Provision Expanding 1872 Mining Law Removed
YAY!
Announcement from Representative Jay Inslee:
"Dear Ms. May:
Thank you again for contacting me regarding a provision of the reconciliation bill that would expand the scope of the 1872 mining law to allow a greater amount of federal lands to be purchased by private entities at bargain-basement prices.
As you know, I have been opposing expansion of the 1872 mining law since it came before the House Resources Committee in October. Just this month, I also wrote a letter urging budget committee members to remove the provision from the underlying bill.
You will be happy to know that the author of the provision removed it from the reconciliation bill on Tuesday, citing bipartisan opposition that threatened the passage of the legislation. I have included, below, an op-ed on this issue that appeared in today's issue of the New York Times.
The author of the provision has indicated that he will make another attempt to bring up these changes next year. Rest assured I will continue to oppose this and other attempts to weaken protections for our pristine lands.
I applaud your interest in federal issues. It is great that we have people in this country who are so actively engaged in helping make public policy.
Please keep in touch.
JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress
********
New York Times
December 15, 2005
Protecting Public Lands
In a legislative season that has produced few victories for the environment, the sudden death of a destructive mining provision that could have opened up millions of acres of public land to commercial exploitation is cause for celebration.
The provision was inserted into the budget reconciliation bill - always a handy hiding place for ideas that could never stand up to public scrutiny on their own - by Representatives Jim Gibbons of Nevada and Richard Pombo of California, both Republicans. Mr. Gibbons's decision to withdraw it reflected not so much a change of heart as a recognition of political reality. Their stealth proposal had inspired intense opposition among hunters, anglers, governors, local officials and countless ordinary citizens who argued that there were many nobler uses for the public lands than serving as a profit center for commercial interests.
The Gibbons-Pombo provision would have allowed the holders of mining claims to buy land outright instead of leasing it - a radical departure from present practice. It would also have amended the General Mining Law of 1872 to allow purchases not just for mining, but for any purpose that would "facilitate sustainable economic development." By some calculations, that dangerously vague formulation would have exposed at least 6 million acres and perhaps as much as 350 million acres to commercial exploitation. Even conservative Western lawmakers who do not usually favor environmental causes saw this for what it was: a potentially unparalleled raid on America's public lands.
The controversy stirred by the Gibbons-Pombo maneuver has been so great that there is even reason to hope that proposals for real reform of the antiquated mining law will at last receive a respectable hearing.
Representatives Nick Rahall II and Jay Inslee, both Democrats, and Christopher Shays, a Republican, have put forward a bill to give permanent protection to lands that are now vulnerable to claims, like wildlife refuges and roadless areas of the national forests. The bill would also require "suitability" reviews before mining could proceed, and would allow the secretary of the interior to withdraw lands judged unsuitable for mining. It would also require mining companies to pay royalties on what they produced - just as oil and gas companies do now - and to clean up their messes when they were through.
Many of these reforms were instituted administratively by Bruce Babbitt when he was secretary of the interior under President Bill Clinton, but were withdrawn by the Bush administration at the insistence of mining interests.
It would be a delightful reversal of fortune if Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Pombo, who are no friends of the public lands, ended up inspiring new protections for them"
This entry was posted on Friday, December 16, 2005
and is filed under
News
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback from your own site.
1 comments:
Good job. I hadn't heard of that bill. Way to be assertive ^_^ Stupid bastards are always trying to pocket money whatever the true cost.
Post a Comment