Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

The last time I checked, tooth decay, while distasteful, is not a national security issue. I ask that we support this measure.

Source