[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                        REFORMING THE MINING LAW 
                         OF 1812--H.R. 7580, ``CLEAN 
                         ENERGY MINERALS REFORM 
                         ACT OF 2022''

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         Thursday, May 12, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-21

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-569 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
         
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Louie Gohmert, TX
Jim Costa, CA                        Doug Lamborn, CO
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Robert J. Wittman, VA
    CNMI                             Tom McClintock, CA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Garret Graves, LA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Joe Neguse, CO                       Daniel Webster, FL
Mike Levin, CA                       Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Katie Porter, CA                     Russ Fulcher, ID
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Pete Stauber, MN
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Jerry L. Carl, AL
Diana DeGette, CO                    Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Julia Brownley, CA                   Blake D. Moore, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Yvette Herrell, NM
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Lauren Boebert, CO
Darren Soto, FL                      Jay Obernolte, CA
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Cliff Bentz, OR
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Vacancy
Ed Case, HI                          Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                       Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                      ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair
                    PETE STAUBER, MN, Ranking Member

A. Donald McEachin, VA               Yvette Herrell, NM
Mike Levin, CA                       Doug Lamborn, CO
Katie Porter, CA                     Garret Graves, LA
Diana DeGette, CO                    Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Betty McCollum, MN                   Vacancy
Jared Huffman, CA                    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Debbie Dingell, MI
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                --------                                
                                
                                CONTENTS
                                

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, May 12, 2022...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Herrell, Hon. Yvette, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New Mexico........................................     4
    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota, prepared statement of..................     5
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas, prepared statement of...................    87

Statement of Witnesses:

  Panel I

    Feldgus, Hon. Steven H., Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary 
      for Land and Minerals Management, Department of the 
      Interior, Washington, DC...................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    13

  Panel II

    Chen, James C., Vice President of Public Policy, Rivian 
      Automotive, LLC, Washington, DC............................    29
        Prepared statement of....................................    30
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    35
    Kalen, Sam, William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of 
      Law, University of Wyoming College of Law, Laramie, Wyoming    36
        Prepared statement of....................................    38
    Stiffarm, Jeffrey, President, Fort Belknap Indian Community, 
      Harlem, Montana............................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
    Struhsacker, Debra, Environmental Permitting & Government 
      Relations Consultant, Co-Founder and Director, Women's 
      Mining Coalition, Reno, Nevada.............................    40
        Prepared statement of....................................    41
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    71

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        National Parks Conservation Association, Letter dated May 
          11, 2022...............................................   107

        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statement for the Record.   108

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Herrell

        Horsford, Hon. Steven, U.S. House of Representatives, 
          Letter dated May 16, 2022..............................   110

        National Mining Association, Letter dated May 12, 2022...   111

    List of documents submitted for the record retained in the 
      Committee's official files.................................   112
                                     


 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON REFORMING THE MINING LAW OF 1812--H.R. 7580, TO 
  MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO LOCATABLE MINERALS ON PUBLIC 
  DOMAIN LANDS, CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF SELF-INITIATION OF 
 MINING CLAIMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``CLEAN ENERGY MINERALS REFORM 
                             ACT OF 2022''

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 12, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in 
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M. 
Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Grijalva (ex officio), Porter, 
DeGette, Huffman, Dingell; Herrell, Lamborn, Graves, Tiffany, 
and Westerman (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Fulcher, Carl, and Moore.

    Mr. Grijalva. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    I am going to have the difficult responsibility today to 
sit in for the Chair of the Subcommittee, Mr. Lowenthal. And my 
apologies to the Ranking Member and to others for the fact that 
it won't be as smooth as he runs his meetings. So, thank you.
    We are meeting today to hear testimony on the legislation, 
H.R. 7580, the ``Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022.''
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority 
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our 
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the close of 
the hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess, 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    And without objection, Representatives Moore, Carl, and 
Fulcher are authorized to question the witnesses in today's 
hearing.
    As described in the notice, all statements, documents, or 
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at 
[email protected]. Members physically present should 
provide a hard copy for staff to distribute by e-mail.
    Please note that Members are responsible for their own 
microphones. As with our fully in-person meetings, Members are 
muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent noises.
    Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
    With that, let me begin with my opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. This week marks the 150th anniversary of the 
Mining Law of 1872. Usually, anniversaries are something to 
celebrate. But in this case it is a stark reminder that the 
time for change is long, long overdue.
    The mining industry has seized the antiquity of this mining 
law as an opportunity to appropriate public lands, environment, 
Indigenous communities, and public health without any semblance 
of accountability. This is an industry that appears to think 
that America's public lands are its birthright, and they should 
be able to pick and choose where they get to dig and what they 
get to spoil, all without paying a cent of royalties. It is all 
backwards.
    America's public lands belong to all Americans, not the 
mining industry. That is why legislation has been introduced to 
overhaul the Mining Law of 1872. And that is why I think it is 
as important as ever to put this into law. The Clean Energy 
Minerals Reform Act will improve the way we do mining in 
several fundamental ways.
    First, the bill puts a royalty in place for all minerals 
extracted from public lands. Under the current law, mining 
companies don't pay a single cent to use and to appropriate 
from our public lands. Not even Big Oil has a deal that is 
slanted that much toward its industry.
    Second, the bill protects special places and brings mining 
under the land-use planning process. When we talk about threats 
to the Grand Canyon, or the Boundary Waters, or Indigenous 
sacred sites like Oak Flat or Bears Ears, it all comes back to 
the fundamental flaw in the mining law that tilts the balance 
of power away from land managers acting on behalf of the 
American people and toward the mining industry's corporate 
interests and profit line. My bill gives power back to land 
managers and sets benchmark environmental standards for 
permitting and reclamation.
    Third, the legislation protects tribal sovereignty and 
requires minimal tribal consultation. For too long, tribes have 
been overlooked when it comes to land management, and mining is 
no exception. This bill ensures that Federal agencies hear 
directly from tribes that are impacted by mining projects and 
mining development.
    And, finally, the bill finishes the work of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law by providing a dedicated source of funding 
for abandoned hardrock mine cleanup. While that law moved us in 
the right direction, hardrock mining cleanup didn't get the 
funding. My bill makes sure that the industry, not the 
taxpayer, foots the bill for this toxic legacy of pollution.
    There is a lot of interest in Congress and the 
Administration right now about critical minerals, especially 
minerals that are important for renewable energy and our clean 
energy transition. But we shouldn't sacrifice tribal sacred 
sites, wilderness, national forests, and public health just 
because the metals coming from the ground will go into a wind 
turbine, or a solar panel, or an electric vehicle battery. I 
think the Administration gets it. We all want to see mining 
done under the best possible labor and environmental standards, 
but that isn't possible without a comprehensive rewrite of the 
mining law.
    I hope that today's hearing makes it clear why this 
legislation is so necessary, but also highlights the places 
where we all might agree.
    I look forward to hearing from the Biden administration and 
our invited witnesses on the legislation, and I want to thank 
them all for being here and for taking the time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Full Committee 
                          on Natural Resources
    This week marks the 150th anniversary of the Mining Law of 1872. 
Usually, anniversaries are something to celebrate, but in this case, 
it's a stark reminder that the time for change is long overdue.
    The mining industry has seized the opportunity to wreak havoc on 
our public lands, environment, Indigenous communities, and public 
health--without any semblance of accountability.
    This is an industry that appears to think that America's public 
lands are its birthright, and they should be able to pick and choose 
where they get to dig and what they get to spoil, all without paying a 
cent of royalties.
    They have it backwards. America's public lands belong to all 
Americans, not the mining industry.
    That's why I introduced legislation to overhaul the Mining Law of 
1872. And that's why I think it's as important as ever to put it into 
law.
    My Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act will improve the way we do 
mining in several fundamental ways.
    First, this bill puts a royalty in place for all minerals extracted 
from public lands. Under the current law, mining companies don't pay a 
single cent to use our public lands.
    Not even Big Oil has a deal that slanted toward industry.
    Second, the bill protects special places and brings mining under 
the land-use planning process.
    When we talk about threats to the Grand Canyon, or the Boundary 
Waters, or Indigenous sacred sites like Oak Flat or Bears Ears, it all 
comes back to the fundamental flaw in the Mining Law that tilts the 
balance of power away from land managers acting on behalf of the 
American people and toward the mining industry's corporate profits. My 
bill gives power back to land managers and sets benchmark environmental 
standards for permitting and reclamation.
    Third, this legislation protects tribal sovereignty and requires 
meaningful tribal consultation.
    For too long tribes have been overlooked when it comes to land 
management, and mining is no exception. This bill ensures that Federal 
agencies hear directly from tribes that are impacted by mining 
projects.
    And finally, the bill finishes the work of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law by providing a dedicated source of funding for 
abandoned hardrock mine cleanup.
    While that law moved us in the right direction, hardrock mine 
cleanup didn't get any funding. My bill makes sure that industry, not 
taxpayers, foots the bill for their toxic legacy of pollution.
    There's a lot of interest in Congress and the Administration right 
now about critical minerals--especially minerals that are important for 
renewable energy and our clean energy transition.
    We shouldn't sacrifice tribal sacred sites, wilderness, national 
forests, public health, just because the metals coming from the ground 
would go into a wind turbine or a solar panel or and electric vehicle 
battery.
    I think the Biden administration gets it. We all want to see mining 
done under the best possible labor and environmental standards but that 
isn't possible without a comprehensive rewrite of the Mining Law.
    I hope that today's hearing makes it clear why this legislation is 
so necessary, but also highlights the places where we all might agree.
    I look forward to hearing from the Biden administration and our 
invited witnesses on the legislation. Thank you all for being here.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. With that, let me recognize Representative 
Herrell, who is sitting in for Ranking Member Stauber today. We 
are both designees, per se, today.
    Ms. Herrell, the floor is yours.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. YVETTE HERRELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Herrell. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the opportunity to be here in person with you and take the 
place and fill the large shoes of Congressman Stauber. But I 
want to thank the witnesses for being here in person and 
virtually, as well.
    And, Mr. Chairman, you have heard me and my colleagues 
discuss hardrock mining many times this Congress. But as you 
know, the issues go back many years. Concern about the rising 
demand for minerals, the global dominance of China, and the 
pending supply chain crisis pre-dates my time in this 
Committee.
    Now, the truth is undeniable. Demand for copper, lithium, 
cobalt, and dozens of other minerals is rapidly outpacing 
supply. This is largely due to the projected growth of the 
renewable energy as electric vehicles, battery storage, and 
wind and solar power cannot be built without these rare and 
valuable resources.
    The aggressive renewable goal set by the Biden 
administration and other governments are exacerbating the 
coming shortage. We cannot recycle our way out of this problem. 
The International Energy Agency predicts demand for critical 
minerals could increase by six times by 2040. The question is 
not do we need more mining, but rather where and how should we 
do it.
    Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today, H.R. 
7580, ignores these ever-worsening supply chain concerns. H.R. 
7580 is framed as a reform of the Mining Law of 1872 for 
renewable energy minerals. In reality, this bill would 
permanently harm our domestic mining sector and cripple our 
access to minerals for renewable energy or any other purpose.
    I have been pleased to see the Biden administration 
acknowledge the link between mining and renewables. But, 
unfortunately, much of what the Biden administration says 
directly conflicts with what it does. For instance, President 
Biden hosted a roundtable in February to discuss the importance 
of responsible domestic mining. The Administration even issued 
a statement saying global demand for these critical minerals is 
set to skyrocket by 400 to 600 percent, citing the importance 
of expanding domestic mining, production, processing, and 
recycling of critical minerals and material.
    At the same time, we have seen the Department of the 
Interior cancel decades-long mineral leases in my friend 
Congressman Stauber's district, endangering one of the most 
promising copper, nickel, cobalt projects in the world. The 
Department of Ag is trying to withdraw that entire area in 
northern Minnesota from mineral development, without even 
letting the NEPA process take place.
    The Administration and Congressional Democrats continue to 
fight the Resolution Copper Project in Arizona, despite a 
Federal land exchange and many years of environmental review 
and tribal consultation.
    Additionally, a proposed critical habitat designation for 
Tiehm's buckwheat now threatens a lithium mine in Nevada, even 
though worldwide demand for lithium will double by 2025.
    And examples go on and on. We need to decide what policy 
choices are in the best interest of our country.
    The United States is, hands down, one of the best places to 
mine, due to the richness of our resources, our skilled 
workforce, and our world-class environmental and labor 
standards. H.R. 7580 would unquestionably take us further away 
from our technological goals and destroy any chance at 
competitiveness on the world stage.
    At a time of increasing international instability and the 
threat of China looming ever closer, legislation like this is 
more harmful than ever.

    And to be submitted to the record, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to submit Ranking Member Stauber's statement for the 
record.

    Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stauber follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Pete Stauber, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of Minnesota
    Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal. We need mining in America.
    We need it for home heating, for running air conditioners, for cell 
phones, for dialysis machines, for fighter planes, and for infinite 
more applications.
    And if we don't mine it here, we import it. And we import the raw 
materials for everything I just mentioned from places like China, 
Russia, and the Congo.
    But we don't have to. America has an abundance of natural 
resources, much of which is on Federal lands. In fact, my district 
alone contains 95 percent of America's nickel, 88 percent of our 
cobalt, and more than one-third of our copper.
    However, today in the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, we 
are debating legislation that, if passed, would essentially ban mining 
on Federal lands in America.
    It would endanger American energy independence, cripple our already 
failing domestic supply chains, and continue to drive up costs for 
Americans.
    Let me be clear: this bill is designed to make mining in America 
all but impossible, not easier.
    And the Democrats know it. That's why they've embarked on an 
aggressive rebrand, hand in hand with the Administration, and are now 
calling their anti-mining legislation the so-called Clean Energy 
Minerals Reform Act.
    But we've been down this road before, and Americans know better. 
Similar legislation died on the vine last year, and it'll die on the 
vine again, because they can't even get all Democrats in Congress 
behind this.
    Previously, it was known as the ``Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation 
Act'', and it's frequently referred to as ``Mining Law reform.''
    Meanwhile, President Biden has issued recommendations that closely 
track with the unpopular legislation we're debating here today, along 
with rolling back common-sense permitting reforms.
    And at the same time, he's offered a reinterpretation of the 
Defense Production Act, which did nothing to make mining easier, and he 
offered a toothless ``Permitting Action Plan'' just yesterday.
    So, why are Democrats running from their own policies and issuing 
these aggressive rebrands?
    I'll tell you why. Americans want mining in America, but Democrats 
don't. So they're hiding behind cute little bill title changes and 
weak, beltway policy memos out of the White House.
    Every single policy supported by Biden and the Democrats have made 
Americans' lives harder and more expensive. Just try to order an 
electric vehicle right now. Even if you wanted one, it'll take months, 
if not years.
    And that's because it is hard to mine domestically in this country. 
Here's an example: The PolyMet project is approaching 20 years of 
permitting and litigation. It is a copper, nickel, and cobalt project--
a lot of what you need for an electric vehicle.
    And two Democrat administrations have lauded this project. The 
Obama administration's EPA gave the project the highest rating possible 
for a mine, the same as the Stillwater Bridge or other popular projects 
in Minnesota.
    And the Biden administration mentioned it in it's 100-day Supply 
Chain Review as a potential option for nickel.
    But what did this Administration do? It remanded the very permit 
given high marks when Joe Biden was Vice President and the same project 
he mentioned as a viable nickel source just last year.
    At the same time, the legislation before us today actually adds two 
more duplicative permits on top of an already impossible timeline.
    More reviews, more extensions, and more permits mean more delays 
for American mining.
    Therefore, we will be more reliant on horrific supply chains, like 
children in the Congo mining cobalt by hand. And, at the end of the 
day, more delays for Americans to receive their needed products.
    The bill also ignores a basic understanding of geology and 
implements an oil-and-gas style leasing system. In the mining sector, 
only about 1 in every 1,000 discoveries results in a mine, as opposed 
to accessing a seam or well.
    And, under the bill, every mine that invests multi-billions of 
dollars; survives a multi-decade permitting scheme and lawsuits from 
radical activists; and also happens to be a 1 in 1,000 exploration 
lottery ticket for a viable deposit, is then subject to a punitive 12.5 
percent royalty.
    Why would any company want to invest in American resources under 
such a hostile scheme put in place?
    And that is the goal here. This legislation lengthens permitting 
timelines, puts in place the wrong leasing system, and levies a royalty 
to dissuade any investment and push mining abroad.
    In fact, Chairman Grijalva, I'd like to offer you another rebrand 
for your legislation: How about the UNclean Energy Minerals from China, 
Russia, and Child Slaves in the Congo Act?
    I think that fits a little better. Thank you, and I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Herrell. And also letters of opposition to H.R. 7580 
and statement policies from Eureka County Board of 
Commissioners, Elko County Board of Commissioners, Humboldt 
County Board of Commissioners, Pershing County Board of 
Commissioners, Western Governors Association, Coeur Mining, 
American Exploration & Mining Association, National Mining 
Association, Arizona Mining Association, and Arizona Chamber of 
Commerce.

    Mr. Grijalva. Without objection, so ordered.

    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now invite the Honorable 
Steven H. Feldgus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 
Minerals Management for the Department of the Interior. Steve, 
it is great to see you in the hearing room again, and you will 
be recognized for 5 minutes for your statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN H. FELDGUS, PH.D., DEPUTY 
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, 
           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you very much. Chair Grijalva, Ranking 
Member Herrell, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Steve 
Feldgus. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 
Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior. Thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss the need to reform the 
General Mining Law of 1872 and Chair Grijalva's legislation, 
the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022.
    Exactly 150 years and 2 days ago, President Ulysses S. 
Grant signed the General Mining Law of 1872. Much like the 
Homestead Act that was signed 10 years earlier, the mining law 
was designed to encourage the settlement of the American West 
by giving away public lands and resources at little to no cost. 
The law allowed citizens to freely explore public lands for 
valuable minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper, to stake a 
claim if minerals were discovered, and to patent that claim, 
gaining legal title to the land and all the minerals contained 
within it for as little as $2.50 an acre.
    The Mining Law of 1872 did not, however, account for the 
legacy of environmental degradation that mining would have on 
its surrounding communities, nor did it provide for royalties 
or a comprehensive system to evaluate, permit, develop, and 
reclaim mines to ensure sustainable mining and healthy public 
lands.
    Over the last 150 years, the management of our public lands 
has evolved to meet the needs of our nation, with the 
Department of the Interior serving as a steward of our public 
lands and resources for future generations. Many of our laws 
have changed with the times. The Homestead Act was repealed, 
but the Mining Law of 1872 remains.
    To be sure, Congress has updated the laws governing 
minerals such as oil and gas, coal, and sand and gravel, many 
of which were originally covered by the Mining Law of 1872. But 
it has not done so for some of our most valuable and critical 
hardrock minerals, and in particular the minerals that are so 
important for a clean energy transition.
    We can recognize the historic contribution that mining has 
played in this country, but we must also acknowledge the limits 
that exist today from relying on such an antiquated law. The 
Biden-Harris administration recognizes the important role 
mining will continue to play in the modern economy, and the 
growing need for responsibly sourced critical minerals to 
realize a clean energy economy, combat climate change, and 
ensure the security of our nation. These are 21st century 
imperatives, and they will be difficult to achieve by relying 
on a relic of the 19th century designed during the Grant 
administration for a United States with different needs, 
different priorities, and different challenges.
    This is why President Biden has outlined a whole-of-
government approach to ensure domestic mining is sustainable, 
responsible, and efficient. This includes signing Executive 
Order 14017, which directed an assessment of the supply chains 
for critical and strategic minerals essential to the economic 
and national security of the United States. And the President 
also recently announced his intention to use the Defense 
Production Act to support the responsible production of five 
critical minerals needed for large-capacity batteries, which 
will help accelerate the clean energy transition in the short 
term.
    The supply chain review has also made it clear that the 
mining law must be reformed. In response, the Department of the 
Interior formed an interagency working group tasked with 
reviewing existing mining laws, regulations, and permitting 
processes to make recommendations on what reforms are needed. 
Two days ago, on the 150th anniversary of the mining law, that 
working group hosted a meeting that brought together the mining 
industry, tribes, states, environmental organizations, and 
others to discuss the fact that everyone has something to gain 
from reform of the mining law: tribes, taxpayers, mining 
companies, mining communities, everyone.
    This is just the start of an extensive series of public 
input and comment sessions to ensure an inclusive process, 
because the purpose of the working group is to listen to all of 
these voices, and learn, and try to figure out how we can find 
the common ground where everyone benefits.
    This working group is being guided by the Administration's 
fundamental principles for domestic mining reform, which lists 
the key values that will drive the efforts to update the 
country's mining regulations, laws, and permitting processes. 
These principles would ensure that new production meets strong 
environmental, community, and tribal consultation standards 
during all stages of mine development, while improving the 
efficiency and outcomes of the permitting process.
    These reforms would ensure that taxpayers, for the first 
time ever, receive a fair return for the extraction of valuable 
metals from public lands and give the American public 
confidence that the minerals and materials used in our electric 
vehicles, smartphones, solar panels, and other technologies are 
sourced under responsible social, environmental, and labor 
standards.
    Many of these principles are embodied in H.R. 7580, the 
Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, and we commend Chair Grijalva 
and his co-sponsors for their work on this landmark piece of 
legislation.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. We 
look forward to working with Congress, states, tribes, the 
industry, and the general public to gather ideas and forge a 
new path forward. I am happy to answer your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Feldgus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Feldgus, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
     Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on 
President Biden's vision for a whole-of-government effort to reform the 
General Mining Law of 1872 (Mining Law) and to promote the sustainable 
and responsible domestic production of minerals and to ensure a fair 
return to the taxpayer.
    Tuesday marked the 150th anniversary of the Mining Law. At the time 
of its enactment, Congress designed the Mining Law to encourage mineral 
exploration and development on Federal lands and the settlement of the 
West. The law allowed citizens to explore public lands for valuable 
minerals (such as gold, silver, and copper), to stake a claim if 
minerals could be extracted at a profit, and to patent the claim--
gaining legal title to the land for a nominal cost--to encourage 
settlement. Congress did not, however, account for the legacy of 
environmental degradation that mining would have on its surrounding 
communities, nor did it provide for royalties, or a comprehensive 
system to evaluate, permit, develop, and reclaim mines to ensure 
sustainable mining and healthy public lands for future generations. In 
short, it was very much legislation of its time.
    Over the last 150 years, the management of our public lands--
through the Department of the Interior (Department) and its Bureaus--
has evolved to meet the needs of our nation and to serve as a steward 
of our public lands and resources. While we can recognize the historic 
and defining contribution that mining played in settling the West, we 
also must recognize the limits that exist today from relying on such an 
antiquated system. The Administration recognizes the important role 
mining will continue to play in the modern economy and the growing need 
for responsibly sourced critical minerals to meet our climate, 
infrastructure, and global competitiveness goals, but believes that the 
Mining Law of 1872 provides an inadequate structural framework and 
serves as an impediment to a robust, environmentally, and socially 
responsible, sustainable domestic mining industry.
    We appreciate the work the Sponsor and the Committee have done to 
propose reforms to the Mining Law through H.R. 7580, the Clean Energy 
and Mineral Reforms Act. We look forward to continuing to work with 
Congress as the Administration undergoes its review of the Federal 
mining program and considers proposals for potential mining reforms.
Laws Governing Mining on Federal Lands

    For almost 150 years, the Mining Law has allowed for domestic 
mineral production on Federal lands. Initially, the Mining Law provided 
disposal authority with no return to the taxpayer for development of 
nearly all mineral resources. In 1920, Congress enacted the Mineral 
Leasing Act (MLA), removing petroleum, natural gas and other 
hydrocarbons, as well as phosphates, sodium, sulfur, and potassium, 
from disposal under the Mining Law and creating a leasing-based system 
for these minerals. In 1947, the Materials Act removed ``common 
varieties'' of certain widespread minerals of common occurrence, such 
as sand and gravel, from disposal under the Mining Law and instead made 
them subject to sale or permit. Today, the minerals subject to disposal 
under the Mining Law include both metallic minerals, such as gold, 
silver, and copper, and various industrial minerals such as gypsum and 
bentonite.
    While the MLA and the Materials Act established a process to 
provide the taxpayer with a financial return for those minerals that 
are disposed of through sale or lease, minerals managed under the 
Mining Law remain without similar consideration. Some fees are 
required, including one-time fees to record mining claims with the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a yearly maintenance fee unless 
certain waiver requirements are met. But the Mining Law does not 
require operators to report the quantity or type of minerals that are 
produced by their operations to the BLM and, most importantly, they pay 
no royalties to the U.S. government when they remove valuable mineral 
resources from public lands--in sharp contrast to royalty payments 
required for the extraction of oil, gas, coal, and other leasable 
minerals from public lands.
Management & Regulation of Mining Under the Mining Law

    Management of mineral development under the Mining Law has evolved 
over time with the need to balance competing uses of public lands. 
Prior to 1981, there were no regulations in place to regulate 
prospecting, exploration, and mining activities under the Mining Law on 
BLM-administered public lands. The BLM's surface management regulations 
promulgated under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 
1981 and revised in 2001 provide a framework to prevent unnecessary or 
undue degradation of public lands during mining and reclamation under 
the Mining Law. To ensure that mining operations on public lands occur 
in an environmentally sound manner, operations must comply with other 
state and Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, 
Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, and the National Historic 
Preservation Act. Certain exploration operations, known as notice-level 
operations, do not require Federal approval and therefore are not 
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act.
    Per FLPMA, the BLM is responsible for recording and adjudicating 
mining claims made on Federal lands. The BLM is also responsible for 
conducting mineral examinations to determine if the mining claim is a 
valid existing right under the Mining Law. Additionally, the BLM 
administers the collection of the annual maintenance fee for each 
mining claim, as well as location fees for new mining claims. In FY 
2020, the BLM collected a total of over $65 million in fees associated 
with nearly 391,000 active mining claims on Federal lands.
    The Mining Law does not require reporting the type and quantity of 
minerals produced on Federal lands to the Department. Therefore, the 
Department is only able to track notices or authorized plans. At the 
end of April 2022, there were 578 active mining plans of operation and 
another 867 active mining notices on Federal lands. The Department does 
not have an accurate account of total production occurring on Federal 
lands, including critical minerals, from these plans and notices. The 
Department also notes that, as mentioned previously, the Mining Law 
does not require a royalty for the minerals produced on Federal lands; 
therefore, the public is not receiving a fair return for the 
development and use of these Federal resources.
    FLPMA also requires the BLM to inventory abandoned mine sites on 
public lands and provides the authority to withdraw Federal lands from 
the operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. 
Currently, there are over 24 million acres--just under 10 percent--of 
BLM-managed lands withdrawn from mineral entry.
Reclamation of Mining Operations Under the Mining Law

    Reclamation of mineral development was not a requirement under the 
Mining Law when enacted 150 years ago. Pursuant to FLPMA, the BLM 
issued regulations in 1981, which were amended in 2001 and require 
notices and plans of operation to include detailed reclamation plans. 
These regulations also require operators to provide financial 
guarantees covering the full cost to reclaim mining operations. 
Additionally, the BLM's regulations allow the agency to require an 
operator to establish a trust fund or other funding mechanism to ensure 
the continuation of long-term treatment to achieve water quality 
standards and for other long-term, post-mining reclamation and 
maintenance requirements after a mine is closed. These regulations 
provide the BLM with a mechanism to provide for protection of the 
environment after mining has concluded.
    In response to Government Accountability Office recommendations, 
BLM implemented a tracking system under which BLM certifies each fiscal 
year that the reclamation cost estimates for proposed and operating 
mines have been reviewed and are sufficient to cover the cost of 
reclamation. Currently, the BLM holds financial guarantees of $3.3 
billion which is held to fund the costs of reclamation of mining 
operations on BLM-managed public lands. Furthermore, the BLM 
continuously reviews reclamation bonding requirements.
Reforming Domestic Mining

    Since taking office, President Biden has outlined a whole-of-
government approach to ensure that U.S. mining activity is sustainable, 
responsible, and efficient. Understanding that resilient supply chains 
are necessary to revitalize and rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity 
while maintaining America's competitive edge in research and 
development, in February 2021 the President issued Executive Order (EO) 
14017, ``America's Supply Chains.'' The EO directed a government-wide 
approach to assess the vulnerabilities in, and strengthen the 
resilience of, critical supply chains of various goods, including 
critical and strategic minerals essential to the economic and national 
security of the United States.
    The EO also initiated a 100-day supply chain review requirement, 
and the Administration published its findings in a report in June 2021 
titled, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American 
Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-based Growth.'' Following the 100-
day supply chain review, the Department released an updated list of 50 
critical minerals in February 2022 as required by the Energy Act of 
2020.
    While affirming the significant role critical minerals play in our 
national security, economy, renewable energy development, and 
infrastructure, the review also made clear the need to reform the 
Mining Law to protect the environment, impacted communities, and Tribal 
Nations while strengthening and updating the permitting system to 
ensure certainty and timeliness of adjudication for project sponsors. 
The report noted: ``We recommend that the government, working with 
private sector and non-governmental stakeholders, encourage the 
development and adoption of comprehensive sustainability standards for 
essential minerals, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and other 
minerals. We further recommend establishing an interagency team with 
expertise in mine permitting and environmental law to identify gaps in 
statutes and regulations that may need to be updated to ensure new 
production meets strong environmental standards throughout the life 
cycle of the project; ensure meaningful community consultation and 
consultation with Tribal Nations, respecting the government-to-
government relationship, at all stages of the mining process; and 
examine opportunities to reduce time, cost, and risk of permitting 
without compromising these strong environmental and consultation 
benchmarks.''
    Consistent with the recommendation of the 100-day review, on 
February 22, 2022, the Department announced the launch of a new 
interagency working group, comprised of experts in mine permitting and 
environmental law from across the Federal Government, to review 
existing mining laws, regulations, and permitting processes. This 
working group will complement the effort outlined in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL; Public Law 117-58), which requires the 
Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to submit a report to 
Congress identifying legislative and regulatory recommendations to 
increase timeliness of permitting activities for exploration and 
development of domestic critical minerals.
    The working group will host extensive public input and comment 
sessions to ensure an inclusive process and will work with relevant 
agencies to initiate updates to mining regulations. These efforts began 
two days ago, on May 10th, the 150th anniversary of the signing of the 
Mining Law, with a productive and constructive meeting that brought 
together the mining industry, Tribes, states, environmental 
organizations, outdoor recreation groups, automobile manufacturers, 
labor unions, and legal experts with senior Administration officials to 
discuss the common benefits--for both industry and impacted 
communities--that can be obtained through mining reform. The working 
group looks forward to engaging with Members of Congress as well to 
consider your ideas and proposals, such as those in H.R. 7580, as it 
conducts its deliberations and develops recommendations.
    Additionally, in February, the President also authorized the use of 
the Defense Production Act to support the responsible production of 
five critical minerals needed for large capacity batteries (lithium, 
cobalt, graphite, nickel and manganese). The authorization will help 
accelerate the transition to clean energy economy in the short-term. As 
the President said in remarks on Securing Critical Minerals for a 
Future Made in America, ``As we build the economy, we're going to build 
it around working Americans. That means making sure that labor is at 
the table, that Tribes and the people from the community are at the 
table from day one, and that environmental protections are paramount.'' 
With this effort, the President has made clear his commitment to 
environmentally responsible and sustainable mining.
Fundamental Principles for Domestic Mining Reform

    In concert with the announcement of the working group, the 
Administration released its ``Fundamental Principles for Domestic 
Mining Reform'' to identify the key values that will drive the efforts 
to update the country's mining regulations, laws, and permitting 
processes. These principles, summarized below, are necessary to ensure 
that new production meets strong environmental and community and Tribal 
engagement standards during all stages of mine development, from 
initial exploration through reclamation, while improving the efficiency 
and outcomes of the permitting process.
Establish Strong Responsible Mining Standards
    Regulatory and legislative mining reform should create a level 
playing field by establishing strong environmental, sustainability, 
worker, health and safety, Tribal consultation, and community 
engagement standards for mineral exploration and development. Americans 
should know that the minerals found in their cars, phones, and other 
products adhere to strong, responsible mining standards. This includes 
establishing specific up-to-date financial assurance, operational, 
performance, and reclamation standards that require protection of the 
environment during exploration, discovery, active mining, reclamation, 
and post-closure.
    These standards should also reduce the risk and consequences of 
legacy pollution, decrease the likelihood of catastrophic events, such 
as tailings impoundment failures, and protect taxpayers against 
companies that go bankrupt and leave operations inadequately closed. In 
addition, efforts must also be in place to apply the standards to 
minerals from foreign sources that may compete in the domestic market, 
by including reliable traceability of the minerals and materials that 
enter the U.S. economy.
Secure a Sustainable Domestic Supply of Critical Minerals
    Domestic availability of critical minerals touches all points of 
the supply chain: resource, processing, manufacturing, use, and 
recycling. The transition to clean energy is projected to create a 400 
to 600 percent increase in global demand for key critical minerals like 
lithium, graphite, cobalt, and nickel to meet our climate goals, and 
for some minerals the increase in demand will be many times higher. 
Currently, the United States is reliant on Chinese imports for many of 
these minerals in processed form.
    The President is using all available tools, such as invoking the 
Defense Production Act, but more will need to be done to meet current 
and future demand, and to break our reliance on foreign sources and 
provide good jobs for American workers. Mining reform should assure 
that a reliable supply of critical minerals can be provided both 
through environmentally and socially responsible mining and processing 
projects, and other sustainable sources, such as recycling and recovery 
from unconventional sources, including mine wastes, mine tailings, 
mine-influenced waters, and coal ash. Provisions for recovery and 
reprocessing of critical minerals must ensure existing selected and 
implemented remedies or reclamation measures are protected and recovery 
does not exacerbate existing site conditions.
Prioritize Recycling, Reuse, & Efficient Use of Critical Minerals
    The recycling, reuse, and efficient use of existing mineral assets 
(wastes and recyclable materials) should be prioritized, and 
commercially viable methods supported and promoted. The resources 
available from these sources should be assessed and relied upon, where 
possible, before developing new sources. This includes developing 
recycling programs; designing products that facilitate recycling at 
end-of-use; reprocessing mine waste, appropriate treatment of mine 
influenced waters, and ash material; and promoting other engineering 
and innovation advancements, such as reducing the quantity of inputs 
and identifying substitutes for critical minerals to reduce the need 
for new mining of raw minerals and reliance on unsustainable sources.
Provide Permitting Certainty
    Any new law covering mineral extraction, or updates of existing 
mining regulations, should provide clear, consistent standards and 
processes for mine exploration, operations, closure, and plan approvals 
on public land. Consistent with a whole-of-government approach, Federal 
agencies will improve interagency cooperation and coordination during 
environmental review and permitting. This will be done in concert with 
project proponents, state and local governments, as well as Tribal 
Nations to improve permitting times, reduce conflicts with local 
communities, and improve environmental, social, and economic outcomes.
Adopt Fair Royalties So Taxpayers Benefit
    The Administration urges Congress to establish a royalty for all 
minerals extracted from public land in order to provide a fair return 
to taxpayers. The Department notes that hardrock mining is the only 
extractive industry on U.S. public lands that does not pay a royalty, 
while states and virtually all other countries charge royalties on 
hardrock mines. Proceeds from these royalties should be invested to 
prevent and mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts, improve 
environmental and economic outcomes for underserved communities, 
improve permitting and compliance, advance efficient and clean mining 
and remediation technologies, and support Tribal Nations and Tribal 
communities impacted by development on public lands.
Establish a Fully Funded Hardrock Mine Reclamation Program
    Reclamation of mineral development was not a requirement under the 
Mining Law when enacted 150 years ago. Consequently, there are over 
500,000 legacy mining sites in the western United States alone. 
Congress should establish a durable program to fund the remediation of 
legacy abandoned hardrock mining sites through reclamation fees, just 
as occurs with the coal industry and abandoned coal mines. These fees 
should support well-paying jobs to remediate the environmental impacts 
of abandoned mine sites and assist in community redevelopment.
    Additionally, legal certainty is needed for Good Samaritans working 
to remediate legacy pollution, including providing for permits and, as 
appropriate, exemptions from or specialized provisions of environmental 
laws and regulations that may otherwise dissuade Good Samaritans from 
undertaking cleanup activities. This should include consideration of 
projects that may responsibly extract critical minerals from legacy 
mine wastes, thereby avoiding the need for additional greenfield mine 
development.
Conduct Comprehensive Planning
    Like other uses of public lands, mining should be governed by 
comprehensive Federal land-use assessments and planning. The right to 
explore and develop mineral resources on public lands not otherwise 
withdrawn from mining must be managed to ensure appropriate and 
sustainable use of public resources. Planning, assessment, mine 
approval, and permitting decisions by Federal agencies should be 
conducted in a timely, transparent, and responsible manner to avoid, 
minimize, and mitigate for impacts generated by mining operations over 
the short and long term.
    In addition, any legislative reforms must ensure that environmental 
review and safeguards, such as provided by the National Environmental 
Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and 
associated regulations, are not circumvented, repealed, or weakened for 
the purposes of mining, regardless of the importance of the targeted 
resource. Processes must also meet government-to-government 
responsibilities for consultation with Tribal Nations.
Protect Special Places
    Some areas must be off-limits to mining and protected from mining 
impacts. Our Federal land managers, in consultation with other decision 
makers, must have discretion to reject projects that threaten sensitive 
ecosystems, Tribal resources, and communities where pollution 
prevention and mitigation are not possible. Agencies should retain and 
use their authority to withdraw lands from mineral entry where 
necessary.
Solicit Community Input & Conduct Tribal Consultation
    This Administration is committed to regular, meaningful, and robust 
consultation with Tribal Nations. This includes project-level public 
engagement processes prior to any key decision-making regarding mining. 
Land use planning processes must also allow upfront input from a broad 
set of stakeholders including local and state governments, workers, 
residents, and Environmental Justice communities about whether and 
under what conditions mining might occur.
Utilize the Best Available Science & Data
    Any decisions on development should be guided by the extensive 
public and private data collected to map critical mineral resources, 
identify key fish and wildlife habitat, safeguard workers, protect 
community health and safety, and implement best practice avoidance and 
mitigation strategies. Agencies should, as appropriate, work with 
Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge holders and Tribal Nations 
to assure that their knowledge and expertise are considered and 
included in the process. This data should also inform public engagement 
and Tribal consultation.
Build Civil Service Expertise in Mining
    The Department notes that in recent years Federal agencies have 
lost mining expertise due to retirements and downsizing. To achieve the 
Administration's goals to reform mining, Federal agencies need to 
rebuild expertise and fully staff agencies and offices, both through 
hiring and interagency coordination. This will ensure that agencies 
have sufficient qualified personnel and resources to accomplish 
resource assessments, environmental reviews, permitting, and 
consultations in an efficient and timely manner, as well as vigorously 
enforce our laws and regulations.
Conclusion

    The Department looks forward to working with Congress and this 
Committee to continue to build areas of consensus around potential 
reforms to our mining laws. We recognize the need for environmentally 
and socially responsible and sustainably mined domestic production of 
mineral resources to help transition the country to a clean energy 
economy and to meet national security objectives. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today and would be happy to answer any question.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Steve Feldgus, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Department of the 
                                Interior
             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
    Question 1. If the administration is truly interested in increasing 
domestic production of critical minerals, why have we seen the 
Department of the Interior take consistent steps to withdraw lands or 
otherwise block new mines in places like Northern Minnesota, Arizona, 
and Nevada?

    Answer. The President has been clear on his support for responsible 
and sustainable domestic development of critical minerals, and the 
Department is following his lead. Under the Bureau of Land Management's 
(BLM) multiple use mandate, the BLM works to ensure responsible mineral 
development on public lands takes place in a balanced way while also 
managing the public lands for a wide range of other activities such as 
renewable energy development, recreation, conservation, and livestock 
grazing. There are currently over 390,000 active mining claims on 
public lands, with over 570 active mining plans of operations and 
another 867 active mining notices. The administration has approved 20 
new mine plans of operation since January 2021 and continues to review 
and advance mining applications, including recently publishing a draft 
environmental impact statement for the proposed Gibellini vanadium mine 
in Nevada.

    Understanding the importance of responsible mining to our modern 
economy, the Department announced in February the formation of an 
Interagency Working Group (IWG) that will review and make 
recommendations to reform hardrock mining laws and permitting 
regulations. Some of the goals of the IWG include ensuring mining 
occurs under strong and consistent environmental standards; improving 
the efficiency and outcomes of permitting for well-planned mining 
projects; ensuring transparency in mining activities on public lands; 
and providing accountability to taxpayers for management of national 
resources.

    Question 2. The Biden administration has issued several executive 
orders, including Executive Order 14005, ``Ensuring the Future is Made 
in America by All of America's Workers, launching a whole-of-government 
initiative to strengthen the use of Federal procurement to support 
American manufacturing.'' The Executive Order further states that the 
``U.S. Government should, whenever possible, procure goods, products, 
materials, and services from sources that will help American businesses 
compete in strategic industries and help America's workers thrive.''

    I just came back from an annual meeting hosted by the National 
Mining Association--the very industry and companies that are trying to 
ensure that we reduce our extreme import reliance on key minerals and 
materials some from hostile countries by producing them here in 
America, using American jobs, and with our existing strong labor and 
environmental standards.

    What Administrative steps are required to transition from a claims 
system to a leasing system, would this process be subject to NEPA and 
what timelines are associated with this transition? Given the many 
steps required to impose a leasing system, how soon can new hardrock 
mines be permitted in the U.S. under a potential new leasing system?

    Answer. If the Mining Law of 1872 is updated to create a leasing 
program, the BLM would need to initiate rulemaking as soon as the new 
law is enacted. During the regulatory update, the BLM would need to 
provide sufficient time for public comment and review. Other details 
about a transition to a leasing system, such as how existing claims are 
handled, would depend on the specifics of the legislation.

    Question 3. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act contained a 
bipartisan provision in Section 40206 to address modest new metrics for 
permitting efficiency improvements for mining on Federal land.

    (3a). The provision also requires DOI to report to Congress by 
November on how it will meet these goals. I know the IWG is taking 
public comment on implementing this section, but how is DOI 
implementing this directive, and will it meet the November 2022 
deadline of its first report to Congress?

    Answer. The BLM is one of many federal agencies working as part of 
the IWG, which the Department created to meet the directives and 
reporting requirements of Section 40206 of the IIJA (BIL). In pursuit 
of these requirements, the IWG is seeking public comment, meeting with 
stakeholders representing all interests (including the mining 
industry), Tribal governments, and State governments. The 
recommendations from the IWG are expected to be delivered this fall.

    (3b). Section 40206 directs DOI and USDA to quantify the period of 
time typically required to complete each step associated with the 
development and processing of applications, operating plans, leases, 
licenses, permits, and other use authorizations for critical mineral-
related activities on Federal land and compare to other countries in 
terms of permitting efficiencies. What is the current timeline for 
permitting, and how does the U.S. compare to other countries?

    Answer. In 2016, the Government Accountability Office issued a 
report that found the average time for the U.S. Forest Service and the 
BLM to approve a Plan of Operations was approximately 2 years (GAO-16-
165). The time frames associated with processing mining Plans of 
Operations are dependent on the size of the mine, the location, the 
complexity of the proposed project, and if there is any litigation 
involved. The BLM does not track timelines in other countries.

    (3c). Global investment in U.S. mining production has dropped in 
half over the last 20 years. How can DOI help reverse that trend?

    Answer. The Secretary supports responsible and sustainable 
development of domestic minerals. Under the BLM's multiple use mandate, 
the BLM works to ensure responsible mineral development takes place on 
public lands while also managing the public lands for a wide range of 
other activities such as renewable energy development, recreation, 
conservation and livestock grazing. There are currently over 390,000 
active mining claims on public lands, with over 570 active mining plans 
of operations and another 867 active mining notices.

    The IWG will review and make recommendations to reform the hardrock 
mining laws and permitting regulations. Some of the goals of the IWG 
include ensuring mining occurs under strong and consistent 
environmental standards; improving the efficiency and outcomes of 
permitting for well-planned mining projects; ensuring transparency in 
mining activities on public lands; and providing accountability to 
taxpayers for management of national resources.

    (3d). Section 40206 also requires track critical mineral production 
progress at specific sites on OMB's priorities website. With resources 
from DOE and now DOD going to new mineral production and processing, 
how can DOI work with OMB and tools like the newly permanently 
reauthorized Federal Improvement Steering Council to prioritize 
development of critical minerals on Federal lands?

    Answer. The IWG includes representatives from the Department of 
Agriculture through the U.S. Forest Service; the Environmental 
Protection Agency; the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and 
State; the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the National 
Economic Council; and others. Currently, the IWG is seeking public 
comment, meeting with stakeholders representing all interests 
(including the mining industry), Tribal governments, and State 
governments.

    Following the passage of President Biden's Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Biden-Harris Administration released a 
Permitting Action Plan to strengthen and accelerate Federal permitting 
and environmental reviews, fully leveraging the permitting provisions 
in the BIL. The plan can be accessed at the URL: https: / / 
www.whitehouse.gov /wp-content /uploads /2022 /05 /Biden-Harris-
Permitting-Action-Plan.pdf. The goal of such permitting efforts is to 
provide predictability and improve efficiency for applicants; BLM will 
continue to apply existing laws and regulations to ensure that proposed 
mining projects would not result in the unnecessary or undue 
degradation of public lands.

    In addition, the Secretary of Defense is directed to consult with 
the Secretary of the Interior in implementing the Presidential 
Determination invoking the Defense Production Act to increase domestic 
mining and processing of critical materials for the large-capacity 
battery supply chain.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Dr. Feldgus.
    And let me remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes 
a 5-minute limit on questions.
    The Chair now recognizes Members for any questions they may 
wish to ask our first panel. Ms. Herrell, you are recognized, 
if you have questions.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you so much 
for your statement.
    I do have a couple of questions, and hopefully we can kind 
of get through these. I have two or three.
    Do you know, did the U.S. Geological Survey find that the 
import reliance of the United States on other countries for 
minerals grew from 2021 in the report to 2022?
    Dr. Feldgus. I don't have the USGS report in front of me, 
but we can get that data and get that back to you.
    Ms. Herrell. OK. I was just curious if it was in there, and 
then if you would know how long it would require to change and 
implement regulations to change the claim system to another 
system like leasing. Was that addressed in the report, or do 
you maybe have knowledge of that?
    Dr. Feldgus. Do you mean in the U.S. Geological Survey 
report?
    Ms. Herrell. Right.
    Dr. Feldgus. On minerals? They did not look at access 
rights to minerals in the United States.
    Ms. Herrell. OK. And then something else I wanted to bring 
up, we are all aware of the problems as far as abandoned mine 
sites and the need to clean them up. We have them in New 
Mexico, and I know there are other locations.
    One of the ways we might approach this issue is through 
third-party, non-governmental organizations assisting with 
remedy projects. Are you familiar with the so-called Good 
Samaritan legislation? It was a Senate bill.
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes.
    Ms. Herrell. Understanding that as it is written, do you 
think that this would be something that could work? Could it be 
implemented?
    The DOI is talking with the EPA and other agencies about 
how to address abandoned mines through the Good Samaritan 
arrangement, and I am just wondering your thoughts on that. Is 
that a piece of legislation that actually could be developed to 
work for what we are talking about in regards to abandoned 
mines?
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure, thank you for the question. I am not 
familiar with the specifics of that legislation, and that is an 
issue that would be dealt with by the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    But I will say that Good Samaritan laws are endorsed in the 
Administration's fundamental principles for mining reform, and 
we think that is an excellent way to begin some of the 
reclamation of these abandoned hardrock mine sites.
    Ms. Herrell. OK, and you are right, the bill is written 
kind of outside the Department of the Interior's purview, if 
you will, but it is a bill that has been introduced by, I 
think, Senators Heinrich and Risch.
    And the last question for me is, can you weigh in on 
whether liability protections for the third parties doing 
reclamation work could help speed up the process in terms of 
these abandoned mines?
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure. Again, not an expert on that particular 
piece of legislation, but I do understand that it is the 
liability concerns under certain other legislation that does 
hamper the ability of these third parties from coming in and 
being able to clean up those sites.
    So, the Administration, as a whole, certainly looks forward 
to working with Congress to find a Good Samaritan solution that 
can work and can help leverage those private dollars to help 
address this abandoned hardrock mine problem.
    Ms. Herrell. OK. And this final question, in your statement 
that you just made, there was a sentence in there about 
ensuring that the individual person, or the community, was a 
beneficiary of the development right before you started talking 
about phones, batteries, that type of thing.
    Do you mean beneficiary in the sense of can go out and 
purchase a product, or do you mean beneficiary as in would have 
some kind of a vested interest and have a payout? You know, 
monetary or just a beneficiary as in for products sold as a 
result of mining?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, certainly, when we are talking about 
local communities and tribes benefiting, in one sense we are 
talking about the potential for a royalty that would then take 
a certain portion of the mineral value and allow that to be 
used for other purposes.
    But, certainly, mining can be a very important component to 
local economies. So, certainly, we are supportive of growing 
local economies through responsible and sustainable domestic 
mining.
    Ms. Herrell. OK, thank you.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now recognize the gentleman 
from California.
    Chairman Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized, if you can 
hear us.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Let me now invite Ms. DeGette, if she has any 
questions for Dr. Feldgus, and then we will go back to Mr. 
Huffman after Mr. Carl.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is great 
to see you. And welcome to our witness.
    I want to ask you a few questions about the way hardrock 
mining is treated compared to oil and gas. Mr. Feldgus, am I 
correct that oil and gas extraction on public lands operates 
under a leasing system, and that this system requires the 
companies to pay for the public's resources that they extract 
from those lands?
    Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
    Ms. DeGette. And is it also the case that, under the 
existing 150-year-old mining law, mining companies, including 
international mining companies, they don't have to ask 
permission to mine public lands in places like my home state of 
Colorado, because they are not under a leasing system?
    Dr. Feldgus. That is correct. They are free to access and 
state claims on any unwithdrawn piece of public land.
    Ms. DeGette. Are there any requirements for mining 
companies to alert nearby communities of their plans?
    Dr. Feldgus. Not in the early stages, certainly not when it 
comes to staking a claim or doing certain smaller exploration 
work. Once they submit a plan of operations to develop a 
commercial-scale mine, then they would enter the NEPA process, 
and local communities would be notified.
    Ms. DeGette. But say for a small town--I think about my 
small towns in Colorado. If there was a company that wanted to 
mine, the local citizens might not have any idea about it until 
it is far along into the process. Is that correct?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. DeGette. And now, is there anything inherently unique 
about the mining industry, compared to other extractive 
industries like oil and gas, that would make it impossible to 
transition to a leasing system that would require royalty 
payments?
    Dr. Feldgus. I would just point to other nations that, by 
and large, use leasing systems. We may be the only country in 
the world that uses a claim system all the way through 
production.
    Ms. DeGette. So, actually, we are the only country that you 
know of that doesn't use the same system for both, is that 
right?
    Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, would we have to create a new and unique 
governing system for the mining industry if we were to 
transition to a leasing system?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, it all depends on how we structured that 
system, whether it was leasing, or some sort of hybrid with 
claims and leasing, or a third option.
    Ms. DeGette. But we could use existing systems if we wanted 
to, is that right?
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure. We believe that we could modify the 
existing structure to accommodate that.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now I want to ask you a couple other 
questions.
    Am I correct that BLM has few options under current law to 
deny a proposed mine, even if that mine was on, say, lands 
sacred to Native American tribes?
    Dr. Feldgus. There are certain legal questions about the 
ability for the Bureau of Land Management to say no to a 
particular mine plan. Companies have to meet the regulations 
that are laid out by the BLM. But under the mining law, if 
there is a discovery of a valuable mineral, there is a right to 
mine. There can't be a complete shutdown of the mining 
operation.
    Ms. DeGette. Do you know of a current regulation that says 
that BLM could regulate a mine on sacred lands?
    Dr. Feldgus. I am not aware of any regulation that refers 
to sacred lands.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, or as defined by the Native American 
tribes.
    Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, is it true that the mining industry 
is also able to pollute our water resources due to loopholes in 
the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, 
and other environmental laws?
    Dr. Feldgus. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in those 
laws.
    Ms. DeGette. OK.
    Dr. Feldgus. But there are BLM regulations designed to cut 
down on water pollution.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Perhaps you could go talk to the legal 
experts and find out if there is anything in the Clean Water 
Act, the Resource Conservation Act, and other laws that would 
control pollution.
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, we can get back to you on that.
    Ms. DeGette. That would be super.
    Now, is it true that the--OK, I am not going to ask that 
last question.
    Instead, Mr. Chairman, I am done here, and I am going to 
yield back. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    Let me recognize Mr. Fulcher for 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Carl is going to be 
next.
    Mr. Grijalva. I am working off the list I am given by 
staff. So, Mr. Carl?
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
    Dr.--is it Feldgus? Did I pronounce that correctly?
    Dr. Feldgus. Feldgus.
    Mr. Carl. I am from South Alabama. We sound a little 
different.
    Dr. Feldgus. That is all right.
    Mr. Carl. Last night, literally when I was sleeping, your 
Department announced it was not holding the remaining two 
court-ordered leases in the Gulf of Mexico this year.
    Gas prices are at an all-time high. You realize that, 
right?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes.
    Mr. Carl. Americans are hurting. When the cost of fuel goes 
up, everything goes up: a loaf of bread, a pair of shoes, a 
car, everything. If we continue to go down this path, we are 
going to wind up like the UK, where the citizens are spending 
more money when the windmills aren't turning, and this economy 
is being crushed by it. And I want you to understand it. I want 
you to understand how the people in Alabama feel. We need help. 
We need the Gulf opened up. And the bureaucratic games that we 
are playing are not playing out well in the state of Alabama.
    Why are you all not holding these offshore lease sales when 
the court mandated them?
    And please don't give me the bureaucratic answer, because 
we are all getting pretty sick of that.
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
    I will say the President cares very deeply about the price 
of gas and the impact of inflation on American families, and he 
is doing everything he can to try to address that. That is one 
of the reasons why he ordered the largest-ever release of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    Mr. Carl. That does nothing.
    Dr. Feldgus. That oil can be produced more quickly than oil 
from new leases, particularly offshore, which can take many 
years to be developed.
    Mr. Carl. Well, in the business world you plan many years 
ahead. And when you shut things off, you shut them off, and it 
takes many years to catch up.
    And the people in Alabama and the people in this nation are 
frustrated, and they are mad. My phones are lit up. People 
don't like $5 a gallon. And I don't think this Administration 
truly understands how it affects the common person, the single 
moms that live from check to check. That double in fuel prices 
you see in so many places, those independent truck drivers, I 
mean, they are talking to me. They are getting paid $7 a mile 
and paying $5+ for a gallon of fuel. They are losing money, and 
it is killing this economy.
    And then you turn around and shut these wells down, or 
excuse me, you stop the leases in the middle of the night that 
are court-ordered. It doesn't make sense.
    We are supposed to be working together. I mean, when the 
environment takes preference over human life, and that is where 
we are at--I saw an illustration the other day. One of the 
Senators, he was showing turtle eggs had more protection than a 
baby. And it is the truth. And we don't need to get into that 
discussion here, that is not what this is about.
    But what is happening--I promise you in November it is 
going to happen. November, you are going to see what people are 
going to speak.
    And I am going to say it from this podium right now. We 
have to start drilling. We have to get our people back to work. 
We have to get fuel prices down. And releasing a few barrels of 
oil from our Reserve is not going to get it done.
    Mr. Chairman, I give my time back. Thank you, sir, and I 
appreciate your patience.
    Mr. Grijalva. The gentleman yields back. Let me recognize 
our colleague, Representative Dingell, but let me first thank 
her for the visit to the Dingell refuge that we recently named. 
And I appreciated that visit very much. And it was quite a 
nice, welcoming set-up that was there. So, with that, let me 
recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it was an honor 
to have you there to see the wonderful natural resources we 
have in Michigan. I don't want to get sentimental today.
    Thanks to all my colleagues for holding this hearing on 
reforms to the Mining Law of 1872 and domestic production of 
critical minerals. The Chairman was just in my state, and for 
the auto industry it is a very, very important question.
    It is good to see Dr. Feldgus join us again. Steve was a 
valued member of our Natural Resources Committee staff for many 
years, and we appreciate you lending your time and expertise 
today on this important issue.
    If the next century is to be another American century where 
we are leading, it is essential that we secure reliable and a 
sustainable supply of critical minerals and materials for EVs, 
as well as other advanced industries. These are fundamental to 
U.S. competitiveness, in creating good-paying jobs, 
particularly in my home state of Michigan, home to the domestic 
automotive industry, where electric vehicles are the future. 
But the Biden administration's 100-day supply chain review 
found that China controls an estimated 55 percent of global 
rare earths mining capacity and 85 percent of rare earths 
refining. The United States has fallen far behind.
    Dr. Feldgus, do vulnerabilities in the supply chain for 
critical minerals and materials pose a threat to our economic 
welfare and national security?
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I will say yes, 
the Administration is very concerned about supply chain 
vulnerabilities and how those would impact economic welfare and 
national security, which is one of the reasons why the 
President issued Executive Order 14017 on America's supply 
chains shortly after taking office. And those national security 
concerns were also reflected in the Presidential Determination 
under the Defense Production Act that the President signed in 
March. The need for minerals for our transition to a clean 
energy economy is also one of the reasons why we formed the 
Interagency Working Group on Mining Regulations, Laws, and 
Permitting.
    So, while the Administration is very focused on the 
economic welfare and national security impacts of our supply 
chains, we also want to make sure that any new production is 
able to meet the highest environmental and tribal consultation 
standards. And the Defense Production Act determination makes 
it clear that it does not affect environmental health or safety 
laws.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. And I want to talk here--my 
colleague, Jared Huffman, shares this concern with me. And I 
know, while you all have--and I have shared this with the 
Secretary of Energy--you have your interagency task force, like 
we did on electric vehicles, we want to bring a table together 
of the environmentalists and the unions to also talk about 
these issues, so we can help everybody move forward on it 
because it is a real competitive issue.
    We know that electric vehicles are the future, which is why 
China, the European Union, and other nations have made 
investments in EVs and EV infrastructure such a priority. They 
understand that orienting the industry toward lower and zero 
carbon emissions is not only good for the environment, but it 
will create jobs while supporting local economies and workers.
    Dr. Feldgus, can we out-compete our geopolitical rivals 
like China without addressing these supply chain 
vulnerabilities for critical minerals and materials?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I am not an expert in geopolitics, so I 
can't give you a very complete answer to this question. But I 
will say the importance of staying competitive with other 
nations is one of the major themes that runs through all the 
reports that were developed pursuant to the Executive Order on 
America's supply chains.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am going to close by saying we 
can't let supply chain vulnerabilities become a full-blown 
crisis, which is why I appreciate the Administration's efforts 
and the Chairman's proposal to this end. It is why this hearing 
is so important.
    Additionally, I am a strong supporter of the supply chain 
resilience subtitle included in the America COMPETES Act, which 
establishes a new Office of Manufacturing, Security, and 
Resilience responsible for implementing a $46 billion program 
to map and monitor our supply chains, providing financial 
assistance to strengthen supply chains and domestic 
manufacturing. As the conference process on USICA and America 
COMPETES commences, we have to seize the opportunity to 
enshrine this crucial program into law. That is why I thank the 
Chairman, and I look forward to working with my colleague, Mr. 
Huffman, on this subject, because we have to deal with it if 
America is going to be competitive.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And at the request of 
the Ranking Member, Ms. Herrell, you needed an additional bit 
of time to make a statement, or ask a question?
    Ms. Herrell. Just ask a question, yes.
    Mr. Grijalva. OK.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Grijalva. No problem.
    Ms. Herrell. I will be brief. Back in February of this 
year, my colleagues and I sent a letter to Secretary Haaland 
regarding military unrest around the world and around Russia 
that affect mineral supply chains.
    Unfortunately--and I want to streamline this--the worst has 
come to pass, of course, with Ukraine and Russia. They are now 
in the midst of war. The DOI declined to take the warnings 
about supply chains into account, leaving helium and uranium 
off the critical minerals list.
    So, given the requirement in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2021 to forecast future supply and demand 
trends, can you explain why active military conflicts involving 
Russia, one of the largest global helium suppliers, was not 
considered when finalizing the critical mineral list?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, it is hard for me to speak exactly to 
the entire U.S. Geological Survey process for each mineral and 
how they analyze that for whether or not it would get included.
    I do understand that, with helium, because the United 
States is the No. 1 world supplier for that element, that it 
was not necessary to put it on the list. But I would have to go 
get the U.S. Geological Survey to provide a more complete 
answer for you.
    Ms. Herrell. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. Before I ask any questions, Madam Ranking 
Member, is there anyone that needs to be recognized at this 
point?
    Ms. Herrell. No, sir.
    Mr. Grijalva. Because I would be the last asking questions 
to Mr. Feldgus. OK, let me now at this point recognize myself 
for a couple of questions.
    Mr. Feldgus, we heard a very salient point, which was the 
common person's needs out there, whether it is the rising cost 
of gas, inflation rates, supply chain. And the fact remains 
that, for that person, the issue is the cost. The issue is not 
necessarily the reason, but the cost.
    So, let's say that we are dealing with immediate relief for 
that. If tomorrow morning, not only is this law OK, but it 
needs to be even more open to the mining industry in terms of 
extraction on our public lands, if that were to occur, when do 
you see that kind of production of critical minerals that we 
are talking about, or any other extraction, when would that 
production actually have--in terms of time--an effect on that 
price, on that cost? How long would it take?
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you. It would take quite a long time. I 
am not an economist, but it takes a long time to find a mineral 
prospect, explore it, and then develop it into a commercial 
mine.
    Mr. Grijalva. If you define ``domestic industry''--my 
definition is that it is domestic because it is being extracted 
from public lands and made in the United States--then the 
definition of ``domestic'' changes in terms of most of the 
major mining industries that are operating on our public lands 
are multi-nationals, and many of them based outside the United 
States, in terms of being a foreign company. Is that a correct 
assessment?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, that is correct. I don't have the exact 
numbers, but many of the mining companies that operate on 
public lands are owned by Canadian or Australian or Chilean 
companies.
    Mr. Grijalva. And most of the major conflicts that we are 
seeing across this country, in terms of siting and operation 
and planning process, whether it is the Grand Canyon, 
Resolution, Boundary, name it, almost all of them have as the 
source of that conflict, between whether it is Indigenous 
communities, surrounding communities, environmentalists, land 
use planners, et cetera, water issues in Arizona, all those are 
then, if I am not mistaken--the proponent for this mine is 
primarily a multi-national corporation if you look at 
ownership.
    I mention that because that is an effect, as well, and that 
if we are going to create this domestic product for our own 
security, there are no guarantees that that domestic product is 
not exported, as the majority of extractions on hardrock mining 
are to this present day.
    Dr. Feldgus. That is correct. And that is why the refining 
and processing components of these supply chains are so 
important. And that is also a feature of the Administration's 
approach.
    Mr. Grijalva. Yes, I was getting to cleanup. How many 
abandoned mines are on public lands? That has always been a 
figure. And estimated cost for cleanup?
    Dr. Feldgus. There are no exact numbers that I can give you 
on that, unfortunately. There are a lot. Estimates range over 
500,000 abandoned mine sites throughout the country. And we 
just don't have a good inventory of those sites. There hasn't 
been enough funding to go out there and actually count and 
identify where all of these are.
    And in terms of costs, we have seen estimates as high as 
$50 billion or more.
    Mr. Grijalva. Yes, so dealing with this legacy of the 
mining industry, it is an important issue to all communities.
    If there was any other reason for a royalty, a lease versus 
a permit, this cleanup is going to require an investment 
beyond, to some point, the capacity of even us in Congress 
being able to designate that. It is going to require some 
responsibility and accountability on the part of the people 
doing business on our land.
    So, isn't this reason enough for a royalty charge?
    Dr. Feldgus. I think it is an excellent use for a royalty, 
just as the coal industry has been paying for the last nearly 
45 years a fee on each ton of coal produced in order to address 
the legacy abandoned coal mines throughout the nation, and what 
has been a very successful attempt to address those, we think 
it would be fair for the hardrock mining industry to also 
contribute a portion to the cleanup of the legacy hardrock 
abandoned mine sites.
    Mr. Grijalva. OK, I think my time is ostensibly up.
    Thank you, Mr. Feldgus, and let me now recognize Mr. Graves 
for your 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Feldgus, I appreciate you being back here as a 
sacrificial lamb. Great to have you back in the Committee 
again.
    Mr. Feldgus, it has been amazing to me, watching this 
Administration blaming Vladimir Putin for the energy price 
crisis that is impacting every American family, people having 
to make decisions between refueling their car or paying their 
grocery bills.
    It has been amazing to me, watching this Administration 
again blame Vladimir Putin whenever the reality is before, well 
before, the war in Ukraine we saw one of the largest price 
spikes in gasoline costs that we have ever seen in our 
lifetime, only to continue. We then saw the Administration 
trying to deflect blame and say it is because of price gouging 
of the oil and gas companies, it is their fault, it is price 
gouging.
    But what the facts reveal is something very, very 
different. As you well know, it takes years to go from a lease 
sale when lands are made available for energy production 
onshore to go to production. It takes a decade for the 
offshore. And what is this Administration doing? Absolutely 
nothing.
    This Administration's energy strategy is no to everything. 
And yes, it is no to oil and gas. But you know what else? It is 
no to solar, it is no to wind. It is no to geothermal. It is no 
to everything. Because there is no plan, there is no strategy 
in place. There is nothing. You have shut down. Speaking for my 
friend, Mr. Stauber, you have shut down the Twin Metals Mine. 
You can't have renewable energy production without the 
resources. You can't have it.
    This Administration is solely responsible for the prices 
and the energy crisis that we are experiencing today, solely 
responsible. This Administration, what do you do to lower 
prices? You raise royalty rates 50 percent? I mean, who looks 
at this and says, ``Oh, yes, I have a great idea.''
    I have never seen more inexperience and just doubling down 
on stupid strategies on energy in my entire life. Only last 
night, to have the announcement that the area where 18 percent 
of the oil for the United States is generated, 18 percent, the 
Gulf of Mexico, and to shut down the Cook Inlet lease sale 
offshore Alaska, as well. To say that we are not going to do a 
lease sale.
    Let me say it again. The only President in modern history 
to say that we are not going to have a lease sale, we are not 
going to offer any new energy.
    Let's be crystal clear why there is an energy crisis. It is 
because of this Administration. The Secretary of Energy just 
last week or the week before said they haven't found price 
gouging. She said it, this Administration's own officials.
    Look, you are a nice guy. I enjoyed working with you, and I 
know this isn't your fault. I know that you are sent here as a 
sacrificial lamb. Crystal clear to all of us. But I will tell 
you what. You have one in every five Americans right now that 
can't afford to even cover their electricity bill. Like I said, 
they are having to make false choices between whether they are 
going to buy groceries for their family or they are going to 
fill their car so they can drive to work.
    This is absolutely disgusting. It is absolutely unforced 
errors, self-imposed impacts on the U.S. economy. And it is not 
limited to just energy, because the energy is one of the most 
pervasive things. It is the primary driver of what we are 
seeing right now with inflation, with the supply chain 
problems, and probably contributing to worker shortage as well, 
because people can't afford to get to work.
    This Administration can no longer have no to everything as 
an energy policy. I remind you, as I did last time, you can sit 
here and say we are doing all this for climate change. You know 
what? During the Trump administration emissions went down an 
average of 2.5 percent a year. During the Biden administration 
they have gone up 6.3 percent.
    You can talk about production levels, and I am well aware. 
And as I stated at the beginning--sorry for taking your talking 
points--yes, production has gone up. But because of the lead 
time, everything that is happening in regard to domestic energy 
production is because of what the Trump administration did. 
Under your administration, or under the Biden administration, 
we have seen a significant drop in the approval of production. 
We have seen a significant drop in the approval of APDs.
    And as a matter of fact, just to put another finer point on 
it, if you look at bonus bids, which, as you know, is the 
auction bid that is provided at the beginning of a lease sale, 
the immediate payment that is made in the auction, do you know 
that those have gone down more than--right now, under this 
administration, they are less than one-tenth the revenue that 
was generated under the previous administration? Less than one-
tenth, despite the fact that energy prices are at record 
levels. That gives you some indication of how flawed these 
energy policies are. And for my home state, that is hurricane 
protection funding, coastal restoration funding, preventing 
additional disasters in FEMA funds.
    ``No'' is not an energy policy. This Administration is 
solely responsible for the disasters we are experiencing now, 
and I urge you to take that message back. Don't sink with this 
ship.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. The gentleman yields back, and I don't 
believe there are any other further questions or dramatic 
entrances and exits, but Mr. Feldgus, the one question for 
information, and perhaps the Ranking Member needs it as well, 
and I will encourage Members to send you specific questions and 
we hope for a written response. The one question that I would 
like to ask for the record, there has been discussion about all 
the permits that are out there that are not being used. Fine. 
Whatever that number is, 9,000. I would like to see where 
principal ownership of those permits exists, in terms of the 
companies that are holding onto them. And then we--as a 
comparison, contrast with the crocodile tears that we are 
hearing from industry and from Members in terms of this issue. 
So, if you would, do that.
    I appreciated in your testimony that fact and science is 
going to drive this discussion. I appreciate the working group. 
There are balances to be reached here. But one of the premises 
has to be that this industry has to play by the rules, whether 
I object--those rules, I think, need to be strengthened down 
the road. But at this point the rules have to be.
    And I find it ironic that states can charge on state land 
for hardrock extraction, but the Federal Government next door, 
same piece of land essentially, can't.
    With that, let me thank you and wish you the best. And you 
are not a sacrificial lamb, you are a lion. Bye, thank you.
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grijalva. Our next panel is up, and we will give them a 
little time to get situated, and then we will begin with that 
part of it.
    Let me welcome the next panel and the witnesses. As I 
introduce the second panel, let me begin by welcoming you all 
here, thanking you very much for your time, and let me now 
recognize and introduce President Jeffrey Stiffarm from the 
Fort Belknap Indian Community.
    It is good to see you again, sir, and welcome. The floor is 
yours.

 STATEMENT OF JEFFREY STIFFARM, PRESIDENT, FORT BELKNAP INDIAN 
                   COMMUNITY, HARLEM, MONTANA

    Mr. Stiffarm. Good morning, everyone. I appreciate this 
time to be here to speak about a very important matter. And I 
would like to thank the Chair and the Committee members for 
inviting me here to speak on behalf of my people.
    I come from the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, the home 
of the A'aninin and Nakoda people. I am currently the Tribal 
President there, and I am here to speak on behalf of our 
people. I am here to testify on the urgent need for mining 
reform and hardrock mining.
    Fort Belknap has been affected by a lack of laws pertaining 
to hardrock mining. As some of you might know, the Little Rocky 
Mountains on the southern end of our reservation--our people 
call them the fur caps--had an open pit cyanide heap leach pad 
mining for 20+ years. It was called the Zortman Landusky Mine, 
and it was experimental, the first cyanide heap leach mine in 
the world. And it was owned by Pegasus Mining.
    And while that was going on there were a lot of findings of 
acid drainage leaking into the reservation, but that didn't 
matter. They were allowed to get more permits and expand their 
mining up to 1,200 acres, even though cyanide was leaking into 
the Fort Belknap's water and groundwater. There were no rules 
in place to hold the Zortman Landusky Mines accountable, or 
Pegasus.
    As the contamination went on and Fort Belknap started 
filing lawsuits, the state started taking notice. Pegasus Mine 
declared bankruptcy and left, and they left the cleanup to the 
state and the Federal Government, which cost around $3-$4 
million a year, currently, to help filter clean water down onto 
our side of the reservation and into the Towns of Zortman and 
Landusky.
    And it is perpetual. So, the taxpayers are responsible for 
these miners' mistakes that they have done, because there were 
no rules in place to hold them accountable for what they did. 
And our people will suffer forever for this.
    Where Zortman and Landusky is currently mining, it was 
called the Grinnell Notch. That was part of our reservation 
that was forcibly taken from us by the Federal Government. They 
starved our people out to sign the agreement to turn that land 
over to them.
    I have some pictures here, if you can zoom in your camera. 
On this picture I am showing you here, in the background, right 
here where my fingers are, that is our Sundance grounds. That 
is like our cathedral, where we sacrifice ourselves in prayer 
and song and dance to suffer for our people. And as you can see 
below here, this orange, those are acid tailings running right 
through our Sundance grounds.
    My question to you is, would you like that running right 
next to your church, right next to your cathedral? I don't 
think so.
    One other thing I would like to add is our people are 
second-class citizens to the Federal Government and have always 
been treated that way. We are not opposed to mining. We are 
opposed to what they have done to our people, what they have 
done to other communities, and what they are continuing to do 
because of no accountability, no rules. We are just 
dissatisfied.
    And we would like to thank you guys again for allowing us 
to say a few words on behalf of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community and the A'aninin and Nakoda people.
    [Speaking Native language.] I am open for questions now.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stiffarm follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Stiffarm, Fort Belknap Indian Community 
                               President
I. INTRODUCTION

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the urgent need for mining reform. My name is 
Jeffrey Stiffarm, and I am the President of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community in Central Montana. I'd like to talk a little about how hard 
rock mining has devastated the Fort Belknap Reservation to illustrate 
the vital need for better mining laws to prevent what happened to my 
people.
II. HISTORY OF MINING IN THE LITTLE ROCKY MOUNTAINS

    The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation is home to the Gros Ventre and 
Assiniboine Tribes. Our Reservation was established and set aside for 
the Tribes' use by an Act of Congress in 1888.\1\ At that time, the 
Tribes received assurances from the U.S. Government that we would 
retain our rights to all water necessary to fulfill the purposes of the 
Reservation, including waters originating in the Little Rocky Mountains 
that Tribal members used for irrigation, domestic supplies, and other 
purposes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 25 Stat. 113 (May 1, 1888).
    \2\ See Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801, 804-05 
(9th Cir. 2006); see also Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 567, 
576 (1908) (recognizing Tribes' right to all waters flowing to and 
entering Reservation lands, ``undiminished in quantity and 
undeteriorated in quality'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The original Fort Belknap Reservation included the Little Rocky 
Mountains, which to this day are the headwaters for much of our water 
resources. The Little Rocky Mountains are considered sacred by Tribal 
members, and were traditionally used by the Tribes for hunting, 
fishing, cultural, and spiritual purposes. This land, and especially 
the Little Rockies, are the foundation of our cultural practices, 
including fasting, prayer, and spiritual communion as well as home to 
many of our sacred sites and cultural practices.
    But when gold was discovered in the Little Rockies in the 1880s, 
the federal government pressured our Tribes to cede the gold-bearing 
areas of the Reservation to the United States. Congress carved out the 
Little Rocky Mountains from the Reservation's boundaries in 1896.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 29 Stat. 350 (1896).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then in the late 1970s, new mining technologies and a sharp rise in 
the price of gold resulted in the development of open pit mining 
operations at the Zortman and Landusky mines in the Little Rockies.\4\ 
These modern mines were operated under BLM-approved Plans of Operations 
from 1981-2003.\5\ The mines used cyanide solution to extract 
microscopic particles of gold from the ore. During that time, state and 
Federal agencies approved numerous expansions of the mines. At its 
largest, the mining complex covered over 1,200 acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Gros Ventre Tribe, 469 F.3d at 805.
    \5\ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Action Memorandum for Water 
Management at the Zortman And Landusky Mines, Non Time-Critical Removal 
Actions, Malta Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phillips 
County, Montana. September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. THE CONTAMINATION

    The Zortman and Landusky mine sites are surrounded on three sides 
by the Fort Belknap Reservation and sit at the headwaters for many 
creeks, that eventually flow through the Reservation.
    Heap leaching at the Zortman-Landusky mines exposed significant 
portions of rock containing sulfides to water and air, which resulted 
in acid mine drainage. Among other impacts, mining operations at 
Zortman-Landusky diverted stream flows away from the Reservation and 
contaminated multiple streams running onto the Reservation.
    In fact, the Fort Belknap Indian Community is facing permanent 
surface and groundwater contamination and continues to suffer from 
multiple devastating and lasting harms to the Tribes' beneficial uses, 
including impairment of drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, 
recreation, agricultural, and industrial uses.\6\ Acid mine drainage 
has likewise resulted in public health risks and continues to threaten 
the Tribes' powwow grounds, ceremonial and sacred sites, including 
other areas of cultural significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Landusky Metals 
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan, 
March 2012, Available at: https://deq.mt.gov/files/water/wqpb/CWAIC/
TMDL/M31-TMDL-01a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. CONTINUED CONTAMINATION AND THREATS FROM NEW MINING

    The mining stopped, but acid mine drainage and other contaminants 
such as cyanide, selenium and nitrates from the mines continues to 
pollute the water surrounding the mines. As stated by the U.S. District 
Court for Montana, ``[i]t is undisputed that the Zortman-Landusky mines 
have devastated portions of the Little Rockies, and will have effects 
on the surrounding area, including the Fort Belknap Reservation, for 
generations. That devastation, and the resulting impact on tribal 
culture, cannot be overstated.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Gros Ventre Tribe, et al. v. United States, et al., No. CV 00-
69-M-DWM, slip op. at 12 (D. Mont. June 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the mine operator declared bankruptcy at Zortman-Landusky, 
the mine was designated a CERCLA site in the early 2000s.\8\ State and 
federal agencies contributed tens of millions of dollars to reclamation 
and water treatment at the site.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Action Memorandum for Zortman 
and Landusky Mines Time-Critical Removal, Operable Unit 1 & Operable 
Unit 2, Malta Field Office, June 2004.
    \9\ U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 
Proposed Zortman-landusky Withdrawal, April 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the midst of this toxic legacy, mining interests continue to 
target the area. Just last year, we were forced to challenge the 
issuance of a mining exploration license upstream from the Reservation 
by a mining company who was recently cited for exploring without a 
permit.\10\ And while the BLM has temporarily withdrawn certain federal 
public lands in the Little Rockies from new mining, a recent 2-day 
lapse in that protection resulted in several new mining claims being 
staked within the Zortman Landusky Reclamation Area \11\--jeopardizing 
the enormous investment in existing and ongoing reclamation work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Montana DEQ, Violation Letter #VLHRM20220330-00071 to Luke 
Ployhar/Blue Arc LLC, April 1, 2022 (The Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality recently issued notices of violations against 
Luke Ployhar/Blue Arc LLC for allegedly conducting exploration and 
mining activities at seven locations in Township 25N, Range 25E, 
Section 7 without a permit. The disturbance associated with these 
unpermitted and unbonded mining activities contributes further to the 
degradation of the reclamation efforts in the Zortman Landusky 
Reclamation Area.)
    \11\ Specifically, reclamation efforts within the Zortman-Landusky 
Reclamation Area were jeopardized by the Department of Interior's 
failure to maintain the mineral withdrawal protections between the 
expiration of PLO 7464 on October 4, 2020 and the segregation of lands 
under this proposed mineral withdrawal on October 7, 2020. This 48-hour 
lapse in protection allowed 10 mining claims to be staked on October 5, 
2020 by Luke Ployhar/Blue Arc LLC on BLM lands within the mineral 
withdrawal boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a public safety threat of the highest magnitude. We must 
and will remain vigilant to protect our land and our people from the 
harmful impacts of hard rock mining. I should add we spend significant 
time and resources working to protect our communities and our natural 
and cultural resources despite insufficient public safety funding from 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    Future mining at the site not only threatens the health and welfare 
of tribal members, it threatens to further desecrate sacred tribal 
land, including the potential to disturb the graves of relatives and 
ancestors of tribal members.
V. CLOSING THOUGHTS

    You have heard our story and I ask you to consider how you would 
feel if this was going on in your communities. How hard would you work 
to make essential updates to hard rock mining laws and regulations if 
your water were flowing orange from acid mine drainage?
    Reform of U.S. mining laws must include meaningful consultation 
with Tribes and also the ability to say ``no'' to mines that would harm 
other important land uses.
    The Fort Belknap Tribes appreciate the opportunity to testify today 
on urgency of reforming mining laws and regulations.
VI. PRESIDENT STIFFARM'S PRESS QUOTE IN FULL

    The Fort Belknap Indian Community Supports House Natural Resources 
Chairman Grijalva's Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act. Reforming the 
Mining Law of 1872 is long overdue. The Fort Belknap Indian Community 
has been directly affected by mining atrocities and to this day, 
suffers the effects and is having to react and remediate the damage 
allowed by outdated and loosely translated mining laws. The Fort 
Belknap Indian Community is facing permanent surface and groundwater 
contamination from decades of hard rock mining in the Little Rocky 
Mountains on and adjacent to the Fort Belknap Reservation and continues 
to suffer from multiple devastating and lasting harms to the Tribes' 
beneficial uses, including impairment of drinking water, fish and 
wildlife habitat, recreation, agricultural, and industrial uses. Acid 
mine drainage has likewise resulted in public health risks and 
continues to threaten the Tribes' powwow grounds, ceremonial and sacred 
sites, including other areas of cultural significance. Negative 
environmental impacts are exacerbated by these outdated laws. All 
people, all governments, all environmental forums will benefit by 
updated and standardized laws. The Fort Belknap Indian Community is 
very supportive of the new legislation that helps to protect our sacred 
sites and requires meaningful tribal consultation prior to permitting 
activities that impacts our lands.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let me 
now invite Mr. James Chen, Vice President of Public Policy at 
Rivian Automotive.
    Sir, the time is yours.

 STATEMENT OF JAMES C. CHEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, 
             RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Chen. Thank you very much and good morning, Chairman 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Herrell, and distinguished members of 
the Committee. Thank you for the honor of appearing before you 
today for this important hearing to discuss ways to modernize 
our domestic mining laws in the United States.
    As noted, my name is James Chen, and I am the Vice 
President of Public Policy and Chief Regulatory Counsel for 
Rivian Automotive LLC.
    We have already provided more extensive written comments to 
the Committee for the record. My testimony today will be a 
brief summary of the main points of those written comments.
    Founded in 2009, Rivian is an independent U.S. company 
focused on the mission to keep the world adventurous forever 
through the design, development, manufacture, and distribution 
of class-leading, all-electric trucks and sport utility 
vehicles. Rivian currently produces three vehicles in the 
United States--the R1T pickup, the R1S SUV, and the Amazon 
delivery van named the EDV--all at our manufacturing facility 
in Normal, Illinois.
    Acquired in 2017 from Mitsubishi after they closed this 
facility in 2016, Rivian has invested nearly $2 billion to 
revitalize and transform the factory into a modern, high-tech 
manufacturing facility that employs nearly 5,000 employees in 
direct manufacturing jobs. Our growth at this plant continues, 
and we have plans to hire even more workers and add a second 
shift later this year.
    The R1T, our flagship vehicle, is the first all-electric 
pickup truck available in the U.S. market and has won numerous 
awards and accolades, including being named Motor Trend's 2022 
Truck of the Year. With a 0 to 60 time as little as 3 seconds, 
towing capability of 11,000 pounds, payload capacity of over 
1,700 pounds, and a quad motor design for the ultimate in 
torque vectoring, stability, and traction control, the R1T is a 
shining example of American ingenuity and American production. 
In fact, the R1T was recently named the Coolest Thing Made in 
Illinois by the Illinois Manufacturers Association.
    Rivian was formed to help drive the transition to 
sustainable transportation, developed and manufactured in the 
United States in order to protect our planet for future 
generations. Our mission to keep the world adventurous forever 
extends beyond the impact of the products we build. As such, 
our commitments go as well toward decarbonizing our business 
and responsibly sourcing the components and elements that go 
into our vehicles: complementary and necessary work that is 
required to address the climate crisis.
    The battery is one of the most important components in the 
electric vehicle, and it accounts for a vast majority of the 
electric vehicle supply chain. A battery's raw materials, their 
processed derivatives, and the assembled cells themselves still 
largely exists outside U.S. borders. But with targeted 
policies, we enable an accelerated transition to a carbon 
neutral, circular domestic economy that is far more sustainable 
and secure in the long run.
    Rivian is doing its part to create a strong, reliable, and 
transparent American battery supply chain, investing billions 
in manufacturing operations in Illinois, as mentioned, and 
soon, as well, in Georgia, working closely with domestic 
suppliers and others from allied nations and investing into 
early, in-house development of new battery technology.
    By modernizing its mining laws and securing the battery and 
EV supply chain, the United States has an opportunity to lead 
the world, ensure the global mineral race does not become a 
race to the bottom. The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act can 
help expand and accelerate domestic mineral development, while 
also conforming to our bedrock environmental laws and 
protecting special places like our national parks and 
monuments.
    The bill also recognizes the impacts to rural communities 
and Tribal Nations. A majority of the U.S. nickel, lithium, 
copper, and cobalt reserves are located on or near tribal land. 
So, tribal consultation is essential to any update to our 
domestic mining laws.
    The United States has the allies, the resources, and 
industrial capability to create a strong and safe domestic 
mineral supply chain. Lithium ion technology was developed and 
modern electric vehicles were commercially proven in the United 
States. America has consistently been a global leader in 
transportation technology. Let's not cede that leadership to 
foreign powers. Given the potential long-term security risks of 
having a weak domestic mineral supply chain, the Federal 
Government must put into place laws and policies that support 
responsible mineral development and extraction, as well as 
encouraging domestic supply.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I 
look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Chen follows:]
 Prepared Statement of James C. Chen, Vice President of Public Policy, 
                         Rivian Automotive, LLC
    Chairman Lowenthal, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Stauber, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the honor of 
appearing before you today for this important hearing to discuss ways 
modernize our domestic mining laws in the United States.
    My name is James Chen and I am the Vice President of Public Policy 
and Chief Regulatory Counsel for Rivian Automotive, LLC.
Rivian Background

    Founded in 2009, Rivian is an independent U.S. company focused on 
the mission to ``Keep the World Adventurous Forever'' through the 
design, development, manufacture and distribution of class leading all 
electric trucks and sport utility vehicles (``SUVs''). In 2017, the 
company acquired the former Mitsubishi production plant in the town of 
Normal, Illinois. Originally slated to be torn down and repurposed for 
mixed use residential and commercial, Rivian has invested nearly $2 
billion to revitalize the plant into a modern, high-tech manufacturing 
facility. Employing nearly 5,000 employees in direct manufacturing 
jobs, Rivian is now producing three all electric vehicle models in 
Normal: the R1T, pickup truck, the R1S full-size SUV, and a commercial 
delivery van for Amazon. The R1T, our flagship vehicle, is the first 
all-electric pickup available in the U.S. market and has won numerous 
awards and accolades, including being named MotorTrend's 2022 Truck of 
the Year.
    Following the successful debut of our three vehicles in 2021 and an 
Initial Public Offering (``IPO'') that same quarter that raised 
approximately $12 billion, Rivian is now focused on ramping up 
production at our plant in Normal, Illinois, as well as beginning 
construction on a second domestic manufacturing site in Georgia. Rivian 
is also making significant investments into our next-generation vehicle 
platforms and in-vehicle technologies which include a range of new 
battery packs with new chemistries that are made with more common 
elements, greater efficiency, and are best suited for different types 
of vehicles and driving patterns.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rivian Q4 2021 Shareholder letter. Rivian, Mar. 10, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rivian was formed to help drive the transition to sustainable 
transportation and protect our planet for future generations. Our 
mission to ``Keep The World Adventurous Forever'' extends beyond the 
impact of the products we build. Our goal is to lead the sustainable 
transformation of the automotive and energy sectors, and preserve 
natural ecosystems that provide the backbone for life on this planet. 
As such, we have committed to both decarbonizing our business and 
helping to protect critical natural carbon sinks--complementary and 
necessary work that is required to address the climate crisis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Rivian Comment to U.S. Department of Interior request for 
information on the American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas and 
America the Beautiful Initiative, US Federal Register, March 7, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The battery is one of the most important components of an EV, and 
accounts for a vast majority of the EV supply chain. A battery's raw 
materials, their processed derivatives, and the assembled cells 
themselves--still largely exists outside U.S. borders. With targeted 
policies, we believe this supply chain imbalance can be corrected and 
enable an accelerated transition to a carbon-neutral, circular economy 
that is far more sustainable in the long run than the fossil fuel, one-
time-use combustion-based economy we still largely have today.
    Rivian is doing its part to help create a strong, reliable, and 
transparent American battery supply chain, investing billions in 
manufacturing operations in Illinois and Georgia, working closely with 
domestic suppliers and others from allied nations, and investing early 
into in-house development of new battery technology. By modernizing its 
mining laws and securing its battery and EV supply chain, the United 
States has an opportunity to lead the world, ensuring the global 
mineral race does not become a race to the bottom.
    For these reasons, we are encouraged by the discussion that this 
bill has sparked today. The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act can help 
expand and accelerate domestic mineral development while also 
conforming to our bedrock environmental laws and protecting special 
places like our National Parks and Monuments.
    This bill also recognizes the impacts to rural communities and 
tribal nations. A majority of U.S. nickel, lithium, copper and cobalt 
reserves are located on or near tribal land,\3\ so tribal consultation 
in the form of free prior and informed consent must be central to any 
update to our domestic mining laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Mining Energy-Transition Metals: National Aims, Local 
Conflicts, MSCI ESG consulting, June 3, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EV Industry Outlook

    The outlook for EVs is strong and positive. Demand for electric 
vehicles, particularly trucks, SUVs and delivery vans is increasing. 
For example, Rivian has pre-orders for approximately 80,000 R1T and R1S 
vehicles. Our contract with Amazon includes an order for 100,000 EDVs 
by 2030, the largest ever commercial fleet contract. Moreover, other 
fleet operators have expressed strong interest in all electric delivery 
vans as well. Demand is not an issue as we ramp up our production as 
quickly as possible.
    The convergence of key trends, including shifting consumer 
preferences and targeted regulatory support, is contributing to the 
robust demand for Rivian products and services. EV adoption is 
accelerating as consumers and businesses better understand the benefits 
of EVs. Businesses, from auto companies to the mining industry, are 
responding to this demand to develop sustainable solutions. As a brand 
built on sustainability, we aspire to develop strong working 
relationships with all our upstream suppliers, including mining 
companies.
    Though EV adoption rates in the United States have nearly doubled 
over the past couple years,\4\ EVs still only comprised 3.4 percent of 
new auto sales in the U.S. 2021.\5\ Other countries, particularly in 
Europe and Asia, are seeing higher rates of EV adoption,\6\ and 
European and Asian auto manufacturers are quickly taking market share. 
The United States has always been a global automotive leader. Failure 
to employ a whole-of-government approach to securing a full domestic EV 
supply chain--from manufacturing to processing to extraction--risks 
ceding leadership to other nations. But as we did with oil in the 20th 
century, we can lead on minerals in the 21st century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ New Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales in the United States Nearly 
Doubled from 2020 to 2021, U.S. Department of Energy. Mar. 1, 2022.
    \5\ Electric vehicles and hybrids surpass 10% of U.S. light-duty 
vehicle sales, US Energy Information Administration. Feb. 9. 2022.
    \6\ Electric cars fend off supply challenges to more than double 
global sales, International Energy Administration. Jan. 30, 2022.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.001


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.epsUpdating the 1872 Mining Law

    As a Company that relies on the mining of critical minerals for our 
products, Rivian recognizes our business has an upstream impact on 
communities and ecosystems. As a result, we are actively seeking ways 
to minimize that impact wherever possible, while still leading in the 
areas of transportation and energy technology. We are also acutely 
aware of the fact that mineral extraction needs to be placed in the 
context of local community well-being and ecosystem fragility and 
importance. Some places should have a level of permanent protection and 
specifically prohibit, or limit harmful extractive uses. Those 
decisions should be made within a modern framework.
    Rivian supports updating our domestic mining law for the 21st 
century. The planning, protection and consultation elements of this 
bill will allow the United States to expand and lead in mineral 
resource procurement while still adhering to our bedrock environmental 
laws and protecting America's special places. The United States has 
such strong environmental laws that we could have the cleanest and 
safest mines in the world.
    We also recognize that domestic mineral development needs to 
accelerate in the near term, and that the mining sector remains 
concerned about potentially punitive gross royalties and permitting 
timelines. Permitting can be done in a more efficient and coordinated 
way within current frameworks and future conflicts and slowdowns could 
be avoided through thoughtful reform. We agree with mining industry 
calls to ``focus on how to restore U.S. mining's competitiveness on the 
global stage, decrease our import reliance, and ensure that existing 
federal and state regulations are not duplicated.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ White House push to reform mining law draws skepticism from 
opponents, advocates, S&P Global, Feb. 25, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We must also look for new and better ways to obtain critical 
minerals and rare earth elements. American ingenuity and innovation are 
already happening in this space (e.g., mineral coproduction from 
geothermal brine and rare earth element recovery from abandoned mines). 
Not only could these novel methods of mineral extraction create new 
economic opportunities across America, they can also help rectify the 
environmental legacies of mining in the 19th and 20th centuries. 
Further consideration should be given to permitting around activity to 
reclaim rare earth elements and other minerals from brownfields and 
abandoned mines.
    The federal government is making progress to address these issues 
in bipartisan fashion. The Biden Administration has taken early steps 
to address these issues, issuing Executive Orders to shore up our 
domestic supply chains and invoking the Defense Production Act for 
critical minerals. Rivian is a participant on the State Department's 
Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee, an effort that has carried 
over from the previous Administration that we see as a signal of 
bipartisan support for securing mineral supplies beyond our borders.\8\ 
There is also a strong spirit of bipartisanship that helped push 
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act last year and the 
Energy Policy Act of 2020, bills that funding for mineral processing 
and battery manufacturing. We can build on this progress and further 
enhance domestic mineral security by modernizing the law that governs 
the highest reaches of the supply chain--extraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Inaugural Meeting of the Clean Energy Resources Advisory 
Committee, U.S. Department of State, Mar. 18, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A balance needs to be struck between catalyzing domestic 
development in the near term and ensuring taxpayers, tribes and local 
communities will receive fair returns on minerals extracted from public 
lands around them. Ultimately, funds from the proceeds should be set 
aside for cleanup and conservation.
    This bill uses the oil and gas sector as a model, where domestic 
oil and gas developers adhere to a leasing and royalty system, and 
still have helped the United States become one of the largest producers 
in the world.\9\ Offshore oil royalties go into the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, which has protected thousands of acres across the 
country and was recently permanently funded by a bipartisan act of 
Congress--the Great American Outdoors Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ What countries are the top producers and consumers of oil?, 
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Dec. 8, 2021.
    \10\ About LWCF, LWCF Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of course, the economics for oil and gas are different than mining, 
but other countries like Canada and Australia show what's possible. 
These mineral-rich countries have robust mining sectors that exist 
within sophisticated royalty and permitting systems. Canadian and 
Australian mines generate billions in annual tax and royalty revenues 
for their governments each year,\11\,\12\ demonstrating that 
having modern mining laws does not hinder domestic mineral development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Minerals and the economy, Government of Canada, Feb. 3, 2022.
    \12\ Australian mining contributes record tax and royalty payments 
to fund better services and infrastructure, Minerals Council of 
Australia, May 17, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The goal to strengthen our mineral supply chain by accelerating 
domestic extraction must also include expansion in our midstream 
capacity as well. Mineral recovery from abandoned mines could help 
provide early feedstock to get new domestic processing facilities while 
new mines come online. By ensuring that the processing and refining of 
the raw materials that get extracted also remains domestic, we will 
ensure supply chain security that would otherwise be vulnerable to 
foreign influence if domestically sourced minerals still needed to be 
shipped overseas for processing.
Greater United States Leadership is Needed

    More than ever, the United States must lead in the area of new 
transportation technology. Lithium-ion battery technology was invented 
by U.S. physicist John Goodenough, now at the University of Texas, 
Austin. Modern use of this battery technology in cars was introduced by 
the founders of Tesla Motors, Inc., California-based company that 
proved that long-range, highway capable, battery electric vehicles were 
not only possible, but in many respects, superior to the incumbent 
technology of internal combustion engines in terms of performance, 
efficiency, and utility.
    The United States simply cannot let this technology that was 
discovered and commercially proven here at home to be dominated by 
other countries. We have already seen the dangers of allowing foreign 
countries dominate an industry. For example, around 90 percent of rare 
earth minerals are produced exclusively in China. In the early part of 
this decade, China sent world markets roiling when it drastically 
reduced the allowed export of rare earth minerals. With rare earth 
minerals used in critical industries as computer memory, rechargeable 
batteries, cell phones, air pollution control, magnets, fluorescent 
lighting; and critical defense uses such as precision-guided weapons, 
night vision goggles, communications equipment, and GPS equipment, 
restriction of this resource was a substantial threat to the U.S.' 
security and economy. Such foreign dominance cannot be allowed when it 
comes to new transportation technology.
    In addition to historically being a global leader in automotive 
manufacturing and EV technology, the United States is also a leader in 
environmental conservation. Our National Parks are often called 
``America's Best Idea'' and our bedrock environmental laws like the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the 
National Environmental Policy Act set a high bar for environmental 
standards among nations.
    The United States has the allies, resources, and industrial 
capability to create a robust domestic mineral supply chain, as well as 
high environmental standards to ensure it is built and operated 
ethically and responsibly.

    Given the national, economic, and climate security risks associated 
with the current global mineral supply chain, the federal government 
must take an ``all-of-the-above'' approach. Updating our mining laws is 
one piece of that, but it must be complemented with a broader suite of 
domestic and international policy that would allow U.S. manufacturers 
to move fast in scaling up their production and securing their supply 
chains.

     Accelerate EV Adoption. Greater domestic demand for EVs 
            will drive innovation and support domestic manufacturers' 
            efforts to onshore their supply chains. The federal 
            consumer EV tax credit should be expanded without 
            unnecessary limitations that hold American manufacturers 
            back from advancing the technology. The federal government 
            could also create exceptions to state dealership protection 
            laws,\13\ which remain one of the biggest barriers to EV 
            adoption in the US,\14\ and avoid setting punitive EV fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ How China Beat the U.S. in Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, 
Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2021.
    \14\ The Simplest Way to Sell More Electric Cars in America, The 
Atlantic, Jan. 21, 2022.

     Deploy federal funding in a more targeted and efficient 
            manner. The DOE Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
            loan program is well funded and expanded in scope, but it 
            comes with administrative burdens that discourage potential 
            applicants. The program can strike a better balance between 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            holding loan holders accountable and not being burdensome.

     Shore up allies and create new ones. The United States 
            must leverage its massive diplomatic and trade potential to 
            further open global supply chains for both raw materials 
            and talent. The International Development Finance 
            Corporation could better coordinate on securing mineral 
            supply chains. The State Department can begin 
            reinvigorating American diplomatic efforts in Asia, Africa, 
            and South America.

     Update laws that regulate battery waste. As EVs 
            proliferate on U.S. roads, they become a strategic reserve 
            of minerals that can be collected and recycled later on. 
            The more we recycle, the less we will need to rely on 
            domestic extraction. Congress can set standards while also 
            maintaining flexibilities to suit the needs of a broad 
            range of battery types, sizes, weights, applications, and 
            users. Federal action should ensure industry is not beset 
            with multiple duplicative state programs and also involve 
            waste management companies.

     Streamline EV test procedures. The Environmental 
            Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of 
            Transportation (DOT) could further streamline test 
            procedures initially created for internal combustion engine 
            vehicles. This could include broader groupings of EVs 
            certified in the same test group to more use of modeling in 
            range and consumption testing.

     Streamline federal fleet requirements for EVs. To purchase 
            vehicles directly from a manufacturer, federal agency fleet 
            managers must go through the General Services 
            Administration (GSA) or else face burdensome paperwork. The 
            federal fleet procurement process could be streamlined, 
            either through GSA or allowing agencies to purchase 
            directly from a manufacturer.

     Accelerate visas for engineers who want to help build the 
            EV industry here in the United States. Rivian has brought 
            together key talent from around the world, specializing in 
            automotive and aerospace engineering, semiconductor design, 
            consumer electronics, and cloud software. The federal 
            government should not stand in the way of people with 
            exceptional talent who want to help build the future in 
            America.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look 
forward to your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. James Chen, Vice President of 
                 Public Policy, Rivian Automotive, LLC
             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
    Question 1. During an April hearing on EV minerals supply chains in 
the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations 
and Oversight, your colleague Chris Nevers, Senior Director of Public 
Policy for Rivian was asked to expand on how we should change U.S. mine 
permitting to help meet minerals demand for electric vehicle batteries. 
One of his recommendations was that Mining Law should be reformed in a 
way that supports ``conflict avoidance and permitting efficiency . . . 
that protects special places while still expanding our domestic 
resources and manufacturing capacity.''

    (1a). What improvements would create permitting efficiencies to 
ultimately ensure adequate minerals supplies to meet your company's 
future demands and that also reduce our outsize reliance on foreign 
sources of minerals, some with less stringent environmental and labor 
standards?

    Answer. Rivian supports increasing domestic mineral production, but 
not at the expense of our special places, health of Indigenous and 
rural communities and bedrock environmental laws.
    With thoughtful collaboration between policymakers, industry, 
public interest groups, tribes and local communities, the United States 
can have the cleanest and safest mines in the world.
    We agree that permitting could be done more efficiently under 
current law with better coordination between federal agencies and 
states to avoid duplicative processes. We support the provisions 
included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the goals and 
principles of the President's interagency working group to do that.
    We believe that making decisions about appropriate places to mine 
at the front end of the process would increase permit certainty, and 
that will occur under proposals such as the House and Senate versions 
of the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, which will give land 
management agencies the ability to consider the appropriate use for our 
lands at the beginning of the process.
    Another factor contributing to permitting inefficiency is the 
shortage of agency staff who oversees those processes. As Trout 
Unlimited wrote in their testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee last fall, ``natural resource management agencies 
need staff to conduct timely environmental reviews, thorough permitting 
processes, and appropriate monitoring and mitigation. For instance, 
since 1995 the Forest Service has experienced a near 40 percent decline 
in non-fire personnel. That means fewer biologists, fewer engineers, 
fewer hydrologists, less community involvement, and fewer professionals 
available to ensure mining is done in a way that is compatible with 
other demands on our public lands.''
    We encourage Congress to find a middle path forward, one that 
ensures the global mineral race does not become a race to the bottom.

    Question 2. According to a Feb. 2022 New York Times article, Rivian 
is struggling to fulfill orders due to supply chain disruptions for raw 
materials. In fact, customers that paid $1,000 down payments for both 
the R1T and the R1S were initially told that the truck would arrive in 
March or April this spring, but have now pushed those times out to the 
first half of 2023.

    (2a). H.R. 7580 among other things, increases permitting timelines 
by adding additional requirements. Why are you supporting legislation 
that makes it more difficult for you to deliver your product by the 
timelines you promised to your customers?

    Answer. Rivian supports modernizing the 1872 Mining Law for the 
21st century, and increasing our domestic mineral production and 
processing capacity.
    Rivian is not alone in dealing with supply chain constraints this 
year. The entire U.S. auto industry--and advanced manufacturing sectors 
more generally--are experiencing supply chain constraints due to 
numerous factors, including ripple effects from the global COVID-19 
pandemic, historic inflation, rising transportation costs, and 
logistics disruptions.
    Rivian is in business to build the kind of future our kids and our 
kids' kids deserve. As such, we take a long view on how we are building 
our business, sourcing materials over the long term, and making sure we 
do so in the most efficient but responsible way. With that, we firmly 
believe that we need to modernize the 1872 Mining Law to ensure that 
our mining industry leads in long-term social and environmental 
responsibility--so our natural world and the services it provides is 
sustained forever regardless of permitting timelines. Once established, 
we then support the continued iteration of permitting processes to 
become more efficient over time.
    We acknowledged in our written testimony the different economics 
governing the mining sector compared to the oil and gas sector, as well 
as concerns from the mining industry around gross royalties. However, 
we believe some level of royalty is appropriate and can be set without 
discouraging new investment--and we have seen the mining industry 
indicate this as well. We pointed to allied nations like Australia and 
Canada that have modern mining laws and still have robust domestic 
mining sectors.
    In our testimony, we recognized the need to strike a balance 
between catalyzing new domestic mining investment in the near term and 
ensuring some portion of future royalties be set aside for reclamation. 
Increasing domestic mineral production and modernizing mining laws are 
not mutually exclusive, and bills like H.R. 7580 would establish a 
framework that supports a responsible path forward for a new era of 
mining in America.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me now recognize Mr. 
Sam Kalen. He is the William T. Schwartz Distinguished 
Professor of Law at the University of Wyoming College of Law.
    Professor, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF SAM KALEN, WILLIAM T. SCHWARTZ DISTINGUISHED 
    PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLEGE OF LAW, 
                        LARAMIE, WYOMING

    Mr. Kalen. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today and offer my views on the Mining Law of 1872. I also 
appreciate the opportunity to appear remotely. My remarks today 
are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
Wyoming College of Law or its employees.
    As the nation's premier public lands scholar, Charles 
Wilkinson so aptly noted the 1872 Mining Law is one of the last 
remnants of what he called a lord of yesterday, anachronistic 
law that remains despite dramatic changes in policy since 
President Grant signed the law roughly 150 years ago.
    With the law's sesquicentennial upon us, this is surely a 
propitious moment to reflect on the urgency of reform as a 
nation confronts how to address its need for clean energy 
minerals. And perhaps one starting point for reflection is how 
the need for mining law reform has been appreciated now for 
well over a century: the subject of my remarks today.
    To begin with, it is worth noting that John Leshy, the 
expert on the mining law, explained roughly 35 years ago that 
the law has remained in perpetual motion for decades, evading 
reform and yet universally acknowledged to be ill-suited to 
modern times.
    Historian Gordon Bakken, while explaining how the mining 
law was designed in the post-Civil War era to regularize and 
confirm mining practices, echoes an assessment by Jared Diamond 
that suggests that this Federal statute, and I quote, ``is 
among the greatest failures of judgment in world history.'' 
That may sound a bit too hyperbolic, but as the former 
Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, testified in 2009, the 
law, unfortunately, according to Interior Secretary Salazar at 
the time, ``despite decade after decade of fights about how it 
is that we should reform the mining law, all of those efforts 
have failed.''
    My written testimony chronicles some of these efforts in 
detail, but a few salient points are worth noting.
    As early as 1880, the Public Land Law Commission suggested 
the need for reform as it identified abuses surrounding the use 
of the 1872 Mining Law during the law's first decade. Then, as 
Congress, from the turn of the century on, began to develop 
policies for other resources on the public lands, it routinely 
rejected the 1872 Mining Law's approach of affording miners of 
hardrock minerals the ability to discover valuable mineral 
deposits on available public lands, and mined those minerals 
without paying any value back to the United States and the 
American people.
    Today, consequently, the mining law stands alone amid the 
host of other natural resource programs that provide at least 
some measure of economic return to the public from the use of 
the nation's public lands. Indeed, as far as I am aware, the 
mining law remains unique worldwide in its failure to employ 
some form of valuation method for lands owned and administered 
by a Federal, State, or provincial government.
    Not surprisingly, therefore, President Roosevelt's Interior 
Secretary in the 1930s called for leasing. The 1950s Paley 
Commission recommended establishing a leasing system. Then 
reforming the old law surfaced as a recommendation of the 1960s 
Public Land Law Review Commission. Interior Secretary Udall in 
1969 lamented how reforming the 1872 law was one of--and I 
quote--``the most important pieces of unfinished business on 
the nation's natural resource agenda.''
    In its 1970 report, One Third of the Nation's Land, the 
Public Land Law Review Commission observed how ``the General 
Mining Law of 1872 has been abused, but even without that 
abuse, it has many deficiencies,'' and recommended a 
combination of elements of the leasing system and ensuring a 
fair return to the United States.
    Reform conversations continued throughout the 1970s, and 
even the U.S. Government Accountability Office, for example, 
carried forward a recommendation for reform in 1979, just to 
name one.
    Today's hearing with the law's sesquicentennial upon us is 
part of a conversation that began back in the 1880s, and one 
that has continued almost unabated since. Reform is undeniably 
now part of the law's heritage, hopefully approaching a 
historic moment toward resolution.
    I want to thank the Committee again for providing me with 
this opportunity to share my thoughts on mining law reform. 
Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kalen follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Professor Sam Kalen, University of Wyoming 
                             College of Law
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to offer my views on 
Reforming the Mining Law of 1872, as it relates to H.R. 7580, the Clean 
Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022. I also appreciate the opportunity 
to appear before you today remotely. My name is Sam Kalen, and I am the 
William T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of law and Associate Dean 
at the Wyoming College of Law. I teach primarily in the field of 
environmental, natural resources, and energy law and have written 
extensively on these subjects.\1\ I also have worked on mining law 
issues for a considerable part of my professional career. My remarks 
today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
Wyoming College of Law or its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Sam Kalen, An 1872 Mining law for the New 
Millennium, 71 Colo. L. Rev. 343 (2000); Sam Kalen, Mining our Future 
Critical Minerals: Does Darkness Await Us?, 51 Envtl. L. Rep. 11006 
(Dec. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As one of the nation's premier public land scholars, Charles 
Wilkinson, so aptly noted, the 1872 Mining Law is one of the last 
remnants of what he called a Lord of Yesterday, an anachronistic law 
that remains despite dramatic changes in policy since President Grant 
signed the Act into law 150 years ago.\2\ With the law's 
sesquicentennial upon us, this is surely a propitious occasion to 
reflect on the urgency of reform--as the nation confronts how to 
address its need for clean energy minerals. And perhaps one starting 
point for reflection is how the need for Mining Law reform has been 
appreciated for well over a century, the principal subject of my 
testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Charles F. Wilkinson, Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, 
and the Future of the West (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To begin with, it's worth noting that John Leshy, the expert on the 
Mining Law, explained roughly 35 years ago that the law has remained in 
perpetual motion for decades, evading reform and yet universally 
acknowledged to be ill-suited to modern times.\3\ Historian Gordon 
Bakken, while explaining how the Mining Law was designed in the post-
Civil War era to regularize and confirm mining practices, echoes an 
assessment by Jared Diamond that suggests that, ``this federal statute 
. . . [is] among the greatest failures of judgment in world history.'' 
\4\ That may sound a bit too hyperbolic, but as former Secretary of the 
Interior Ken Salazar testified in 2009 the law unfortunately, 
``[d]espite decade after decade of fights about how it is that we 
should reform the Mining Law all of those efforts have failed.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ John D. Leshy, The Mining Law: A Study in Perpetual Motion 
(1987).
    \4\ Gordon Morris Bakken, The Mining Law of 1872: Past, Politics 
and Prospects 2 (2008). For another historical account, See Duane A. 
Smith, Mining America: The Industry and the Environment, 1800-1980 
(1987).
    \5\ Mining Law Reform, Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, Receive Testimony on S. 796, Hardrock Mining and 
Reclamation Act of 2009 and S. 140, Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 
2009, U.S. Senate, 111th Cong. (2009) (statement of Ken Salazar, 
Secretary, Department of the Interior).

    These failed efforts, however, should not dissuade Congress from 
crafting a mining law reform package that corresponds to modern 
challenges: recognizing that a green economy may require producing some 
domestic critical minerals, yet only allowing such production to occur 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
if we----

  (a)  abandon the location system that returns no value to the 
            American taxpayers for the use of the Nation's public 
            lands--rather likely costs the American taxpayer--and, 
            instead, replace it with a leasing system that, through 
            market-based royalties and rental fees, ensures a fair 
            return for the use of the Nation's public lands;

  (b)  protect our natural resources and ensure that activities will 
            not result in unnecessary or undue degradation of the 
            public lands--and through a leasing system by only allowing 
            leasing where and when the government can be assured that 
            those values will be protected;

  (c)  engage in meaningful consultations with Tribal Nations and 
            Indigenous peoples to ensure that no activities will be 
            allowed in areas of historic, cultural, or religious 
            significance, or allowed in any area that is otherwise 
            protected or secured by a treaty or other arrangement; and 
            finally

  (d)  address the clean-up of the Nation's public lands from historic 
            mining operations by imposing a fee on mining operations to 
            defray the cost of reclaiming thousands of abandoned mines 
            scattered across the public lands.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ For one report on the issue of cleaning up abandoned mines, see 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Abandoned Hardrock Mines: 
Information On Number Of Mines, Expenditures, And Factors That Limit 
Efforts To Address Hazards (March 2020).

    My attached December 2021 article, Mining our Future Critical 
Minerals: Does Darkness Await Us? \7\, goes into some of these issues 
in a bit more detail and I will not repeat that detail here, but one 
salient point is worth emphasizing. (See: https://www.eli.org/sites/
default/files/files-pdf/51.11006.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See supra note 1.

    The need for mining law reform has been apparent for well over a 
century. As early as 1880, the Public Land Commission suggested the 
need for reform as it identified abuses surrounding the use of the 1872 
Mining Law during just the law's first decade.\8\ Indeed, an initial 
economic justification for allowing the free exploitation of the 
Nation's resources was dubious from the outset.\9\ Then, as Congress 
from the turn of the century on began to develop policies for other 
resources on the public lands, it routinely rejected the 1872 Mining 
Law's approach of affording miners of hardrock minerals the ability to 
discover valuable mineral deposits on available public lands and mine 
those minerals without paying any value back to the U.S. and the 
American people. Today, consequently, the Mining Law stands alone amid 
the host of other natural resource programs that provide at least some 
measure of economic return to the public from the use of the nation's 
public lands. Indeed, as far as I am aware, the Mining Law remains 
unique worldwide in its failure to employ some form of valuation method 
for lands owned and administered by a federal, state, or provincial 
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Report of the Public Lands Commission, Created by the Act of 
March 3, 1879, Relating to the Public Lands in the Western Portion of 
the United States and the Operation of Existing Land Laws xix, H. Exec. 
Doc. No. 46, 46th Cong., 2d Sess. (1880).
    \9\ See Paul W. Gates, with a Chapter by Robert W. Swenson, History 
of Public Land Law Development 717 (1968) (Written for the Public Land 
Law Review Commission). Quite possibly, ``the basic problem with the 
1866 Act [the precursor to the 1872 Act] was that no revenue was 
reserved for the government. It is entirely possible that the mistake 
which the eastern bloc . . . really made was in their conclusion that 
leasing, which had never really been studied by Congress or the 
government, was not workable.'' Id. at 719, 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not surprisingly, therefore, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes in the 
1930s promoted leasing hardrock minerals.\10\ So too, the highly 
regarded 1950s Paley Commission recommended establishing a leasing 
system.\11\ And Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, in 1969, similarly 
recommended abandoning the location system in favor of leasing. ``After 
eight years in office,'' the Secretary lamented, ``I have come to the 
conclusion that the most important piece of unfinished business on the 
nation's natural resource agenda is the complete replacement of the 
Mining Law of 1872'' because its ``deficiencies . . . cannot be 
remedied by tinkering.'' \12\ Reforming the old law surfaced as a 
recommendation of the 1960s Public Land Law Review Commission. In its 
1970 report, One Third of the Nation's Land, it observed how ``[t]he 
General Mining Law of 1872 has been abused, but even without that 
abuse, it has many deficiencies,'' and recommended a combination of 
elements of the leasing system and ensuring a fair return to the United 
States.\13\ When digesting the Commission's work, the New York Times 
reported how ``all mineral interests known to be of value should be 
reserved with exploration and development discretionary in the Federal 
government and a uniform policy adopted relative to all reserved 
mineral interests.'' \14\ Reform conversations continued throughout the 
1970s; \15\ and even the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 
for example, carried forward a recommendation for reform in 1979,\16\ 
just to name one. And mining law reform surfaced as a principal concern 
of Secretary Babbitt, as well, during the 1990s.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Wilkinson, supra note 2, at 318.
    \11\ Leshy, supra note 3, at 301.
    \12\ Id. at 302.
    \13\ Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's 
Land 121-138 (1970).
    \14\ Digest of the Commission's Report and Recommendations on 
Public Land Use, N.Y. Times, June 24, 1970, https://www.nytimes.com/
1970/06/24/archives/digest-of-the-commissions-report-and-
recommendations-on-public-land.html.
    \15\ Leshy, supra note 3, at 304-05.
    \16\ GAO, Mining Law Reform and Balanced Resource Management (1979) 
(EMD-78-93).
    \17\ See Kalen, An 1872 Mining law for the New Millennium, supra 
note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today's hearing, with the law's sesquicentennial upon us, is part 
of a conversation that began back in the 1880s, and one that has 
continued almost unabated since. Reform is undeniably now part of the 
law's heritage--hopefully approaching a historic moment toward 
resolution. I want to thank the Committee again for providing me with 
this opportunity to share my thoughts on Mining Law Reform.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me now recognize our 
final witness.
    Ms. Debra Struhsacker is an environmental permitting and 
government relations consultant, and co-founder and director of 
the Women's Mining Coalition.
    Ms. Struhsacker, you are recognized. Thank you.

   STATEMENT OF DEBRA STRUHSACKER, ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING & 
   GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CONSULTANT, CO-FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, 
             WOMEN'S MINING COALITION, RENO, NEVADA

    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 
Member Herrell. I very much appreciate the opportunity to 
testify today on behalf of the Women's Mining Coalition.
    Members of the Subcommittee, the United States is standing 
at a minerals crossroad. Either we can produce minerals from 
domestic mines, which are the cleanest and safest mines in the 
world, or we can import minerals from our adversaries, ignoring 
Chairman Manchin's warning that Russia and China will weaponize 
critical minerals against us, jeopardize our national security 
and economy, and thwart the transition to clean energy.
    And enacting H.R. 7580 will put Russia and China in charge 
of our future. Please don't be fooled by the bill's title, the 
``Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.'' This bill will not 
promote responsible development of critical minerals, because 
it is designed to restrict mining on Federal lands for all 
minerals, including the lithium, rare earths, antimony, cobalt, 
nickel, graphite, and copper that are critical for clean 
energy.
    President Biden's Interagency Working Group has called for 
public comments to inform future mining law legislation and is 
seeking ideas about how to incentivize critical minerals 
production, structure a royalty to reward taxpayers, and still 
encourage mineral production and improve permitting. Forging 
ahead with this bill to gut the mining law prior to the public 
comment deadline renders the Interagency Working Group's work 
irrelevant.
    H.R. 7580 is premised on an anachronistic 
mischaracterization of mining that ignores the environmental 
safeguards that Federal environmental laws require at modern 
mines. There are no exemptions or loopholes for mining in the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, 
or any of the other Federal environmental laws applicable to 
mining. Mines must comply with the same Federal environmental 
laws as all other industries. The allegation that the mining 
law needs overhauling because it does not include environmental 
protection is tantamount to saying the Clean Water Act is 
deficient because it does not protect air quality.
    The mining law governs land tenure and how citizens obtain 
mineral rights on certain Western public lands. If claim owners 
beat the daunting 1 in 1,000 odds of finding a mineral deposit 
that can become a mine, they must then secure environmental 
permits and provide the Federal Government with financial 
assurance to guarantee the mine will be reclaimed before mining 
can begin. The U.S. permitting process takes 7 to 10 years to 
complete, compared to Canada and Australia, where mines get 
permitted in 2 to 3 years with similar environmental safeguards 
as U.S. mines. The lengthy U.S. permitting process means that 
there are no shovel-ready projects and is the main reason why 
there are only 30 active metal mines in Nevada, which is the 
country's largest public lands mining state.
    Discussing the need to increase domestic critical minerals 
production, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently 
said, ``It takes forever to get a new permit. How crazy is 
that?'' H.R. 7580 transforms Secretary Granholm's takes-
forever, crazy permitting process into Mission Impossible by 
creating unachievable standards, allowing mine opponents to 
declare many areas unsuitable for mining, and placing more 
lands off limits.
    In a 2018 final rule, the U.S. EPA concluded hardrock 
mining regulations and bonding requirements provide 
comprehensive and effective environmental protection and 
guaranteed today's mines will not become tomorrow's 
environmental problems. But ignoring the EPA's finding, H.R. 
7580 fills an imaginary regulatory vacuum with impractical new 
requirements.
    The industry has long supported a royalty structure that 
places mineral producers and taxpayers on the same side of the 
financial equation, so everyone can go to the bank together. 
But the gross royalty and fees in H.R. 7580 are not intended to 
generate revenue. They are designed to make mining unprofitable 
in order to curtail mining.
    The mandatory conversion of mining claims into leases in 
H.R. 7580 will destroy self initiation and the security of land 
tenure needed to justify the hundreds of millions of dollars of 
private-sector capital required to discover minerals and 
develop mines.
    And the system in H.R. 7580 is based on an existing program 
for acquired lands, which fails to produce minerals and has 
only generated $8.7 million in royalties in Fiscal Year 2018.
    H.R. 7580 will cede control of our mineral future to Russia 
and China. It guarantees the United States will continue down a 
path of increased mineral insecurity, reduced prosperity, and a 
much more dangerous future.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am sorry I 
can't be there in person. My husband came down with COVID, so I 
could not travel at the last minute. But I look forward to your 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Struhsacker follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Debra W. Struhsacker, on behalf of the Women's 
                            Mining Coalition

Introduction: Congress Needs to Wait for the Public Input Requested by 
        President Biden's Interagency Working Group Before Considering 
        H.R. 7580 to Gut the Mining Law

    In June, 2021, the White House released the 100-Day review entitled 
``Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American 
Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth'' that directed the 
Federal government to establish an interagency team:

        ``. . . with expertise in mine permitting and environmental law 
        to identify gaps in statutes and regulations that may need to 
        be updated to ensure new production meets strong environmental 
        standards throughout the life cycle of the project; ensure 
        meaningful community consultation and consultation with tribal 
        nations, respecting the government-to-government relationship, 
        at all stages of the mining process; and examine opportunities 
        to reduce time, cost, and risk of permitting without 
        compromising these strong environmental and consultation 
        benchmarks.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/100-day-
supply-chain-review-report. pdf, page 14. This team was developed in 
response to President Biden's February 24, 2021 Executive Order 14017, 
``America's Supply Chains.''

    On March 31, 2022, this Interagency Working Group (IWG) \2\ 
published a Federal Register Request for Information (RFI) asking the 
public to comment on important questions about the Mining Law, mining 
regulations and permitting (FR Vol 87, No. 62, pp. 18811-18812.) The 
public comment deadline is July 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Department of the Interior chairs the IWG. The other 
federal IWG agencies include the Department of Agriculture through the 
Forest Service; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Army Corps of 
Engineers; the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and State; the Council 
on Environmental Quality; and the National Economic Council.

    As explained in the RFI, the IWG is seeking this public input in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
order to:

        ``assess the adequacy of existing laws, regulations, and 
        permitting processes, determine whether changes to those are 
        necessary to meet the goals laid out in the recommendations 
        from E.O. 14017 100-Day reviews, and if it concludes that 
        changes are necessary, make recommendations to the appropriate 
        Federal agencies or Congress on how to implement those 
        changes.'' (emphasis added)

    Congress must not ignore the RFI's explicit request for public 
input on whether existing laws and regulations need to be changed and 
if changes are warranted, how to implement those changes. Initiating 
the legislative debate about Chairman Grijalva's new bill, The Clean 
Energy Reform Act, H.R. 7580, is premature without first obtaining the 
public's input on whether, if, and how laws and regulations should be 
changed. This hearing has put the cart before the horse and signals the 
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is not interested in 
and does not value the public's perspectives on mining. Congress should 
table H.R. 7580 until it has received the public comments in response 
to the IWG's RFI. The public's comments must be considered as part of 
the legislative debate whether to functionally gut the Mining Law by 
enacting H.R. 7580.

    The following sections provide the Women's Mining Coalition's 
preliminary responses to the RFI questions that are directly relevant 
to Congress' evaluation of H.R. 7580.

I. RFI Question 1: Eliminating Mining Claims and Substituting a Leasing 
        System

        ``Would alternatives to the existing claim system, such as 
        leasing, or adjustments to the current system, such as 
        incorporating mining into comprehensive federal lands use 
        assessments and planning, lead to better outcomes for 
        communities, environment and a secure domestic supply of 
        minerals? If so, how should such an alternative or adjusted 
        system be structured?''

A. The Mining Claims System

    The Mining Law governs land tenure, authorizes citizens to obtain 
mineral rights on certain western public domain lands, and gives claim 
owners the necessary security of land tenure to justify the enormous 
investments required to explore for minerals and develop mines. 
Substituting the leasing system proposed in H.R. 7580 will eliminate 
land tenure security, significantly reduce mineral exploration and 
development on public lands, and increase U.S. reliance on foreign 
minerals. H.R. 7580 upends the mining claims system by requiring 
mandatory conversion of life-of-mine claims to time-limited leases. 
This ill-conceived, impractical, and unworkable proposal will 
substantially interfere with the Biden Administration's policies to 
increase domestic mineral production in order to strengthen domestic 
supply chains and provide the minerals needed to build clean energy 
infrastructure. It will also precipitate Fifth Amendment takings claims 
against the federal government.
    The current mining claims system is an effective way for the public 
to benefit from private-sector investment in mineral exploration and 
development projects. Under current law, U.S. citizens can take the 
initiative to locate claims based on preliminary concepts about where 
minerals may be located and then make substantial investments of time, 
knowledge, and money to test these concepts to explore for minerals on 
their claims with the hope of discovering a mineral deposit that can be 
developed into a mine. This process, which is known as self-initiation, 
greatly benefits our Nation because it effectively leverages private-
sector investment that transforms undeveloped federal land into mining 
operations that create jobs, pay taxes, and provide the minerals the 
country needs--at no risk or expense whatsoever to U.S. taxpayers.
    Self-initiation gives prospectors and geologists the opportunity to 
pursue their ideas about where mineral deposits may be located and 
identify promising mineral targets. Finding a mineral deposit is a 
daunting task that takes a lot of skill--as well as luck. According to 
the National Research Council/National Academy of Science 1999 
report,\3\ 1,000 mineral targets must be identified and evaluated to 
discover a single deposit that can become a mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another benefit of the claims system is that it generates modest 
revenue for the Treasury. Mine claimants pay the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) annual claim maintenance fees to keep their claims in 
good standing. The current claim maintenance fee is $165 per claim.\4\ 
The claim maintenance fee amount is indexed to the Consumer Price Index 
adjusted accordingly every five years. In FY 2020, BLM collected over 
$69.4 million in claim maintenance and other Mining Law holding 
fees.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/mining-and-
minerals/locatable-minerals/mining-claims/fees.
    \5\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/2021-08/
PublicLandStatistics2020.pdf, Table 3-32, Page 158.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Minerals Leasing System for Hardrock Minerals

    The leasing system proposed in H.R. 7580 replicates the 75-year old 
hardrock minerals leasing program applicable on acquired lands,\6\ 
which has a proven track record of being impractical and unproductive 
in terms of producing minerals and generating royalty payments. If this 
unsuccessful leasing program is imposed upon locatable minerals on 
western public domain lands, it will completely destroy self-initiation 
by putting the federal government in charge of deciding where and when 
geologists can look for minerals and where and for how long miners can 
operate a mine. These harsh land tenure restrictions will severely 
compromise the Nation's ability to capitalize on private capital to 
discover and develop domestic mineral deposits. The net result will be 
significantly diminished domestic mineral production and increased 
reliance on foreign minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Minerals Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, 30 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 351-359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In marked contrast to the federal mineral leasing system for 
hardrock minerals on acquired lands, the federal mineral leasing system 
for oil, gas, and coal works for these energy commodities. Leasing is 
suitable for oil, gas, and coal deposits because private industry and 
the federal government already know where oil, gas, and coal deposits 
are located prior to leases being offered and issued on public lands. 
Oil, gas and coal occur in well understood sedimentary basins where 
geophysical surveys can identify targets with a high likelihood of 
success. Once an oil or gas well is drilled, it can readily be modified 
into a production well.
    The geology of most hardrock mineral deposits is quite different 
than oil, gas, and coal deposits. Most hardrock mineral deposits occur 
in areas with much more complex and diverse geology and typically have 
unique geologic, geochemical, and metallurgical characteristics that 
make each hardrock mineral deposit unique and therefore difficult to 
find. Consequently, neither the federal government nor mineral 
prospectors know with certainty where hardrock mineral deposits are 
located. This is one of the main reasons the hardrock minerals leasing 
program applicable to acquired lands (as well as on public domain lands 
on national forests in Minnesota and in some Eastern states) does not 
work for hardrock minerals and is failing to generate meaningful 
mineral production and federal royalty payments, despite the highly 
prospective geology on acquired lands in Minnesota and Missouri.
    Discovering a hardrock mineral deposit requires extensive 
exploration and development drilling because the location, depth, 
mineral grade, and economic viability of hardrock mineral deposits is 
generally unknown. Once drilling has sufficiently defined the deposit 
to support a decision to develop it into a mine, huge investments on 
the order of many hundreds of millions to more than a billion dollars 
are typically required to build the mine and processing facilities.
    Exhibit I, the July 2021 testimony from Mr. Jim Cress before this 
Subcommittee, provides a detailed and informative discussion of the 
many reasons why the federal hardrock mineral leasing program on 
acquired lands is a failure. As discussed in Mr. Cress' testimony, some 
of the reasons why the federal hardrock leasing program is a failure 
include the following:

     It was not designed to promote discovery and development 
            of hardrock minerals;

     It contains no rights of self-initiation or rights to mine 
            any discovered minerals;

     Prospecting licenses or permits require prior consent from 
            the surface management agency, are limited to two years 
            with a maximum four-year discretionary extension, and are 
            restricted to 2,560 acres per permit and a 20,480-acre per 
            person/company per state limit; and

     Hardrock mining leases are limited to a primary term of 20 
            years, which may not be long enough to develop and mine 
            some deposits. This artificial time constraint is not in 
            the public's best interest. A mining lease must provide 
            security of tenure for as long as it takes to develop and 
            mine a deposit.

    The leasing acreage and time limits in H.R. 7580, which are 
identical to those in the hardrock minerals leasing program applicable 
on acquired lands, are a proven impediment to mineral exploration and 
development of hardrock minerals on these lands. The acreage and time 
limits in H.R. 7580 will be similarly unsuccessful in producing 
minerals or generating royalty payments from mining operations on 
public domain lands.
    Imposing the 20,480-acre (1,024 mining claims) per company per 
state limit in H.R. 7580 will require the forfeiture of the private 
property rights on thousands of mining claims located within the 
boundaries of currently producing mining properties.\7\ This private 
property seizure will completely disrupt active mining operations and 
precipitate numerous Fifth Amendment takings claims as the government 
forces the premature closure of viable mining operations or the 
divestiture of lands that are part of productive mining operations. 
Then the government will have to expend taxpayer funds to satisfy 
taking claims without the benefit of any mineral production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ For example, Nevada mining companies operate multiple mines and 
own thousands of mining claims that cover their active mining 
operations throughout the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The temporary (two to six year) and spatially constrained (2,560-
acre, 128 claim maximum) prospecting license in H.R. 7580 is completely 
unworkable for hardrock minerals. To put these limits into perspective, 
most promising mineral exploration projects are typically comprised of 
several hundred to several thousand claims to give the owner the 
ability to conduct mineral exploration over a broad area with mineral 
potential. It is not uncommon for exploration activities to take a 
decade or longer to discover and then define the size and grade of a 
mineral deposit. Additionally, Title I Section 105 of H.R. 7580 is a 
disincentive to small miners, who after prospecting and finding a 
mineral deposit, cannot legally transfer their lease to a development 
company, but can only sell or transfer to a spouse or dependent.
    The mine leasing provisions in H.R. 7580 are equally problematic. 
Companies with a mineral discovery may apply for a 20-year non-
competitive mining lease if the surface management agency (e.g., BLM or 
the USFS) consents to issuing the lease. Giving BLM or the USFS the 
discretionary authority to decide whether to issue a mining lease puts 
a company's entire exploration investment at risk and creates 
uncertainty that will completely chill mineral exploration and 
development in the U.S. Companies will not be able to justify to their 
shareholders expenditures of the tens to hundreds of millions of 
dollars required to discover a valuable mineral deposit if there is no 
guarantee that they will have the right to develop those minerals.
    The Biden Administration's recent decision to cancel the Twin 
Metals mineral leases in the Superior National Forest in Minnesota 
vividly illustrates the extent of the government's discretionary 
authority to deny or cancel mining leases after a company has invested 
hundreds of millions of dollars to explore and develop its leases.\8\ 
The government's cancellation of the Twin Metals mining leases clearly 
demonstrates that mineral lessees have absolutely no security of tenure 
under the federal hardrock minerals leasing program on acquired lands. 
The adoption of this program in H.R. 7580 on western public domain 
lands and the requirement that mining claims be converted into mineral 
leases will similarly eliminate security of tenure on western public 
domain lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Twin Metals Minnesota has invested over $500 million to develop 
a world-class critical minerals deposit containing nickel, cobalt, 
copper, platinum, and palladium, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/02/
15/mn-dnr-suspends-environmental-review-of-controversial-twin-metals-
mine-proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 20-year primary term for a mining lease is another serious 
barrier to mineral investment because it is not unusual for mines to 
operate for longer than 20 years. This is often essential to generate a 
satisfactory, long-term return on investment that is needed to take a 
project forward. Without the assurance that a mine can continue to 
operate after 20 years, companies will be very reluctant to make the 
enormous investment required to develop a mine.
    Statistics about the hardrock minerals leasing program for acquired 
lands available from BLM and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
clearly show this program fails to generate meaningful royalties from 
the small volume of hardrock minerals produced on acquired lands. 
According to the BLM,\9\ there are 56 hardrock minerals leases covering 
a miniscule 43,804 acres nationwide on acquired lands. With 36 leases, 
Missouri is the state with the most leases where leases cover 33,623 
acres located in the Mark Twain National Forest. The GAO \10\ reports 
only 20 hardrock mineral leases nationwide have operating mines, just 
seven of which pay federal royalties. In fiscal year 2018, these seven 
operations paid a meager $8.7 million in federal royalties.\11\ It is 
likely that the six operating leases at Missouri lead, zinc, and copper 
mines paid most of this royalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ BLM 2020 Public Land Statistics, op. cit., page 115.
    \10\ Mining on Federal Lands, GAO-20-461R, May 28, 2020, https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-461r.
    \11\ GAO May 2020, op. cit., page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fourteen other hardrock mineral leases with active mining cover 
an aggregate of only 2,304 acres and include mostly small mines located 
in the following states: Arkansas (quartz and gemstones, 457 acres); 
California (gold, 41 acres); Idaho (gemstones and gold, 121 acres); 
Minnesota (limestone, 5 acres); Montana (gold, 57 acres); North 
Carolina (olivine, 158 acres); South Carolina (gold, 1,109 acres); and 
Virginia (limestone, 355 acres.)
    The proposal in H.R. 7580 to replicate the unsuccessful hardrock 
minerals leasing program on acquired and Eastern States lands and 
unwisely impose it on western public domain lands is neither justified 
nor rational. Based on the documented failure of the hardrock mineral 
leasing system for acquired lands, it is definitely not in the public's 
interest to replace mining claims with mineral leases. Besides 
increasing the country's reliance on foreign minerals and exposing the 
federal government to substantial takings litigation, this baseless 
extinguishment of private property rights will destroy the economic 
engines that sustain rural mining communities. Forced mine closures 
will kill high-paying mining jobs and deprive states and local 
communities of the tax revenues and other substantial economic benefits 
that the mines generate.
    Given the current extraordinary demand for minerals to build clean 
energy infrastructure, to power electric vehicles, and to electrify the 
Nation, this is an exceptionally inappropriate time to make sweeping 
changes to the land tenure system in the Mining Law. Even if H.R. 7580 
were proposing a satisfactory leasing scheme that provided security of 
tenure, this is the wrong time to make such a change because the 
transition from claims to leases would dramatically slow down mineral 
exploration and development. The net result would be reduced mineral 
production during a multi-year transition period and increased reliance 
on foreign minerals.
    Western mining states with mineral leasing programs on state lands 
or trust lands work well because the lessor and lessee have the common 
goal of finding a mineral deposit that can become a mine that pays 
royalties to the lessor. In marked contrast, in H.R. 7580, the lessor 
(e.g., the federal government) is a hostile landlord that creates 
barriers to mineral exploration and development.
    For example, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration (SITLA) \12\ is a successful and productive minerals 
leasing program. SITLA's goal is to enter into exploration leases that 
may discover mineral deposits that can be developed into royalty-
generating mines. SITLA issues exploration and mining leases to fulfill 
its fiduciary duty to its Utah school system beneficiaries to support 
exploration leading to development and generation of a royalty aimed 
toward a beneficiary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://trustlands.utah.gov.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. RFI Question 2: Mining Best Practice Standards

        ``Are there international mining best practices or standards 
        that the United States should consider adopting, or encouraging 
        the U.S. mining industry to adopt? If so, which practices or 
        standards and what improvements or benefits would they 
        provide?''

A. Overview of International Mining Standards

    There are three types of international standard: country 
requirements; investor standards; and voluntary standards.
    Country standards are created based on the laws and specific 
context of each country. While most standards of developed nations 
share intent and content, they also include country-specific 
requirements that would not be applicable elsewhere due mainly to 
differences in site characteristics. Many countries have based their 
programs on the laws, regulations, and standards developed and improved 
in the U.S. over the last 50 years. The legal framework and guidelines 
governing the responsible development of mineral resources of the U.S. 
are more comprehensive and rigorously tested than in any other country 
in the world.
    Investor standards are developed by organizations that dictate 
minimum requirements for financing projects. Organizations such as the 
World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Equator 
Principles (EP) Association, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development (OECD), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development (EBRD) have developed minimum environmental and social 
standards and guidelines for various industries including mining. These 
are intended as risk management frameworks for financial institutions 
to identify, assess and manage environmental and social risks when 
financing projects, particularly for projects in countries with limited 
governance frameworks.
    The U.S. is classified as an Equator Principles Designated Country 
because it is a member of the OECD and is a World Bank High Income 
Country. The Equator Principles define Designated Countries, such as 
the U.S. as ``those countries deemed to have robust environmental and 
social governance, legislation systems and institutional capacity 
designed to protect their people and the natural environment.'' \13\ 
This acknowledges that the legal framework for the protection of the 
environment and people in the U.S. meets or exceeds the Equator 
Principles standards for environmental and social performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ The Equator Principles: EP4. July 2020. Pg. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Voluntary standards from organizations such as the International 
Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the International Cyanide 
Management Institute (ICMI), the International Union for Conservation 
of Nature (IUCN), and others provide international standards and 
guidance on specific environmental or social aspects affecting the 
environmental and social performance of mining operations. These 
standards and guidance protocols tend to be either topic specific or 
general in nature and acknowledge the importance of considering 
country- and site-specific context in the application of the standards 
and guidelines. Some of these standards, such as the ICMI Cyanide Code 
were based entirely or primarily on the standards and guidelines 
developed in the U.S. Other voluntary standards that guide the mining 
international mining industry are internal corporate standards that are 
used to guide the governance of their operations in countries without 
robust environmental and social government and legal frameworks. These 
are often based on the requirements applicable to mining operations in 
the U.S.

B. Nevada has the Gold Standard of Mining Regulation and Financial 
        Assurance Programs

    Congress does not need to look to other countries for mining best 
practices and standards that should be imported into the U.S. because 
other countries typically look to the U.S. for guidance when 
establishing their mineral regulatory and financial assurance programs. 
In particular, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection/Bureau 
of Mining Regulation and Reclamation's (NDEP/BMRR's) regulations 
governing hardrock mineral exploration, development, mine closure, and 
financial assurance requirements, coupled with the federal land 
management agencies' (e.g., BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, USFS) are 
widely considered to be the ``gold standard'' of modern regulations for 
hardrock minerals. Many foreign countries have sought NDEP/BMRR's 
advice when establishing or updating their mining regulatory programs.
    In Nevada, the BLM, USFS, and NDEP/BMRR have a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) that governs how these federal and state regulatory 
agencies seamlessly integrate and coordinate their respective 
regulatory and financial assurance requirements. Title III of H.R. 7580 
would dismantle this arrangement, reinvent the wheel, and add some 
corners to what is currently a smoothly running program that provides 
comprehensive environmental protection during and after mine operation 
and closure and highly successful reclamation results.

C. Overview of Environmental Regulatory Programs for Modern Mines

    Modern U.S. mines must comply with the same environmental laws and 
regulations as other manufacturing facilities and industrial projects. 
Additionally, surface management and reclamation laws govern mineral 
exploration and mining projects. Unlike many other industries, miners 
must reclaim the land when mining is completed and provide state and 
federal regulators with reclamation bonds and other forms of financial 
assurance to guarantee the mine will be properly reclaimed. The 
financial assurance amount is calculated on the basis of what it would 
cost the government to reclaim the mine as well as providing for long-
term and care maintenance as necessary.
    In 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a 
final rulemaking for Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly called the 
``Superfund,'' that determined EPA did not need to develop a separate 
financial assurance program for the hardrock (metals) mining industry. 
Instead, EPA found that BLM's, the USFS', and the states' environmental 
regulations and financial assurance requirements effectively protect 
the environment at modern mining operations and guarantee that 
taxpayers will not have to pay to reclaim mines.
    EPA's conclusions about modern mining practices disproves mining 
critics' perennial distortions that modern mines are not safe for the 
environment. As EPA recognized, the environmental laws and regulations 
enacted since the late 1960s have had an enormous impact in changing 
how modern mines operate. Prior to about 1960, there were no state or 
federal environmental rules governing mining or other industries. 
Mining started in the western U.S. in the mid-1800s and was completely 
unregulated for more than a century. Congress enacted the country's 
first environmental laws in the late 1960s. Most states did not start 
passing environmental laws until the 1970s and 1980s.
    During the era of unregulated mining, gravity was the miner's best 
friend. Miners typically deposited mine wastes (mill tailings, waste 
rock, and smelter slag) directly on the ground in the nearest valley or 
low area. Once the ore was exhausted or falling metal prices made 
mining unprofitable, miners commonly moved on to the next prospect and 
abandoned the old one, giving no thought to reclaiming the land.
    While this lack of environmental protection and reclamation is 
unacceptable when viewed through the lens of our modern-day commitment 
to protect the environment, it is important to understand that mines of 
the past were no different than other contemporaneous industries that 
operated without any environmental controls. Past mining and industrial 
practices did not use environmental safeguards because protecting the 
environment was not on anyone's radar screen. Back then, society did 
not consider the long-term consequences of mining or other industrial 
and manufacturing activities.
    Pre-regulation mines produced the metals that helped build America, 
tell the story of the development of the West, and helped win two world 
wars. Although we recognize the important history and heritage these 
mines represent, we are now left to deal with a difficult legacy of the 
safety hazards and environmental problems left behind.
    The 1970s began a new era of environmental awareness as America 
celebrated the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. In response to the 
country's new commitment to clean-up the environment and minimize the 
potential for future environmental pollution, Congress enacted numerous 
environmental laws in the 1970s and 1980s shown in Table 1. States 
quickly followed suit, enacting state laws to implement or complement 
the federal environmental statutes. Depending on the environmental site 
conditions at a given site, most or all of these laws govern modern 
mining operations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.002


    .epsIn 1974, the USFS enacted surface management regulations for 
locatable minerals at 36 C.F.R. Part 228 Subpart A to protect the 
environment at hardrock mineral exploration and mining projects on 
National Forest System lands. The USFS regulations provide 
comprehensive environmental protection and require mine operators to 
minimize adverse environmental impacts whenever possible, and provide 
substantial financial assurance (reclamation bonds) to guarantee that 
mines will be reclaimed when mining is completed.
    In 1980, BLM enacted surface management regulations for hardrock 
mining at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3809 that require mineral exploration and 
development activities to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.
    BLM significantly updated the 3809 regulations in 2001, adding more 
detailed financial assurance requirements, establishing environmental 
performance standards that must be followed to comply with the mandate 
to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation, and providing authority 
for enforcement actions against non-compliant operators.
    Prior to approving mineral activities on public lands, BLM and USFS 
must comply with the National Environmental Policy (NEPA) requirement 
to prepare either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS).\14\ Most mining proposals require the agency to 
prepare an EIS; many exploration projects can be authorized with an 
Environmental Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Initial exploration projects that disturb fewer than five 
acres of BLM-administered lands can typically qualify for a Notice that 
does not require BLM to prepare a NEPA document. However, BLM reviews 
Notice applications to ensure that sensitive resources will not be 
impacted and to establish the financial assurance (reclamation bond) 
amount that the applicant must provide before any surface-disturbing 
activities commence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally speaking, there are more hardrock mining operations on 
BLM-administered lands compared to National Forest System lands. Over 
one-half of the country's 390,595 \15\ active mining claims are located 
in Nevada. BLM and the USFS have authorized under 200,000 acres of 
surface disturbance for mineral exploration and development activities 
in Nevada, which is less than 0.32 percent of the roughly 60 million 
acres of Nevada's federal minerals estate and clearly demonstrates 
mining is a minor use of public lands in Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ BLM 2020 Public Land Statistics, op. cit., page 125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite being the country's largest mining state, there are only 30 
active metal mines in Nevada.\16\ These operations are fully bonded 
with over $3.4 billion in financial assurance instruments provided to 
BLM, USFS, and the NDEP/BMRR to guarantee Nevada's mineral exploration 
and mine sites will be reclaimed. The evolution of Nevada's mining 
regulations and financial assurance program since 1980 when the State's 
reclamation law was first enacted illustrates a 40-year history of 
continuous improvement to refine the program based on cooperation and 
collaboration between state and federal regulators and Nevada's mining 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://pubs.nbmg.unr.edu/The-NV-mineral-industry-2020-p/
mi2020.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current federal and state environmental regulations require mines 
to be designed, built, operated, and closed using effective 
environmental safeguards that provide comprehensive protection for all 
environmental resources and minimize the potential for environmental 
problems to develop during mining and after mining is completed. In 
order to comply with these regulations, mines use state-of-the-art 
environmental protection technologies including liners, water treatment 
facilities, air emission control equipment, and environmental 
monitoring systems. Mine operators are required to routinely monitor 
the performance of these systems to verify they are functioning 
properly, the mine is complying with its permit requirements, and 
environmental protection is ensured.
    In striking contrast to old mining practices, modern U.S. mines 
carefully manage mine wastes and use liners and covers to isolate these 
materials from the environment. Whereas waste rocks and tailings at old 
mines were typically deposited directly on the ground or into streams 
and rivers, tailings and waste rock storage facilities at modern mines 
are designed to be stable and minimize seepage and interaction of the 
mine wastes with surface water and groundwater resources.

    The powerful combination of comprehensive and effective 
environmental regulations and financial assurance requirements is what 
led the EPA to conclude in 2018 that the environmental regulations and 
financial assurance requirements for mining fully protect the 
environment and that a new EPA program would be duplicative and 
unnecessary. EPA based its decision on a detailed analysis of the scope 
and effectiveness of federal and state environmental protection and 
financial assurance rules for hardrock mining:

        ``EPA has analyzed the need for financial responsibility based 
        on risk of taxpayer funded cleanups at hardrock mining 
        facilities operating under modern management practices and 
        modern environmental regulations . . . [T]he degree and 
        duration of risk associated with the modern production, 
        transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous 
        substances by the hardrock mining industry does not present a 
        level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that warrant 
        imposition of [additional EPA] financial responsibility 
        requirements for this sector.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ U.S. EPA Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA 
Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining 
Industry, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 35, February 21, 2018, pp. 
7556-7588, at p. 7556. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-02-
21/pdf/2017-26514.pdf.

    EPA's decision distinguishes between problematic past mining 
practices that are no longer lawful and modern practices, stating that 
legacy contamination at sites operated before the development of modern 
environmental regulations are not relevant in assessing the potential 
for environmental risks at existing and future mines. EPA's rulemaking 
explains that it is inappropriate to point to environmental problems at 
historical, pre-regulation facilities and assert that modern, heavily 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
regulated mines pose similar risks--because they do not:

        ``. . . the primary determinant of risk is how current 
        operations at the mine are conducted, including the current 
        regulatory regime under which they operate . . . EPA has 
        determined that modern regulation of hardrock mining facilities 
        . . . reduces the risk of federally financed response actions 
        to a low level such that no additional financial responsibility 
        requirements for this industry are appropriate.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 35, pp. 7564-7565.

    EPA's 2018 final rulemaking has withstood judicial review. In Idaho 
Conservation League et al versus Andrew Wheeler and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency,\19\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia agreed with EPA's findings and upheld the agency's 
decision that a new financial assurance program for the hardrock mining 
industry was unwarranted. In July 2019, the Court denied the 
Petitioners' request for the Court to vacate EPA's final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ USCA Case #18-114, https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/
opinions.nsf/EE3F3054B78C5C 228525843C0051989A/$file/18-1141.pdf.

D. The Unworkable Provisions in H.R. 7580 Title III are Designed to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Curtail Mining on Public Lands

    The performance track record of modern, highly regulated mines 
clearly demonstrates that Title III of H.R. 7580, ``Environmental 
Considerations of Mineral Exploration and Development'' is completely 
unnecessary to ensure that future mines are safe for the environment. 
The unworkable environmental standards and duplicative permitting 
process for mineral exploration and operations will guarantee mineral 
production will decline. Title III imposes a new environmental 
performance standard that will be impossible for mining projects (or 
any other public land uses) to meet and creates a complex regulatory 
review that adds another layer of bureaucracy designed to make mineral 
projects more difficult to permit and develop. The Title III 
environmental standards and permitting processes are intended to 
advance the overarching purpose of H.R. 7580 to reduce mining.
    The most troubling aspect of Title III is its proposal to amend the 
undue and unnecessary degradation (UUD) environmental protection 
mandate in Section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701 et seq) that currently applies 
to all activities on BLM-administered public lands. H.R. 7580 Section 
301 would change this mandate for hardrock mineral projects to ``undue 
degradation'' (UD) and prohibit degradation that is necessary in order 
to mine. Because mining cannot occur without causing some unavoidable 
changes to the land due to excavating pits, storing mine wastes, and 
building other facilities, eliminating the concept of necessary impacts 
from UUD and changing it to UD makes mining impossible if future BLM 
regulators have the discretionary authority to deem unavoidable and 
therefore necessary impacts undue. This impossible-to-achieve standard 
is clearly designed to eliminate future mining on federal lands. 
Section 301 of H.R. 7580 makes similar changes to the current 
environmental performance standard for mineral activities on National 
Forest System lands.
    Changing the FLPMA 302(b) standard from UUD to UD for hardrock 
mining projects would create a different environmental performance 
standard for hardrock mining than all other multiple use activities on 
public lands. Recognizing that all human activities create impacts, 
some of which are unavoidable, the FLPMA 302(b) UUD standard 
accommodates this reality while giving BLM the authority to prohibit 
impacts that go beyond what is necessary and are therefore excessive, 
unnecessary, and undue. H.R. 7580 Section 301 eliminates this 
practicality for hardrock minerals and potentially sets a precedent 
that could be applied in the future to other multiple uses of public 
lands. Changing UUD to UD sets the multiple use principle that is the 
core of FLPMA's management directive for public lands on a dangerous 
course toward zero-impact management of the Nation's public lands.
    The Title III permitting processes in H.R. 7580 replace the 
comprehensive and effective BLM, USFS, and state regulatory 
requirements and permitting processes that currently govern mineral 
exploration and development with the unworkable prospecting permits and 
mineral leases discussed in Section I for hardrock mineral exploration 
and development on acquired lands. The unsuccessful 75-year old 
hardrock minerals permitting and leasing system for hardrock minerals 
on acquired lands is a completely impractical template for hardrock 
minerals exploration and development. The fact there are only seven 
operating mines on acquired lands that pay federal royalties clearly 
demonstrates this system is unsuitable for discovering and producing 
hardrock minerals.
    However, if the objective of a minerals leasing program is to 
discourage and prevent mineral activities on federal lands, the 
hardrock minerals leasing program on acquired lands will accomplish 
this goal. Because the purpose of H.R. 7580 is to curtail hardrock 
mining on public domain lands, it is not surprising that this bill 
seeks to replicate the many barriers to mineral exploration, discovery, 
and development in the hardrock minerals program for acquired lands and 
apply them to western public domain lands currently governed by the 
Mining Law.

III. RFI Question 3: Hardrock Production Royalty Program

        ``If the U.S. were to place royalties on hardrock minerals 
        produced from public domain lands, what factors should be 
        considered and what structures would best protect the interests 
        of the taxpayer while responsibly incentivizing production? In 
        addition, if royalties were collected, how should those 
        revenues be allocated?''

A. Congress Does Not Have the Necessary Data to Make Informed Decisions 
        about a Royalty

    Congress does not have correct information about the size of the 
hardrock mining industry or the level of minerals production to know 
whether there is sufficient hardrock mining on lands subject to the 
Mining Law to warrant adding a federal hardrock royalty to the Mining 
Law or to predict revenues from a future royalty program. The 
information the GAO has recently provided to Congress is inaccurate 
because the GAO misinterpreted data that the BLM and USFS provided on 
the number of Plans of Operation. The GAO's May 2020 report to Chairman 
Grijalva \20\ incorrectly states there are 728 hardrock mining 
operations. The report should have said there are 728 hardrock mineral 
Plans of Operations, with most Plans being for mineral exploration--not 
for mining. Relying on this incorrect GAO report, Congress likely 
believes the U.S. mining industry is much larger than it really is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ May 2020 GAO Report, op.cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Knowing the number of active locatable mineral mines on lands 
subject to the Mining Law is a critical piece of information that 
lawmakers must have in order to make informed decisions about whether 
to enact the major changes proposed in H.R. 7580 to overhaul this law. 
Unfortunately, the information that BLM, USFS, and GAO have provided is 
insufficient to assess mineral production and the number of active 
metal mines operating under the Mining Law nationwide.
    Fortunately, the geological surveys and taxation departments in the 
western mining states typically maintain accurate information about the 
number of operating mines in their state and the level of production 
from each mine that is subject to state taxes and/or royalties. This 
state data should be used to inform the Mining Law dialogue.
    For example, the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG), which 
is the State's geological survey tasked with researching Nevada mineral 
deposits, seismic hazards, flood zones, and landslide dangers, compiles 
detailed information about mining in Nevada. NBMG's data show there 
were only 30 operating metal mines in Nevada in 2020,\21\ despite the 
fact that Nevada was the country's largest mining state in 2020.\22\ 
The Nevada Department of Taxation's annual Net Proceeds of Minerals 
(NPOM) Bulletin is another source of useful information about Nevada 
mineral production. The 2020-2021 NPOM Bulletin lists 30 mineral 
producers/NPOM taxpayers. Twenty-nine represent gold and silver mines; 
the other mine produces copper. The Nevada Department of Taxation 
collected roughly $189 million in NPOM taxes from these producers 
during calendar year 2020. According to the Nevada Division of Minerals 
(NDOM), roughly 52 percent of the gold produced in Nevada during 2021 
came from mines located on public lands subject to the Mining Law; the 
rest of the gold was produced from mines on private lands.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://pubs.nbmg.unr.edu/The-NV-mineral-industry-2020-p/
mi2020.htm.
    \22\ U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, Mineral commodity summaries 
2021: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., see Table 3 and Figure 4, which 
show Nevada as the largest mining state, https://doi.org/10.3133/
mcs2021.
    \23\ https://minerals.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/mineralsnvgov/content/
home/features/RP/RP_GSN_20220502_NDOM%20Mike%20Visher.pdf, Slide 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As shown in Table 2, Nevada is by far the largest public lands 
mining state with over half of the country's active mining claims and 
nearly half of the Plans of Operation submitted and reviewed in FY 
2020. If the ten other western Mining Law states had a combined total 
of another 30 active mining operations on public lands, there might be 
on the order of 60 operating mines subject to the Mining Law 
nationwide. This is a sharp contrast to the 728 mining operations 
misidentified in the May 2020 GAO report discussed above. Lawmakers 
should consider whether it makes sense to establish and administer a 
federal royalty program for such a limited number of mining operations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.003


    .epsThe Nevada mining statistics clearly show that the outcome of 
the debate about changing the Mining Law will have the biggest impact 
in Nevada, the state where most of the mining on public lands occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
PublicLandStatistics2019.pdf, Tables 3-22 and 3-23.
    \25\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
PublicLandStatistics2019.pdf, Table 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The size of mining's footprint on public lands subject to the 
Mining Law is another statistic that lawmakers should consider when 
assessing if the Mining Law should be amended to include different 
environmental and reclamation requirements. The GAO's May 2020 report 
shows the BLM and USFS have authorized a total of 317,783 acres of 
mineral-related surface disturbance for exploration and mining 
throughout the 11 western Mining Law states, which is a miniscule 0.05 
percent of the 635 million acres (Table 2) of the federal mineral 
estate subject to the Mining Law.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ The actual surface disturbance associated with mineral 
exploration and mining is less than the acres of authorized surface 
disturbance in these Plans of Operations. Mineral activities typically 
occur on only a portion of the authorized surface disturbance acres 
because the entire Plan of Operations project area is not mineralized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The limited number of mines and the small footprint of mining 
activities signals the Mining Law debate is about a minor use of the 
Nation's public lands. The small amount of public lands being used 
nationwide under the Mining Law coupled with the dwindling mineral 
production statistics described below should establish the contours of 
future legislative debates about changing this law--especially in light 
of the urgent and growing demand for critical minerals for the clean 
energy revolution. Finding ways to reverse this decline by increasing 
mineral exploration and production should be the focus and purpose of 
any future legislation to amend the Mining Law. H.R. 7580 will do just 
the opposite; it will discourage mineral exploration and mining.

B. The U.S. Hardrock Mining Industry is Declining

    For the past 40 years, the amount of mineral production has 
steadily decreased. As discussed above, Nevada, the largest public 
lands mining state, has only 30 operating metals mines. Nevada's gold 
production has dropped from a high of about 9 million ounces in 1998 to 
less than 5 million ounces in 2020 \27\ as shown in Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ NBMG, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compiles 
information on the number of U.S. metal mines based on mine employment 
data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) from mines 
at all mine-life stages. The CDC's data thus include many mines that 
are no longer producing minerals but still employ caretakers and other 
personnel. The CDC data that are shown in Figures 2 and 3 document a 
precipitous decline in mining since 1983; they do not paint a picture 
of a thriving industry.
    The Mining Law debate should focus on reversing this downward trend 
and developing policies that encourage mineral exploration and 
development of more mines that can generate future royalty payments. 
The 30-year controversy over a gross versus net royalty is at this 
point a distraction. Congress must look to the future to increase 
mineral production to support a future hardrock royalty program. The 
documented decline in the U.S. mining industry also raises questions 
about whether Congress should spend taxpayer resources to enact and 
administer a federal royalty program for a shrinking industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ NV Bureau of Mines & Geology, The Nevada Mineral Industry 
2020, Special Publication MI-2020.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.004


.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.005


.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.006


.epsC. Why the Oil and Gas Royalty Program will not Work for Hardrock 
        Mining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ The decline in mineral production and the number of mines 
shown in Figures 1-3 is one of the reasons the Nation's reliance on 
foreign minerals has steadily increased over the last several decades.

    H.R. 7580 proposes a royalty of not less than 12.5% of the gross 
value of the minerals or mineral products derived from the lease. For 
producing mines that are forced to convert to a lease, the proposed 
legislation would charge a minimum gross royalty of 8%. For many years, 
the mining industry has presented testimonies in hearings before House 
and Senate committees and subcommittees explaining why a gross royalty 
structure bootstrapped from the oil and gas royalty program, like the 
royalty proposed in H.R. 7580, is unworkable for hardrock minerals and 
will lead to significantly less mining on federal land. (See, for 
example Exhibits II and III.) These testimonies demonstrate that using 
the coal, oil, and gas royalty programs as a template for a hardrock 
royalty is ill-conceived and impractical due to the substantially 
different geologic characteristics of oil, gas, and coal compared to 
hardrock minerals.
    As discussed in Section 1, oil, gas, and coal are more abundant 
than hardrock mineral deposits, making these energy minerals easier to 
find than hardrock minerals. Consequently, discovering and developing a 
hardrock mineral deposit takes much longer and requires a much larger 
investment compared to oil and gas.
    Unlike oil, gas, and coal operations, the raw minerals produced at 
most hardrock mines are not salable; they must undergo costly 
processing steps to produce a product that can be sold. Although 
federal royalties for oil, gas, and coal are called gross royalties, 
this is a misnomer. The federal oil, gas, and coal royalties are in 
reality comparable to a net royalty because they are based on the value 
of the marketable products from an oil and gas well or a coal mine. 
(See Exhibit III, at 5).
    A workable federal hardrock minerals royalty must be assessed at 
the same point in the value-added steps that produce the first 
marketable product from the mine. Therefore, the costs the mine 
operator must incur to produce a salable product from raw, unrefined 
minerals should be deducted from the royalty base on which a federal 
royalty is calculated.

D. Net versus Gross Royalties

    Royalty payments to the United States should be based on the value 
of the federal government's ownership interest in the minerals, which 
is limited to the raw minerals in the ground, and allow the mine 
operator to deduct the costs associated with the value-added mineral 
processing steps that are necessary to produce a salable mineral 
product. The H.R. 7580 royalty is unfair and confiscatory because it is 
calculated on the gross value of mineral products that includes the 
value added by the operator to process, refine, and produce a salable 
mineral product from the raw minerals removed during mining.
    A hardrock royalty must not be paid on the hundreds of millions of 
dollars of value added to the raw minerals that mining companies must 
routinely spend to find, produce, process, and sell the mineral 
products. Although under the Mining Law, the U.S. makes land available 
for mineral exploration, it does not contribute anything to the 
enormous costs and efforts required to find, produce, and process 
minerals. Without relying on any federal subsidies, mining companies' 
investments of private-sector capital is a unique and advantageous 
aspect of the Mining Law that already benefits U.S. taxpayers. Despite 
the costs and daunting odds against making a discovery of an economic 
mineral deposit that can be developed into a mine, the Mining Law 
stimulates private-sector investment that transforms undeveloped 
federal land into mining operations that create jobs, pay taxes, and 
provide the minerals the country needs--at absolutely no cost to U.S. 
taxpayers.
    Exploring for minerals and developing a discovery of a valuable 
mineral deposit into a mine takes a mammoth investment of capital. As 
described in Mr. Rich Haddock's \30\ October 2021 testimony before the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources (SENR) Committee (see Exhibit IV), 
companies made an initial investment of $7.5 billion to develop the 
mines and processing facilities in Nevada's famous Carlin Gold Trend in 
Eureka County. The investment to date in the Carlin Complex is $40 
billion, with substantial annual investments required to maintain the 
mining and mineral processing facilities. For example, replacing one of 
the roasters or autoclaves in the complex would cost at least $1 
billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Mr. Haddock is General Counsel of Barrick Gold Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The amount of investment and length of time required to discover a 
mineral deposit are also staggering. Mr. Haddock's testimony states 
that it has taken Barrick Gold Corporation over twenty years and $459 
million to define the Goldrush ore body which is currently in the mine 
permitting process and therefore still several years away from starting 
production.
    Because commodity price cycles are variable and cyclical, a gross 
royalty has a very different effect on mining investment compared to a 
net royalty. Royalties assessed on gross income discourage investment 
by increasing economic risks. Consequently, projects subject to a gross 
royalty will require a higher pretax and after-tax rate of return to 
accommodate the increased risk. In contrast, a net royalty has a 
smaller effect on the variability of after-tax rates of return and is 
less of a deterrent to investment. When commodity prices decrease, the 
rate of return required to justify a mining investment increases more 
dramatically under a gross royalty than under a net royalty. Because 
most mine operating costs are relatively fixed, a gross royalty takes a 
bigger piece out of the mine's reduced income during periods of low 
commodity prices.
    A gross royalty is especially problematic during industry downturns 
due to low commodity prices because they cause a greater reduction in 
cash-flow during periods when profits are already low. A gross royalty 
can functionally reduce the portion of the ore deposit that remains 
economic to mine. During low commodity price cycles, low-grade ores may 
become uneconomic to mine and process and become low-grade waste 
materials that are not processed or not mined at all, which shortens 
the life of the mine and reduces the total amount of mineral that will 
be produced from the mine. Gross royalties may thus contribute to 
premature mine closures with the concomitant loss of jobs; reduced 
local, state, and federal tax revenues and/or royalty payments; and 
business losses for the mine's vendors and suppliers.
    A net proceeds or net income royalty, in contrast, does not cause 
mines to operate at a loss because the royalty owed is automatically 
reduced during periods of low prices, and increases again when prices 
are higher. A net royalty thus allows mining operations to continue to 
operate during periods of low commodity prices and also enables maximum 
recovery of low-grade ore during high commodity prices. Because mineral 
demand is cyclical and commodity prices fluctuate, a net royalty 
provides the best incentive to explore for minerals on federal lands in 
spite of variable mineral demand and commodity price cycles. A net 
royalty thus minimizes volatility in the mining industry which helps 
keep the domestic industry viable and the nation's mineral supply 
secure.
    Testimony from Ms. Katie Sweeney \31\ at the October 2021 SENR 
hearing discusses another important aspect of assessing a federal 
royalty on hardrock mineral production. (See Exhibit V.) In determining 
an appropriate royalty structure and rate, Congress should consider the 
total government ``take,'' defined as the aggregate of federal, state, 
and local royalties, taxes, and fees, and compare that take to what 
mineral producers pay in other countries. In order to reduce the 
Nation's reliance on foreign minerals and strengthen our mineral supply 
chains, a future federal hardrock royalty must not make the total 
government take so high that U.S. mines become uncompetitive compared 
to mines in other countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the National 
Mining Association (NMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As explained in Ms. Sweeney's testimony, the existing government 
take affecting U.S. hardrock mining operations is close to 40 percent 
for most NMA members, which is close to the top range for other cost-
competitive mining countries. The 8 percent gross royalty on new mining 
operations and the 4 percent on existing operations that were being 
considered last fall in the Budget Reconciliation Bill would have 
increased the total government take to over 50 percent and would have 
made the U.S. an uncompetitive country for mineral investment and 
mining. The higher (8 to 12.5 percent) royalty rates proposed in H.R. 
7580 would increase the total government take for U.S. mines making 
them even less competitive.
    Mr. Haddock's testimony compares the total government take in the 
U.S. compared to Australia or Canada, our two most important mining 
allies. Currently, the three countries have about the same total 
government take ranging from 38 to 39 percent. Adding a 2 percent net 
royalty to hardrock mineral production on federal land would increase 
the total take on U.S. hardrock mining operations to roughly 41 
percent. At this rate, U.S. mines would not be cost competitive with 
mines in Australia or Canada. Obviously, imposing the 8 to 12.5 percent 
royalties in H.R. 7580 would make U.S. mines even less competitive with 
mines in Australia and Canada--especially in light of the far more 
reasonable two- to three-year permitting timeframes in these countries.

E. Takings Implications of a Retroactive Royalty

    Assessing a retroactive royalty on existing claims, as proposed in 
H.R. 7580, runs the risk of exposing the federal government to takings 
claims. If a mineral production royalty or additional fees are enacted 
in the future, they should only apply to post-enactment mining claims 
to minimize the potential for takings claims against the federal 
government. Exhibit VI is an American Exploration & Mining Association 
July 2021 white paper entitled ``Mining Law Fifth Amendment Takings 
Analysis'' that discusses the protected rights and interests held by 
U.S. citizens who have invested their time, effort, and capital to 
explore for, identify, and develop hardrock minerals under the Mining 
Law. This white paper describes how these rights and interests are 
protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also 
presents the history of past Congressional amendments and attempted 
changes to the General Mining Law which explicitly preserved claim 
owners' property rights and successfully avoided exposing taxpayers to 
unconstitutional takings claims.

F. Creating a Royalty Program that Incentivizes Production

        ``. . . What factors should be considered and what structures 
        would be best [t] responsibly incentivize production?''

    The Administration's RFI question about how to charge a royalty and 
at the same time incentivize production is especially important in 
light of the skyrocketing demand for the minerals needed to build clean 
and renewable energy systems, essential infrastructure, and President 
Biden's directives to strengthen U.S. mineral supply chains by 
increasing domestic mineral production. Policies to incentivize 
hardrock mineral production must consider more than just the royalty 
issue and must also focus on security of land tenure, permit 
streamlining, and creating a positive business climate that can attract 
private-sector investment in the Nation's mineral resources on public 
lands.

    The following are the Women's Mining Coalition's preliminary 
suggestions for a fair and affordable royalty and other Mining Law 
elements designed to incentivize and increase mineral production on 
public lands subject to the Mining Law:

     Improve the business investment climate by ending the 
            uncertainty engendered by the 30 year-long debate over 
            mining royalties and other elements of the Mining Law that 
            has significantly chilled investment in the U.S. mining 
            industry and diminished discovery of mineral deposits that 
            can be developed into profitable mines.

     Enact a prospective net royalty at a rate that keeps U.S. 
            mines cost competitive with mines in Canada, Australia, and 
            other countries. As discussed above, it appears that U.S. 
            mines cannot support a net royalty that exceeds about 2 
            percent and remain cost competitive.

     Eliminate all consideration of a retrospective royalty 
            that would be applied to claims in existence on the date of 
            enactment, which would expose the federal government to 
            Fifth amendment takings claims.

     Maintain self-initiation and the existing mining claims 
            land tenure systems and do not replicate the unworkable and 
            failed 75-year old federal hardrock leasing system 
            applicable to acquired lands on public domain lands.

     Keep lands open to mineral exploration and development.

     Recognize that the significant differences in the geology 
            and business profiles for oil, gas, and coal, compared to 
            hardrock minerals make the oil, gas, and coal royalty 
            programs inappropriate and infeasible for hardrock 
            minerals. Stop trying to force-fit the oil, gas, and coal 
            royalty structure on to hardrock minerals.

     Allow claims maintenance fees and other fees to be 
            credited against future royalty payments.

     Consider flow-through investment arrangements similar to 
            those in some Canadian provinces and other incentives to 
            stimulate mineral investment.

IV. RFI Question 4: Financial Assurance

        ``What changes to financial assurance requirements for mining 
        should be considered?''

    The short answer to this question is there are no changes required 
to the BLM's or the USFS' financial assurance/reclamation bonding 
requirements because the current requirements provide regulators with 
funds to reclaim a mine in the event the operator goes bankrupt or 
fails to properly reclaim a mine site. After conducting an in-depth 
evaluation of the financial assurance requirements for hardrock 
exploration and mining, the EPA concluded in 2018 that the existing 
programs under the federal land management agencies' surface management 
regulations, (e.g., BLM's 43 CFR Part 3809 regulations and the USFS' 36 
CFR Subpart 228A regulations) provide comprehensive environmental 
protection and financial assurance:

        ``EPA has determined that modern regulation of hardrock mining 
        facilities . . . reduces the risk of federally financed 
        response actions to a low level such that no additional 
        financial responsibility requirements for this industry are 
        appropriate.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 35, pp. 7564-7565.

    The environmental problems at some legacy mines are attributable to 
bankrupt operators who did not reclaim their mines. Today's financial 
assurance requirements for mines completely eliminate a bankrupt mine 
from creating future environmental problems because state and federal 
regulators (e.g., BLM and USFS) have the necessary funds to reclaim a 
mine if the operator goes bankrupt or for other reasons fails to 
reclaim the site. As EPA found in its 2018 CERCLA 108(b) final 
rulemaking, problems due to operator bankruptcies are a relic of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
unregulated and, in some cases, inadequately bonded mines in the past.

    As explained in EPA's final rulemaking, federal and state 
regulators currently have adequate reclamation bond funds if a mine 
operator goes bankrupt. The amount of required financial assurance is 
based on what it would cost BLM, USFS, or the state agency to hire 
third-party contractors to reclaim the site in accordance with the 
site's approved closure and reclamation plans. Each mine's closure and 
reclamation plan and financial assurance requirement are based on a 
detailed and site-specific evaluation of the closure, reclamation, and 
post-cost closure care and maintenance costs for that site. The 
sufficiency of reclamation bonds must be reviewed and adjusted on a 
regular basis to make sure the required financial assurance amount 
keeps pace with inflation and on-the-ground conditions.
    EPA's final rulemaking determined that the Standardized Reclamation 
Cost Estimator (SRCE) software developed in Nevada provides a robust 
methodology for calculating the cost for the BLM, USFS, or a state 
agency to step in and reclaim a mine.\33\ Because a SRCE-calculated 
Reclamation Cost Estimate assumes that the reclamation work is being 
conducted by a federal or state governmental agency, it generates very 
comprehensive financial assurance requirements that include the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 35, p. 7573.

     Third-party contractor costs based on Davis-Bacon 
            prevailing wage rates established by the U.S. Department of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor for the area in which the mine is located;

     Indirect agency costs including a surcharge of 
            approximately 40 percent on top of the direct costs to 
            cover the agency's costs to manage the third-party 
            contractors' reclamation work;

     Costs to manage the process fluid inventory (i.e., fluids 
            in ponds and tailings storage facilities) that must be 
            dealt with before a site can be closed and reclaimed;

     Costs to perform regular monitoring, sampling, and 
            inspection throughout the mine closure and reclamation 
            phases of the mine life, which may last several decades; 
            and

     Long-term financial assurance requirements if site-
            specific conditions require long-term operation of water 
            treatment systems, other environmental controls, or site 
            monitoring. At sites where long-term financial assurance 
            mechanisms are needed, they are designed to provide the 
            funding necessary for perpetual care and maintenance of the 
            reclaimed mine site.

    Based on these assumptions, EPA found that reclamation bond amounts 
calculated with a SRCE or a comparably robust reclamation cost 
estimating protocol eliminate the concern that taxpayers will be 
responsible for paying reclamation costs.

V. RFI Question 5: AML Reclamation

        ``How might the U.S. best support reclamation of existing AML 
        sites including the development of meaningful good Samaritan 
        proposals as well as remining and reprocessing of mine tailings 
        and waste, where feasible?''

    Developing a funding mechanism to pay for reclaiming Abandoned Mine 
Lands (AMLs) that were created before the enactment of laws and 
regulations to protect the environment is one of the drivers of the 
Mining Law debate. Many of the Mining Law bills that Congress has 
considered for the past 30 years have included an AML reclamation 
program to be funded by hardrock royalties, fees, and taxes.
    However, amending the Mining Law is not the only way to create an 
AML reclamation fund. Recognizing the importance of developing a 
funding source to reclaim hardrock AMLs sooner rather than later, the 
Women's Mining Coalition suggests the annual Mining Law holding fees 
and service fees paid by mining claim holders in excess of the amount 
the BLM requires to administer its Mining Law Program could be used for 
AML reclamation. These excess funds currently vanish into the ether of 
the Treasury's general fund, with no directive to use them for public 
land management.
    BLM's 2020 Public Lands Statistics Report shows BLM collected 
$69,420,974 in Mining Law holding fees in Fiscal Year 2020 and states 
Congress has appropriated $40,196,000 for Mining Law Administration 
program operations, including the cost to administer the mining claim 
fee program. Collections in excess of $40,196,000 are deposited to the 
general fund.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
PublicLandStatistics2019.pdf, Table 3-32, Page 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Assuming these statistics are a reasonable estimate of future 
Mining Law holding fees and Mining Law program administrative costs, 
approximately $29 million per year could be earmarked in future 
appropriations measures for AML reclamation without amending the Mining 
Law.
    Abolishing mining claims and substituting a leasing system, as 
proposed in H.R. 7580, would obviously eliminate the possibility of 
using a portion of future claims maintenance fees to fund AML 
reclamation. A future Mining Law bill that retains the mining claims 
system but includes the other onerous provisions in H.R. 7580 would 
reduce investment and the number of claims and leave less funding 
available for AML cleanups.
    For nearly three decades, the mining industry has advocated for bi-
partisan legislation to enable AML cleanup consisting of two key 
elements: 1) creating a hardrock AML fund using proceeds from a 
workable and prospective net royalty assessed on mineral production 
from future mining claims; and 2) addressing the Clean Water Act and 
Superfund liability issues that are a serious barrier to third-party 
Good Samaritan AML cleanup efforts.
    The Women's Mining Coalition thus strongly supports S. 3571, ``The 
Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2022'' 
that Senators Heinrich and Risch introduced earlier this year in the 
SENR Committee. The 15 Abandoned Mine Land (AML) remediation pilot 
projects authorized in this bipartisan bill will begin to pave the way 
toward addressing the liability issues at AML sites that do not have 
complex water quality issues. We strongly urge this subcommittee to 
consider and support a similar bill.
    Virtually everyone who has evaluated AML policy issues has 
recognized and documented the legal impediments to voluntary cleanup of 
AMLs with complex surface water and groundwater contamination issues 
due to contact with mine wastes and/or seepage from old underground 
workings. Policymakers and independent researchers like the NRC/NAS and 
the Western Governors' Association have urged Congress to eliminate the 
liability exposure that thwarts parties that have no previous 
involvement with a mine from undertaking voluntary reclamation and 
remediation activities.
    The Biden Administration's 100-day supply chain report directs 
evaluating reprocessing mine wastes as a viable source of critical 
minerals. Mine wastes at previously mined and now abandoned mines 
should be included in this evaluation. To stimulate public- and 
private-sector reprocessing and reclamation of AML sites containing 
critical mineral resources, Congress should exempt Good Samaritan \35\ 
remining and reprocessing proposals at AML sites with critical minerals 
from Clean Water Act and CERCLA liability, if the Good Samaritan can 
demonstrate the site will be remined and/or reprocessed in a 
responsible manner in compliance with permitting requirements and 
applicable regulatory standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ As used here, ``Good Samaritan'' refers to a public- or 
private-sector entity who had no prior involvement with or ownership 
interest in the AML site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perpetua Resources' mining and remediation proposal for the 
Stibnite Mine in central Idaho is a pioneering example of a private-
sector proposal to remediate an AML site to recover gold and the 
critical mineral, antimony. In World War II, when Japan invaded China 
and cutoff antimony supplies needed to build war munitions, the U.S. 
federal government started producing antimony and tungsten from an 
emergency mining operation at the Stibnite Mine. This wartime mining 
supplied the U.S. with the raw materials needed to fight the war and 
was credited with saving one million American soldiers' lives and 
shortening the war by at least one year.
    But this accomplishment came with a serious environmental cost. The 
urgent need for minerals eclipsed any concerns about the environment 
and created an environmental mess that continues to impact water 
quality, wildlife habitat, local residents, and Native American 
ancestral lands. Although modern state and federal environmental laws 
and regulations would prevent this from happening today, there is no 
easy solution to cleaning up the complex and costly historical 
environmental problems.
    Because significant gold and antimony reserves remain at Stibnite, 
Perpetua Resources is proposing to spend $1 billion of private-sector 
capital to redevelop Stibnite into a modern, environmentally sound 
mining operation that will remediate the World War II-vintage 
environmental impacts by reprocessing some of the old mine wastes and 
building modern facilities that include environmental safeguards. 
Perpetua Resources has spent years permitting this project, which is in 
its sixth year of the NEPA analysis process.
    Congress could expedite critical minerals reprocessing/AML 
remediation projects by directing the federal land management agencies 
to expedite the permitting process for projects proposing to remediate 
AML sites by reprocessing old mine wastes to recover critical minerals. 
Although Perpetua Resources' mine and restoration plan does not rely on 
Good Samaritan liability relief, granting some measure of relief based 
on a site-by-site evaluation could encourage remediation of other 
sites.
    Perpetua Resources' leadership at the Stibnite Mine could be a 
model applicable to other AML sites. Expediting the permitting process 
for this type of AML mine remediation project and evaluating the 
appropriateness of some liability relief on a project-by-project basis 
could stimulate other companies' involvement with other AML mine 
restoration projects. Obtaining critical minerals from existing mined 
materials would accelerate acquiring critical minerals from domestic 
sources because recovering minerals from existing mine wastes could 
probably be accomplished faster than exploring for, discovering, and 
developing new mineral deposits. Secondly, it would result in 
meaningful source reduction of the metals that may be leaching from old 
mine wastes and impacting surface water and groundwater quality at AML 
sites. Thus, a federal program to reprocess AML sites that contain 
critical minerals would have many public benefits.
    The 10-year time limit in H.R. 7580 Section 304 for water treatment 
facilities is an ill-considered impediment to both new project 
development and AML restoration. Water treatment facilities built to 
support a new mining project can become a valuable long-term asset that 
may facilitate a wide range of post-mining redevelopment projects that 
can use the treatment plant infrastructure for other industrial or 
municipal purposes that will benefit local communities long after 
mining is completed.
    The prohibition in Section 304 of H.R. 7580 against water treatment 
projects lasting longer than 10 years is especially problematic in the 
context of AML remediation. Some AML projects are likely to require 
long-term water quality treatment to successfully improve and maintain 
water quality. The investments made in water treatment facilities 
create valuable infrastructure. Financial assurance requirements for 
both new projects and AML restoration projects requiring long-term 
water treatment facilities can (and already do) include long-term 
funding mechanism to operate and maintain these facilities.

VI. RFI Question 6: Successful Mine Reclamation

        ``What would a successful mine reclamation program include? Are 
        there existing programs that the U.S. should adopt?''

    As described above in Section IV, Congress should rely on EPA's 
2018 conclusions regarding the scope and success of existing 
reclamation programs under the BLM's and the USFS' surface management 
regulations. Both the BLM's 43 CFR Subpart 3809 and the USFS' 36 CFR 
Subpart A regulations include comprehensive mine reclamation and 
financial assurance requirements that ensure that all mineral 
exploration projects and mining operations will be completely 
reclaimed.
    The Women's Mining Coalition suggests that Congress consider the 
MOU included as Exhibit VII between BLM, the USFS, and NDEP/BMRR as an 
example and possible template for how a state regulatory agency 
coordinates with the federal land management agencies to provide 
comprehensive regulation, reclamation, and financial assurance for 
hardrock mineral projects on federal lands.

    Section II of the Nevada MOU lists the following state and federal 
statutes and regulations that are the foundation of the MOU:

     The General Mining Law of 1872 as amended;

     The Organic Administration Act of 1897;

     Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A 
            as amended;

     Title 30 U.S.C. Section 612;

     Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219, as amended

     Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, as amended

     Sections 102(a)(12), 302, 303, and 603 of The Federal Land 
            Policy and Management Act of 1976

     Title 43 U.S.C. Sections 1201 and 1457

     Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Subparts 3802, 3809, 
            and 3715

    It's important to note that this successful reclamation program is 
accomplished under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, 
clearly demonstrating the overhaul of the Mining Law proposed in H.R. 
7580 is completely unnecessary and unwarranted.
    Title III of H.R. 7580 essentially guts the laws and regulations 
listed above. These draconian changes are not designed to improve 
mining on federal lands. To the contrary, H.R. 7580 has just one 
purpose--to substantially reduce mining on federal lands. This ill-
considered bill would increase the Nation's reliance on mineral 
imports, weaken our mineral supply chains, and jeopardize national 
security by putting Russia, China, and other adversaries in charge of 
our mineral future.

VII. RFI Question 7: Tribal and Community Engagement

        ``How can Tribes and local communities be effectively engaged 
        early in the process to ensure that they have meaningful input 
        into the development of mine proposals?''

    Numerous mining companies are making a concerted effort to contact 
tribal communities near their operating or proposed mines to try to 
establish meaningful dialogues about how mine development can be 
respectful of tribes' ancestral lands and at the same time find ways to 
develop long-term, collaborative and mutually beneficial working 
relationships. Some larger mining companies have established policies 
for working with Indigenous communities based on their worldwide mining 
operations. These policies are premised on companies' respect for the 
deep and special relationships that Indigenous people have with their 
ancestral lands and the companies' sincere desire to build a better 
awareness and sensitivity to tribes' concerns about how mining impacts 
their ancestral lands.
    The success of the communication and relationship building that are 
the objectives of these corporate outreach efforts depends 
significantly on the willingness of tribal communities to engage with 
companies in a meaningful way. When viewed with an open-minded 
perspective, a company's efforts to engage a tribe can evolve into 
significant opportunities for tribal communities.
    Generally speaking, modern mining companies are committed to 
working collaboratively with community and tribal stakeholders to make 
a proposed mine the best possible project for the area's environment 
and people. Stakeholder engagement dialogues between mining companies, 
communities, and tribes are already achieving productive and 
collaborative outcomes. There is no need for the bureaucratic and 
cumbersome government-to-government consultation provisions in H.R. 
7580 Title II that duplicate many of the requirements under the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and NEPA, and would serve 
very little purpose except to slow down the permitting process.
    The Women's Mining Coalition understands that many tribes may be 
frustrated with the government-to-government consultation process 
pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA that federal agencies must conduct 
during development of a NEPA document. Hopefully tribal communities 
will respond to the IWG's RFI with suggestions on how to obtain more 
meaningful results from the Section 106 consultation process. Based on 
our experience with the mine permitting process and NEPA, starting the 
consultation process earlier at the project planning and development 
stage might elicit a better response from tribal participants. Starting 
consultation earlier would give agencies, companies and tribes 
opportunities to share information about a proposed project, learn 
about the tribes' values, concerns, and goals for their future, and 
look for common ground.
    The company-driven stakeholder engagement and outreach efforts 
underway at mines that are currently in the permitting process and at 
operating mines clearly demonstrate the mining industry's commitment to 
work with a broad array of stakeholders to listen to their suggestions 
for and concerns about a proposed project. There are many examples of 
how working collaboratively with stakeholders has resulted in important 
improvements and refinements to a project proponent's proposed mining 
Plan of Operations to reduce project impacts, preserve public access, 
enhance environmental outcomes, and identify ways to benefit local 
communities.
    Stakeholder engagement lasts for the duration of the permitting 
process and continues once a mine is operating. It is not unusual for 
mining companies and community and tribal leaders to establish formal 
advisory groups that meet on a regular basis to focus on addressing 
community concerns about a proposed or operating project and identify 
mutually beneficial opportunities for sustainable development measures 
to repurpose project infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines, 
pipelines, water treatment facilities, etc.) to provide jobs and tax 
revenues to local communities after mining is completed. A commitment 
from all parties to frequent collaboration and communication often 
solves problems and develops initiatives that bring long-term benefits 
to communities and tribes.
    These stakeholder engagement efforts are a business standard for 
today's mining companies and executives who realize building and 
operating a hardrock mine today is about more than creating shareholder 
value by excavating rocks and producing metals. It involves an equally 
important focus on creating benefits for the communities where mines 
are operated, which requires a strong commitment to Environmental, 
Social, and Governance (ESG) values. ESG accountability starts with C-
Suite corporate executives and directors. Chief Executive Officers and 
Boards of Directors take responsibility for developing, implementing, 
and overseeing ESG programs and corporate social responsibility 
initiatives.
    Shareholder ESG demands and expectations partially drive companies' 
focus on ESG programs. But the commitment to ESG goes far beyond 
responding to shareholders and extends to the needs of the communities 
where a mine's workforce lives. Mines must be able to attract a 
qualified workforce to live in nearby communities that are safe and 
welcoming places to raise a family and that offer good schools, medical 
and emergency services, adequate shopping, recreational opportunities, 
and other public services and amenities.
    Because many metal mines are located in rural and remote areas with 
limited job opportunities and public services, a mining operation can 
become a community's and even a region's best opportunity to improve 
the quality of life for everyone. Many mining companies make 
substantial financial investments in their local communities to build 
or improve schools, upgrade roads and Internet services, subsidize 
medical services, offer vocational training to prospective employees, 
and provide scholarships and other educational opportunities for their 
workforces. These investments represent voluntary donations in addition 
to the state and local taxes the mines pay.
    It must be emphasized that the value of these corporate outreach 
efforts to area tribes and communities depends largely on the level of 
stakeholder participation. Ongoing and collaborative dialogues between 
companies and stakeholders typically produce the best results based on 
finding synergies between the company, local communities, and the 
tribes who are an important part of these communities.

    Many mining companies make a special effort to engage tribes in 
early and frequent dialogues with the objective of addressing tribal 
concerns and finding common ground to work together on programs to 
benefit tribes. Examples of beneficial outcomes from dialogues with 
Native American communities include:

     Workforce development initiatives

     Training facilities

     Environmental restoration projects

     Environmental and cultural resources monitoring programs

     Ethnographic and ethnohistory research projects

     Business arrangements and agreements

     Education funding and scholarship programs

     Culture and language preservation programs.

    Table 3 lists examples of the many positive outcomes resulting from 
mining company stakeholder engagement programs with communities and 
tribes and demonstrates that the consultation requirements proposed in 
Chairman Grijalva's Mining Law reform principles would create a 
superfluous process that would delay, duplicate, and complicate the 
permitting process.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.007

    .epsThe H.R. 7580 consultation process ignores and duplicates the 
NEPA requirement to carefully and thoroughly evaluate alternatives to a 
mining company's proposed project in the Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) that federal agencies must prepare for the project. The public 
plays a pivotal role in evaluating alternatives during the NEPA 
analysis process by providing comments on a proposed project during 
scoping for the EIS and public comment periods for the draft and final 
documents. NEPA also requires evaluating the impacts that the proposed 
project and project alternatives would have on environmental justice.
    It is not uncommon for the NEPA alternatives analysis process to 
identify different locations for project facilities and operating 
procedures that could reduce a project's environmental impacts, and to 
develop measures to address community concerns about preserving public 
access; reducing traffic, noise, and visual impacts; maintaining dark 
skies; managing demands on emergency services and schools; selecting 
access routes to avoid environmentally and culturally sensitive areas; 
and many other issues identified as important to the public.
    Because public involvement is at the heart of the NEPA process, the 
public is engaged in every step of this process starting with project 
scoping, which is one opportunity for the public to suggest project 
alternatives, to reviewing the draft and final EIS documents. This 
commitment to public involvement guarantees a transparent permitting 
process that gives the public full access to the environmental baseline 
studies and other relevant information.

VIII. RFI Questions 8 and 9: Streamlining Permitting

        ``How could updates to the Mining Law of 1872, or other 
        relevant statutes, help provide more certainty and timeliness 
        in the permitting process?''

        ``What improvements can be made to the mine permitting process 
        without reducing opportunities for public input or limiting the 
        comprehensiveness of environmental reviews?''

A. Permitting Delays and NEPA

    Permitting hurdles are a substantial contributing factor in the 
declining gold production in Nevada shown in Figure 1 and the 
plummeting number of metals mines shown in Figures 2 and 3. Permitting 
delays are impeding clean energy mineral projects across the country: 
important Nevada lithium projects are facing litigation and regulatory 
delays; in Idaho, the proposed Stibnite gold-antimony mine is in its 
sixth year of permitting and a cobalt mine has taken more than a decade 
to permit; and the permitting process for a proposed Arizona copper 
mine, where permitting started in 2013, is undergoing additional 
scrutiny. Permitting adds investment-killing uncertainties for would-be 
mine developers and investors and harms communities that must wait 
years for the jobs, tax revenues, and other socioeconomic benefits 
mining brings to rural communities.
    There is growing concern among elected officials about the 
protracted permitting process for mineral exploration and development 
projects. U.S. Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, recently said ``it 
takes forever to get a new permit--how crazy is that?''--and committed 
to a take a whole-of-government approach to streamlining permitting. 
Unfortunately, the mineral exploration and mine development permitting 
processes in H.R. 7580 Title III are a whole-of-government approach 
that transforms Secretary Granholm's ``takes forever, crazy'' 
permitting process into Mission Impossible.
    President Biden's March 31, 2022 Memorandum on Presidential 
Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the 1950 Defense Production 
Ac, as amended, seeks to facilitate and expedite domestic production of 
critical minerals. Unfortunately, these important objectives cannot be 
accomplished without also streamlining the permitting process.
    The NEPA process is the primary reason that permitting takes so 
long for any type of project requiring a federal permit. There is no 
such thing as a ``shovel-ready'' project to construct infrastructure, 
build new clean energy facilities and transmission lines, or develop a 
mine due to NEPA. NEPA appeals and litigation create uncertainties that 
wreak havoc on businesses, and cause massive cost overruns. Project 
opponents are experts at weaponizing NEPA by using appeals and 
litigation to challenge agencies' decisions to purposefully create 
these lengthy and costly delays. Consequently, NEPA has a long history 
of obstructing new projects and proposals to expand existing projects. 
For example, the infrastructure construction projects that were part of 
the 2009 stimulus bill took years to build--if they were ever built at 
all--due to permitting barriers. In a 2010 New York Times interview, 
President Obama admitted there's no such thing as shovel-ready 
projects.
    Although NEPA provides important environmental information about a 
project's impacts and seeks valuable public input, it's a paper tiger 
that does not directly protect the environment. That protection comes 
from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other federal 
environmental laws that require permits with stringent environmental 
protection standards that make U.S. mines the cleanest and safest in 
the world.
    In considering updates to the Mining Law of 1872, Congress could 
amend NEPA to establish reasonable timelines and page limits and reduce 
project opponents' currently unfettered abilities to challenge agency 
NEPA decisions. By distinguishing between the environmental review and 
disclosure requirements in NEPA and the environmental protection 
requirements in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species 
Act, and other environmental protection laws, Congress could enact 
streamlining measures to the NEPA process without diminishing any 
environmental protection measures.
    A streamlined NEPA process could retain the existing public review 
process that provides the public with opportunities to participate in 
public scoping at the earliest stages of project permitting and then 
review and comment upon draft and final NEPA documents. The public 
review timelines for reviewing draft and final documents currently 
specified in NEPA are reasonable. However, federal agencies should be 
instructed to limit the use of extensions to established comment 
periods to mollify project opponents. The most important change 
Congress could make to the NEPA process would be to reduce the 
frequency and duration of litigation challenging agencies' NEPA 
decisions by requiring NEPA litigants to post bonds in order to sue and 
limit cost recovery of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to 
Justice Act.
    Another way to streamline the NEPA process would be to make better 
use of activity-specific and/or region-specific programmatic NEPA 
documents for exploration drilling or other projects involving a 
limited range of routine actions such as building temporary exploration 
roads and drill sites and reclaiming these features when the project is 
completed. Programmatic NEPA documents could establish Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) for mineral exploration activities. Projects that 
adhere to the BMPs could then be evaluated using a Categorical 
Exclusion or a Determination of NEPA Adequacy. This would save time and 
agency resources.
    Reinstating the 2020 NEPA regulations would also help streamline 
permitting. The thoughtful changes made in the 2020 NEPA rule reflected 
decades of experience with the NEPA process. These changes improved the 
practicality of the NEPA analysis process, the readability of NEPA 
documents, and facilitated better interagency coordination.

B. Permit Streamlining Measures in the Infrastructure Investment and 
        Jobs Act

    In evaluating ways to improve and streamline the permitting process 
to provide more certainty and timeliness, the IWG does not have to 
create a permit improvement process out of whole cloth because Congress 
recently enacted a program to improve the permitting process for 
critical minerals in Section 40206 of the recently enacted 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as President Biden's 
``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law''). The IWG should recommend the permit 
streamlining measures in Section 40206 to Congress as a template for 
updating the Mining Law with a permitting process that would provide 
more certainty and timeliness. Updating the Mining Law with the permit 
streamlining provisions in Section 40206 would help alleviate some of 
the roadblocks currently standing in the way of efficiently developing 
the country's mineral resources.
    The Section 40206 permit streamlining provisions should be applied 
to: 1) the hardrock minerals subject to the Mining Law (also called 
``locatable minerals''); 2) the 50 minerals on the USGS 2022 Critical 
Minerals list: and the host minerals shown on the inner circle on the 
Wheel of Metals Companionality in Figure 5. As discussed in Section IX, 
many critical minerals are only economic to produce as by-products and 
co-products of other minerals (e.g., aluminum, titanium, iron, nickel, 
copper, zinc, lead, tin, platinum, and gold.)
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act establishes a key 
principle for securing our mineral future in Section 40206(b)(3): ``. . 
. to the maximum extent practicable, the critical mineral needs of the 
United States should be satisfied by minerals responsibly produced and 
recycled in the United States,'' and correctly finds in Section 
40206(b)(4) that the current permitting process is a problem: ``the 
Federal permitting process has been identified as an impediment to 
mineral production and the mineral security of the United States.''
    The ``Federal Permitting and Review Performance Improvements'' in 
Section 40206(c), direct the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture to improve the quality and timeliness of Federal permitting 
and review processes and to the maximum extent possible require 
completing the process with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, while 
supporting vital economic growth by:

  (1)   establishing and adhering to timelines and schedules for the 
            consideration of, and final decisions regarding, 
            applications, operating plans, leases, licenses, permits, 
            and other use authorizations for critical mineral-related 
            activities on Federal land;

  (2)   establishing clear, quantifiable, and temporal permitting 
            performance goals and tracking progress against those 
            goals;

  (3)   engaging in early collaboration among agencies, project 
            sponsors, and affected stakeholders----

          (A)   to incorporate and address the interests of those 
        parties; and

          (B)   to minimize delays;

  (4)   ensuring transparency and accountability by using cost-
            effective information technology to collect and disseminate 
            information regarding individual projects and agency 
            performance;

  (5)   engaging in early and active consultation with State, local, 
            and Tribal governments----

          (A)   to avoid conflicts or duplication of effort;

          (B)   to resolve concerns; and

          (C)   to allow for concurrent, rather than sequential, 
        reviews;

  (6)   providing demonstrable improvements in the performance of 
            Federal permitting and review processes, including lower 
            costs and more timely decisions;

  (7)   expanding and institutionalizing Federal permitting and review 
            process improvements that have proven effective;

  (8)   developing mechanisms to better communicate priorities and 
            resolve disputes among agencies at the national, regional, 
            State, and local levels; and

  (9)   developing other practices, such as preapplication procedures.

    The Women's Mining Coalition supports these directives and believes 
their implementation would substantially improve and streamline the 
permitting process. We also support the reporting requirements in 
Section 40206(d) that direct the Secretaries to develop a report to 
Congress within one year that identifies additional measures, including 
regulatory and legislative proposals that would increase the timeliness 
of permitting activities for the exploration and development of 
domestic critical minerals.
    The provision in Section 40206(d)(2) that authorizes BLM and USFS 
to accept cost recovery payments from permit applicants to pay for 
federal agency staffing and training to facilitate agency reviews of 
permit applications is another excellent suggestion for streamlining 
the federal permitting process. Agency staffing shortages can be a 
source of delay in the permitting process. Cost recovery arrangements 
could be especially important in Nevada where roughly one-half of the 
country's Notices and Plans of Operation are filed each year,\36\ with 
many Notices and Plans of Operations being located in just two BLM 
district offices: Battle Mountain and Winnemucca. The Battle Mountain 
and Winnemucca BLM District Offices regulate many of Nevada's largest 
mining operations; their jurisdictions cover several of Nevada's most 
important mineral districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ BLM 2020 op. cit. Table 3-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The performance metric established in Section 40206(e) and the 
annual reports in Section 40206(f) are important tools for monitoring 
and disclosing the agencies' permitting timelines and track records. 
They will function as a continuous improvement mechanism to determine 
if certain steps in the permitting process are contributing to 
unnecessary delays. Together, these provisions should lead to further 
refinements and time-savings procedures.

IX. RFI Question 10: Incentivizing Domestic Critical Minerals 
        Production

        ``What types of incentives would be appropriate to encourage 
        the development of critical minerals, and what is the proper 
        definition of a ``critical mineral mine''?

A. Eliminating the Current Disincentives Would Incentivize Critical 
        Minerals Production

    The most effective way to incentivize critical minerals production 
is to eliminate the two major disincentives listed below that are 
currently obstructing mineral exploration and development:

  1.  Bills like H.R. 7580 that are hostile legislative proposals to 
            overhaul the Mining Law that are perennially introduced in 
            this subcommittee and in the SENR Committee; and

  2.  The protracted mineral exploration and mine permitting processes 
            that are fraught with uncertainties, take too long, and 
            cost too much.

    H.R. 7580 and its predecessor versions considered in earlier 
sessions of Congress send a strong and continual signal that mining is 
not welcomed in the U.S. These bills chill investment in U.S. mineral 
exploration and development that adversely affects critical minerals 
projects. Even if H.R. 7580 is not enacted, it and previous bills have 
cast a dark shadow on the future of mining on U.S. public lands because 
these unfavorable legislative proposals create concerns that the U.S. 
does not have stable mining policies.
    This perceived instability makes companies reluctant to invest the 
hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to explore for minerals and 
develop mines.
    The importance of keeping public lands open to mining by 
maintaining the current mining claim system and eliminating the other 
uncertainties created by H.R. 7580 and similarly hostile legislative 
proposals cannot be overstated. As shown on Figure 4 on the following 
page, data from the Nevada Division of Minerals show that Nevada hosts 
deposits of 33 of the 50 minerals on the U.S. Geological Survey's 2022 
list of critical minerals.\37\ Many of these minerals are located on 
the 60 million acres of federal minerals estate subject to the Mining 
Law in Nevada (see Table 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-
survey-releases-2022-list-critical-minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because Nevada is the country's largest public lands mining state, 
with over one-half of the nation's active mining claims, Nevada stands 
poised to become an important future source of domestic critical 
minerals. In the foreseeable future, Nevada is likely to become a major 
source of domestic lithium production from the numerous lithium 
claystone deposits that have recently been discovered and are in 
various stages of exploration and development. There are several 
sizable, advance-stage lithium claystone deposits in the following 
Nevada counties: Humboldt, Nye, and Esmeralda. Southeastern Oregon also 
contains a known, large lithium claystone deposit.
    Adopting the royalty incentives discussed in Section III would also 
incentivize critical mineral exploration and development. Exploration 
and development of domestic mineral deposits would increase if 
companies were confident that critical mineral production would be 
assessed a fair and workable net royalty at a reasonable royalty rate, 
that claims maintenance fees and other fees could be credited against 
future royalty payments, and that flow-through investment incentive 
similar to those in Canada were applicable to critical mineral 
investments.
    The permit streamlining measures described in Section VIII would 
also incentivize exploration for and development of critical minerals. 
The current lengthy permitting process is a significant disincentive 
that makes it less attractive for companies to pursue U.S. critical 
minerals projects when similar projects can be permitted in Australia 
and Canada for a fraction of the time (two to three years) compared to 
U.S. projects, which take seven to ten years, or longer.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.008


.epsB. Expanding the Definition of Critical Minerals would Increase 
        Critical Minerals Production

    Section 40206(b)(2) of the recently enacted Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law recognizes that 
``many critical minerals are only economic to recover when combined 
with the production of a host mineral.'' Unfortunately, the U.S. 
Geological Survey's 2022 list of critical minerals does not adequately 
recognize this fact.
    A 2015 study from the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale 
University \38\ substantiates that many critical minerals mainly occur 
in deposits of other more common minerals and illustrates the 
occurrence of by-product minerals in primary mineral deposits in the 
``Wheel of Metals Companionality'' shown on Figure 5. As described in 
this study, the principal host metals form the inner, darkest blue 
circle. Companion elements appear in the outer circles at distances 
proportional to the percentage of their primary production (from 100 to 
0 percent) of the host metal indicated. The companion elements in the 
white region of the outer circle are elements for which the percentage 
of their production from the host metal indicated has not been 
determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/3/e1400180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Wheel of Metals Companionality illustrates there are many 
primary metal deposits that have significant potential to produce 
important critical minerals as by-products or co-products. For example, 
antimony (Sb), is shown in association with primary (host) mineral 
deposits of gold, (Au), and lead (Pb). Copper (Cu) deposits are a host 
metal for several critical minerals including tellurium (Te), rhenium 
(Re), tin (Sn), cobalt (Co), bismuth (Bi), uranium (U), indium (In), 
barite (Ba), and arsenic (As).
    Development of the primary host-mineral deposit is typically the 
economic driver that enables co-production or by-product production of 
the critical mineral(s). In many cases, producing the critical mineral 
as a stand-alone operation is not feasible or economic. The antimony 
that will be produced as a co-product of gold production at the 
Stibnite Mine discussed in Section V is a good example of how the 
economics of host-mineral production facilitates critical minerals 
production.
    Except for aluminum (Al), the U.S. has significant mineral deposits 
of all of the host metals shown in the inner, dark-blue circle of the 
wheel: titanium (Ti); iron (Fe); nickel (Ni); copper (Cu); zinc (Zn); 
lead (Pb); tin (Sn); platinum (Pt); and gold (Au). Critical mineral 
production could be incentivized by policies that encourage development 
of host-mineral deposits where critical minerals can be produced as co-
products and by-products.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.009


.epsX. RFI Question 11: Should Lands be Off-limits to Mining

        ``Are there areas that should be off-limits from mining, and if 
        so, how should those be identified?''

    There can be no doubt that putting more lands off-limits to mining 
would increase the Nation's reliance on foreign minerals. Knowing with 
some precision the amount of federal land that remains open to location 
under the Mining Law should inform Congress' and the Administration's 
deliberations about how much land should remain subject to the Mining 
Law and whether more lands should be put off limits.
    Unfortunately, Congress and the federal land management agencies do 
not have this essential data. According to the GAO's May 2019 letter 
report to U.S. Senator Tom Udall entitled Hardrock Mining: Availability 
of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal Lands,\39\ BLM and USFS 
do not know the percentage of the federal mineral estate that has 
already been withdrawn from mineral entry under the Mining Law. It is 
inappropriate to consider the land withdrawal provisions in H.R. 7580 
without obtaining this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-435r. This GAO 
investigation asked the Department of the Interior (DOI)/Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA)/U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS), for information on 16 hardrock mining data elements and 
found the agencies had no information on six elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NDOM's data show roughly 19.5 percent of Nevada's public lands are 
designated for conservation or preservation purposes, making them 
partially or completely off-limits to mineral activities. Congress must 
not develop additional legislative or administrative ways to set aside 
more western public lands from operation of the Mining Law without 
first knowing how much of the federal mineral estate in the Mining Law 
states is already unavailable for mining.
    Former DOI Solicitor, John Leshy, recently presented data showing 
that out of the 600 million acres of reserved public lands, roughly 400 
million acres are set aside for conservation and preservation purposes 
and are thus functionally off-limits to mining. According to Professor 
Leshy, during the period from 1980 to 2020, the acres of conservation 
and preservation lands grew from 250 million to 400 million.\40\ These 
statistics show that existing land withdrawal and conservation measures 
are effective in setting aside lands, calling into question why the new 
mining-specific tools in H.R. 7580 are warranted. Before inserting land 
withdrawal provisions into the Mining Law, Congress should evaluate 
whether additional land withdrawal tools are necessary and if it is 
sound public policy to bar mining on additional lands, keeping in mind 
that mining has impacted just 317,783 acres (roughly 0.05 percent) of 
the Nation's federal mineral estate subject to the Mining Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead, 
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is not necessary to withdraw lands in order to protect the 
environment at future mine sites. As described in Section II, the 
existing regulatory requirements and environmental performance 
standards applicable to mining effectively safeguard the environment at 
today's mines. Modern mining regulations prohibit approving a project 
that would create unnecessary or undue degradation on BLM-administered 
lands (43 C.F.R. Sec. 3809.5) or that fails to minimize adverse 
environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources (36 C.F.R. 
Sec. 228.8). In addition to these surface management regulations, the 
numerous federal environmental laws listed in Table 1 and state laws 
and regulations also protect the environment at mining operations.
    There are existing statutory and administrative tools for 
withdrawing truly exceptional lands where there is a compelling and 
demonstrable public interest in barring mining on these lands despite 
the need for minerals. H.R. 7580 essentially jettisons the existing 
rigorous land withdrawal processes that appropriately consider broad 
public interests in determining whether lands are more valuable for 
their mineral resources or for scenic, cultural, recreational or other 
land uses.
    The suitability determination provision in Title I, Section 112 
gives the Secretary a mine veto without any attempt to balance the need 
for minerals and other uses of public lands as is currently mandated 
under FLPMA Section 102(a)(12). The laundry list of ``Special 
Characteristics'' that make lands unsuitable for mining will put broad 
swaths of land off-limits to mineral development. Widespread site 
characteristics including the presence of water resources and aquifers, 
lands eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, lands with 
critical habitat, and the ``adjacent lands'' buffer zone in Title I, 
Section 112, will be used to withdraw large blocks of land from mining. 
Even more problematic is the vague, catch-all provision in Section 
112(b)(2)(F) that authorizes the Secretary to designate ``the presence 
of other resource values as the Secretary concerned may by rule 
specify, determined based upon field testing, evaluation, or credible 
information that verifies such values.''
    Given our urgent need for domestic sources of critical minerals, it 
would be unwise to create a new process for designating lands that 
contain valuable critical minerals like lithium, copper, antimony, 
nickel, cobalt, rare earths and others off limits to mining without 
giving equal consideration to the country's needs for these minerals.

XI. Conclusions

    Despite its title, ``The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act,'' H.R. 
7580 will not promote the development of domestic clean energy minerals 
to support the Biden Administration's goals to reduce carbon emissions, 
phase out fossil fuels, and shift to carbon-free energy systems. 
Although there would never be a right time to enact the draconian 
measures in H.R. 7580, this is an especially bad time to make radical 
changes to the Mining Law that will make mining clean energy minerals 
more difficult if not impossible.
    Transitioning from the claims system to a leasing system is 
especially inappropriate right now given the exponential demand for the 
hardrock minerals needed to power the clean and renewable energy 
systems to help the Nation achieve its goals for national 
electrification and to meet the targeted 2030 reductions in greenhouse 
gas emissions. The one-year timeframe for the Secretary of the Interior 
to write the claim conversion regulations after the date of enactment 
is completely unrealistic. Once the regulation has been written, it 
will require at least several years to implement. This timeline will be 
a serious impediment to achieving the 2030 carbon emission reduction 
goals and will contribute to further weakening of our mineral supply 
chains.
    H.R. 7580 is diametrically at odds with the Administration's clean 
energy policies, including President Biden's recent declaration to use 
the Defense Production Act to increase critical minerals production. It 
flagrantly ignores the President's directive to form the IWG with the 
express purpose of seeking public comments on the Mining Law, mining 
regulations, and permitting. While the IWG is asking the public for 
suggestions on how to incentivize critical minerals production, enact a 
royalty that encourages production, and ways to streamline and improve 
the permitting process, the sponsors of H.R. 7580 are simultaneously 
trying to take the country in an entirely different direction that will 
substantially reduce domestic mineral production.
    Because H.R. 7580 is designed to reduce and even eliminate mining 
on public lands, its sponsors did not need to do the hard work of 
creating thoughtful and practical land tenure, royalty, or 
environmental provisions suitable for hardrock mining. To the contrary, 
they have cobbled together policies developed for other commodities and 
imposed them on hardrock minerals. The royalty proposed in H.R. 7580 is 
borrowed from the oil, gas, and coal program, energy minerals that 
occur in substantially different and much simpler geologic settings 
than hardrock minerals. The leasing and permitting procedures in H.R. 
7580 are imported from the 75-year old unsuccessful federal hardrock 
leasing program for acquired lands.
    The War in Ukraine demonstrates the dangers of relying on 
adversaries like Russia and China for minerals. Since 1995, the U.S. 
reliance on foreign minerals has nearly doubled. In 1995 we imported 
100 percent of just eight minerals and 50 percent or more of 16 
minerals. Today, we import 100 percent of 17 minerals and 50 percent or 
more for another 30 minerals. This growing reliance on foreign minerals 
is not for lack of domestic mineral resources. The minerals on 
America's public lands are a precious endowment that could provide 
domestic sources of most of the minerals needed to strengthen domestic 
supply chains and achieve our clean energy objectives. Obtaining 
minerals from domestic mines would ensure our minerals come from the 
cleanest and safest mines in the world because the existing 
comprehensive federal and state environmental laws and regulations that 
govern mining ensure a clean and safe environment at America's mines.

    As Congress contemplates amending the Mining Law, the Women's 
Mining Coalition strenuously opposes H.R. 7580 and strongly recommends 
that the following key elements of the current law be preserved to 
encourage development of the mineral resources on our public lands:

     Maintain the existing mining claims system which provides 
            the security of land tenure necessary to attract investment 
            in mineral exploration and development.

                Do not jettison the claims system and substitute the 
                impractical leasing system in H.R. 7580, which has a 
                75-year history of failure to produce minerals and 
                generate royalties from hardrock mining operations on 
                acquired lands.

     Keep lands open to mineral exploration and development.

                Do not put more lands off-limits to mining as proposed 
                in H.R. 7580.

     Preserve the Plan of Operations permitting system for 
            life-of-mine permits that comply with environmental 
            protection standards and provide reclamation bonds.

                Do not adopt the impractical and unworkable permitting 
                process in H.R. 7580 that is based on the federal 
                hardrock leasing procedures that have a long history of 
                discouraging mineral exploration and mining on acquired 
                lands.

     Require compliance with the existing framework of federal 
            and state environmental protection regulations that 
            effectively prohibit unnecessary impacts, safeguard all 
            aspects of the environment, and mitigate mining impacts.

                Do not create the unworkable environmental standards in 
                H.R. 7580 that fail to recognize that mining creates 
                some impacts that are unavoidable and necessary and 
                gives regulators the discretion to deny projects that 
                create unavoidable impacts.

     Retain current financial assurance requirements to 
            guarantee reclamation.

                The U.S. EPA's CERCLA 108(b)final rule found that 
                existing financial assurance requirements guarantee 
                reclamation of modern mines and will prevent today's 
                mines from becoming tomorrow's environmental problems.

     Streamline the mine permitting process to minimize delays 
            and uncertainties that chill minerals investment.

                Enact the streamlining measures in Section 40206 of the 
                Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

     Use the Mining Law holding fees not needed to administer 
            BLM's Mining Law Program to establish a federal fund to 
            reclaim abandoned hardrock mines on public lands.

                Based on FY 2020 statistics, roughly $29 million per 
                year could be used for this purpose.

    Thirty years ago, Women's Mining Coalition started working with the 
103rd Congress on proposed legislation to amend the Mining Law. Many 
aspects of the Mining Law debate have not changed much in the past 
thirty years.
    Today, we stand ready to work with the 117th Congress on this issue 
with the sincere hope that we can have a thoughtful dialogue about the 
Mining Law that focuses on enacting policies that will reverse the 
current decline in mineral production, encourage mineral exploration 
and development to strengthen domestic supply chains for minerals--
especially the minerals that are crucial for the clean energy 
revolution, and enable reprocessing and reclamation of previously mined 
materials that contain critical mineral resources by exempting these 
sites from Clean Water Act and CERCLA liability.

    The Women's Mining Coalition appreciates this opportunity to 
testify.

                                 ******

The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms. 
Struhsacker's testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record 
and are being retained in the Committee's official files. Ms. 
Struhsacker's submitted testimony along with these Supplemental 
Exhibits is available for viewing at:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-
%20Struhsacker %20-%20EMR%20Leg%20Hrg%20-%205.12.22.pdf

                            LIST OF EXHIBITS

    Exhibit I--July 2021 Testimony of Mr. Jim Cress, House Energy & 
Mineral Resources Subcommittee

    Exhibit II--January 2007 Testimony of Mr. Jim Cress, Senate Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee

    Exhibit III--July 2017 Testimony of Mr. Jim Cress, House Energy & 
Mineral Resources Subcommittee

    Exhibit IV--October 2021 Testimony of Mr. Rich Haddock, Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee

    Exhibit V--October 2021 Testimony of Ms. Katie Sweeney, Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee

    Exhibit VI--American Exploration & Mining Association Mining Law 
Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis

    Exhibit VII--Nevada Division of Environmental Protection--Bureau of 
Land Management--U.S. Forest Service Memorandum of Understanding

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Debra W. Struhsacker, The Women's 
                            Mining Coalition
             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber

    Question 1. Why is a claims system so much better suited to 
hardrock development than a leasing system in the United States? Some 
nations do have leasing systems for hardrock minerals--why does leasing 
function in some places, but would not work the same way in the United 
States?

    Answer.

A. The Unworkable and Impractical Aspects of the Minerals Leasing 
        System in H.R. 7580

    The leasing system proposed in H.R. 7580 is identical to the failed 
leasing program currently in place for hardrock minerals on acquired 
lands. As documented in a May 2020 Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO's) report,\1\ in FY 2018, this program had only 20 hardrock 
mineral leases nationwide that had operating mines, just seven of which 
generated an inconsequential $8.7 million in federal royalty payments. 
It is likely that six operating leases for lead, zinc, and copper mines 
in Missouri paid most of this royalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Mining on Federal Lands, GAO-20-461R, May 28, 2020, https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-461r.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The meager mineral production from the Nation's acquired lands does 
not reflect a lack of mineral potential. To the contrary, there are 
some promising mineral deposits known on these lands. The federal 
leasing program for hardrock minerals on acquired lands clearly fails 
to realize benefits from the mineral wealth on these lands and is an 
ineffective way to generate revenue from mineral production. If this 
leasing system worked well, there would be many more leases producing 
minerals and paying royalties.
    The lack of meaningful mineral production and royalty payments from 
hardrock mineral projects on acquired lands is due to the unfavorable 
prospecting permit procedures and lease terms that impede exploration 
and development. The acquired lands hardrock minerals leasing program 
is a failure because it does not provide the security of tenure 
required to explore for, discover, develop, and mine hardrock minerals, 
which are rare, difficult, time-consuming, and costly to find. 
According to the National Research Council/National Academy of Science 
1999 report,\2\ 1,000 mineral targets must be identified and evaluated 
to discover a single deposit that can become a mine. It can take ten to 
twenty years to discover and develop a hardrock mineral deposit. This 
timeframe is simply incompatible with the arbitrarily truncated time 
limits and acreage restrictions that would be applicable to the 
prospecting permits and minerals leases in H.R. 7580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, page 24.

    The H.R. 7580 leasing system replicates the barriers to mineral 
exploration and development in the acquired lands leasing program. Just 
like the hardrock minerals leasing program on acquired lands, H.R. 7580 
includes the following unworkable time limits and acreage constraints 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that are unsuited to hardrock mineral exploration and development:

     Prospecting licenses or permits are limited to two years 
            with a maximum four-year discretionary extension, and are 
            restricted to 2,560 acres per permit and a 20,480-acre per 
            person/company per state limit; \3\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The acreage and time limits for prospecting permits and leases 
are modeled after the temporal and acreage parameters for leasable 
minerals (e.g., oil, gas, coal, phosphate, potash, and sodium) in the 
Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 181 et seq.

     Hardrock mining leases are limited to a primary term of 20 
            years, which may not be long enough to develop and mine 
            many deposits. This artificial time constraint is not in 
            the public's best interest. A mining lease must provide 
            security of tenure for as long as it takes to develop and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            mine a deposit.

    The acreage and time limits for prospecting permits and leases are 
modeled after the temporal and spatial parameters for leasable minerals 
(e.g., oil, gas, coal, phosphate, potash, and sodium) in the Minerals 
Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 181 et seq. The significant 
differences in the geologic settings for hardrock minerals compared to 
oil, gas, and coal (as discussed below) make shoehorning a system 
developed for oil, gas, and coal and force-fitting it onto hardrock 
minerals inappropriate, and is the main reason the federal hardrock 
minerals leasing program on acquired lands is a failure.
    At a broader level, even if a leasing system that provided adequate 
security of tenure were developed, Congress would need to consider the 
practical implications of developing and implementing such a system at 
a time when the Nation is already challenged to move critical and 
strategic mineral projects forward under the current system. Changing 
from a claims system to a leasing system would take years. During this 
multi-year transition period, investment in mineral exploration, 
development, and production would decrease in response to the 
uncertainty, making the U.S. would become even more dependent on 
foreign minerals. Given the Nation's need for critical minerals for 
clean energy systems, national defense, manufacturing, infrastructure 
and other important applications, this would be an especially bad time 
to change the land tenure system for hardrock minerals.

B. Why Self-Initiation and Mining Claims are Optimal for Hardrock 
        Minerals

    The geology of hardrock mineral deposits must define the land 
tenure system. The Mining Law claim location system is exceptionally 
well-suited for hardrock mineral exploration because it promotes self-
initiation and facilitates the iterative exploration process that is 
necessary to discover minerals. This process involves gradually zeroing 
in on mineralized areas, which may take decades, using the data 
obtained from exploration drilling and other mineral investigation 
techniques, which evolve and improve over time. Collecting these data 
allows geologists to upgrade or downgrade prospective areas, and to 
modify the size of a claim block on the basis of this information by 
either dropping or adding claims. Under this self-initiated exploration 
and claim location system, there are no arbitrary or rigid time limits 
or acreage restrictions unlike the H.R. 7580 limits for prospecting 
permits and minerals leases. At the same time, all the costs and risks 
are borne by the individual or company conducting the exploration and 
their investors.
    Hardrock minerals are rare and hard to find. They are typically 
found in areas with complex geology where the host rocks have been 
folded, faulted, and altered by mineralizing fluids. In contrast, oil 
and gas deposits are fairly abundant. They occur in well-understood, 
large sedimentary basins that can be effectively explored using 
geophysical techniques that require little or no surface disturbance. 
Laterally extensive coal seams are also easy to identify.\4\ The 
substantial differences in the geologic setting of oil, gas, and coal 
compared to hardrock minerals is one of the main reasons the federal 
leasing programs for coal, oil and gas cannot be successfully used for 
hardrock minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ As explained in Mr. Jim Cress' July 2017 testimony before this 
Subcommittee, coal is a solid mineral of generally uniform quality and 
composition that requires little or no processing. In the West, where 
most federal coal deposits exist, coal beds are vast, world-class 
deposits of great thickness. For example, in Wyoming's Powder River 
Basin, coal beds average 80 feet and up to 200 feet in thickness. 
Little exploration for coal is required, and it is relatively easy to 
determine the quality of the coal and the thickness of a seam prior to 
mining with drilling and sampling. (See Exhibit III, page 5 of my May 
2022 testimony.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rich Haddock's \5\ October 2021 testimony before the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is attached as Exhibit I, 
documents the costs, time, and difficulties in discovering a hardrock 
mineral deposit. As discussed in Mr. Haddock's testimony, Barrick Gold 
Corporation's Goldrush-Fourmile Project in Nevada is 2,000 feet below 
the ground surface. Barrick drilled 427 holes in the project area 
before discovering the deposit.\6\ The costs to drill each exploration 
drill hole at this project has ranged from $500,000 to $1 million. 
Barrick has been exploring this project for over 20 years, has drilled 
roughly 1,200 holes to define the size and grade of this deposit, and 
spent over $459 million in drilling and technical and environmental 
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Mr. Haddock is General Counsel of Barrick Gold Corporation.
    \6\ https://www.barrick.com/English/news/news-details/2018/
fourmile-journey-to-a-high-grade-discovery/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The footprint of the 2,000-foot deep orebody projected to the 
surface covers roughly 45 acres, which is slightly larger than two 
unpatented mining claims. (An unpatented mining claim can cover a 
maximum of about 20 acres.) The Plan of Operations boundary covers 
19,895 acres of land comprised of 772 acres of private land and 19,123 
acres of BLM-administered public lands.\7\ The comparative sizes of the 
ore deposit (45 acres) and the surrounding project area (19,825 acres) 
illustrates the difficulties in finding an ore deposit, and helps 
explain why it took so long and so many drill holes to discover the 
Goldrush-Fourmile deposit. The exploration history and expenditures at 
the Goldrush-Fourmile Project are not atypical for a hardrock mineral 
exploration project, and are emblematic of the daunting nature of 
hardrock mineral exploration, which is literally like looking for a 
needle in the haystack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-10/pdf/2021-
17040.pdf. To secure the company's land position, Barrick has over 900 
unpatented mining claims on the public lands in the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the federal leasing programs for oil, gas, and coal, the 
federal government decides where companies can explore for and develop 
these energy resources. That is a workable system for oil, coal, and 
gas because both the federal government and the industry know with some 
precision where these resources are located before they are leased. 
This is not the case for hardrock minerals, whose locations are not 
known prior to drilling numerous exploration drill holes.
    To make a hardrock mineral leasing system work, the federal 
government would have to invest billions to discover hardrock minerals. 
Because the government has not made this investment on acquired lands, 
and the current prospecting permit-leasing system on these lands 
discourages private-sector investment, the federal leasing program for 
hardrock minerals on acquired lands is unsuccessful. Replicating this 
failed system on public domain lands will be similarly unsuccessful.

C. There are No Problems Identified with the Self-Initiated Claim 
        System

    It must be emphasized that there are no problems with the self-
initiated claims location system that need to be solved. In fact, there 
is a compelling public interest in preserving this system because 
taxpayers benefit from the substantial private-sector investments made 
to explore for minerals under the existing Mining Law. Self-initiation 
deploys private investment to take the initiative to locate claims 
based on preliminary concepts about where minerals may be located and 
effectively leverages private investments that transform undeveloped 
federal land into mining operations that create jobs, pay taxes, and 
provide the minerals the country needs--at no expense whatsoever to 
U.S. taxpayers.
    Also, it is important to understand that the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) knows where all mining claims in the country are 
located because claim owners must record the locations of their claims 
and pay annual claim maintenance fees. Although the self-initiated 
claims system does not dictate where prospectors explore for minerals 
on lands open to location under the Mining Law, the BLM maintains an 
accurate database of where active claims are located. Therefore, 
allegations that the claims location system does not give the federal 
government adequate information about where claims are located to 
manage public lands have no merit.

D. Elements of Successful Mineral Leasing Programs

    There are examples of workable minerals leasing programs in some 
western states and in other countries where these systems successfully 
attract mineral investments, encourage mineral exploration, produce 
minerals, and generate taxes or royalties payable to the lessor. 
However, these systems are markedly different from the leasing system 
proposed in H.R. 7580.
    Successful mineral leasing programs are specifically designed to 
stimulate and facilitate mineral discovery and production. They do not 
include any of the time restrictions or acreage limitations described 
above in H.R. 7580. Successful leasing programs are premised on the key 
principle that the lessor and lessee share a common and mutually 
beneficial goal to find mineral deposits that can become a mine that 
pays royalties to the lessor. The H.R. 7580 leasing program has none of 
these attributes because the lessor (e.g., the federal government) is a 
hostile landlord whose prospecting permits and mineral leases create 
numerous barriers to mineral exploration and development.
    Given the current extraordinary demand for minerals to build clean 
energy infrastructure, to power electric vehicles, and to electrify the 
Nation, this is an exceptionally inappropriate time to make sweeping 
changes to the land tenure system in the Mining Law. Because there are 
no demonstrated problems with the claims location system, there would 
be no public policy benefits from converting the claim location system 
to a minerals leasing system--even if the terms of a future minerals 
leasing system provided adequate security of land tenure to promote 
mineral exploration and development.
    Transitioning from a claims system to a leasing program would be an 
extraordinarily complicated and time consuming process to develop and 
implement new leasing regulations and procedures, which could be 
delayed by years of litigation in the federal court system. During this 
protracted transition period, mineral exploration and discovery would 
decline due to the uncertainties about the terms in a future minerals 
leasing program. The net result would be reduced mineral production 
during the transition period and increased reliance on foreign 
minerals.

    Question 2. Federal oil, gas, and coal all operate in the United 
States with a 12.5 percent royalty. Why shouldn't hardrock mining have 
the same rate? Can you explain the difference between a ``net'' and a 
``gross'' royalty, and why that matters in regards to hardrock 
production?

    Answer.

A. Royalty Rates

    All royalties--whether they are a gross royalty or a net royalty--
add operating cost to every ounce of produced minerals. The bigger the 
royalty, the bigger the cost. The most immediate impact of a royalty is 
it reduces cash-flow. Another important and unfavorable impact of a 
royalty is the reduction in reserves and resources. If an excessive 
royalty increases the cost per ounce too much, reserves will shrink, 
mine life will be shortened, and the capital used to build the mine 
will be wasted because the mine will have to close before the 
investment in the mining and processing facilities can be recouped.
    The end result of a confiscatory royalty is that mines are forced 
to close prematurely, leaving reserves in the ground. An excessive 
royalty hurts both the mine owner and the community as the economic 
engine that a mine creates for state and local governments grinds to a 
halt. High-paying mining jobs are lost and revenue streams from tax 
payments and the purchase of goods and services vanish.
    An especially problematic aspect of the royalties in H.R. 7580 is 
that they would be applied retrospectively to claims in existence on 
the date of enactment. This will exacerbate the economic hardships that 
a royalty creates and will likely cause premature closure of those 
currently operating mines that cannot remain economically viable if 
they must pay an eight percent gross royalty. As discussed in Section 
III of my May 12, 2022 written testimony, imposing a retroactive 
royalty on existing mining claims will expose the federal government 
and taxpayers to Fifth amendment Constitutional takings claims.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Also see Exhibit VI, ``American Exploration & Mining 
Association Mining Law Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis,'' in my May 
22, 2022 written testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The dramatically different geologic and market characteristics of 
oil gas, coal, and hardrock minerals dictate the need for different 
approaches to assessing an appropriate royalty rate for these 
materials. A cookie-cutter approach that uses the 12.5 percent gross 
royalty applicable to oil, gas, and coal is overly simplistic and fails 
to consider the significant differences in how and where these minerals 
occur, how they are produced, substantial differences in processing 
costs, and marketplace realities. Using the federal royalty rate for 
oil, gas, and coal for hardrock minerals is just as unworkable and 
inappropriate as replicating the federal hardrock leasing system on 
acquired lands to public domain lands.
    Because coal, phosphate, sodium, and potash are solid minerals that 
are mined from the ground rather than pumped from wells, they are more 
similar to hardrock minerals than oil and gas and help illustrate why a 
one-size-fits all 12.5 percent royalty rate is inappropriate. First, 
there are two different royalty rates for federal coal: 8 percent for 
coal mined from underground operations; and 12.5 percent for coal mined 
from surface operations. These different royalty rates reflect the 
different costs associated with underground mining operations, which 
are typically more expensive to operate than surface mining operations. 
Because hardrock minerals are produced from both underground and 
surface mines, a uniform 12.5 percent royalty rate would be similarly 
inappropriate.
    Second, a uniform 12.5 percent rate is not applicable to other 
leasable minerals besides oil, gas, and coal. The leasable minerals 
sodium, potash, and phosphate are not assessed a uniform 12.5 percent 
royalty rate because these low-margin industrial and fertilizer 
minerals cannot support a 12.5 percent royalty rate. The statutorily 
established base rate for phosphate is 5 percent and is 2 percent for 
potash and sodium. These different royalty rates reflect the different 
nature and economics of these commodities as well as their dissimilar 
marketing considerations. Thus, the federal royalty rates for these 
leasable minerals take into account the differences in these minerals' 
value and market dynamics, and clearly demonstrate there is precedent 
for not applying a one-size-fits-all 12.5 percent royalty rate to all 
leasable minerals.
    Historically, mines for these leasable minerals have paid lower 
royalty rates during periods when economic conditions and foreign 
competition have resulted in the federal government accepting lower 
royalty rates to keep these mining operations from becoming 
unprofitable, because it is not in the public's best interest for mines 
that cannot afford to pay the federal royalty to close. Under these 
circumstances, a lower government-approved royalty rate is sound public 
policy because it allows a mine to continue to operate, employ workers, 
and pay taxes and royalties during economically challenging times.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Jim Cress, op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another compelling reason why applying a 12.5 percent royalty rate 
to hardrock minerals would be inappropriate is that this would make 
U.S. mines uncompetitive compared to hardrock mining operations in 
other countries. Testimony from Ms. Katie Sweeney \10\ in October 2021 
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee describes why 
royalty rates must consider the total government ``take,'' defined as 
the aggregate of federal, state, and local royalties, taxes, and fees, 
and compare that take to what mineral producers pay in other countries. 
A future federal hardrock royalty must not make the total government 
take so high that U.S. mines cannot compete with mines in other 
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the National 
Mining Association (NMA). Ms. Sweeney's testimony is included as 
Exhibit V in my May 2022 testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As explained in Ms. Sweeney's testimony, the existing government 
take affecting U.S. hardrock mining operations is close to 40 percent 
for most NMA members, which is close to the top range for other cost-
competitive mining countries. The 8 percent gross royalty on new mining 
operations and the 4 percent on existing operations that were being 
considered last fall in the Budget Reconciliation Bill would have 
increased the total government take to over 50 percent and would have 
made the U.S. an uncompetitive country for mineral investment and 
mining. The higher (8 to 12.5 percent) royalty rates proposed in H.R. 
7580 would increase the total government take for U.S. mines making 
them even less competitive.
    Mr. Haddock's testimony at the same October 2021 hearing (see 
Exhibit I) compares the total government take in the U.S. compared to 
Australia or Canada, our two most important mining allies. Currently, 
the three countries have about the same total government take ranging 
from 38 to 39 percent. Adding a 2 percent net royalty to hardrock 
mineral production on federal land would increase the total take on 
U.S. hardrock mining operations to roughly 41 percent. At this rate, 
U.S. mines would not be cost competitive with mines in Australia or 
Canada. Obviously, imposing the 8 to 12.5 percent royalties in H.R. 
7580 would make U.S. mines even less competitive with mines in 
Australia and Canada--especially in light of the far more reasonable 
two- to three-year permitting timeframes in these countries.

B. Net versus Gross Royalties

    Although there is widespread belief that oil, gas, and coal pay a 
gross federal royalty, this is not true. All three commodities pay a 
net royalty because certain allowable deductions are applied to the 
value of these energy minerals before calculating the royalty. As the 
GAO explains, the ``gross'' royalty that coal miners pay on coal 
produced from federal coal leases allows coal mine operators to 
subtract certain costs to produce a sellable product before the royalty 
is computed:

        ``For coal, certain costs are deducted from the price of coal 
        at the first point of sale, including transportation and 
        processing allowances, before the amount is calculated for 
        royalty purposes.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Oil, Gas, and Coal Royalties, Government Accountability Office 
Report, June 2017, GAO-17-540.

    Similarly, federal oil and gas royalties are a net royalty and not 
a gross royalty because they are based on the value of the sellable 
products from an oil and gas well. Although federal royalties for oil, 
gas, and coal are called gross royalties, this is a misnomer. The 
federal oil, gas, and coal royalties are in reality comparable to a net 
royalty because they are based on the value of the sellable products 
from an oil and gas well or a coal mine.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Cress, op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike crude oil and natural gas, for which there are market 
valuations on a per barrel or per MMBtu basis respectively, there is no 
market or valuation for ``crude'' (i.e., unprocessed) hardrock mineral 
ores as defined in H.R. 7580. For example, the Commodities Market 
Digest on Page 8 of the May 20, 2022 edition of the Wall Street Journal 
shows market prices of $121.21 per barrel for crude oil and $8.308 per 
MMBtu for natural gas. This Commodities Market Digest does not show a 
price for crude gold ore because it has no market value and is never 
sold as crude ore. It does, however, list the price that day for 
refined gold as $1,841.20 per troy ounce.
    To illustrate the point during the hearing that crude ore must be 
processed to extract the valuable and sellable hardrock minerals, I 
showed the piece of crude gold-silver ore from a mine in Nevada that is 
shown on the following page. The dark-gray lines contain the gold and 
silver. But before these precious metals can be recovered from this 
crude ore, the rock must be crushed, ground to a fine powder, and 
subjected to a number of metallurgical processing steps to liberate the 
gold and silver and produce a product called dore that gets sold. The 
dore must then be refined, typically at an off-site facility, to 
produce gold and silver that can then be used for currency, medical 
applications, electronics, jewelry, etc.

                  Photograph of Crude Gold-Silver Ore
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7569.010


    .epsThe H.R. 7580 royalty does not allow deductions for any of the 
costs to transform crude ore into a sellable product. This is not 
comparable to the federal royalties for oil, gas, and coal which are 
based on the value of the first sellable products after certain 
allowable deductions for the costs to produce a sellable product.
    A workable hardrock royalty program needs to have a similar 
structure that allows deductions for the processing steps needed to 
produce the first sellable hardrock mineral product. To be treated 
equitably with oil, gas, and coal, a future federal hardrock mineral 
royalty should be assessed at a comparable point in the value-added 
steps to produce the first sellable product. For hardrock minerals, the 
mine operator must be able to deduct the costs associated with the 
value-added mineral processing steps that are necessary to produce a 
sellable mineral product. The H.R. 7580 royalty is unfair and 
confiscatory because it is calculated on the gross value of mineral 
products that includes the value added by the operator to process, 
refine, and produce a sellable mineral product from the crude ore 
removed at the initial step in the mining process.
    Because commodity price cycles are variable and cyclical, a gross 
royalty has a very different effect on mining investment compared to a 
net royalty. Royalties assessed on gross income discourage investment 
by increasing economic risks. Consequently, projects subject to a gross 
royalty will require a higher pretax and after-tax rate of return to 
accommodate the increased risk. In contrast, a net royalty has a 
smaller effect on the variability of after-tax rates of return and is 
less of a deterrent to investment. When commodity prices decrease, the 
rate of return required to justify a mining investment increases more 
dramatically under a gross royalty than under a net royalty. A gross 
royalty takes a bigger piece out of the mine's income during periods of 
low commodity prices.
    A gross royalty is especially problematic during industry downturns 
due to low commodity prices because they cause a greater reduction in 
cash-flow during periods when profits are already low. A gross royalty 
can functionally reduce the size of the ore deposit that remains 
economic to mine. During low commodity price cycles, low-grade ores may 
become uneconomic to mine and process and become low-grade waste 
materials that are not processed or mined at all, which shortens the 
life of the mine and reduces the total amount of mineral that will be 
produced from the mine. Gross royalties may thus contribute to 
premature mine closures with the concomitant loss of jobs; reduced 
local, state, and federal tax revenues and/or royalty payments; and 
business losses for the mine's vendors and suppliers, which in turn 
harms nearby communities and local and state governments.
    A net royalty, in contrast, does not cause mines to operate at a 
loss because the royalty owed is automatically reduced during periods 
of low commodity prices, and increases again when prices are higher. A 
net royalty thus allows mining operations to continue to operate during 
periods of low commodity prices and also enables maximum recovery of 
low-grade ore during high commodity prices. Because mineral demand is 
cyclical and commodity prices fluctuate, a net royalty provides the 
best incentive to explore for minerals on federal lands in spite of 
variable mineral demand and commodity price cycles. A net royalty thus 
minimizes volatility in the mining industry which helps keep the 
domestic industry viable and the nation's mineral supply secure, which 
is in the public's best interest.
    Fuel costs have a significant impact on a mine's bottom line. Mines 
subject to a net royalty will be in a better position to withstand the 
current extraordinarily high costs for diesel and natural gas compared 
to mines that must pay a gross royalty. This is another public policy 
benefit of a net royalty compared to a gross royalty. A net royalty 
allows mines to continue operating during periods of high costs for the 
fuel, power, and supplies needed to keep a mine running.
    For many years, the U.S. mining industry has been willing to 
negotiate a reasonable prospective federal hardrock mining net royalty 
that recognizes the costs to produce hardrock minerals. A net royalty 
accomplishes an important public policy objective that provides 
taxpayers with revenue from mining on public lands while at the same 
time not creating such a substantial burden that the royalty makes 
mining uneconomic.
    Both taxpayers and mine operators ``go to the bank together'' under 
a net royalty. Taxpayers receive higher royalty payments during periods 
of robust commodity prices. Mine operators pay reduced royalties when 
commodity prices are low, but their mines have a better chance of 
remaining economically viable and can continue to operate, keeping mine 
workers employed and providing tax revenues to local and state 
governments and corporate federal income taxes.

    Question 3. GAO has issued a report saying that the average 
permitting timeline takes about 2 years, but, in reality, we've 
observed that it often takes much longer. How long does the average 
hardrock mine take to become active in the United States, from 
exploration to production, and why?

    Answer. By its own admission, the two-year average mine permitting 
timeline in GAO's January 2016 report entitled ``Hardrock Mining: BLM 
and Forest Service Have Taken Some Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan 
Review Process but Could Do More'' \13\ is based on unreliable and 
inconsistent data. Therefore, this report does not provide accurate or 
useful information on how long it takes to obtain permits from the BLM 
or the U.S. Forest Service for a hardrock mine on western public domain 
land. In the citations below, GAO acknowledges the serious shortcomings 
in this investigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-165.

        ``To determine the number of mine plans that were approved from 
        fiscal years 2010 through 2014, we examined data from BLM's 
        Legacy Rehost 2000 (LR2000) system and the Forest Service's 
        Locatable Minerals database--automated information systems the 
        agencies use to track key dates and milestones in the mine plan 
        review process. Through interviews with agency officials, our 
        analysis of these data, and comparisons to other publicly 
        available information from federal agencies, we determined that 
        these data from these databases were not sufficiently reliable 
        to measure the time it took these agencies to complete the mine 
        plan review process, as discussed later in the report. 
        Consequently, we instead worked with agency officials to 
        collect data from paper and electronic records maintained by 
        BLM field offices and Forest Service ranger districts to 
        develop a list of mine plans approved from fiscal years 2010 
        through 2014. To ensure that we reviewed data on comparable 
        projects, we requested data on mine plans that were 5 acres in 
        size or larger, and were plans for new mines or mine 
        expansions.'' \14\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ GAO, op cit., pages 3-4.

        ``Because we selected a nonprobability sample of BLM and Forest 
        Service locations, our findings are not generalizable to all 
        BLM and Forest Service locations conducting reviews of mine 
        plans.'' \15\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ GAO, op cit., page 5.

        ``BLM and the Forest Service's tracking of the mine plan review 
        process is hindered by limitations with their data systems; as 
        a result, BLM does not have adequate information, and the 
        Forest Service does not have complete information, necessary to 
        track the length of time to complete the mine plan review 
        process.'' \16\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ GAO, op cit., page 13.

    In addition to the shortcomings of BLM's and the Forest Service's 
mine permitting tracking systems and databases described in this GAO 
report, it is obvious that GAO has misinterpreted the data the agencies 
provided on the number of Plans of Operation that were reviewed and 
authorized during the 2010 to 2014 timeframe. GAO incorrectly assumed 
that all Plans of Operations were for mining operations and failed to 
understand that most Plans of Operation are for mineral exploration 
projects--not for mining projects. The following statement illustrates 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this point:

        ``Mine size. The sizes of the mines proposed in these 68 plans 
        varied greatly, ranging from 5 to 8,470 acres.\17\ The average 
        proposed mine was approximately 529 acres, and the 68 mine 
        plans totaled nearly 36,000 acres.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Five acres is the surface disturbance threshold that triggers 
the requirement to submit a Plan of Operations for mineral exploration 
activities on BLM-administered lands. The Forest Service requires a 
Plan of Operations for all surface-disturbing mineral activities, even 
if only a few acres will be disturbed.
    \18\ GAO, op cit., page 14.

    GAO's failure to distinguish between Exploration Plans of Operation 
(EPOs) versus Mine Plans of Operation (MPOs) produced a meaningless 
analysis that inappropriately lumps EPOs and MPOs together. 
Consequently, GAO's findings that it takes an average of two years to 
permit a mine are wildly inaccurate and frequently misrepresented. 
Figure 4 and GAO's summary statement: ``Timeframes for approving Plans 
ranged from about one month to over 11 years and averaged two years'' 
\19\ is based on a jumble of apples and oranges data. These widely 
divergent timeframes reflect it takes less time for the agencies to 
review and authorize EPOs versus much more time to review and authorize 
MPOs. Therefore, the analysis in this report has little or no relevance 
or value and should not be used in future policy discussions about the 
mine permitting process or the length of time required to permit a 
mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ GAO, op cit., page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed at length in my July 2021 Questions for the Record 
\20\ for the July 27, 2021 hearing ``The Toxic Legacy of the 1872 
Mining Law'' before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources, GAO made the same error and failed to distinguish between 
EPOs and MPOs in its May 2020 Report ``Mining on Federal Lands, GAO-20-
461R,'' \21\ which led GAO to inaccurately state there are 728 active 
mining operations on public lands. This grossly overestimates the 
number of active mines because most of the 728 Plans of Operation are 
EPOs--not MPOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Included herein as Exhibit II. Also see Section III of my 
testimony for the May 12, 2022 hearing, ``Reforming the Mining Law of 
1872.''
    \21\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-461r.

    Finally, the 2016 GAO report acknowledges that in addition to 
permits from the BLM and U.S. Forest Service, most project proponents 
must also secure many additional permits before a mine can be built and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
operated:

        ``Based on a review of NEPA documents, state permitting 
        guidelines, and studies of hardrock mining requirements, we 
        identified six categories of federal permits and authorizations 
        that mine operators may need to obtain from entities other than 
        BLM and the Forest Service and seven categories of state and 
        local permits and authorizations across 12 western states that 
        may be required depending on the nature of the mining 
        operations . . .'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ GAO op cit., page 17.

    Congress may want to ask GAO to update and correct its analysis of 
the amount of time it takes to permit MPOs and EPOs. The following are 
some recommended parameters that would greatly improve the reliability 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of a future GAO study:

          1)   The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service should improve the 
        agencies' recordkeeping and databases to clearly distinguish 
        between EPOs and MPOs; and

          2)   The GAO should perform separate analyses of the length 
        of time required for the agencies to authorize EPOs versus 
        MPOs.

    It would also be useful for GAO to compare the length of time it 
takes BLM to authorize these mineral activities versus the time it 
takes the U.S. Forest Service to approve EPOs and MPOs. Based on my 
experience, this comparison is likely to reveal that it takes longer 
for the Forest Service to review and authorize EPOs and MPOs than the 
BLM. But the permitting timelines for both agencies take too long for 
both EPOs and MPOs. The permitting process for some EPOs can take 
longer than two years.
    Rather than relying on this inaccurate GAO analysis, Congress may 
want to consider the data that the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) compiled during its recent rulemaking to consider changes to the 
CEQ regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). CEQ's July 2020, report \23\ presents information on the 
timelines it took federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact 
Statements (EISs) from 2010 through 2018. CEQ found that it took an 
average of more than 4.5 years for federal agencies to complete the 
NEPA process starting with issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI), 
completing an EIS document, and issuing a Record of Decision (ROD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/eis-timelines.html.

    Question 4. Does the lack of a comprehensive resource assessment in 
the United States for metals and minerals provide a disincentive to 
mine project proponents under a leasing system, as proposed in H.R. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7580? Please describe why or why not.

    Answer. A comprehensive U.S. mineral resource assessment would be 
extremely useful information that could stimulate more private-sector 
investment in mineral exploration on federal lands throughout the 
country, including on public domain and acquired lands if it is coupled 
with favorable mining policies. However, a mineral resource assessment 
would not make the hardrock mineral leasing program in H.R. 7580 (or 
the same program that currently governs acquired lands) any more 
practical or workable because the time limits and acreage constraints 
discussed in Section I would remain as serious barriers to mineral 
exploration and development.
    The length of time allowed under a prospecting permit (a two-year 
initial term with a maximum of six years) and the acreage constraints, 
(a maximum of 2,560 acres per lease and only eight leases, 20,480 
acres, granted per company), are not enough time or land to allow the 
self-initiated and iterative exploration work that is required to find 
the ``needle-in-the-haystack'' hardrock mineral deposit. The 
exploration and discovery timeline described in Section I for Barrick 
Gold Corporation's Goldrush-Fourmile Project is typical of the length 
of time (two decades) to discover a hidden mineral deposit that is not 
exposed at the surface.
    Because most mineral deposits that are exposed at the surface have 
already been explored, it is likely that the majority of future mineral 
discoveries will be hidden deposits that are covered by a thick 
sequence of unmineralized rocks. These deposits are difficult, 
expensive, and time-consuming to discover and delineate. The current 
claims system is ideal for facilitating the time-consuming and self-
initiated iterative exploration process that can lead to a discovery of 
the hidden mineral deposit. The H.R. 7580 prospecting permit/leasing 
system is simply impractical. It does not give explorers enough time or 
land to enable discovery of mineral deposits. The failure of this same 
system on acquired lands proves that it is an ineffective system for 
discovering and developing mineral deposits.

    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is currently undertaking the 
Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI), which has the stated 
goal to:

        ``. . . improve our knowledge of the geologic framework in the 
        United States and to identify areas that may have the potential 
        to contain undiscovered critical mineral resources.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/earth-mri.

    The geophysical and lidar surveys that will be performed as part of 
the Earth MRI may be useful in identifying broad areas with hidden 
mineral potential. However, if and when the Earth MRI delineates areas 
with critical mineral potential, it will still be necessary for 
companies to do the expensive, time-consuming, and iterative 
exploration work to find the ``needle-in-the-haystack'' mineral deposit 
hidden within larger areas with mineral potential. The H.R. 7580 
leasing program is completely incompatible with the geologic realities 
of discovering and developing hardrock minerals. Consequently, the 
Earth MRI or other mineral resources assessment surveys are unlikely to 
significantly increase the discovery and development of critical 
minerals if the self-initiated mining claims system is eliminated and 
replaced by the H.R. 7580 leasing system.
    Conversely, the Earth MRI data may be very useful in stimulating 
mineral exploration for buried mineral deposits if the current self-
initiated claims system under the Mining Law remains in place. This is 
especially true in the Great Basin portion of western public domain 
lands where there are broad areas covered by unmineralized rocks. (The 
Great Basin extends across most of Nevada and about half of Utah, with 
small portions in Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming and California.) The Nevada 
Division of Minerals estimates that alluvium covers roughly 48 percent 
of Nevada, obscuring the rocks that may host attractive mineral 
targets. About 79 percent of these covered lands are currently open to 
location under the Mining Law.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Personal communication, Lucia Patterson, Nevada Division of 
Minerals, GIS/Field Specialist, Geologist.

    Question 5. During the hearing, Rep Porter displayed a whiteboard 
denoting column ``A'' and column ``B,'' regarding siting decisions and 
environmental costs of solar farms and mining projects. Could you 
explain why this isn't an ``either/or'' proposal in terms of materials 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
needed for solar energy technologies?

    Answer. The hypothetical scenario that Congresswoman Porter 
described on her whiteboard involving conflicting land uses between a 
hardrock mineral mine and a solar facility reflects a lack of 
understanding of where and how mines are located versus the site 
selection process for a solar facility. As described in Section I, 
hardrock mineral deposits are rare and difficult to find. 
Statistically, only 1 in 1,000 mineral prospects will have the 
geological and mineralization characteristics necessary to become an 
economically viable mine.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mines can only be developed where a mineral deposit has been 
discovered. Once a mineral deposit is discovered, it cannot be moved. 
The Goldrush-Fourmile gold deposit discussed in Section I is a good 
example of a 20-year long, $459 million exploration effort that was 
eventually successful in delineating the ``needle-in-a-haystack'' 
deposit which is 2,000 feet below the ground surface and covers just 45 
acres within a 19,895-acre project area.
    In contrast, there may be many feasible locations where the sun 
shines on a regular basis for a solar facility, which gives solar 
project proponents the ability to select one or more optimal sites 
factoring in the hours of sunshine, landownership, zoning, topography, 
proximity to existing infrastructure, and power users, and other site 
parameters. The solar developer has the ability to find the best sunny 
site based on these considerations. Mineral developers do not have the 
same flexibility because minerals do not occur everywhere the sun 
shines. They can only hope to discover minerals where geologic 
conditions are favorable for the formation of a mineral deposit, which 
may take decades and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars 
to discover, as was the case for the Goldrush-Fourmile deposit.
    Although a mineral deposit cannot be moved or mined elsewhere, 
development of a mine and a solar facility are not mutually exclusive 
land uses. With proper planning and permitting, it may be feasible to 
co-develop a mine and a solar field to use solar energy to help power 
the mine. Alternatively, some mine sites are being considered for 
redevelopment into solar fields once mining has been completed.
    Co-development and post-mining redevelopment of mine sites for 
renewable energy facilities such as solar installations create 
sustainable use of the transmission lines and other infrastructure 
developed to support the mine. Because many mine sites use line power 
and have constructed nearby transmission facilities, capitalizing on 
this existing electricity transmission infrastructure removes a 
significant barrier to solar (and wind) power, which otherwise would 
have to be able to support the costs to build a transmission line to 
the solar or wind farm. The costs associated with bringing transmission 
lines to a proposed solar or wind project can make some projects 
uneconomic. Taking advantage of preexisting transmission infrastructure 
may make many more solar and wind projects economically feasible.

    The Nature Conservancy's (TNC's) ``Mining the Sun Initiative'' is 
actively looking for opportunities at operating and old mines to 
capitalize upon the synergies between mining and renewable energy and 
is recruiting mining partners with operating and closed mines as 
potential sites for solar fields:

        ``. . . Nevada mine sites have existing road and power line 
        infrastructure, making them attractive for solar development. 
        In fact, . . . there are more than 1 million acres of potential 
        minefields and brownfield sites in Nevada. If developed with 
        solar power, TNC estimates their solar energy generation 
        potential in Nevada to be 20,219 megawatts--enough to power 3.8 
        million homes.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-
climate-change/climate-change-stories/nevada-west-virginia-solar-
energy-former-mines/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 6. H.R. 7580 adds two more permitting requirements in 
Title III to a process that already has significant overlap and can 
take around two decades. Will these new proposed permits duplicate 
existing requirements? Will the new proposed permits create more 
bureaucratic delays?

    Answer. H.R. 7580 Section 303 creates a new Exploration Permit; 
Section 304 creates a new Operations Permit. It is unclear whether the 
Title III permitting processes in H.R. 7580 would be in addition to the 
comprehensive and effective BLM, USFS, and state regulatory 
requirements and permitting processes that currently govern mineral 
exploration and development or would replace these processes. Either 
way, the Title III permitting processes will make mineral projects much 
more difficult--if not impossible--to permit.
    The problems associated with these Title III permitting 
requirements extend far beyond creating more bureaucratic delays 
because these sections include a number of impractical and unworkable 
requirements and standards that are designed to make mine permitting 
impossible. The Section 111 Sacred Places criteria and the Section 112 
suitability criteria strongly influence both the Section 303 and 304 
permitting processes and will put many more federal land areas off 
limits to mining.
    As discussed in Section X of my May 12, 2022 written testimony, the 
suitability determination provision in Title I, Section 112 gives the 
Secretary a mine veto without any attempt to balance the need for 
minerals and other uses of public lands as is currently mandated under 
Section 102(a)(12) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701 et seq (FLPMA). The laundry list of 
``Special Characteristics'' that would make lands unsuitable for mining 
under H.R. 7580 will put broad swaths of land off-limits to mineral 
development. Widespread site characteristics including the presence of 
water resources and aquifers, lands eligible for the National Register 
of Historic Places, lands with critical habitat, and the ``adjacent 
lands'' buffer zone in Title I, Section 112, will be used to withdraw 
large blocks of land from mining. Even more problematic is the vague, 
catch-all provision in Section 112(b)(2)(F) that provides discretionary 
authority to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Secretary of 
Agriculture to designate ``the presence of other resource values as the 
Secretary concerned may by rule specify, determined based upon field 
testing, evaluation, or credible information that verifies such 
values.''
    Title 1, Section 112 should be considered in the context of 
existing laws that have withdrawn over 400 million acres of land from 
mineral entry.\28\ As a starting point, mineral entry on federally 
administered lands is only allowed in nineteen (19) states. Vast areas 
of federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral entry for National 
Parks; National Monuments; Indian reservations; reclamation projects 
under the Bureau of Reclamation; Military reservations; scientific 
testing areas; wildlife protection areas managed by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service; lands designated by Congress as part of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System; lands designated as a wild portion of a 
Wild and Scenic River; and lands withdrawn by Congress for study as a 
Wild and Scenic River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead, 
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another very problematic aspect of the Section 303 and 304 
permitting processes is that mineral projects will have to comply with 
the new and unrealistic undue degradation standard. As discussed in 
Section X of my written testimony for the May 12, 2022 hearing, H.R. 
7580 eliminates the undue and unnecessary degradation (UUD) 
environmental protection mandate in FLPMA Section 302(b) and replaces 
it with ``undue degradation'' (UD) for hardrock mineral projects, which 
would prohibit degradation that is necessary in order to mine. Because 
mining cannot occur without causing some unavoidable changes to the 
land due to excavating pits, storing mine wastes, and building other 
facilities, eliminating the concept of necessary impacts from UUD and 
changing it to UD makes mining impossible if future BLM regulators have 
the discretionary authority to deem unavoidable and therefore necessary 
impacts undue. This impossible-to-achieve standard, which could be 
applied at any point during the permitting process, is clearly designed 
to eliminate future mining on federal lands. Section 301 of H.R. 7580 
makes similar changes to the current environmental performance standard 
for mineral activities on National Forest System lands.
    The Title III environmental standards and permitting processes 
creates a complex regulatory review that adds another layer of 
bureaucracy designed to make mineral projects more difficult to permit 
and develop. Taken together, Sections 111, 112, 303, and 304 will 
advance the overarching purpose of H.R. 7580 to discourage and prevent 
mineral activities on federal lands.

    Question 7. Will this be the first time the Mining Law has been 
amended in 150 years?

    Answer. Congress has amended the Mining Law many times since it was 
enacted in 1872. However, in stark contrast to the wholesale gutting of 
Mining Law rights proposed in H.R. 7580, all previously enacted 
amendments to the Mining Law carefully preserved claim owners' Mining 
Law property rights. Table 1 summarizes some of the laws that have 
amended the Mining Law and preserved Mining Law property rights.

                                Table 1

 Amendments to the Mining Law that Change Rights Under the Mining Law 
                While Still Preserving Mining Law Rights

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Preservation of Mining Law Property
 Laws Amending the Mining Law                    Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910: 43 U.S.C. Section 142--  bona fide occupants or claimants in
 The 1910 Pickett Act, which    ``diligent prosecution of work leading
 FLPMA repealed in 1976         to'' discovery not to be affected by
                                withdrawal order ``so long as such
                                occupant or claimant shall continue
                                diligent prosecution of said work''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920: 30 U.S.C. Sections 181   ``. . . [D]eposits of coal, phosphate,
 et seq--The Minerals Leasing   sodium, oil, oil shale, and gas, herein
 Act, (MLA) Section 37          referred to, in lands valuable for such
 Savings Clause                 minerals . . . shall be subject to
                                disposition only in the form and manner
                                provided in this Act, except as to valid
                                claims existent at date of the passage
                                of this Act and thereafter maintained in
                                compliance with the laws under which
                                initiated, which claims may be perfected
                                under such laws, including discovery.''
                                (emphasis added)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1955: 30 U.S.C. Section 612--  Sec.  612. Unpatented mining claims (a)
 The 1955 Surface Use Act       Prospecting, mining or processing
                                operations
 
                               ``Any mining claim hereafter located
                                under the mining laws of the United
                                States shall not be used, prior to
                                issuance of patent therefor, for any
                                purposes other than prospecting, mining
                                or processing operations and uses
                                reasonably incident thereto.''
                               (b) Reservations in the United States to
                                use of the surface and surface resources
                               Rights under any mining claim hereafter
                                located under the mining laws of the
                                United States shall be subject, prior to
                                issuance of patent therefor, to the
                                right of the United States to manage and
                                dispose of the vegetative surface
                                resources thereof and to manage other
                                surface resources thereof (except
                                mineral deposits subject to location
                                under the mining laws of the United
                                States). Any such mining claim shall
                                also be subject, prior to issuance of
                                patent therefor, to the right of the
                                United States, its permittees, and
                                licensees, to use so much of the surface
                                thereof as may be necessary for such
                                purposes or for access to adjacent land:
                                Provided, however, That any use of the
                                surface of any such mining claim by the
                                United States, its permittees or
                                licensees, shall be such as not to
                                endanger or materially interfere with
                                prospecting, mining or processing
                                operations or uses reasonably incident
                                thereto . . .''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1955: 30 U.S.C. Section 615--  ``Nothing in this subchapter and sections
 The 1955 Surface Use Act       601 and 603 of this title shall be
                                construed in any manner to limit or
                                restrict or to authorize the limitation
                                or restriction of any existing rights of
                                any claimant under any valid mining
                                claim heretofore located . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1955: 30 U.S.C. Section 624--  ``[N]othing in this chapter shall be
 The 1955 Mining Claims         construed to limit or restrict the
 Rights Restoration Act         rights of the owner or owners of any
 applicable to power            mining claim who are diligently working
 development reservations       to make a discovery of valuable minerals
                                at the time any future withdrawal or
                                reservation for power development is
                                made.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976: Federal Land Policy and  ``. . . no provision of . . . Section
 Management Act, 43 U.S.C.      [302(b)] or any other section of this
 Section 1701 et seq. (FLPMA)   Act shall in any way . . . impair the
                                rights of any locators or claims under
                                that Act [the Mining Law of 1872] or,
                                including, but not limited to, rights of
                                ingress and egress.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992: Claim Maintenance Fee    Unpatented mining claim owners must pay
 Department of the Interior     an annual rental fee that applies to all
 and Related Agencies           claims regardless of their life cycle
 Appropriations Act of 199329   stage or discovery status.
 and subsequent Department of
 the Interior appropriations
 bills
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    As shown in Table 1, there is a well-established legislative 
history of Congress enacting changes to the Mining Law. As discussed 
below, these amendments range from removing energy minerals from the 
Mining law and establishing a new law governing these commodities, 
restricting non-mining uses of unpatented claims and mill sites, 
establishing a mandatory claim recordation requirement, and charging an 
annual claim maintenance fee to keep claims in good standing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Pub. L. 102-381, 106 Stat. 1374 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these significant changes, Congress has never amended the 
Mining Law in ways that would categorically extinguish claim owners' 
rights to use and occupy lands open to the Mining Law for mineral 
purposes. The provisions in H.R. 7580 to eliminate mining claims and 
charge a royalty on existing claims would be the first amendment that 
would fail to respect claim owners' Mining law property rights. H.R. 
7580 is thus likely to subject the federal government and taxpayers to 
Fifth Amendment takings claims.
    Some of the more significant amendments to the Mining Law and the 
ways in which the changes preserved Mining Law property rights are 
discussed below:

A. The Minerals Leasing Act of 1920

    One of the most significant changes to the Mining Law occurred in 
1920 when Congress enacted the Minerals Leasing Act (MLA), which 
removed oil, gas, oil shale, and other non-metalliferous minerals from 
the Mining Law and established a leasing and royalty system for future 
development of these resources. The MLA's Section 37 savings clause 
eliminated Fifth Amendment takings concerns by exempting preexisting 
unpatented mining claims from the new leasing and royalty system. The 
MLA is the only major amendment to the Mining Law that substantively 
changed the claims interest structure for mineral deposits on public 
lands into a leasehold process. However, the MLA did not include a 
blanket mandatory conversion of then existing claims into leases--in 
marked contrast to the mandatory leasing provision in H.R. 7580. 
Rather, in 1920, Congress surgically amended the Mining Law to preserve 
the Mining Law property rights associated with all properly maintained 
claims for oil, gas, oil shale, etc. in existence on the date of 
enactment, thereby avoiding protracted litigation and costly 
Constitutional ``takings'' claims.

    If Congress determines that a future leasing system is appropriate 
for hardrock minerals, it should replicate what Congress did in the 
1920 MLA and enact a savings clause modeled after the MLA Section 37 
savings clause that exempted all existing claims from the new leasing 
system and royalty, and grandfathered their status under the Mining Law 
in order to preserve the Mining Law property rights associated with 
these mining claims. However, as discussed in Section I, the 
significant geological differences between oil, gas, coal, and other 
bedded sedimentary deposits compared to hardrock minerals makes the 
H.R. 7580 leasing system impractical for hardrock minerals. Preserving 
the self-initiated claims system is a far superior way to optimize the 
likelihood of discovering and developing hardrock minerals.

B. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

    Section 314 of FLPMA established new claim recordation requirements 
that substantially changed the Mining Law by requiring claim owners 
with claims located prior to FLPMA's enactment date to record their 
mining claims and sites within three years to keep their claims and 
sites in good standing. FLPMA's claim recordation requirements and 
deadlines conditioned the rights under the Mining Law by creating a new 
obligation for claim and mill site owners and a process by which the 
federal government could void stale mining claims and determine where 
active claims and mill sites were located.

    However, the FLPMA claim recordation requirement did not terminate 
or in any way diminish the rights of claim owners who complied with the 
new Section 314 recordation requirements and deadlines. Unlike the H.R. 
7580 mandate to convert mining claims to minerals leases, FLPMA's 
Section 314 recordation requirements fully protected claim owners' 
property rights to their mining claims and mill and tunnel sites 
through compliance with the Section 314 recordation requirements. By 
establishing a three-year transition period in FLPMA Section 314, and 
applying the recordation requirements to all claims and sites 
regardless of whether they covered lands with a valuable mineral 
deposit or lands being used for mill site purposes, Congress avoided 
costly Constitutional takings claims.

    Additionally, the FLPMA Section 314 claim recordation requirement 
applied to all mining claims regardless of their discovery status. All 
claims had to be recorded whether they were being actively mined or 
whether they were located at early exploration-stage projects where 
minerals had not been discovered. This stands in marked contrast to the 
provision in Section 304 of H.R. 7580 which seeks to limit mining 
permits to claims with a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and 
requires a Right of Way for ancillary facilities.

C. The Claim Maintenance Fee

    The claim maintenance fee that Congress enacted in 1992 is the most 
recent Congressional action affecting the Mining Law. This new fee 
recognizes claim owner's rights associated with mining claims and sites 
so long as the annual fee is timely paid. Payment of this fee secures 
claim owners' rights to use and occupy their mining claims and sites 
during the claims fee year, subject to compliance with the applicable 
surface management regulations (e.g., the 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3809 
regulations for BLM-administered lands and the 36 C.F.R. Part 228 
Subpart A regulations for National Forest System lands), and all other 
applicable state and federal environmental protection regulations. When 
initially enacted in 1992, the annual claim maintenance fee was $100 
per claim. The claim maintenance fee amount is indexed to the Consumer 
Price Index and adjusted accordingly every five years. The current 
claim maintenance fee is $165 per claim.\30\ In FY 2020, BLM collected 
over $69.4 million in claim maintenance and other Mining Law holding 
fees.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/mining-and-
minerals/locatable-minerals/mining-claims/fees.
    \31\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/2021-08/
PublicLandStatistics2020.pdf, Table 3-32, Page 158.

    The claim maintenance fee requirement applies to all claims 
regardless of their discovery status. The fee must be paid for claims 
with a minerals discovery that is being actively mined as well as to 
claims where exploration has not yet successfully discovered a mineral 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
deposit, and even to claims where exploration work has not yet started.

D. Environmental Protection Statutes

    BLM's 43 CFR Part 3809 surface management regulations for locatable 
minerals and the Forest Services' 36 CFR Subpart 228A surface 
management regulations require compliance with all applicable federal 
environmental laws and regulations. Therefore, numerous federal 
environmental laws functionally amend the Mining Law. Project 
proponents must demonstrate their proposed mineral exploration and 
mining projects comply with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, and the many other federal environmental laws 
listed in Table 2. Thus, as a practical matter, the environmental 
performance standards and permit limits enforced under these 
environmental protection laws condition claim owners' rights under the 
Mining Law to use and occupy public lands for mineral purposes. State 
laws also govern mining operations and, to the extent that a given 
state requirement is more stringent than a federal counter-part 
requirement, the mining operation must meet the more restrictive state 
law.

                                Table 2

    Chronology of Enactment of Federal Environmental Protection Laws

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Decade Enacted         Partial List of Federal Environmental Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1960s   National Historic Preservation Act
                           Air Quality Act
                           National Environmental Policy Act Wilderness
                           Act
                           Solid Waste Disposal Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1970s   Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
                          Clean Air Act
                          Clean Water Act
                          Endangered Species Act
                          Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
                           Act
                          Federal Land Management and Policy Act
                          Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
                          Safe Drinking Water Act
                          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
                          Toxic Substances Control Act
                          Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
                           Management Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1980s   Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986
                          Comprehensive Environmental Response,
                           Compensation, and Liability Act
                          Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
                          Archaeological Resources Protection Act
                          Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
                           Act
                          Water Quality Act Amendments to the Clean
                           Water Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  1990s   Oil Pollution Act
                          Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Amendments Act
                          Clean Air Act Amendments
                          Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  2000s   Small Business Liability Relief and
                           Brownfields Revitalization Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Additionally, if Congress or states enact new environmental 
protection statutes or regulations in the future, the mandates in BLM's 
43 CFR Part 3809 regulations and in the Forest Service's 36 CFR Subpart 
228A regulations will be automatically updated to include any new 
requirements. Thus, the agencies' 3809 and 228A surface management 
regulations governing hardrock minerals are ``living regulations'' that 
are designed to evolve with time to incorporate any new environmental 
protection compliance requirements.
Conclusions
    Despite its title, ``The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act,'' H.R. 
7580 will not promote the development of domestic clean energy minerals 
to support the Biden Administration's goals to reduce carbon emissions, 
phase out fossil fuels, and shift to carbon-free energy systems. 
Although there would never be a right time to enact the draconian 
measures in H.R. 7580, this is an especially bad time to make radical 
changes to the Mining Law that will make mining clean energy minerals 
more difficult--if not impossible--and is diametrically at odds with 
the Administration's clean energy policies and objectives.
    At best, H.R. 7580 reflects a profound lack of understanding of the 
laws and regulations governing modern mines which require mines to be 
built and operated with numerous environmental safeguards and 
substantial financial assurance, making U.S. mines the cleanest and 
safest in the world. To address this lack of understanding, the Women's 
Mining Coalition would like to offer to arrange mine tours and/or 
webinars for members of the Subcommittee and staff to showcase the 
environmental protection measures and technology at modern mining 
operations, the significant career opportunities for women at all 
levels in the mining industry, and the important role that mining plays 
in the economic and social wellbeing of the communities where mines are 
located. Because ``seeing is believing'' the suggested mine tours could 
play an important role in enhancing the tenor of future legislative 
dialogues about the Mining Law of 1872.
    In 1993, the Women's Mining Coalition started working with the 
103rd Congress on proposed legislation to amend the Mining Law. Many 
aspects of the Mining Law debate have not changed much in the past 
thirty years. Just as we have since then, the Women's Mining Coalition 
stands ready to work with the 117th Congress on this issue of national 
importance. We truly appreciate the opportunity to testify at the May 
12, 2022 hearing and to respond to the Questions for the Record 
discussed above.

                                 ******

The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms. 
Struhsacker's responses to questions submitted for the record. These 
documents are part of the hearing record and are being retained in the 
Committee's official files. The Supplemental Exhibits, along with the 
responses above, are available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20220512/114700/HHRG-117-II06-
20220512-QFR025.pdf

                            LIST OF EXHIBITS

    Exhibit I--October 2021 Testimony of Mr. Rich Haddock, Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee

    Exhibit II--July 2021 Questions for the Record for the July 27, 
2021 House Energy & Mineral Resources Subcommittee Hearing on ``The 
Toxic Legacy of the Mining Law of 1872''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    On that note, let me remind the witnesses that we are going 
to now begin the questioning process. Let me now turn and 
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Westerman, for 5 minutes.
    Sir.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the witnesses. And Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here 
at the start of the meeting. I was testifying in another 
hearing.
    Mr. Grijalva. Well, I just want to tell you that your 
designee has done a magnificent job----
    Mr. Westerman. I am sure she has done a much better job 
than----
    Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. And I am going to miss her, 
Westerman, when she leaves.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Westerman. I would like to submit my opening statement 
for the record.
    Mr. Grijalva. So ordered.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of Arkansas
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being 
here today.
    Today, we will consider H.R. 7580 to supposedly ``reform'' the 
Mining Law of 1872. Before I get to that, however, the administration 
made announcement yesterday that I must address--DOI is canceling the 
remaining lease sales in the 5-year offshore leasing plan, Lease Sales 
258, 259, and 261.
    I cannot express how terrible this decision is for the country, not 
to mention tone deaf, in light of gas prices hitting new record highs 
this week at $4.40 a gallon. This is yet another example of the Biden 
administration claiming to do all it can to relieve energy prices and 
other rising costs for Americans, but taking actions that will have the 
exact opposite effect.
    We have seen this flawed, contradictory approach in the 
administration's mining policy as well. What we should be discussing 
today the true minerals problem--the alarming global shortage of 
hardrock resources needed for our future. We know that demand for 
renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and other 
technologies will soon surpass the known supply of the minerals to 
build them.
    So I am bewildered and disappointed when the Department of the 
Interior and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take 
actions and support bills--like the bill we are discussing today--to 
kill some of the most promising mining projects in North America.
    First, let's talk about ``fair return'' for the taxpayer, as my 
colleagues across the aisle say. There will be no return to the 
taxpayer if harmful bills like this are made law, and mining in the 
U.S. becomes too difficult and uneconomic to occur. Further, the idea 
that federal lands are somehow ``given away'' to operators is a myth. 
In addition to location fees and annual claim maintenance fees paid to 
maintain mineral rights, mining generates billions of dollars in 
federal, state, and local tax revenue and provides thousands of high-
paying jobs throughout the West.
    I have also heard comments about the mining industry not being 
regulated enough. The Mining Law itself is essentially a land tenure 
law, with an extensive network of environmental protection statutes and 
financial assurance requirements laid over it. Outside of the Mining 
Law, hardrock operations are subject to approximately three dozen 
environmental laws and regulations including NEPA, the Endangered 
Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National 
Historic Preservation Act. The additional requirements in this bill 
would add no additional benefit to what already exists.
    However, I am aware of the abandoned mine sites from operations 
before modern regulation. This is a significant problem that needs to 
be addressed. That said, if the true goal is remediation of these 
abandoned sites, assessing a high gross royalty and additional fees on 
current operators is not an effective way to do so. Instead, operators 
would likely move onto non-federal lands or even overseas, leaving the 
abandoned mine problem unsolved.
    I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and even the 
administration seem to share the same goal--responsibly acquiring the 
minerals our country needs. However, if we enact legislation or 
administrative policy that make mineral development too challenging or 
uncertain, the inevitable result is a total reliance on China and other 
nations to meet skyrocketing demand. I don't think that future is what 
anyone here wants. It is vital to keep that in mind as we consider H.R. 
7580 today.
    Thank you and I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
    I find it ironic that we are having a hearing on Mining Act 
reform. I do believe we all agree on one thing: there is a 
shortage of elements and metals and minerals, rare earths, in 
the United States. And we are dealing with a Majority who has 
already voted to take our best uranium deposits out of possible 
development that, in their failed Build Back Better plan, 
actually wanted to close down a copper mine that could produce 
20 percent of the United States' demands for copper for the 
next 50 years. Also, we have an administration that has pulled 
the lease on the Twin Metals Project. So, this is something we 
definitely need to talk about, but I think we need to be 
talking about it in different terms.
    And GAO has issued a report saying that the average 
permitting timeline takes about 2 years, but in reality we have 
observed that it often takes much longer. In fact, I have a 
chart right here that shows the process for approving new 
mining projects in the United States.
    While they are unrolling that--and it might take a while--
Ms. Struhsacker, how long does the average hardrock mine take 
to become active in the United States, from exploration to 
production? And why does it take so long?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you, Ranking Member Westerman. From 
first discovery to developing a mine, it can take as long as 20 
years. And the reason for that is twofold.
    One, hardrock minerals are very difficult to find, so it 
takes a while to explore for them, which is one of the reasons 
a lease will not work for us, because they are time limited. We 
need to be able to be on the ground for as long as it takes to 
explore for the minerals, discover them, and then put them into 
production. And other countries can do it in 2 to 3 years, 
using the same safeguards as we do here, and there is really no 
reason it needs to take that long. The NEPA process is the 
primary reason it takes so long, but that is not the source of 
our environmental protections. Our environmental protections 
come from the laws that apply to mines like other industries: 
the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and 
others.
    Mr. Westerman. This looks like something you would see on a 
comedy skit. But, unfortunately, it is the sad reality of what 
it takes to permit a mine in Nevada.
    How would this bill affect the timeline going forward for 
mining projects? Would this get more simple, or would it get 
more complicated?
    Ms. Struhsacker. I am afraid it would get much more 
complicated, and it wouldn't add any other increment of 
environmental protection. I mean, we already have comprehensive 
environmental protection. The EPA found that in a very 
intensive rulemaking in the 2016-2018 time frame.
    Mr. Westerman. So, we would have a lot of squeeze and not 
much juice out of this new law.
    I have to move on. I wish we could talk more about that.
    Mr. Chen, you mentioned building electric batteries in the 
United States, which is a great thing. We need to do more of 
that. Where are 80 percent of the world's batteries built 
today?
    Mr. Chen. Well, we source our cells from Asia, where most 
of the battery cells are produced today.
    Mr. Westerman. China. When you say Asia----
    Mr. Chen. China, Korea, Japan.
    Mr. Westerman. Right. So, when you build this battery 
plant, where are you going to get the lithium, the metals, the 
rare earths that are needed to build the batteries? Where will 
they come from?
    Mr. Chen. Well, that is why we are here today, to talk 
about where we can create additional source. We are currently 
looking, frankly, literally, around the world, and working with 
various suppliers and mineral resource extractors.
    Mr. Westerman. Would it surprise you to know that USGS says 
that we have all of the elements and minerals that we need 
right here in the United States?
    Mr. Chen. No, it would not. In fact, we are speaking to 
quite a few U.S. companies about resources in the United 
States. As an example, we are aware of, for example, lithium 
deposits both in the Southwest, as well as in North Carolina, 
and are in talks with certain companies about access to those 
sources.
    Mr. Westerman. We have huge lithium deposits in my district 
in South Arkansas, but there is also the hurdle of building a 
lithium refinery and processing it in the United States. How 
long do you think that would take? What are you projecting?
    Mr. Chen. That is a good question. We, as a car 
manufacturing company, do not get into the processing, but we 
are talking to suppliers about that.
    Mr. Westerman. It definitely affects your supply chain.
    I wish we had more time. I am out, and I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields. I 
recognize Representative Dingell for 5 minutes.
    Representative, you are recognized.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the Ranking 
Member for convening today's hearing, again, and to the panel, 
to these witnesses for their patience.
    As you know, this issue really does matter. Domestic supply 
and production of critical minerals are fundamental to the 
automotive industry, the economic engine of my home state of 
Michigan. Electric vehicles, which are the future of the 
automotive industry, and it is where we are headed, are going 
to require substantially more minerals than a gas-powered car. 
And that is why addressing the critical minerals supply is 
fundamental to the clean energy economy, as well as the 
economic future of working Americans, not only in my district, 
but across the country.
    So, Mr. Chen, we know that EVs are vital for achieving our 
climate goals, and we support a rapid deployment of them, but 
we want to make sure they are built responsibly. Can you tell 
us what Rivian is doing to lower the overall mineral demand for 
each of their trucks?
    And is Rivian engaged in any efforts for battery and 
mineral recycling?
    Mr. Chen. Thank you for that question, Representative. Yes, 
Rivian is involved heavily in looking at the entire supply 
chain of electric vehicle batteries and the cells that we use 
in our products.
    To respond directly to your question, we are looking not 
only at domestic supply from the get-go, we are also looking at 
recycling options. We have designed our batteries, for example, 
to be second-use batteries, or second-life batteries, right 
from the vehicle without any further modification. If you look 
at an electric vehicle battery, you have a useful life of 10-
plus years. Once that battery capacity falls below roughly 70 
percent, there is still adequate storage. And we are able to 
take those and actually put those into stationary storage 
applications for yet another decade. After that, we are looking 
at recycling and recapturing them.
    Unlike our rivals in the internal combustion engine side, 
the batteries, precious metals aren't actually consumed during 
the use of that battery, during the recharge and charge cycles. 
We are actually able to extract those minerals, recycle them, 
and put them into new batteries for repurposing.
    Mrs. Dingell. Let me ask you this, then, in addition. What 
signals are you getting from shareholders about sourcing for 
critical minerals for your vehicles?
    Mr. Chen. More and more shareholders are recognizing the 
importance of supply chain and responsible supply chain. That 
is why we are here today to work with Congress, with this 
Committee to look at ways of structuring laws in the United 
States to help bring on domestic manufacturing, domestic supply 
chains, and responsible production overall.
    Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chen, is Rivian a member of the Zero 
Emission Transportation Association?
    And what is the industry outlook for supporting more 
responsible domestic mining?
    Mr. Chen. Yes, we are absolutely members of ZETA, and we 
are, as an industry, heading in the direction for more and more 
responsible production and manufacture. We signed on to the 
Global Climate Initiative, where we are working toward reaching 
zero emissions by, I believe it is, 2035. We continue to look 
at our supply chain and our own practices to reduce our carbon 
footprint and the use of our materials as much as possible.
    One initiative we are particularly proud of is our Ocean 
Plastics Initiative, where we have diverted plastics going into 
the waste stream and have actually made them into durable totes 
and supply containers that are used in our factory for 
production. We have taken additional plastics, recycled them, 
and actually made them into panels for a number of our 
vehicles.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you for your testimony today.
    I am going to yield back in a minute, Mr. Chairman, but I 
want to make this point to all of my colleagues, that I look 
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the issue 
of domestic production of critical minerals in a way that we 
can bring everybody together: the manufacturers, the 
environmentalists, the unions, the workers together. It is 
vital for America's economic competitiveness, our national 
security, and our environmental future.
    So, I think this hearing is one of the more important ones 
we are doing right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. The lady yields. Let me recognize Mr. 
Fulcher.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for Ms. 
Struhsacker, please.
    Ms. Struhsacker, the Stibnite Project you may be familiar 
with, that happens to be in my home state of Idaho, and that 
represents the largest reserve of antimony outside of Russia or 
China. And that mine is actually in a position to where it 
could move quite quickly if it had the permissions to do so.
    This is a critical mineral, as you know. This is used in a 
broad base of applications: next generation utility-scale 
batteries, important military applications, munitions, 
infrared, semiconductors, wind turbines, all kinds of things. 
If this bill were enacted, can you tell me what kind of impacts 
you would foresee for that project and others like it?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. I can't emphasize 
enough the importance of the Stibnite gold and antimony project 
as an important source of critical minerals.
    If this bill were enacted, I am not sure that the project 
proponent, Perpetua Resources, would be able to justify the 
investment they are proposing to make of $1 billion to clean up 
that site, because they would have no security of tenure under 
the leasing system that is proposed in H.R. 7580.
    Mr. Fulcher. Just as an FYI, my office was contacted, I 
believe, just yesterday, and there is interest through Defense 
Logistics Agency, DOD, and others specifically concerned about 
the stockpile of antimony. So, this is an interesting 
situation, where we have one component of the Federal 
Government that is raising concerns and trying to put some 
urgency into the situation and another that is looking to 
potentially extend a timeline so that it can't be engaged.
    But as you alluded to, there is some cleanup that comes 
with this project, and this would be done by private industry. 
I find it interesting that this was actually caused, if you 
will, by a World War II demand by the Federal Government, which 
led to the situation that they have right now. But here we have 
a private company looking to basically clean this up as a 
function of that. It looks like a win-win to me. Do you see it 
that way?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Absolutely, Congressman. It is a win-win 
for American taxpayers that we have a company that is proposing 
to invest $1 billion of private-sector money to cleaning up 
what was an environmental problem that was created during World 
War II, when the Japanese blockaded the antimony source the 
country was using in China. So, we kind of see history 
repeating itself with Russia and Europe right now.
    It is an extremely important project that demonstrates that 
reprocessing and remining of historic mine sites can be an 
important source of critical minerals, and that private-sector 
involvement in those sites can be a very effective way to clean 
up what was an abandoned mine. And we are very fortunate that 
Perpetua Resources is proposing to make that investment.
    Mr. Fulcher. We are almost out of time, but are you 
familiar with any other examples where there has been a similar 
situation, where private industry has moved in and operators 
take on an environmental clean-up project?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Modern mining is absolutely the best way 
to address historic problems at old, pre-regulation mining 
sites. Unfortunately, the liability issues associated with 
doing that chills people's ability to do that. So, we could 
enhance reclamation of these AML sites by enacting some Good 
Samaritan legislation.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Ms. Struhsacker.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and the gentleman 
yields. Let me now recognize the Chair of the Oversight 
Subcommittee.
    Representative Porter, you are recognized.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Kalen, the Forest Service has repeatedly said that they 
can't say no to mining projects. What do you mean by that? What 
do they mean by that?
    Mr. Kalen. Well, what they mean is that when you get a 
mining claim right now under the law, that is a possessory 
right. It is a property right. So, in order for the Forest 
Service to be able to say no, the argument from industry has 
always been that that would effectively take a property right 
away from the industry.
    There are a lot of questions and legal issues about whether 
the Forest Service might have the authority to say no. But I 
think that is why there is need for reform, in order to be able 
to clarify what that authority really is.
    Ms. Porter. Does the mining law establish hardrock mining 
as the highest and best use of the land?
    Mr. Kalen. What it does is--historically, it has been 
perceived by agency officials dating back to the early 1900s as 
effectively evincing the highest and best use of the lands. So, 
while there is nothing specific in the law that says that, 
because of the way the operation of the law works, that is the 
way it has been treated historically. So, yes.
    Ms. Porter. Well, I think what we see from that is, when we 
have competing permits on public land, what we see the agency 
doing is something like this.
    Like, say they have Project A, which is mining minerals on 
U.S. land to sell to competitor countries. And that has a 
pretty significant environmental harm, even if it is properly 
cleaned up. It is a big change to the environment. And Project 
B is solar panels on that same public land that would power a 
neighboring city. And, of course, there is still disruption to 
the land, there might still be environmental impacts.
    But let's say they decide that the environmental harm is--
under current Forest Service policy, the Bureau of Land 
Management, they tell us, the Forest Service, that they 
basically have to pick Project A. They have to pick the mining 
project, because they cite back to that highest and best use of 
the land.
    So, we all think that we need to be doing more to develop 
appropriately as much U.S. mineral capacity as we can. But at 
the project-by-project level, we are just not seeing 
thoughtful, best-use decisions on each and every parcel. 
Sometimes the best use may be hardrock mining, and sometimes it 
may be a different project. But the way the law is currently 
set up doesn't get us to that, because of this 150-year-old law 
and the interpretations of that over time.
    I want to turn to Mr. Chen. Thank you very much for being 
here. Rivian is headquartered, as you know, in my home district 
of Irvine, and I am grateful to your colleagues for showing me 
around. I wanted to ask you. What would reforming the Mining 
Law of 1872 do to improve Rivian's supply chain and their 
ability to create jobs here in the United States?
    Mr. Chen. Yes, I think reforming the Mining Law of 1872 
would do a lot to help increase domestic supply of critical 
minerals.
    Our CEO was recently quoted in The Wall Street Journal as 
mentioning that there is an upcoming supply shortage of cells, 
and that supply shortage traces back to those critical 
minerals. By reforming the mining laws of the United States, to 
take into account not only increased production but responsible 
increased production, we have an opportunity to lead the world 
in not only increasing our supply, but showing that this can be 
done in a responsible way.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. Do you currently face 
supply chain issues relating to having to import minerals?
    Mr. Chen. Well, like the rest of the industry and the 
current economic factors, we do face challenges. We do 
believe--and again, our CEO was quoted recently, I think, as 
soon as yesterday in The Wall Street Journal--that we do see 
ourselves climbing our way out of the supply chain constraints.
    That all said, the way to make sure that this is a long-
term solution and not just a temporary one is to increase 
access to domestic mineral supplies.
    Ms. Porter. I love that answer about looking for long-term 
solutions, because I think too often Congress does not. We are 
trying to solve yesterday's problem tomorrow. This was a 
problem that has been a long time in coming, as we have seen 
electric vehicle production and battery production ramp up. And 
it is time to act today to reform the mineral law so that we 
set ourselves up on a good path for the right kind of law that 
can facilitate our ability, as the United States, to 
manufacture electric vehicles here in the United States.
    I know you are opening a new plant here, so I am really, 
really excited about being able to advance this law in a way 
that both protects the environment and encourages our business 
community.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. The gentlelady yields. Let me recognize Mr. 
Carl.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Stewsacker--did I pronounce that--did I get close?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Close.
    Mr. Carl. OK, I am sorry. How would you characterize the 
environmental protection in the United States, compared to 
other major producers of critical minerals in the world such as 
China?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Congressman Carl, we have the cleanest and 
safest mines in the world, and it is important that we 
responsibly source the minerals that we need for the clean 
energy transition from environmentally responsible sources, and 
that is right here in the USA. Places like China and Russia, 
where there are very little environmental protections in place, 
there is slave labor used in some places.
    So, our laws not only for protecting the environment, but 
also worker health and safety, are absolutely the world's best 
example. Other countries come to us when asking, ``How do we 
protect the environment at our mines?''
    Mr. Carl. Thank you. I got to go through the Iron Range in 
Minnesota, and I was just so impressed with what I saw out 
there. And, of course, we have the copper mining out there shut 
down, which that copper is now coming from China. So, I 
understand, we are kind of at a stalemate.
    A second question: What would be the impact of imposing an 
8 percent gross royalty on the existing mines?
    And how would this impact the domestic industry and the 
needs for these materials like electric car companies?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Oh, it would have a devastating impact if 
you were to impose a royalty on currently operating mines. And, 
in fact, we believe that that would probably expose the Federal 
Government to takings.
    Putting a royalty like that on an existing operation, where 
there are many, many years of investment-backed expectations 
that have gone into the financial analysis of the economics of 
that mine would be totally disrupted by an 8 percent 
retroactive royalty, and it would probably make many of those 
mines uneconomic to continue to operate.
    So, the outlook would be that mines would shut down, jobs 
would be lost, we would lose production of important, critical 
minerals, and we would become even more dependent.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chen, real quick, what recommendations have you and 
others in your industry made to the Administration to change 
our policy to ensure that we can acquire minerals that you need 
here in the United States?
    What changes or recommendations have you made?
    Mr. Chen. Our recommendations are certainly to update the 
mining laws to catalyze new investment in responsibly sourced 
domestic mineral supply, as well as shoring up existing allies 
and trading partners to create new ones, like in Eastern Europe 
and the Pacific Rim.
    So, our recommendation to the government has been an all-
of-the-above approach, not only on the domestic side, but also 
with certain trading partners. We have also made 
recommendations outside the area of mining, as well, on 
workforce development and consumer-facing policies, as well.
    Mr. Carl. So, with that said, what do you see as the 
biggest challenge to building a domestic minerals supply chain?
    Mr. Chen. I think currently there are several. One of those 
is availability. One of those is building not only the access 
to the critical minerals themselves, but the processing that 
goes along with all of that, as well. You don't just take 
lithium or cobalt or nickel and just throw them into batteries. 
There is an entire value chain that must be built up, an entire 
industry that must be built up to take advantage of that.
    The challenge for us is not only the supply itself, but 
being able to have all the supporting infrastructure to get to 
that result. So, this is a long-term solution that starts with 
the minerals and starts with the access.
    Mr. Carl. How far do you all project your business?
    I mean, do you move from year to year, or are you looking 5 
years out?
    Mr. Chen. We look not only year to year, 5 years out, 10 
years out, we are looking 30 years out, as well.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you. That is the point I am trying to make 
here. We have to start planning much further out than the next 
election. And that is the problem we are having here in 
Congress.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me now recognize Mr. 
Moore.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair.
    Yes, I think that we would all agree that we get stuck in 
these 2-year election cycles for those in the House of 
Representatives. And our CEOs, our industry, and our private 
sector folks, you have to be thinking 30 years out. And we just 
make it virtually impossible for you to predict what 
environment it is going to be.
    I am firmly committed--particularly Utah 1, my district, 
has one of the most dynamic, diverse workforces in the country, 
with different areas with mining and energy, but also tourism 
and conservation. We have to be more thoughtful about this.
    Ms. Struhsacker, along those lines, I believe we all are, 
regardless of party, concerned about maintaining a healthy, 
safe environment. We are aware of abandoned hardrock mines from 
pre-regulation times. What protections are in place to ensure 
that today's mines won't become tomorrow's environmental 
problem? Can you give me any thoughts on that?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Moore. Ms. Struhsacker?
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Moore. OK. Ms. Struhsacker, can you hear me?
    We were having technical difficulties, I apologize. Let me 
just quickly ask a question--we are all concerned about a 
healthy, safe environment. What protections are in place to 
ensure that today's mines won't become tomorrow's environmental 
problem?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you. We have a whole host of Federal 
and State environmental laws and regulations that guarantee 
that today's mines are developed in a responsible manner that 
protects the environment. And the EPA took a very close look at 
this in 2018 and concluded that this regulatory framework 
provides comprehensive environmental protection, and also 
financial assurance.
    For example, in Nevada, where I live, the State and Federal 
agencies have $3.4 billion in reclamation bond monies to 
guarantee today's mines will be responsibly reclaimed.
    Mr. Moore. Would you say that that review that was done in 
2018 and what has been established is sufficient, with a 
forward-leaning outlook, so we are not just thinking about this 
year or next year, we are forward leaning?
    And would any additional environmental protection 
provisions in this bill add any benefit?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you. The bill would add no 
incremental benefit in terms of protecting the environment.
    And the way our environmental laws and regulations are set 
up for mining, they are already forward-looking because, in 
order to get a permit from the BLM or Forest Service, you have 
to demonstrate that the mine will comply with existing Federal 
and State regulatory requirements. So, it is a living 
regulation, if you want to look at it that way.
    So, if there is an update to an air quality standard, or a 
water quality standard, or a new law that is put on the books, 
it is automatically included in part of the compliance 
requirements under the BLM's and the Forest Service's current 
regulations.
    Mr. Moore. So, it allows for it to be dynamic in nature, 
where you can continually update as we go. That is a point I 
wasn't fully aware of, either. So, that is good, that is great 
to hear.
    We all agree that reclaiming abandoned mines is extremely 
important. What are some proposals to pay for it that won't 
necessarily discourage mining investments on Federal lands?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Well, I think one of the best things you 
could do--and you could do it without changing the law--is to, 
through the appropriations process, designate that the mining 
claims fees that are in excess of what is required to 
administer the mining law program be earmarked for abandoned 
mine reclamation. Right now, those excess fees--and they are on 
the order of about $30 million a year--just vanish into the 
ether of the general treasury. If they were earmarked for 
abandoned mine reclamation, we could start building an AML 
reclamation fund right now.
    Mr. Moore. Are you familiar with the so-called Good 
Samaritan legislation that allows third parties to get involved 
in mine cleanup? And do you think industry is supportive of 
this idea?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Yes. Since I have been working on this 
issue for the last 30 years, industry has been very supportive 
of a Good Samaritan law. And, yes, that is an important step 
forward in reclaiming more abandoned mines.
    Mr. Moore. I have seen from the Utah Mining Association 
groups that have been heavily involved in making sure that they 
leave the area better than they found it, I think they are 
always engaged in these types of good ideas that are productive 
solutions.
    Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. The gentleman yields. Now we recognize Mr. 
Tiffany.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Grijalva. He can't hear? We are having a technical 
issue. I apologize to the witnesses, but we are going to recess 
to fix the issue.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Let me reconvene the meeting, and I 
appreciate the time from the witnesses. I had to go take care 
of this myself. I got into the fuse box, and I believe it is 
now functional.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Let me now recognize Mr. Tiffany for 5 
minutes.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it 
very much. And I am glad you had the fuses to get it done.
    I would like to ask a question of Mr. Chen. Do you believe 
energy and mineral independence is important for America?
    Mr. Chen. Thank you for that question. Energy and mineral 
independence is not simply important, it is vital to the 
survival and leadership displayed by this country.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think it is ethical for us to be 
getting some of our, especially our mineral resources from 
countries that do not share our standards, as far as work 
standards, environmental standards, when we have those minerals 
right here in our country?
    Mr. Chen. That is a great question. And it is not. And it 
is, in fact, why Rivian has a robust supplier code of conduct 
and policies in place to ensure that wherever our suppliers are 
worldwide that we are ensuring that they adhere to the highest 
standards that we hold ourselves to.
    Obviously, having a domestic supply chain and domestic 
suppliers would make enforcing those that much easier, and why 
it is so critical that we look at and reform our current mining 
laws.
    Mr. Tiffany. That America look at and reform its mining 
laws?
    Mr. Chen. Yes, that the United States look at reforming and 
modernizing our laws to ensure that we are taking into account 
all the factors that I mentioned during my opening remarks 
about ensuring critical mineral supplies, but also ensuring 
protection of our bedrock environmental laws, protecting our 
sacred spaces, and ensuring that we are consulting with local 
and rural communities and the tribes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you source any of your materials from 
China?
    Mr. Chen. Yes, we do. I don't have the specific figures, 
but some of our components and resources do come from suppliers 
in China.
    Mr. Tiffany. Can you assure us today on this panel that 
none of your products----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Chen. I am sorry, Congressman, you broke up during the 
feed. I didn't hear the entire question.
    Mr. Tiffany. Can you assure those of us on the panel that 
none of your products, your sourcing, are coming from slave 
labor in China?
    Mr. Chen. We actually do have a robust anti-slave labor 
policy that we push out to all of our suppliers. And we have 
mechanisms in place to audit them to ensure that this is not 
the case.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think the NEPA process should be 
streamlined to protect environmental standards, but to end this 
process of taking 10, 20 years to get permits completed that 
companies are doing in a responsible manner?
    Mr. Chen. We agree that the use of the NEPA process is 
important, but certainly that there are ways we should and 
could improve and streamline that process without compromising 
environmental protections or other issues that are important to 
the United States.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your answers.
    We are really receiving conflicting messages from the Biden 
administration here in rural America. I just got a note 
yesterday. While President Biden is talking about let's do some 
subsidies for fertilizer, things like that in agriculture, and 
encouraging agricultural production because we are seeing food 
shortages at this point, in the meantime they are advancing the 
CRP program, which takes agricultural land out of production. 
Very conflicting.
    We are seeing the same thing with mining, where we see 
these conflicting messages. And the unfortunate part is those 
that seek to curtail production seem to be winning. Ms. 
Struhsacker, is this accurate, that it appears those that are 
opposed to natural resources utilization actually have the 
upper hand in the current administration?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Mr. Tiffany, unfortunately, I believe that 
is the case. I mean, I think you look at H.R. 7580, it is 
designed to curtail mining on Federal land. So, there is a real 
mixed message here about the need for domestic minerals and 
strengthening our supply chains, and yet an initiative like 
this that is absolutely counter-opposed to that.
    I would also like to say that the interagency working group 
that Dr. Feldgus described in the first panel is a very 
important opportunity for numerous stakeholders to come 
together to see if there are some things that we could fine-
tune in the current process. But H.R. 7580 is not the answer.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your answer.
    What we are seeing is American weakness. And the problems 
that we have here in America, whether it is inflation, the 
border crisis that is going on, crime at record levels in 
cities across America, all these things, energy and mineral 
independence, they are all real easy to fix. It is unfortunate 
that committees like this are not advancing proposals, as cited 
by Ms. Struhsacker just in the last minute here, that we don't 
have things that could actually turn this around.
    All I can say is, to Americans out there, the solutions are 
simple, but the current Congress leadership is not bringing 
those solutions to us Americans.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grijalva. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Herrell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am so thankful 
for your technical skills. But next time thermostat skills. It 
is getting cold in here.
    Mr. Grijalva. I know, it was an offset. When I moved the 
one--never mind.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you. Anyway, I do want to say one thing 
about my colleague from California who had the chart up 
earlier. The Chart A, mining; Chart B, solar--but there was 
concern about Chart A getting the priority. But the clear and 
concise answer needs to be--and I think we all get this--you 
cannot have B without A. You cannot have solar, you cannot have 
these green projects without critical minerals. And I just want 
to make sure we are very clear on that.
    But with that, I do have a question for Ms. Struhsacker.
    Federal oil, gas, and coal all operate in the United States 
with a 12.5 percent royalty. Why shouldn't hardrock mining have 
the same rate? What would that look like?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you very much for that question. You 
can't just cookie cutter a royalty system that was designed for 
oil and gas and superimpose it upon a completely different 
industry, which is hardrock mining.
    I have--and I was hoping to be able to pass this around 
during the hearing--this is a picture of high-grade gold and 
silver ore from a mine in Nevada. There is no valuation for 
this rock. In order for the products, the gold and silver, to 
be liberated from this rock, we have to grind it. We have to 
crush it. We have to leach it. We have to do many things. And 
that has to be part of the consideration in a structure for a 
royalty.
    In contrast, there is a market for crude oil. Basically, as 
it comes right out of the ground, you can find it in The Wall 
Street Journal, a per-barrel price per day. There is no price 
or valuation for this crude ore. That is why you can't simply 
use what is in place for oil and gas and put it on to a 
completely different industry.
    Ms. Herrell. Right. So, what kind of return to the taxpayer 
should we expect if a high royalty rate were suddenly put on 
the operators?
    Ms. Struhsacker. I think what you would find is most mines, 
or many mines, would become uneconomic. So, you would have a 
royalty of zero from a mine that can't be in production because 
the royalty is too high to make it profitable. So, you would 
lose jobs, so you lose tax revenue, and certainly we would lose 
mineral production, making us even more reliant on foreign 
sources for minerals.
    Ms. Herrell. All right, thank you. And I wanted to follow 
up with Mr. Chen on a question that he just answered for 
Congressman Tiffany as it relates to child slave labor. I know 
that if Pete Stauber were sitting here today, that would 
absolutely be a question he would ask.
    And you mentioned that you have policies in place or an 
audit process in place. Who actually can perform those audits, 
especially in countries like China? How do you have the 
capability to perform those audits, to have that access, if you 
will, to their mines?
    Mr. Chen. Well, we actually work with our first-tier 
suppliers and our second-tier suppliers to provide them the 
standards that we expect them to adhere to, and do this under 
contract. And part of those contracts include the ability to 
have audits.
    We would often use third-party auditors to do that, but 
then we would also push down for suppliers onto them the 
obligation to provide us reports from auditors that they may 
choose to be able to review their practices.
    Ms. Herrell. But, I mean, can you honestly guarantee to the 
American consumer that there is absolutely no child labor being 
used to produce the minerals necessary for these batteries, 
without hesitation?
    Mr. Chen. We are using all of the best tools possible and 
commercially available to us to ensure that that is the case--
--
    Ms. Herrell. But wait, I mean, just yes or no, can you 100 
percent assure the American consumer that none of these 
batteries are being produced by child slave labor?
    Mr. Chen. Again, we are using the best available tools to 
us to ensure that that is not the case.
    Ms. Herrell. But that is a no, because you can't for sure 
guarantee, but that is OK. I do appreciate the fact that you 
are looking for long-term solutions, because my question was--
and I think you already kind of alluded to this--with so many 
now opportunities to go green, and so much competition for our 
minerals, my problem is, or my question is, do you concern 
yourself with the availability or the stability of minerals 
being available because of all the pull now for whether it is 
for windmills or for other green products?
    I am just wondering how concerning is that to you, in terms 
of your projections? I know you said earlier you are looking 
out for 30-year projections on some of your products.
    Mr. Chen. Yes, that is exactly why we are here today 
testifying on an area that is not directly tied to electric 
vehicle manufacturing, but is further on down the supply chain. 
It is absolutely critical for us as we do our long-term 
planning to be able to find a diversified source of critical 
minerals for our suppliers and for us.
    Ms. Herrell. Yes. And just one more question. How much does 
one of these trucks cost?
    Mr. Chen. The R1T starts at $67,500 and goes up there, 
depending on how you option it.
    Ms. Herrell. Awesome. Thank you.
    Mr. Chen. Yes.
    Ms. Herrell. I went a little bit over, but thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. No, thank you. I thank the Ranking Member. 
Let me recognize myself.
    President Stiffarm, thank you very much for the discussion 
on the cultural significance of the Little Rockies to your 
people, and what the threat of mining means to your cultural 
heritage and the history.
    Part of the discussion has been about--that was damage done 
then, but we are moving into a new era. And if nothing changes, 
Mr. President, and we acknowledge that there has to be 
collateral damage of some sort in this process if nothing 
changes, then do you think that, in terms of the tribe, in 
terms of sacred sites, and in terms of other issues, what does 
good-faith tribal consultation look like in relationship to 
what is going on with mining and the role that the tribes such 
as yourself need to play? Or are we still talking about 
collateral damage?
    Mr. Stiffarm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
    Good-faith consultation to the tribes means at least being 
at the table. What happened with Pegasus and Zortman Landusky 
mining left behind almost happened again here this past year, 
when another mining permit was allowed to another mining 
company called Blue Arc without consulting the tribes. The 
state DEQ and the BLM never consulted us. The only way the 
tribes found out about this is that we read about it in the 
newspaper. And then, once we found out about it, we filed a 
lawsuit.
    And it is just a lack of communication. Like I said in my 
opening remarks, tribes, or our first peoples of this country, 
are second-class citizens to most people. They don't care, they 
brush us aside. But they seem to forget this was our land 
first, and we will fight for it. And we believe everything in 
our culture is living, including the mountains, the rocks, the 
grass, everything. And that is how we believe. And we will 
always believe that. Thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. There is a legacy in Indian Country of 
collateral damage, and in rural America to a great extent. And 
that collateral damage, whether you are talking about the 
situation President Stiffarm brought to us today or the 
countless other examples of where tribes have been left out of 
the process--and now we have an issue where we have a contested 
and controversial decision in front of agencies that really 
have no power to control any of the other parts of it, and I 
think that is the point of the law.
    But let me ask Professor Kalen. What are the biggest 
loopholes in the mining laws that exist that hurt public lands?
    Mr. Kalen. I think there are a whole bunch of loopholes, 
unfortunately.
    No. 1 is that it doesn't return any value to the United 
States if it is a claim and location and entry system.
    No. 2, there is a lack of clarity on how the mining 
actually operates today with the use of things like mill sites. 
So, there is actually a need to be able to clarify some aspects 
of the mining law that are anachronistic.
    I think another sort of problem is that there needs to be 
better enforcement, there needs to be better bonding, and then 
going on to financial assurances, there needs to be better 
mechanisms for financial assurance, as well. The Trump 
administration did decide that there was no need to change the 
law or change the regulations. It actually flipped what the 
prior administration had actually said. So, initially, they did 
determine that they needed to have financial assurances, but 
that was then flipped during the Trump administration.
    The other thing is we don't have really good abandoned mine 
reclamation fund operations, so we need to sort of fix that 
loophole.
    And, finally, as you noted, there needs to be a better 
mechanism to deal with the selection of what we are going to be 
doing on the public lands. I think the critical way, in terms 
of facilitating critical minerals, is going to be involving 
everybody through a land planning process. So, if you were to 
use and employ a land management planning process to decide 
what to do with the lands, involve Tribal Nations and 
Indigenous people early on, you would probably avoid a lot of 
the conflicts later on. You would probably be able to get a 
better social license to operate at a community, and you would 
probably facilitate, if you will, the ability to mine with much 
more certainty than the mining industry has today.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    And Ms. Herrell, I am going to extend my time and return 
the courtesy to yourself or any Member that wishes for 
additional time, if that is OK. Thank you.
    Do you think that updating this 1872 law is going to lead 
to fewer conflicts between mining companies, local communities, 
and the conflicts that we have around sacred sites and tribes? 
Do you think updating, reforming this law will lead to less of 
that, Mr. Kalen?
    Mr. Kalen. I think the answer is yes, because if you update 
it, then what you can do is you can begin to have a planning 
process that involves the Tribal Nations, that involves the 
Indigenous communities, that involves, as I said, local 
communities. And if the law were updated and actually utilized 
the land management planning process to make some of these 
decisions, you would have earlier efforts to try to figure out 
how to reach an accommodation by both the industry and all 
those affected in the local community, including the Tribal 
Nations and Indigenous people.
    So, I think there is a lot of that opportunity with reform. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    And if I may, Ms. Struhsacker, one question. I don't think 
there is any disagreement on any side of the aisle here 
regarding human rights issues--slavery, child labor that we 
find in other parts of the world: Central Africa, South Africa, 
parts of Latin America, Peru, Brazil in particular, parts of 
Central America, and parts of Asia. And the American people 
expect the high standards, and we should have the high 
standards. I don't think that is a fair comparison. But you are 
right. The issue of human rights and environmental rights is 
important, and we do a better job. I don't question that.
    What I do question is--do you feel that if there is a 
multi-national company doing business in Peru with a horrendous 
track record on human rights violations, do you believe that 
they should still have access to Federal domestic public lands, 
given their track record of abuse elsewhere, and being 
restrained from that abuse here in the United States by 
existing law?
    Do you feel that they should be banned from doing business 
on public land, based on a human rights record?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Chairman Grijalva, I believe that today's 
mind-frame with the investor pressure for environmental, 
social, and governance, the ESG initiatives that are forefront 
of the mind of the investment community really make that 
situation hypothetical.
    For a company to be able to come and operate in the United 
States, they have to be able to gain a social license, and they 
have to be able to demonstrate to the stakeholders--and that is 
a broad sector of the community, tribal communities--and their 
shareholders that they are responsible corporate entities.
    Mr. Grijalva. OK, hypothetically, if Rio Tinto Multi-
national Mining Corporation has a couple of problems in Africa, 
has a couple of problems in Australia, in terms of other issues 
in Peru or Chile, and they want to do business on public land, 
and have a permit, do we continue to honor that, given that 
that is a verifiable public record with existing human rights 
violations?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have 
to view everything in a very site-specific and situation-
specific consequence.
    Again, I believe that companies----
    Mr. Grijalva. So, a track record of human rights 
violations, worker violations is not sufficient to create a 
ban?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Again, I don't believe that that would be 
allowable here. And companies have to be able to earn a social 
license. And if their track record does not allow them to do 
that, then I believe the system will respond to that.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And maybe that is an addition we 
need to look at specifically within the legislation that we are 
proposing, because I think, down the road, that has to be part 
of the criteria.
    If we are opening up and deregulating, as many are asking 
for, and not dealing with reform at the very fundamental level, 
and not dealing with royalties, and at $30 million a year it 
will take another 150--we will be doing the 300th anniversary 
of the Law of 1872--for us to get at the lowball estimate of 
$50 billion to clean up abandoned and orphaned mines across 
particularly the Southwest and other parts of this country.
    But with that, let me now turn to Mr. Lamborn for his 5 
minutes and recognize you. And you have additional time if you 
so choose, Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to 
help answer your next-to-last question.
    If this law took effect, we would have fewer conflicts, 
because we would have a lot less mining going on in this 
country. And with less mining, there would be less conflicts.
    Ms. Struhsacker, I would like to ask you a couple of 
questions about the taxation and royalties. For those who do 
not understand, what is the difference between a net tax and a 
gross tax?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you, Congressman. A net tax allows 
the producer to subtract the cost of making a sellable product, 
a marketable product, before the royalty is imposed. And a 
gross tax does not allow that at all. There are very few 
deductions allowable in a gross tax.
    So, comparing oil and gas again, oil is pretty well 
marketable as crude oil, right as it comes out of the ground 
from the wellhead. And in contrast, hardrock mining operations, 
like this rock shows, you have to do a lot of work and invest 
in processing facilities that can cost upwards of $1 billion 
before you can extract the gold and silver from that rock and 
have a marketable product.
    So, a net royalty allows you to make deductions for the 
cost to extract the gold and silver from this rock, and a gross 
royalty wouldn't. And you would end up paying on something that 
is not profits. I mean, we support a royalty that is a fair 
royalty on our profits, but not on the totality of the 
investment in the project.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, I appreciate that answer.
    And, also, people don't have a crystal ball. They don't 
know what future economic cycles are going to be. Sometimes 
minerals go in volatile ups and downs. They have volatile 
swings in their price. So, what might be profitable at one 
price would be breaking even at a lower price, and losing money 
at an even lower price. And you will drive them out of 
business, won't you, if you are taxing on the gross revenues, 
as opposed to the net revenues, would you agree with that?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Yes, that is an important point. A net 
royalty allows both the taxpayer and the mineral producer to go 
to the bank together, which means when mineral prices are high, 
then the net royalty payments are very high. When mineral 
prices fall, then, obviously, the royalty payments aren't as 
big, but it doesn't put a mine out of business. And you 
preserve the jobs, you preserve a revenue stream there.
    A gross royalty is very insensitive to prices, and it 
ignores the fact that your cost to get the gold out of this 
rock are fixed costs. And a gross royalty is very punitive in 
periods of low mineral prices.
    Mr. Lamborn. So, the way this bill is structured, with a 
royalty on gross revenues in combination with a dirt tax, which 
I have not really seen before, what would that do to 
prospective mining operations?
    Would any even go forward under what I consider onerous 
conditions?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Thank you, Congressman. I think the 
investment in the U.S. mining industry would decline even more 
dramatically under the gross royalty and the dirt tax 
provisions in this bill. It would have a devastating effect. 
And, ultimately, we will become even more and more reliant on 
foreign sources for minerals.
    Mr. Lamborn. I won't accuse this bill of being intended to 
drive mining out of business, but I think it would certainly 
have that effect, whether it is intended or not. Would you 
agree with that?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Absolutely. This is not the bill--there 
would never be, in my opinion, the right time for this bill. 
But this is an especially bad time for this bill, when we are 
staring in the face of a mineral availability crisis.
    Mr. Lamborn. And then what would happen to the cost of 
consumer goods, like electric vehicles or cell phones or 
computers, if the minerals couldn't be produced in this 
country, and we had to look for foreign sources, especially 
China?
    Ms. Struhsacker. I think the cost would inevitably go up, 
because not only would we have to be importing these minerals, 
it would exacerbate the shortage of minerals that we are 
already facing, as we heard from Mr. Chen. So, availability of 
the raw materials to build products would be constrained and 
cause prices to rise.
    Mr. Lamborn. And what disadvantages do we face when it 
comes to looking at China as a supplier of raw materials, or 
refined materials, for that matter, that we are not able to 
produce in this country because of stringent environmental laws 
or taxation? What does that do to our national security?
    Ms. Struhsacker. Oh, it is very scary, what it does to our 
national security. As Chairman Manchin said on the Senate side 
6 weeks ago or so, Russia and China are poised to weaponize 
critical minerals against us. And we have seen what that has 
done to Europe. Europe was inappropriately reliant on Russian 
oil and gas. And we have seen, unfortunately, with the tragedy 
of the war in Ukraine, what that can do to national security. 
It is a very alarming situation.
    Mr. Lamborn. And let me ask you this, because I have just a 
little bit of time left. Why is the mining claims system 
beneficial compared to leasing?
    Ms. Struhsacker. It is beneficial because we don't know 
where hardrock minerals are located. That is very different 
than the situation for oil and gas, which is a much more 
abundant resource, and they occur in well-understood, big 
sedimentary basins. We have to look very hard. There is a 1 in 
1,000 chance of discovering a mineral deposit that can become a 
mine. And the claim system works beautifully for that, because 
it allows geologists to stay on the land long enough to make 
that discovery.
    And I want to make the point that this is a system that has 
worked well. There is nothing wrong with it. And the BLM 
already tracks where claims are located. So, even though we 
have self-initiation and can go where our geologic nose leads 
us based on our drill hole data, the BLM knows where each claim 
is located. You have to record a claim with the BLM in order to 
make it a valid claim, and you have to pay a fee.
    Initially, each claim costs $225 per claim to establish.
    Mr. Lamborn. And seeing that I have still a little bit of 
time to equalize things, I hear references to the Mining Law of 
1872, 150 years old. And it is sometimes, I think, understood 
by people who are new to this subject that this law is 
antiquated and anachronous and has never been modified or 
changed.
    What are changes that our country has made to mining and 
environmental laws surrounding mining in the last 150 years 
that I think seriously and dramatically amend the 1872 law?
    Ms. Struhsacker. You are absolutely right, Congressman. 
Every single environmental law that applies to other industries 
applies to the mining industry. Keep in mind that our 
environmental regulations and laws are relatively new in this 
country. They started being enacted in the very late 1960s and 
1970s through the 1980s. Those all apply to mining. And the 
mining law itself has been amended many times.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 was one 
of the more important amendments to the mining law, and it 
inserted in the mining law an environmental performance 
standard. That is the unnecessary or undue degradation standard 
in Section 1732(b) of FLPMA, which requires mines to comply 
with all other environmental protection regulations.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. I thank you for setting the record 
straight on these questions, and I appreciate your testimony, 
Ms. Struhsacker.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grijalva. Ranking Member, any closing comments?
    Ms. Herrell. I would just say I appreciate the 
conversation, dialogue we have had today, and I am grateful to 
have gotten to fill in for my good friend, Congressman Stauber. 
Thank you for chairing this, as well.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And let me just thank 
the witnesses.
    And the members of the Committee may have additional 
questions for our witnesses today, and we will ask you to 
respond to those in writing. They must submit those within 3 
business days following this hearing. Then we will keep the 
hearing record open for an additional 10 days for the responses 
from our witnesses.
    I want to thank everybody. I appreciate it.
    President Stiffarm, thank you very much. You know, 
understood and not said was that the 1872 Mining Law, like the 
Homestead law of that same time, was also an instrument of 
dispossession for Native American Nations across this country. 
And we can't forget that. And we can't forget that we need to 
correct. We can't rewrite that history, you can't erase that 
history, but you can correct anything going forward. And the 
whole intent today is what do we need to do going forward to 
correct.
    And it is a right time to talk about this, where the 
urgency to make the climate change has created an urgency for 
us to transition to renewable and clean energy, and that 
urgency requires critical and essential minerals. We know that.
    And this law is not about stopping mining, but bringing it 
into this 21st century reality, No. 1.
    And No. 2, part of that reality is the public's right to 
know, transparency, and to bear some accountability and 
responsibility for what comes afterwards. After an operation is 
done, 20 years, 23 years, whatever that time period is, what 
happens then? Whose responsibility is it to reclaim, restore, 
or mediate and provide remediation for what is left behind? I 
think it belongs also with the industry, and it belongs, 
through royalties, with the ability to begin to deal with that 
backlog. And that is not assessing responsibility to a 
particular company. It is assessing the need to share that 
responsibility with everybody that is profiting from the 
extraction of minerals from our public lands.
    Thank you very much. It is a tough topic, given the times, 
and given the pressure to deregulate, speed up, and ignore the 
collateral damage of the past. And it is my intent not to 
ignore that collateral damage, and not to seek retribution, but 
to seek a path forward that is going to make us a full part of 
this next century. Thank you very much.
    With that, the meeting is adjourned----
    Mr. Stiffarm. Mr. Chair, can I make one quick comment?
    I would just like to add that this law was made in 1872, 
prior to a lot of our Native American treaties that put us on 
reservations, that took all our land.
    So, what I am saying is when the tribes got put on 
reservations and had to sign treaties with the Federal 
Government, we had to change as life changed. But this mining 
law has not changed since 1872. That is all we are asking, is 
update and change and protect our people and our land. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. The meeting is 
adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

                              Headquarters

                             Washington, DC

                                                 May 11, 2022      

        Hon. Raul Grijalva, 
        Chairman                      Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chairman
        Committee on Natural 
        Resources                     Subcommittee on Energy and 
                                      Mineral Resources
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Grijalva and Chairman Lowenthal:

    On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and 
our nearly 1.6 million members and supporters, thank you for 
introducing H.R. 7580, the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022. 
This timely legislation protects national parks, public lands, nearby 
communities and critical water supplies from the increased threat of 
hardrock mining as the United States continues a clean energy 
transition. Thank you as well to Chairman Lowenthal and the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources for holding a hearing on 
the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022 on Thursday, May 12, 2022.
    Since 1919, NPCA has been the leading voice of the American people 
in protecting our National Park System. Hardrock mining has long posed 
threats to national park landscapes across the country. Over the past 
several decades, NPCA has successfully advocated for protecting parks 
from various mining proposals that would have irreparably harmed them 
and nearby communities.
    The General Mining Law of 1872, which governs more than 350 million 
acres of public lands, offers little to no environmental protection to 
these lands, adjacent national park units, vulnerable water resources 
and nearby communities. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), 40% of the headwaters of all western watersheds are 
polluted by mining with hardrock mining being the largest toxic 
polluter. Additionally, current law does not require the hardrock 
mining industry to pay any royalties, unlike the oil and gas 
industries. This allows companies to stake claim of public lands and 
then reap the benefits of public resources for private gain without 
paying anything to the American taxpayer. There is also no incentive or 
requirement for these private companies to clean up their mines when 
they are finished leaving governments and communities to live with the 
impacts of mining's toxic legacy.
    The Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022 would fix these issues 
and many more, working to make the industry cleaner and more responsive 
to environmental protections and requiring a fair royalty for the 
extraction of resources on public lands. Of particular importance to 
NPCA is Section 111--Protection of Special Places. This language 
explicitly protects national parks, monuments and other conservation 
areas from hardrock mining. The section acknowledges that parks are not 
islands but are interconnected with the areas around them. It protects 
the waterways that flow into and through parks, the wildlife that do 
not know the boundaries created by humans, scenic vistas that have 
endured for ages and the air that gives life to human, animal and plant 
alike.
    With the protections this legislation will add to our national 
parks and public lands while helping America achieve our renewable 
energy goals, NPCA is happy to support this legislation. We look 
forward to working with Congress to help this legislation become law. 
Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.

            Sincerely,

                                              Chad W. Lord,
                                                Senior Director    
                                 Environment and Climate Policy    

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on H.R. 7580, the ``Clean Energy 
Minerals Reform Act of 2022.'' USDA appreciates the work the Sponsor 
and the Committee have done to propose reforms to the Mining Law 
through H.R. 7580 and look forward to continuing to work with Congress 
as the Administration undergoes its review of the Federal mining 
program and considers proposals for potential mining reforms.
Energy and Mineral Production on National Forest System Land

    The Minerals and Geology Management program at the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service administers mineral and geologic 
resources, overseeing mineral exploration, development and reclamation 
activities related to federal and non-federal mineral estates according 
to specific authorities, legislation, rules, and regulations. The 
Forest Service interacts with DOI's Bureau of Land Management and state 
agencies to manage minerals on National Forest System (NFS) lands and 
also investigates and remediates abandoned mine lands from historic 
mining.
    The NFS plays a significant role in delivering critical and other 
minerals to the nation and provide a large land base for industry 
interest to explore and develop critical minerals. There are nearly 
105,000 active mining claims encumbering over 2.3 million acres of 
National Forests in western states as well as other hardrock mineral 
potential areas in eastern forests, representing a significant land 
base for potential critical mineral activity. There are 344 authorized 
mines on NFS land that provide significant contribution to the national 
production of several important minerals, including copper, lead, zinc, 
silver, gold, and platinum and palladium (both critical minerals).
    Minerals and energy production from NFS land contributed about 
38,700 jobs and nearly $5.6 billion to the Nation's Gross Domestic 
Product in 2020, while providing substantial economic benefits to rural 
areas where consistent employment and economic growth may be limited. 
The Forest Service processes, on average, 198 proposals/year to 
explore/develop hardrock minerals. A recent analysis of 2,500 hardrock-
related approvals over a 5-year period found that 52% were approved 
within 2 years of submittal.
Management and Regulation of Mining on NFS Land

    Lands within national forests are subject to location and entry 
under the general mining and mineral leasing laws pursuant to the 
Organic Administration Act of 1897. Specifically, National Forest 
System lands reserved from the public domain are ``open to mineral 
entry'' unless they have been withdrawn from entry and appropriation 
under the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights. There are 
exceptions to this. Hardrock minerals on acquired NFS lands and on NFS 
lands in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, and Kansas are 
excluded from the operation of the mining laws. Therefore, mineral 
resources on those lands may only be leased, with surface use and 
occupancy for the purposes of exploring for or developing mineral 
resources permitted under vastly different authorities in close 
coordination with the Bureau of Land Management.
    The Organic Administration Act authorized the Secretary of 
Agriculture to make rules to regulate occupancy and use of the land and 
preserve the forests from destruction. The Act also specifically 
declared it does not prohibit prospecting, locating, and developing 
mineral resources within the national forests. However, the Act 
requires that everyone must comply with the rules and regulations 
governing the surface occupancy and use of the national forests, 
including people engaging in activities covered by the mining laws.
    The USDA Forest Service regulations governing operations under the 
mining laws conducted on NFS lands were first promulgated in 1974 and 
are found at 36 CFR Part 228 Subpart A. Aside from two minor rule 
changes in 1981 and 2005, the Forest Service mining regulations have 
not seen significant revision since 1974.
    Part 228 subpart A regulates occupancy and use authorized by the 
mining laws conducted on NFS lands, whether within or outside the 
boundaries of a mining or millsite claim, including the prospecting, 
exploration, development, mining, and processing of locatable minerals 
(operations). This subpart also regulates other activities, such as the 
subsequent reclamation and long-term post-closure resource management 
of such operations. Although 228 subpart A does not provide for issuing 
a permit for activities covered under the 1872 general mining law, it 
does require notices of intent to conduct most mining activities, and 
submission and approval of a plan of operations for activities that 
will likely cause or are causing significant disturbance of surface 
resources. It also mandates that those activities be conducted so as to 
minimize adverse environmental impacts on NFS lands. While the Forest 
Service has the authority to minimize surface impacts, it has little 
authority to categorically deny any plan of operations that complies 
with the regulations.
    Each proposed operating plan submitted under the Part 228 subpart A 
undergoes an environmental analysis and must comply with all applicable 
surface resource protection laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean 
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic 
Preservation Act. The Forest Service also engages in Tribal 
consultation with federally recognized Tribes to ensure their concerns 
are considered in processing operating plans.
    In alignment with the Administration's ``Fundamental Principles for 
Domestic Mining Reform,'' the USDA Forest Service will coordinate with 
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management on any 
necessary updates to 36 CFR Part 228 Subpart A.
Modernizing Domestic Mining

    In February, the Administration released its ``Fundamental 
Principles for Domestic Mining Reform'' to identify the key values that 
will drive the efforts to review the country's mining regulations, 
laws, and permitting processes. These principles include:

     Establishing Strong Mining Standards

     Securing a Sustainable Domestic Supply of Critical 
            Minerals

     Prioritizing Recycling, Reuse, and Efficient Use of 
            Critical Minerals

     Providing Permitting Certainty

     Adopt Fair Royalties

     Establishing a Fully Funded Hardrock Mine Reclamation 
            Program

     Conducting Comprehensive Planning

     Protecting Special Places

     Soliciting Community Input and Conducting Tribal 
            Consultation

     Utilizing Best Available Science and Data

     Building Civil Service Expertise in Mining

    We concur with the Department of the Interior's testimony that 
provides additional detail on these principles and the Administration's 
agenda.
    Consistent with direction in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (P.L. 117-58), USDA and DOI are leading an Interagency Working 
Group (IWG) with experts from across the Federal government to identify 
measures that would increase the timeliness of permitting for the 
exploration and development of domestic critical minerals. The IWG will 
also consider options for cost recovery to ensure adequate staffing and 
training to ensure efficient processing of applications, operating 
plans, leases, and permits.
Conclusion

    Our national forests and grasslands play an important role in 
contributing to an adequate and stable supply of mineral and energy 
resources. USDA looks forward to working with Congress and this 
Committee to continue to pursue necessary reforms to the nation's 
mining laws. We recognize the need for environmentally responsible and 
sustainably mined domestic production of mineral resources to help 
transition the country to a clean energy economy and to meet national 
security objectives, while ensuring the long-term protection of natural 
and cultural resources.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Herrell

                     CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

                                                 May 16, 2022      


        Hon. Raul Grijalva, 
        Chairman                      Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chairman
        House Natural Resources 
        Committee                     Subcommittee on Energy and 
                                      Mineral Resources
        1324 Longworth House Office 
        Bldg.                         108 Cannon House Office Bldg.
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Grijalva and Subcommittee Chairman Lowenthal:

    I write to you to discuss my deep concern with the Clean Energy 
Minerals Reform Act (H.R. 7580). This legislation would have a 
devastating effect in Nevada's 4th Congressional District that would 
lead to job losses, maintain our reliance on foreign countries for 
critical minerals, and have an adverse and negative effect on rural 
communities in my district.
    Nevada mining produces more than 20 minerals and metals that 
Americans use every day. Nevada is one of the largest gold producers in 
the world and is responsible for nearly 80% of all U.S. annual 
production. In addition, it has the only operating lithium mine in 
North America with several proposed lithium mines currently under 
review. These minerals will be critical moving forward to provide clean 
energy, produce batteries for electric vehicles, and new technologies.
    Mining is also a major economic driver in Nevada, providing workers 
with some of the highest wages, with an average salary nearly double 
that of the state average. In fact, in 2018, the industry paid over 
$2.4 billion in wages. At a time of rising inflation and my State still 
recovering from the impacts of COVID-19, now is especially not the time 
to introduce more taxes that may lead to job loss in one of the most 
important sectors of Nevada's economy.
    In addition, with Russia illegally invading Ukraine and China 
seeking a larger and larger hegemonic role in global affairs, it is 
clear that we must work at ensuring a robust domestic supply of 
critical minerals to ensure our national security. As a member of the 
Critical Minerals Caucus, I understand how important it is to ensure we 
have these minerals which are found in our homes, smartphones, and 
transportation methods. Our hardrock mining industry is a solution to 
address these issues, not the problem.
    Since the founding of the Comstock Lode in the 1850s, mining has 
been a rich part of Nevada's economy and culture, making us known 
worldwide as the Silver State. I will continue fighting for this 
important industry that is critical to my constituents in Nevada's 4th 
Congressional District.
    I appreciate you reviewing my concerns. Should you have any 
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin Herzik of my staff 
at [email protected].

            Sincerely,

                                           Steven Horsford,
                                             Member of Congress    
                                           4th District, Nevada    

                                 ______
                                 

                      NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

                             Washington, DC

                                                 May 12, 2022      


        Hon. Raul Grijalva, 
        Chairman                      Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking 
                                      Member
        House Natural Resources 
        Committee                     House Natural Resources Committee
        1324 Longworth House Office 
        Bldg.                         1329 Longworth House Office Bldg.
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Alan Lowenthal, 
        Chairman                      Hon. Pete Stauber, Ranking Member
        Subcommittee on Energy and 
        Mineral Resources             Subcommittee on Energy and 
                                      Mineral Resources
        1324 Longworth House Office 
        Bldg.                         1329 Longworth House Office Bldg.
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, Chairman 
Lowenthal and Ranking Member Stauber:

    The National Mining Association's (NMA) mineral producers strongly 
oppose H.R. 7580, the ``Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022.'' If 
enacted, this legislation will jeopardize the viability of the U.S. 
mining industry at a time when the metals and minerals we produce 
domestically are, according to the White House, ``essential to our 
national security and economic prosperity.'' \1\ This bill is in direct 
conflict with President Biden's call for a reliable domestic mineral 
supply chain. It is more apparent than ever that the growth of our 
economy is contingent on increased and reliable access to the metals 
and minerals necessary for manufacturing, advanced energy technologies, 
defense readiness and technological innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2022/02/22/fact-sheet-securing-a-made-in-america-supply-chain-for-
critical-minerals/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whether you consider rising inflation, increasing energy costs, 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, COVID-19 supply chain issues or trade 
tensions with China, it is clear that America's growing reliance on 
foreign sources of metals and minerals is unsustainable and puts our 
nation at a strategic disadvantage, further jeopardizing our post-
pandemic recovery and global competitiveness.
    Voters are increasingly concerned about these alarming trends. A 
recent poll conducted by Morning Consult showed that 74 percent of 
Americans support U.S. action to encourage the use of domestically-
mined minerals to decrease reliance on imported minerals. Rather than 
promoting policies to reduce our mineral import reliance, this bill's 
punitive and unrealistic measures create barriers to domestic mining.
    Even the Biden administration's supply chain assessment, found that 
``the United States must secure reliable and sustainable supplies of 
critical minerals and metals to ensure resilience across U.S. 
manufacturing and defense needs . . .'' \2\ Unfortunately, less than 
half of the mineral needs of U.S. manufacturing are currently met by 
domestically mined minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/100-day-
supply-chain-review-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the U.S. Geological Survey's 2022 Mineral Commodity 
Summaries, imports made up more than one-half of the U.S. consumption 
for 47 nonfuel mineral commodities--up from 46 last year--and the U.S. 
was 100 percent net import reliant for 17 of those, and that China was 
a primary source of imports for 25 minerals.
    The harmful provisions found in H.R. 7580--including new, punitive 
royalties and fees, duplicative environmental regulations, a wholesale 
conversion from a locatable to a leasing system, and limitations on 
land access--represent not only a dangerous threat the U.S. mining 
industry but threatens U.S. competitiveness with the rest of the world 
to meet the ever-increasing demand for minerals.
    Like its predecessors, H.R. 7580 continues to embrace anti-mining 
rhetoric based on false assumptions of how modern mining is regulated 
and the economic benefits it provides. Currently, domestic mining 
operations pay nearly half of their earnings in federal, state and 
local royalties, taxes and other fees to benefit the communities in 
which it works and the U.S. federal government. In 2018, domestic 
mining activity generated an estimated $18 billion in federal, state 
and local taxes that supported direct, indirect and induced taxes of 
$41 billion. Punitive federal royalties that have been discussed would 
push the U.S. beyond the upper limit of the range in effect in other 
countries, significantly impairing our global competitiveness and 
making investments in the U.S. far less attractive.
    Additionally, U.S. mining is one of the most heavily regulated 
industries in the world. This bill's duplicative environmental 
provisions ignore the more than three dozen comprehensive federal and 
state environmental, ecological, and reclamation laws and regulations 
applicable to the industry that have been continually amended to keep 
pace with modern mining practices.
    The mining industry has repeatedly indicated a willingness--to this 
committee and others--to engage in conversations about reasonable 
amendments to the General Mining Law, and it continues to be our 
guiding principle to work with the committee and the Biden 
administration to find a compromise that supports and maintains the 
competitiveness of the domestic mining industry.
    Any changes, however, must promote a viable domestic mining 
industry, support investment in domestic mineral projects, address the 
nation's reliance on foreign minerals, and provide a fair return to the 
American public. In contrast, H.R. 7580 represents a deliberate intent 
to make hardrock mining uneconomic in the U.S.
    We urge you to oppose the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, and 
instead prioritize policies, including modernization of the minerals 
permitting process, to enable development of the metals and minerals 
that will allow our nation to achieve greater innovation, supply chain 
security and economic growth.

            Sincerely,

                                                Rich Nolan,
                                                President & CEO    

                                 ______
                                 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S 
                            OFFICIAL FILES]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Herrell

  --  American Exploration & Mining Association, Letter dated 
            May 11, 2022 from Mark Compton, Executive Director, 
            opposing H.R. 7580

  --  AMIGOS, Letter dated May 12, 2022 from Sydney Hay, 
            President, opposing H.R. 7580

  --  Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Letter dated May 
            9, 2022 from Danny Seiden, President and CEO, 
            opposing H.R. 7580

  --  Arizona Mining Association, Letter dated May 5, 2022 from 
            Steve Trussell, Executive Director, opposing H.R. 
            7580

  --  Coeur Mining, Letter dated May 5, 2022 from Mitchell J. 
            Krebs, opposing H.R. 7580

  --  Elko County Board of Commissioners, Letter opposing H.R. 
            7580

  --  Eureka County Board of Commissioners, Letter dated May 
            10, 2022 from J.J. Goicoechea, DVM, Chairman, 
            opposing H.R. 7580

  --  Humboldt County, Nevada Board of Commissioners, Letter 
            dated May 2, 2022 from Jim French, Chairman, 
            opposing H.R. 7580

  --  Pershing County Board of County Commissioners, Letter 
            dated May 4, 2022 from Shayla Hudson, Chair, 
            opposing H.R. 7580

  --  Western Governors Association, Letter dated May 9, 2022 
            from James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, 
            submitting Policy Resolution 2018-09, Policy 
            Resolution 2020-02, and Policy Resolution 2021-09

                                 [all]