Page images
[merged small][ocr errors]

Sex & Sarma mureciate your hold
I s. r.: me je viih you during

SE IT Testeia, we do have a lot of

SOM es sumng mi že mumera industry are
SZITE SE ng ai certainly I look
DE 22 Slimang ** me of sie important lame
I SIS. Šus nexume of mining operations

SIT 30 s mi TR ov lation with the
Sum * e animate and development

Y se s Is2r2 law. It's out
I sex teenind ourselves that, I think
Z VE stane been changed in the

este amended or as a part of the operation

it is out of te because it was passed in ise s 20 ally in teging with where we are a me zise at i zems to me that moch of the concern ere las entered around a number of serrations a number of angs sæt tæve happened that have not beer common and could tascaily and are basically being taken care of administratively Thee itde concern. I think sometimes at least is appears in recent reas, sertainiy in recent months, that in the West we have had all inds i es come down on us. This year we are talking about paring ices Lt bering to do with multiple use of lands Fifty percent or sy State is in public ownership, as you know. So what we do in terms of policy with regard to the economy has very direct bearing on where we are grazing fees; endangered species more specifically, the wolf thing we are involved in; the whole concept of multiple use of these resources, water rights, of course, having to do with reservations and tribes and others, mineral roy. alties, more recentiva substantial changes in those costs, and all these things are linked to our way of life and our living in the West.

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing. I do apprecia what you have done, and I think in a fair way. You have explo this issue and I appreciate that and look forward to working Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Craig. (Prepared statement of Mr. Craig follows:



[blocks in formation]

Mr. Chairman,
Pirst let ne thank you for holding this hearing on
H.A. 918 and the 1872 Mining Law. you know, hard rock
Dining and the mineral industry are very important to my home
state of Wyoming and I look forward to hearing from the
vitnesses today.

The 1872 Mining Law is one of the most important laws
governing the mining industry. It has been the cornerstone for
nining operators and mineral exploration in the United States
for over 100 years and still provides our nation with sound
regulations that do not hamper continued exploration and
developnent of our nation's vast mineral resources. It is
sometimes said the law is inadequate becuase it is over 100
years old. This is simply not true and over the course of the
law's existence it has been substantially modified to reflect
modern public land management and environmental needs.

If H.R. 918 is approved, the 1872 Mining Law will be
drastically changed and the mining industry's future ability to

develop mineral discoveries on public lands would be significantly altered. This directly challenges the concept of multiple use of our public lands and would be extremely detrimental for states throughout the west.


One of the most important aspects of the 1872 Mining Lav is the provision allowing explorers to enter public lands, stake a claim, and explore for minerals at a relatively low cost. This allows many small and independent aining operators to compete and develop pinerals.

H.R. 918 would significantly alter this process. This
legislation vould require clain holders to pay $1.50-$5.00 per
acre of land within the boundaries of a sining clain until such
time as a plan of operation is approved. In addition, this
bili vould not allow patenting of nining claims, but would
force nine operators to pay a leasing fee for land they wanted
to actively sine. This would effectively stop the majority of
the small and independent mine operators from actively aining
in the vest.

I understand the need to protect our public lands and make sure the federal government and the American people are not being taken for a ride. The 1872 Mining Law, however, has served our country well and should not be significantly altered.

16 #... 918 is enacted, it would deliver a serious blow to an

industry which is still struggling to recover from the
difficult economic times we have been experiencing in the
West. This bill would remove the incentive to develop mineral
deposits in the United States, stifle competition, and further
reduce multiple use of our public lands. In short, it is not
good legislation and would hurt a large number of people who
are fighting to make ends meet.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing on this very important topic.


[ocr errors]

Mr. RAHALL. The Chair will note that we once again have an SRO crowd at this hearing-standing room only—and he would ! like to invite anybody that is standing to make use of available chairs, even if they are up here at the dais. You may sit at either end. You may continue to sit around here at the lower dais in an effort to have as many seated as we can.

Before calling the first witness, the Chair will lay out the usual ground rules that we have at all of these hearings. Witnesses are urged very strongly to keep their testimony within the 5-minute time limit. I do not have the red and green light contraption that we have had at a number of our field hearings to use this morning. But, if the 5-minute rule gets abused, then it is right under the table here and we will pull that out.

So, at this time I will call our first panel, composed of Cy Jamison, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. De partment of the Interior; Mr. George M. Leonard, the Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, who is accompanied by Lynn Sprague, Director of Minerals and Geology

One other ground rule that I forgot to mention, and that is, of course, that the hearing record will remain open for 10 days following today's hearing for the submission of additional written testimony from those that wish to so present.

Before this panel proceeds, I will also note for the record, and I will not belabor this point, but the subcommittee was faxed a copy of the Forest Service testimony at 6:27 p.m. yesterday evening. We did not receive a copy of the BLM's statement until 8:30 a.m. this morning. I know full well that the gentlemen before us are not re sponsible for the extreme lateness of our receiving these statements, but in light of the fact that I sent notice of this hearing to the BLM and the Forest Service during the first week of May, 1 just wanted this to be noted for the record.

I would appreciate it, if you would, gentlemen, tell whoever it is at OMB or in your respective Departments, whoever is responsible for this situation, that I really don't feel that is a proper way to conduct business.

Cy, if you wish to proceed, you are welcome. And we once again welcome you to the subcommittee. PANEL CONSISTING OF CY JAMISON, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF


Mr. JAMISON. Mr. Chairman, I share your frustration with the testimony, let me assure you. We will try to do better. In fact, I am going to try to shorten up our submissions. I think we had an episile that was about some 70 pages and that is totally unnecessary as far as I am concerned.

Also, I am pleased to be the number 168th witness. It is really important to us. But since you have made our entire statement a part of the record, I will be very brief also. My written testimony provides more detailed comments, and since that is submitted in the record I will highlight what we think are the important issues.

« PreviousContinue »