Harry Reid and the "Mining Bill"....and Harry's interests in not letting it pass!

[KoKo]

Reid seen as pivotal in debate over mining fees
by Diana Marrero, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — The mining industry likes to boast it helped build the West. Now they're threatening to leave if Congress makes them pay too much for minerals they've always extracted for free.

At issue: a proposal in Congress to make mining companies pay a 4% royalty for billions of dollars worth of gold, copper and other minerals taken from public lands.

The fight over these fees has significant implications for Nevada. The state is the largest gold producer in the nation and the fifth largest in the world behind South Africa, Australia, China and Peru.

Last year alone, mining companies in the state produced 6.3 million ounces of gold worth about $3.8 billion. About a third of the state's gold mining is done on public lands.

Advocates for mining reform say the time has come to amend the 1872 mining law, written in an era when then-president Ulysses S. Grant was encouraging Americans to head West. They say the law cheats taxpayers, poisons the land and allows mining claims within miles of national parks.

"This is a law that has been out of step for decades," said Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining.

With the approval of a mining reform bill in the House this week, all sides are turning their attention to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who has long been a champion of the industry.

-snip-

Reid, who grew up in the small mining town of Searchlight, Nev., has strong ties to the industry. He has collected $270,000 in campaign contributions from mining interests since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Reid's son-in-law, Steven Barringer, is a lobbyist for Newmont, one of the world's largest gold mining companies, and Coeur d'Alene Mines, a silver miner.

Reid does not allow family members to lobby him or his staff, said spokesman Jon Summers. He said contributions play no role in the senator's deliberations.

"It's an important industry that employs thousands of Nevadans," Summers said. "These are good-paying jobs that people particularly in rural parts of the state rely on heavily."

Contributing: Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY

more about this important bill here at............................

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-02-mining_N.htm

[ixion]

1. He'll fight like hell to stop the mining bill, but not the illegal invasions

shows you where his priorities are at. :eyes:

[KoKo]

2. AT&T also gave Reid $22,000...along with Rockefeller's$42,000...he got the short end...

But when the Dems tried to bring the bill to the House floor, House Republicans tied it up in procedural knots. Rather than vote down the GOP, and risk being accused as “soft on terrorists,” the Dems pulled their own bill.

That left the initiative to the Senate, where Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), the Intelligence chairman, okayed a Republican bill that went along with the White House demands, not only allowing warrantless wiretaps but also providing retroactive immunity for telephone companies.

The Intel committee approved the bill Oct. 19 after being allowed to review documents related to warrantless surveillance program -- documents the Senate Judiciary Committee has not been allowed to see since they were subpoenaed three months ago. In an Oct. 22 letter to the White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said “it is wrongheaded to ask Senators to consider immunity without their being informed about the legal justifications purportedly excusing the conduct being immunized.”

In a press release, Rockefeller noted that, after reviewing the documents, the issue of whether the administration acted illegally in authorizing its warrantless surveillance program is still an “open question.”

So, Spencer Ackerman noted at TPMMuckraker.com (Oct. 23), “in other words, Rockefeller just blessed a program that he can’t yet certify is legal; and included in his blessing a blanket promise of immunity for companies that he can’t say didn’t break the law.”

When Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said he would put a hold on the Senate bill, it was reported that Reid still planned to bring up the bill in mid-November. That “raised some eyebrows” as a potential breach of much-vaunted Senate courtesy for a member of Reid’s own caucus.

It turns out that executives of the two biggest phone companies -- AT&T and Verizon -- gave Rockefeller more than $42,000 in political donations while seeking his support for immunity from lawsuits from customers who say their privacy was violated, the New York Times reported Oct. 23. According to OpenSecrets.org, AT&T also gave Harry Reid $22,000.

Dodd said he would filibuster the bill. We’ll see if there are 40 votes in the Senate to uphold the Bill of Rights -- because it looks like Reid and Rockefeller won’t be much help.
http://www.populist.com/07.20.edit.html

[Cerridwen]

3. Whew. It appears I was wrong....still googling, though...n/t

[KoKo]

4. The "Torch' wasn't 'passed' because the US Changed...

To make a 'living' ....one learns to 'get along.' :-(

[KoKo]

5. I've gotta KICK this one! So many DU'ers don't know Reid's Interests and why he Votes the Way he

Does..that this could go to "Archives" with no one knowing. :-(

[OzarkDem]

6. What is Reid's argument against the bill?

Has he explained to us just how a 4% tax will take so much from the profits of the mining industry that they'll have to close up and leave town?

Has he offers a cost benefit analysis of how continuing to place the burden of environmental damage on the public will benefit local, state and federal governments?

Is it too much to ask for these fools to give us a decent explanation for their actions?

[KoKo]

7. Jobs... The Minining interests say jobs will be lost but other say

that any job loses are going to be coming from new retrieval techniques in mining and not the royalty fees. It's a home state issue for Reid where he will defy the dems because of pressure.