SRES 2/26/96 SR 6 FEDERAL MINING LAW CHANGES  SENATOR LEMAN announced SR 6 to be up for consideration. He said this is also a Minerals Commission recommendation. MR. CLOUGH explained that the Commission has been involved in federal mining law rewrite for some time and supports the basic tenants in the two bills before Congress. These bills institute responsible changes to the mining law of 1872 which include a net royalty fair market value for purchase of surface estate and a variety of other things. These kinds of change will make the mining what it initially was - a mining law, not a no mining law. SENATOR LEMAN asked if line 5, "where as much of this federal land is currently open to mineral entry" was correct. MR. CLOUGH replied that more than 50 percent of available federal land is closed to mineral entry. SENATOR LEMAN noted that language should be corrected. Number 150 SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what was the current status of these two pieces of legislation. MR. CLOUGH said they were moving through Congress prior to the budget issue going on now. He hadn't checked for a couple of weeks. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend line 5 by deleting "much" and inserting "most" and inserting "not" between "currently" and "open." There were no objections and it was so ordered. Number 171 SARA HANNAN, Alaska Environmental Lobby, opposed SR 5 and SR 6. She stated that they both seem to be fast tracked as they did not have enough lead time to get answers to questions about how the two resolutions are currently affecting Alaska. Specifically regarding SR 6, MS. HANNA said that reforms for the Mining Act 1872 have been before Congress for a number of years and it is an issue that does not follow traditional political lines. It is more of a western issue. In many congressional districts in the west the reforms are complex, burdensome, and of significant interest to local communities. This resolution does a disservice to Alaska's credibility in Congress on other development issues when we chose to ignore some of these very divisive reform issues instead of encouraging reform debate. The congressional bills this resolution refers to are only two that were introduced by our delegation. There are a number of others introduced by other western states who have a much more historic perspective on the problems in the Mining Act of 1872. She said the bill encourages irresponsible development and doesn't meet any concerns of the states in the West. The Mining Act of 1872 doesn't require any reclamation, for instance. The State of Alaska requires reclamation and that is probably good public policy for all states. Encouraging the status quo when there are a lot of burdens states have to live up to in federal actions is a disservice. Number 212 SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Clough if the Minerals Commission took up this issue in their meetings. MR. CLOUGH answered that they had discussed this issue in a host of meetings over the last several years. They were all public meetings. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if anyone from the Alaska Environmental Lobby showed up at any of the meetings. MR. CLOUGH said he didn't recollect seeing any. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Minerals Commission was before this Committee discussing this issue. MR. CLOUGH replied that they were before this Committee in January and discussed their report as well as this issue. SENATOR TAYLOR noted that this meeting was a public hearing that was noticed pursuant the legislative rules. It was an overview and recommendations to the legislature. MR. CLOUGH said that was correct. SENATOR LEMAN noted that the Minerals Commission comes before this Committee on an annual basis and have had the same discussions each year. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SR 6 from Committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.