Hearing - Hearing on H.R. 2262 "The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007"

Statement

Hearing - Hearing on H.R. 2262 "The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007"

Thank You, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday as you know, we had a full committee oversight hearing on the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to look at what has transpired in the 30 years since the law was enacted. The testimony provided by the witnesses was very informative.
Today we are meeting for the first of what I assume will be several legislative hearings on H. R. 2262 --The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. Many of the provisions in H.R. 2262 are similar to provisions in SMCRA. In other words, it's like SMCRA for hardrock mining. The problem is that this is unnecessary and the more plumbing you have, the more ways there are to clog up the drain.

Hardrock mining already has its own set of reclamation standards that were promulgated after the National Forest Management Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act were enacted in 1976, a year before SMCRA.
These laws are the statutes that directed the respective agencies to develop regulations governing hard rock mining on Forest Service and BLM managed lands. This was and is appropriate, as the vast majority of hard rock mining is in the west is on federal land. Primarily because in most western states a majority of the land is owned by the federal government. It is a very different playing field than coal mining which was primarily located on private lands in the mid-west and eastern states at the time the Surface Mining Act was enacted.

These land management statutes are coupled with other environmental laws to managing mining activities on federal lands. The environmental regulations include:

* The Clean Air Act (CAA);
* The Clean Water Act(CWA);
* The Endangered Species Act (ESA);
* The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
* The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) otherwise known as superfund;
* Toxic Substance Control Act, and
* National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

These laws provide for public notice and comment opportunities, citizen suit provisions and various appeal processes that allow the public and affected communities to fully participate in the mine permitting process.

In fact all of these opportunities to challenge mining projects have served to draw out the permitting process on federal lands and it can take 12 years or more to get a final approval to operate a mine.

Proposed provisions in Title III and V of H.R. 2262 would greatly exacerbate an already cumbersome permitting process - any company trying to operate would be in a perpetual permitting nightmare. Every three years a permit would subject to review. Compare this to a hydroelectric facility that are permitted for 50 years or a nuclear facility that are permitted for 40 years.

I doubt that we would see any revenue to the federal treasury from mines on federal lands under H.R. 2262. The only individuals that appear to be getting rich off this scheme are the environmental trial lawyers. There certainly won't be any money for a Hardrock Abandoned Mined land program.

This is not the direction we should be taking our national minerals policy. With the economic growth and industrialization we are seeing in China and India the demand for all commodities world wide has skyrocketed. This will continue well into the future.

I would also like to as Unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from today's Washington Times, titled "China Powering world economy." As we hold this hearing talking about restricting our own economy and outsourcing jobs, China is committed to using its resources and expanding its own economy.

Let's look at one metal that is crucial to our national infrastructure and economy and one that plays an important role in the economy of my state and my district in particular - copper. The rising worldwide demand has inflated the price of copper to almost quadruple over the last few years. In 2001, the price of copper was only $0.76 per pound, today it is $3.19 per pound.

Last year we heard testimony from Ms. Storer that the increasing global demand for copper requires 30 new major mines to be developed by 2016. By that time, if no new mines are developed, only half of the world's demand for copper can be meet from existing mines.

* If you believe hybrid car are to be part of our future, it is important to know that hybrid vehicles use 100 percent more copper than a full size luxury vehicle.
* Copper is also essential to defense production. For example, copper is used as artillery casings and cartridges, anti-armor charges, and a whole range of electronic equipment.

Due to the production gap for new copper sources, industries have resorted to utilizing recycled scrap to satisfy the growing demand for copper. The price for recycled copper has risen to $3.50 per pound on the New York Mercantile Exchange's COMEX division, a 500% increase in less than 4 years. This significant price inflation for recycled copper has led to an epidemic of copper theft across the United States.

In California, thieves have stolen copper wire from irrigation pumps which left farmers incapable of watering their crops. According to California's Agricultural Crime Technology and Operations Network metal theft rose 100% in 2005 and 400% in 2006. I have copies of several articles detailing copper thefts in your very district Mr. Chairman. This is not a matter to be taken lightly.

The U.S currently imports about 40% of the copper it consumes. We could produce more - there are abundant copper resources in the western U.S. -- there are approximately 45 Million tons of copper reserves, 260 Million tons of identified copper resources, and 290 million tons of estimated undiscovered copper deposits.

Copper is not the only metal that we import, we are 100% import dependent on 17 critical mineral and more than 50% import dependent on another 28 non-fuel minerals. To compare, in 1986 we were 100% import dependent for five non-fuel mineral and more than 50 percent dependent on 16 non-fuel minerals.

Clearly we are moving in the wrong direction on national minerals policy - we should be holding hearings to identify what needs to change to encourage domestic mineral development not on bills that will drive it off shore.

I fear that if this bill passes we will not see these resources developed, we will export these high paying family wage jobs with benefits offshore and undermine our economic and national security.

I thank the witnesses for their testimony and look forward to hearing from them.

Source