The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > News > Politics

Uranium mining halted by House

Democrats declare emergency

By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Thursday, June 26, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

House Democrats on a single committee used an emergency power Wednesday to halt new uranium mining claims near the Grand Canyon, in a move Republicans say violates the Constitution.

Voting 20-2, the Natural Resources Committee passed a resolution declaring an emergency and directing the Interior Department secretary to block new claims. Under a 1976 act of Congress the new resolution has the force of law, without needing the full House or Senate.

Democrats have not been able to pass a regular law controlling new claims, and backers Wednesday acknowledged the resolution was taken an extraordinary, though they said justified, step.

"This is, if I may, grabbing at the one legal straw left to us," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Democrat. "We're talking about the Grand Canyon. We're talking about a cultural icon."

Republicans were so furious at the end-around they walked out, leaving only Democrats to vote on the resolution.

"We will not be a part of this resolution. It's the wrong thing to do," said Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican, who led the walkout. "You can pass whatever you want to in whatever way you want to. I will not be part of this."

Republicans questioned existence of an emergency. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said Democrats would regret taking potential energy sources out of production in the midst of record energy prices, and Mr. Bishop blasted Democrats for controlling the timing of the vote, comparing it to a staged professional wrestling match.

Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall, West Virginia Democrat, said using the move was no worse than what Republicans did when they controlled Congress.

"We sat through many such, what you might call, shenanigans," he said. "The process is what it is, and the majority today is following that process."

Southwestern officials have complained that an explosion in mining could damage drinking water from the Colorado River, which feeds residents in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix and San Diego.

The resolution wouldn't have any effect on claims already secured, but the measure's backers said there's been a rush in recent years to file new claims. The Environmental Working Group says there's been a 100-fold increase in the last five years.

A Congressional Research Service memo prepared for Republicans said the resolution may not hold up to court scrutiny, based on a 1983 Supreme Court ruling INS v. Chadha.

"Should such a resolution be adopted it appears likely that the Secretary would be well within his authority to interpret it as informational and/or advisory in nature and, thus, will be able to avoid taking the actions contemplated under the statute," CRS said in the memo.

Opponents of the resolution said the most likely outcome is that the administration does refuse to enforce the emergency halt, and environmental groups go to court to try to force the Interior Department's hand.

The question would then be kicked to the courts.

CRS said the Natural Resources Committee has taken a similar step twice before, but both times courts ruled on other grounds and didn't reach the question of a legislative veto.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Inside the Ring
  2. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  3. Senate delays climate bill until September
  4. EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files
  5. YON: Girl with no future

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  2. HOLMES: Deja vu on dictators, double standards
  3. EDITORIAL: Return of the Black Panther
  4. Bloated deficits endanger dollar's global status
  5. Israeli know-how
  6. EDITORIAL: The fate of FedEx
  7. EDITORIAL: Dancing with the bear
  8. YON: Girl with no future
  9. EDITORIAL: Rewriting economic history
  10. LETTER TO EDITOR: Coming to grips with Palestinian guilty trips

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Do you think the G-8 is still effective in today's times?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.