international mineral commodities, 
     reserves, and resources, international mineral industry 
     activities, and international mineral commodity markets.

     SEC. _03. ESTABLISHMENT OF MINERAL COMMODITY INFORMATION 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Mineral 
     Commodity Information Administration, which shall be under 
     the general direction and supervision of the Secretary of the 
     Interior and shall not be affiliated with or be within any 
     other agency or bureau of the Department of the Interior.
       (b) Administrator.--The management of the Administration 
     shall be vested in an Administrator, who shall be appointed 
     from by the President, by and with the advice and consent of 
     the Senate, from among individuals who have outstanding 
     qualifications with a broad background and substantial 
     experience in the mineral industries and in the management of 
     mineral resources.
       (c) Other Officials and Employees.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be in the Administration an 
     Associate Administrator and 4 Assistant Administrators who 
     shall perform, in accordance with applicable law, such 
     functions as the Administrator shall assign to them in 
     accordance with this title. The functions the Administrator 
     shall assign to the Assistant Administrators shall include 
     the following functions:
       (A) Commodity information and analysis, including 
     development and maintenance of--
       (i) historical and current mineral commodity information, 
     including the degree of import dependence of the United 
     States;
       (ii) international mineral commodity, reserve, and resource 
     information;
       (iii) domestic mineral commodity, reserve, and resource 
     information by State, county, and region;
       (iv) material flow and recycling analysis, showing 
     disposition in the United States of mined materials into 
     stocks in use, waste, and residuals; and
       (v) ongoing analysis of United States mineral commodity 
     exports, and analysis of imports of mineral commodities and 
     processed materials of mineral origin that are destined for 
     consumption in the United States, categorized by the country 
     of origin.
       (B) Global mineral supply analysis for critical commodities 
     of greatest long-term concern, including collecting and 
     developing--
       (i) location, reserve, resource, technology, and economic 
     data for major discovered deposits;
       (ii) engineering and cost, mini-feasibility studies on the 
     most significant deposits; and
       (iii) supply analyses combining the engineering and 
     economic data on groups of deposits.
       (C) Mineral materials technology assessment including 
     tracking worldwide research, development, and utilization of 
     advanced technologies that will permit discovery of new 
     deposits, mining and processing of minerals from lower-grade 
     deposits, and recovery of minerals from waste streams.
       (D) Mineral industry analysis, including the continuing 
     assessment and analysis of events, trends, and issues 
     affecting the minerals sector of the domestic economy, 
     including exploration spending and activity, mineral 
     production trends, mineral stocks and inventories, merger and 
     acquisitions activity, and labor and workforce trends.
       (E) Data acquisition and analysis, including management of 
     data collection, statistical analysis, analytical forecasting 
     and modeling, and regular data quality assessments.
       (F) Information systems and services, including information 
     technology management, publications and production 
     dissemination, and library services.
       (G) External affairs, including congressional and 
     legislative liaison, communications, and public affairs, and 
     international and intergovernmental affairs.
       (H) Budget, financial, and human resource management, 
     including budget and financial management, human capital 
     management, employee training, professional development, 
     procurement and contract management, and small business 
     support.
       (2) Transfer of existing positions.--Within 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall transfer to the Administrator the following 
     positions:

[[Page H12426]]

       (A) United states geological survey.--From the United 
     States Geological Survey, not less than 200 full-time 
     equivalent positions, including all filled and unfilled 
     commodity and country specialists within the United States 
     Geological Survey Minerals Information Team immediately 
     before the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Department of interior, generally.--From the Department 
     of the Interior generally not less that 100 full time 
     equivalent positions of an administrative nature, including 
     communications and public affairs specialists, congressional 
     and legislative liaison specialists, human resources 
     personnel, librarians, administrative assistants, information 
     technology management specialists, publication service 
     specialists, and budget analysts.
       (3) Subsequent appointments.--The Administrator may appoint 
     such employees as may be necessary to positions that are 
     transferred under paragraph (2), but vacant on the date of 
     the transfer of the positions. Such appointments shall be 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service. Such 
     positions shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (d) Written and Electronic Materials.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall transfer to the Administrator all existing 
     written and electronic materials under the control of the 
     Department pertaining to mineral commodities and mineral 
     resources, including mineral commodity time series data, 
     library materials, maps, unpublished data files, and existing 
     mineral commodity reports prepared or held by the United 
     States Geological Survey and its predecessor agency, the 
     Bureau of Mines.

     SEC. _04. DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.

       (a) Mineral Commodity Data and Information Program.--The 
     Administrator shall carry out a central, comprehensive, and 
     unified mineral commodity data and information program to 
     collect, evaluate, assemble, analyze, and disseminate data 
     and information regarding mineral resources and reserves, 
     mineral commodity production, consumption, and technology, 
     and related economic and statistical information, that is 
     relevant to the adequacy of mineral resources to meet demands 
     in the near term and longer term future for the Nation's 
     economic and social needs.
       (b) Mineral Commodity Data Time Series.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall continue to 
     maintain all existing mineral commodity data time series 
     maintained by the Department of the Interior immediately 
     before the enactment of this Act, and shall develop such new 
     mineral commodity data time series as the Administrator finds 
     useful and proper after consulting with other Federal and 
     State agencies and the public.
       (2) Public comment.--The Administrator shall--
       (A) provide for public review and comment regarding all 
     mineral commodity data time series maintained by the 
     Department of the Interior immediately before the enactment 
     of this Act, by not later than 15 years after such date of 
     enactment; and
       (B) seek public comments on a continuing basis on the 
     adequacy and accuracy of any time series added after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, not later than 5 years after 
     the inception of such new series.
       (c) Projections of Supply and Usage Patterns.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
       (A) not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, prepare and make available to the public an 
     analysis of projected mineral commodity supply and usage 
     patterns by the United States at 10, 25, and 50 year 
     intervals following such date of enactment; and
       (B) update such analysis and make it publicly available 
     every 5 years thereafter.
       (2) Considerations.--In preparing such analyses, the 
     Administrator shall take into consideration--
       (A) market trends;
       (B) geopolitical considerations; and
       (C) the reasonably foreseeable advances in basic 
     industries, high technology, material sciences, and energy 
     usage.
       (d) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall annually 
     publish and submit to the Congress a report on the state of 
     the domestic mining, minerals, and mineral reclamation 
     industries, including a statement of the trend in utilization 
     and depletion of the domestic supplies of mineral 
     commodities.
       (e) Mineral Commodity Reports.--The Administrator--
       (1) shall continue to prepare and distribute all series of 
     mineral commodity reports prepared and published by the 
     Bureau of Mines and the United States Geological Survey as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, including--
       (A) all volumes of the Minerals Yearbook;
       (B) Mineral Commodity Summaries;
       (C) Mineral Industry Surveys;
       (D) Metal Industry Indicators;
       (E) Nonmetallic Mineral Product Industry Indexes;
       (F) minerals supply analyses for selected commodities;
       (G) material flow studies and recycling reports; and
       (H) Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material 
     Commodities;
       (2) may develop, prepare, and publish additional reports 
     related to mineral commodities as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       (f) Analysis With Respect Sustaining Energy Usage.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Mineral Commodity 
     Information Administration shall, in 2007 and each year 
     thereafter, following the issuance of the Annual Energy 
     Outlook analysis prepared by the Administrator of the Energy 
     Information Administration, prepare and publish an analysis 
     of the foreign and domestic mineral commodities that will be 
     required by the United States to sustain the energy supply, 
     demand, and prices projected by such Annual Energy Outlook 
     analysis.
       (2) Joint agreement.--The Administrator of the Energy 
     Information Agency and the Administrator of the Mineral 
     Commodity Information Administration may, at their sole 
     discretion, enter into a joint agreement for preparation of a 
     unified analysis to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
       (g) Other Approval Not Required.--The Administrator--
       (1) shall not be required to obtain the approval of any 
     other officer or employee of the United States in connection 
     with the collection or analysis of any information; and
       (2) shall not be required, prior to publication, to obtain 
     the approval of any other officer or employee of the United 
     States with respect to the substance of any analytical 
     studies, statistical, or forecasting technical reports that 
     the Administrator has prepared in accordance with law.

     SEC. _05. EXCEPTIONS TO INFORMATION AVAILABILITY.

        (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and except as provided in subsection (b), 
     data and information provided to the Administrator by persons 
     or firms engaged in any phase of mineral or mineral-material 
     production or large-scale consumption shall not be disclosed 
     outside of the Administration in a nonaggregated form in such 
     a manner as may disclose data and information supplied by an 
     individual or other person, unless such person authorizes 
     such disclosure after the person is provided notice and an 
     opportunity to object.
       (b) Disclosure to Federal Defense or Homeland Security 
     Agencies.--The Administrator may disclose nonaggregated data 
     and information to any agency of the Department of Homeland 
     Security or the Department of Defense, upon written request 
     by the head of the agency for appropriate purposes.

     SEC. _06. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish 
     an advisory committee to be known as the Mineral Commodity 
     Advisory Committee.
       (b) Functions.--The Advisory Committee--
       (1) shall respond to all questions referred to it by the 
     Administrator regarding any matter related to the activities 
     authorized by this title;
       (2) shall undertake such studies and inquiries as are 
     necessary to provide answers, advice, and recommendations on 
     matters referred to it by the Administrator; and
       (3) in carrying out such studies, may seek information from 
     individuals, business enterprises, colleges, universities, 
     and any State or Federal agency.
       (c) Participation in Reviews of Materials.--The 
     Administrator shall invite the Advisory Committee to 
     participate in any public review of materials prepared 
     pursuant to section _04.
       (d) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Advisory Committee--
       (A) shall consist of 15 individuals appointed in accordance 
     with paragraph (2); and
       (B) shall include--
       (i) one representative from each of a mineral exploration 
     company, a metallic mineral producer, an industrial mineral 
     producer, and an aggregate producer;
       (ii) one representative from each of the State geologists, 
     mining labor organizations, and the mining finance industry;
       (iii) two representatives from small businesses;
       (iv) three representatives from manufacturing industries; 
     and
       (v) three purchasing professionals.
       (2) Appointment.--The Administrator shall appoint the 
     members of the Advisory Committee from among individuals 
     who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government; and
       (B) are United States citizens.
       (3) Term.--Each member of the Advisory Committee shall be 
     appointed to serve a term of 4 years.
       (e) Organization and Meetings.--The Advisory Committee--
       (1) shall select a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from among 
     its members;
       (2) shall organize itself into such subcommittees as the 
     members determine to be necessary; and
       (3) shall meet not less than 2 times each year.
       (f) Compensation and Expenses.--Subject to the availability 
     of appropriations, each member of the Advisory Committee--
       (1) shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which such member is engaged in the performance 
     of the duties of the Advisory Committee; and

[[Page H12427]]

       (2) shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in 
     lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of 
     agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 
     States Code, while away from the member's home or regular 
     place of business in the performance of services for the 
     Committee.
       (g) Support and Records Maintenance.--The Administrator--
       (1) shall provide administrative and technical support for 
     the Advisory Committee; and
       (2) shall maintain the records of the Advisory Committee.
       (h) FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App.) shall apply to the Advisory Committee only to the 
     extent that the provisions of such Act do not conflict with 
     the requirements of this section.

     SEC. _07. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     Mineral Commodity Information Administration established by 
     this title.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Administration.
       (3) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee'' 
     means the Mineral Commodity Advisory Committee established by 
     this title.

     SEC. _08. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

        There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator to carry out this title $30,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years through 2008 through 2018.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 780, the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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.

                              {time}  1345

  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. PEARCE. 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).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Pearce 
amendment to H.R. 2262, which establishes the Minerals Commodity 
Information Administration at the Department of the Interior. The MIT 
collects and disseminates data on virtually every commercially 
important nonfuel mineral commodity produced worldwide, information 
that is critical to businesses, the government, and importantly, the 
Department of Defense to help manage the National Defense Stockpile. 
Due to the importance of the data, the MIT should be an independent 
agency reporting to the Secretary of the Interior.
  This information from the MIT is critical to the effective use of the 
Nation's natural resources and for accurate forecasting. Without a 
reliable source of worldwide commodity information, the U.S. would be 
blind to any impending supply shortages.
  One of the most fundamental functions of the Federal Government is to 
provide for the common defense. There is an undeniable nexus between 
our Nation's minerals policy and national security policy. Currently, 
24 strategic and critical military materials are imported at no less 
than 40 percent from our foreign trading partners. For example, the 
U.S. imports 54 percent of its magnesium. This mineral is vitally 
important in constructing airplanes and missiles. Requiring our 
military to import the strategic and critical minerals it needs from 
foreign nations, some of whom may be hostile, puts our military at a 
significant disadvantage and weakens our ability to adequately sustain 
our national defense.
  At a time when defense needs are determined in terms of capabilities-
based planning instead of threat-based planning, an accurate assessment 
of our Nation's minerals is vitally important. The Pearce ROCK Act 
amendment is a means to that end.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pearce ROCK Act amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, do I not?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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

[[Page H12428]]

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. 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. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment is unnecessary. The country does not need a new bureau to 
create minerals information. The current situation in which the U.S. 
Geologic Survey administers the minerals information works perfectly 
fine.
  As chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I have examined the Bush administration proposals to 
eliminate funding for the USGS minerals information function. Even 
during these difficult budgetary times, our subcommittee has 
appreciated the important function of the minerals assessment team at 
the USGS and refused the administration's recommendation to eliminate 
its funding.
  The Pearce amendment would nearly double the size of the new agency. 
It would create a new bureaucracy with at least 300 staff and a yearly 
cost of $30 million or more. So please join me in rejecting this 
amendment.
  I yield to the former chairman of the Interior subcommittee, Mr. 
Regula from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this. When I was 
chairman of the committee, we eliminated the Bureau of Mines in 1995. 
Nobody missed it. The functions are carried on by the USGS very 
effectively. It is just one of those things that is not needed. I think 
it would be a big mistake to put it back in place.
  The amendment provides for 200 employees out of USGS. Why take them 
away from where they are doing a good job? The mining programs have 
worked very effectively since 1995, the time at which we eliminated 
this. It saves about $100 million. I think it would be a big mistake to 
put another, put it back in place.
  I hope that the Members will join me in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pearce amendment. This 
amendment would simply re-create an agency that was dismantled in 1995. 
As Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee at that 
time, I worked to close the Bureau of Mines which the proposed 
amendment's agency resembles, in an effort to balance the budget 
through smaller, more effective government. With its closure, almost 
$100 million, or 66%, of the Bureau of Mines' 1995 programs ceased. 
However, certain critical minerals information activities moved to the 
US Geological Survey. This meant we receive the needed information on 
our mineral resources using far less money than in the past.
  Since taking over the minerals information functions, the USGS has 
done an excellent job of producing critical minerals information and in 
fact has broadened the role of the minerals information group by 
providing vital statistics and insight to help commerce, industry, and 
security.
  The USGS is the sole provider of mineral resource assessments and 
information in the federal government. To fragment this program once 
again by creating a new bureaucracy in government would not improve its 
functionality or serve American taxpayers' interests.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not create anything new that is 
substantive. The only thing the amendment will create is a title of new 
agency, move some people around, and employ 100 new bureaucrats in 
administrative positions. Why do we need 100 administrative positions 
to oversee 200 scientists who were already working effectively at the 
USGS?
  Further, the amendment proposes a $30 million budget, which is more 
than double the current funding for this function. In our current 
budget climate, it makes no sense to add this new agency burden to 
government when the work this agency is proposed to do is already being 
done at the USGS effectively, with less expense to the taxpayer.
  This amendment will only fracture our current system of attaining 
knowledge on our country's mineral resources, create a new bureaucracy 
and waste tax dollars. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's comment.
  I want to congratulate the chairman for doing an outstanding job as 
one of my classmates.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The amendment was rejected.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-416 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Cannon of Utah.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 244, not voting 20, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1030]

                               AYES--173

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H12429]]



                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     Faleomavaega
     Gohmert
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Jones (OH)
     Paul
     Shadegg
     Shuler
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1416

  Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, ABERCROMBIE, TAYLOR, LYNCH and Ms. 
HIRONO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TANCREDO and Mr. BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cannon

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 240, not voting 22, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1031]

                               AYES--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     Faleomavaega
     Gohmert
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Lowey
     McNerney
     Paul
     Saxton
     Shadegg
     Shuler
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)

[[Page H12430]]




                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute is left 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1421

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ross) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 
780, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Pearce

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PEARCE. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Pearce moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2262 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House promptly with the following 
     amendments:
       At the end of section 102(a) add the following:
       (6) Limitation on application.--No royalty under this 
     section shall apply to any mineral that is used in the 
     manufacture of any technology used for the production of 
     solar energy or nuclear energy.
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate 
     Federal agencies, certifies that nothing in this Act would 
     result in a loss of jobs in the United States associated with 
     mining-related activities to which this Act applies.
  Mr. PEARCE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  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.

                              {time}  1430

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

[[Page H12431]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170, 
nays 240, not voting 22, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1032]

                               YEAS--170

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--240

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Boehner
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     English (PA)
     Gohmert
     Hensarling
     Jindal
     McNulty
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Shadegg
     Shuler
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1447

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 166, not voting 22, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1033]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--166

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)

[[Page H12432]]


     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     Frank (MA)
     Gohmert
     Hastert
     Hensarling
     Jindal
     Kaptur
     McNulty
     Myrick
     Paul
     Shadegg
     Shuler
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1454

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________