On the recordSeptember 18, 2013
I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I do want to reassure him, though, that the bill and current law already satisfy what he is after, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Let me read specifically from the language of the bill. This is on page 9. I'm going to read a paragraph, and, hopefully, this will alleviate your concerns: (g) Financial Assurance. The lead agency will determine the amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a mineral exploration or mining site, which must cover the estimated cost if the lead agency were to contract with a third party to reclaim the operations according to the reclamation plan, including construction and maintenance costs for any treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal, State or tribal environmental standards. So, in case the company goes bankrupt--in the worst case scenario--it has to post a bond, and I believe it's equal to 140 percent of what the reclamation cost would be. We already have comprehensive regulations in addition to the bill language from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. These regulations have been revised during both the Clinton and Bush administrations so that, today, both BLM and Forest Service regulations require that exploration and mining activities have the resources necessary to ensure reclamation after it's over even if the company goes bankrupt.…





