It was expected they would have to give ground, but they haven't given up, and this language is still a big threat to privatization of our public lands. Here is email from a public land law expert about the changes:

Don't be misled.  This change is no panacea.  The bill still eliminates the requirement of a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit to establish a valid unpatented claim (a requirement that has been in the law for 133 years).  Section 6101 (or 6201; the numbering has changed since the House bill)) expressly provides that miners' "rights" are "secured" by payment of claim maintenance fees.  This would give would-be miners property rights against the U.S. government and interfere with the government's right to make or allow other uses of the land or to withdraw the land from mining without compensating claim holders.

Section 6101 says that applications to patent lands will be subject to "the law of discovery."  But the patenting section, 6102, expressly provides for "alternative valuable mineral deposit criteria," to wit: any activities that qualify as a "mine" under the Mine Safety and Health Act (MSHA), or "probable reserves" disclosed under federal securities laws.  The MSHA definition includes lands "to be used" for extracting or milling minerals.  Thus, apparently no actual mining need be taking place (or to have taken place).  Once the land was patented, of course, mining could not be required.

Finally, the bill still prevents the imposition of a royalty on minerals produced.  Thus, the bill would allow mining companies to develop their claims and mine out the minerals, then patent the land for a minimal $1000.  The public would get no return for the minerals, and the company would own the land, which could then be used for any private development scheme.  Public values would be lost, and the public would have no input to any of the land use decisions.