Mining-law change is set aside for now

WASHINGTON — Proposed changes to federal mining law are off the table this year. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., pulled the whole package from a pending budget bill in Congress on Tuesday.

Public-lands groups and other environmental interests strongly opposed the package proposed by Gibbons and House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., which would have lifted the national ban on mining patents and created ways for companies to buy land with mining claims on it.

Gibbons had pulled what some called the most controversial part of the bill on Monday and said that discussions with the Senate Budget Committee showed the matter would not make it through certain Senate rules, so he opted to stop the whole thing.

"While I am disappointed that procedural rules in the Senate will prevent us from moving forward with these provisions in the budget reconciliation process, I remain committed to modernizing the mining law to meet our 21st- century needs," Gibbons said.

Peter Downing, legislative director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance said Gibbons' move was "good news all around."

Downing said all public land could have been affected by the proposed language and that special places need to be protected and distinguished from others for all to enjoy.

The Alliance would rather see huge reforms like this be made in open meetings and hearings, not in mem- ber-to-member meetings or closed conference negotiations.

Dusty Horwitt, an analyst with Environmental Working Group, who also strongly opposed the language, said this is a clear lesson that "you can't try to sneak by things that will have a detrimental effect on public lands."

"The opposition was overwhelming," Horwitt said.

National Mining Association President Kraig R. Naasz issued a statement Wednesday thanking Gibbons and Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, for their work on the mining proposal.

"We appreciate that procedural obstacles ultimately complicated their efforts to pursue these changes as part of the deficit reduction process and understand their decision to not pursue these amendments at this time. We look forward to their counsel on this matter in the coming year," Naasz said.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com