study did recommend against absolutely rigid uniform national standards for reclamation. However, it is not my interpretation of H.R. 918 or any of the other bills that they would impose that sort of standard.

Frankly, my personal view probably would be to favor somewhat more specificity of standards, not in terms of saying every mine has to be reclaimed exactly the same way, but in terms of ensuring that the latitude given to managers not give them room to fall over backwards in favor of the miner than the COSMAR study went, and I think, frankly, my reading of the study-and I yield to the study panelist here is that they didn't really give enough concern to the actual on-the-ground problems of agencies in administering rules and regulations and therefore the need for some clarity of direction in a national law or a set of regulations.

Mr. JONTZ. Well, tell me this. Is not the purpose of some sort of uniformity in reclamation requirements in order to prevent one State from trying to secure some economic advantage over another by having weaker standards? Is there any reason why a State wouldn't want to do that now?

Mr. HOCKER. That problem, of course, was well-known when coal mining was studied, it led to the specificity in SMCRA, and it ap plies equally well to hardrock mining. You are absolutely right.

Mr. JONTZ. And, with regard to the Clean Air Act, where we are regulating lots of pollutants from numerous sources, there are uniform standards which States can make tougher if they so choose. But that prevents one State from having less strict standards than another below a certain level. The same is true with the Clean Water Act. The same is true, I think, with all the basic environmental laws. Is there anyone on the panel who would disagree with that?

Mr. HOCKER. And, in fact, both of the bills before the House for Mining Law reform include a provision that says that States may adopt more stringent standards should they so choose. And that those standard would be upheld.

Mr. JONTZ. Well, we have heard a fair amount of discussion that we don't need to address environmental issues in this legislation because the 1872 Mining Law is not an environmental law and we already have lots of laws. But it seems to me-and correct me if I am not grasping the basic points of your testimony, but it seems to me that the environmental issues that you believe should be addressed and are addressed in H.R. 918 in different ways are (1) inadequacy of the existing reclamation standards, which basically just require people to do whatever everybody else is doing, and (2) the problems that land managers have in terms of exercising proper discretion about the location of mining activities and the circumstances under which they proceed. Is that a fair summary of what the environmental issues are that are not covered under the existing environmental laws: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the other laws that regulate mining activities like they do all other activities that would generate that sort of pollution? Is that a fair summary?

Mr. HOCKER. Yes.

Mr. JONTZ. Anybody disagree?

Mr. EVANS. No. I just wanted to add a little bit to it. Since it is said it is a land tenure statute, and to a degree, of course, it is, but everything flows from that. Every action, every pollution, and every destruction comes from that and no one can ever say no, there is not going to be any land tenure. So it doesn't really mean anything in that context. It is a land tenure statute with drastic environmental consequences.

Mr. HOCKER. If I can expand on that-Mr. Evans has just put it correctly. When you grant the property interest in the mineral basically upon the accomplishment of discovery, as the law now does as you have heard earlier today, then the question that the regulators are faced with is simply one of negotiating mitigating conditions. And, while it is true that you can frequently improve the environmental result of a mine through mitigating some of its operations, first off there are some aspects of mining which are simply not addressed by current Federal statute. There is no general ground water protection program in Federal environmental law today, and many of the problems that we are concerned about with mines are problems of ground water pollution.

But finally, I would just like to pose two opposite quotations, first from Director Jamison, from his testimony last week in the Senate, "There is no provision in the Mining Law." Place against that the statement in the Environmental Protection Agency's 1985 Report to Congress, "Site selection for the mine is the singlemost important aspect of environmental protection in the mining industry" and you can't say that you have full environmental protection on mining when you have said there is no "no" provision in the law. Mr. JONTZ. Let me ask one more question, if I could. The question that the chairman posed to this panel about what should be the legislative guidance to direct the land managers at BLM or the Forest Service as to when to say no I think is a very important question. Would you say that the statute should require a land manager to make a decision as to whether the adverse impact on other resources overweighs the public benefit of the proposed mining operation, and if the land manager found that it did, the adverse impact on the resources did overweigh the public benefits that that is a reasonable grounds to say no?

[Pause.]

Mr. JONTZ. I guess you want to think about that.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Jontz, I would suggest that there is, and I am leaving the parks issue and trying to delve, or respond fairly to a very important question that you are both asking. It seems to me that we do have guidance in other legislation dealing with totally different issues that might be looked at. "Feasible and prudent alternatives" is one interesting alternative that we have in other legislation, and people are able to work within it. It would seem that we need that sort of guidance. I think what you have heard from Mr. Greenwalt and others is that we are not trying to make it so arbitrarily specific that it is difficult for the industry to work within. On the other hand, it would seem that guidance such as that and complying with existing legislation such as endangered species and clean air and clean water are all very important points of guidance.

At some point we all agree that you have got to trust the manag ers themselves. But I would point out that the major source of conflict that was reported to this committee in 1979 and 1980 in the "Threats to the National Parks" report was from actions taken by other Federal Agencies, and this was a classic example of the prob lem. So the Agency, the Bureau of Land Management in particular, the Forest Service, both were mentioned specifically, see themselves as carrying out one principal function, and that is the extraction, development, use of resources, not respecting the mandates of other agencies. And that has been the problem for the Park Service and its interaction with this legislation.

Mr. EVANS. Can I just amplify or add one more thing to that, Congressman? If we didn't have the 1872 Mining Law and we were starting out here from scratch, clearly a decision to grant or not grant a mining permit with all that that means would be consid ered a major Federal action and all the NEPA laws would apply They do this in the case of timber sales, grazing permits, all the rest of the things that are now done on public lands. I would for starters, to pick up on what you said, this ought to be considered a major Federal action by land managers with all the public process that requires, and that would be a way to get into this.

Mr. JONTZ. So, if there was an adverse impact that could be avoided by some feasible alternative

Mr. EVANS. Right.

Mr. JONTZ. That would be a circumstance under which a land manager should be empowered to say no?

Mr. EVANS. That is right. And there is also a weighing of values that is implied. Now that takes place every time there is a forest plan and people decide, or tell the Forest Service what ought to be done or not to be done.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. To pursue that point just a little bit further, as is the case with other resources, you would want to not only look at the weighing of those values on site, you would want to look at the general balance in allocation of resources. Is there mining all over the district, if it is a national forest or the forest, or is it just in a few areas? What is the balance in allocation? What are the cumulative effects of adding further increments? If there is already a lot of it, you would want to weigh it both from a local point of view and a national point of view. But that all gets to the point that on all other resources some kind of balancing effort of those sorts goes on, and why not here?

Mr. JONTZ. Thank you. I think that completes my questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to try and clear up what I think is a misunderstanding here and just get sort of a general perspective on the position of the panelists. I am receiving a lot of correspondence that alleges that you and others are behind a plan to have the United States mine free and cattle free by 1993. Now, I haven't had anyone sit in my office and tell me that, and I have heard from people on both sides of this issue but I would just like to get it on the record here.

Does anybody on this panel assert that we should not be allowing regulated mining on public lands into the-you know, well into the next century and for the future of the country?

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman, since I represent an interest which is probably the most restrictive in the public lands and the national parks, let me say not only I am not aware of any organization that is opposed, as you are questioning, but also we have worked very closely with a number of companies who will be testifying before you to help them establish legitimate sound mining activities on public lands, and I can cite those specifically. We are very proud of that relationship and believe that that is in the best interest of the public. So I would say it is not only not the case but also that we have, in fact, tried to help find alternatives, and I would hope that we might at some point be able to tell you more about those.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. Anybody else want to respond just to that general assertion?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, Mr. DeFazio, speaking for the Sierra Club, you may have been out of the room earlier when the chairman asked that question, but that is not our position.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, it bears repetition because I am getting a lot of letters about it.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, whomever said it, it is not our position. I don't think it is a responsible position for any environmental group to take.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK.

Mr. EVANS. It ought to be stated for the record, I agree, Congressman. That is not the position of the National Audubon Society. It never has been. We want to see well-regulated mining the same as any other resource, but we have never opposed mining as such, and will not.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thanks.

Mr. GREENWALT. Apparently assertion and reassertion is good for the soul and I would like to make this unanimous by saying that the National Wildlife Federation and insofar as I know The Wilderness Society, none of us harbor these nefarious ideas because they are not consistent with good public policy. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the committee, no, we are not guilty.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you.

Mr. HOCKER. Just to complete the roll, I am not, nor have I ever been an advocate of "Mine free by 1993." But I think that the accusation itself, frankly, shows a tone of desperation. The only source locatable that I am aware of, or leasable for this quotation is Mr. Ary. It is not clear to me why the hardrock industry should feel that being put in a position where it has to demonstrate before it is given approval to proceed with a project that its project is in the public interest, why it should feel that being put in that condition will mean a shutdown of its activities. That seems to be the implication because that is what the policies that we are advocating would do, is say that they have to demonstrate that having a mine in a given site is in the public interest. Are they so scared of that test?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now, if you were here for the previous panel, one of the previous panels-two of the previous panels, the administra

56-185 O 92 - 11

tion and some industry representatives, I think you found that I am quite interested in the issue of a fair return for the extraction or depletion of the public resource to the American taxpayer. Could any of you, or would any of you care to comment on, since neither the industry nor the administration seems to have the foggiest idea what such fair return would be or how it could be collected or constituted, do any of you have ideas?

You know, I am trying to be open-minded here, but when no one is surprised by the hearing or, you know, the series of hearings and the thrust of the committee and yet they say, well, they haven't had time or they haven't looked at what other countries are doing or gee, they really haven't thought about it, I don't find that a very credible position, and I hope, perhaps, this panel has been a little more thoughtful on the subject.

So, perhaps, Mr. Hocker, if you want to start.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Congressman DeFazio, the National Parks and Conservation Association is dealing with a similar problem, return on investment and such for concessions in the national parks, and what should be the fee and is there a possibility of a blanket fee and what should be a position. Generally speaking, we have found it difficult there. We have found that States, just as we have herewe have States that impose different fees on extraction of minerals. We have a Federal system which is different from that of the States, and each State having a different program.

The conclusion, and we are doing our own study at NPC on concessions and I am hopeful that we can use that in some way as a parallel here. But our sense is that, again, it has to be done with some sensitivity to the type of concession operation and its gross receipts. We have found that there are too many instances where net return or net profit is elusive and oftentimes can be encumbered by other activities of the corporate body.

So we would recommend that the lost direct answer is dealing with the gross receipts of the corporation, but then you have to be sensitive to the fact of whether it is a startup operation and a great deal of investment occurring at that point or whether it is a continuation of an operation. That is of minor help, I am sure, but that is an issue which we are very sensitive to when it comes to concessions and equally concerned about.

We do highly support the concept of some fee being charged for the extraction of public resources, and we would point out that the fee for the Land and Water Conservation Fund has played a great role in this country in helping us establish protected areas at the Federal, State, and local level and that it is very beneficial to have wisdom of Congress in establishing some sort of fee that can be used for reclamation and can be used for other public purposes, such as acquisition of parks, as has been done with the oil and gas outer continental shelf receipts.

Mr. DEFAZIO. When you talk about-I will let others respond, but when you talk about the idea of startup costs and that, in Canada, I believe, there is some disallowance during the first 2 or 3 years which would allow them to recoup additional revenues at the start by not assessing the royalties. Is that what you have in mind, something along those lines?