[Senate Hearing 118-316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-316
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 1281
S. 1742
__________
DECEMBER 12, 2023
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-844 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
CATHERINE CORTEZ, MASTO, Chair
RON WYDEN MIKE LEE
MARTIN HEINRICH JAMES E. RISCH
MAZIE K. HIRONO STEVE DAINES
ANGUS S. KING, JR. LISA MURKOWSKI
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER BILL CASSIDY
ALEX PADILLA JOSH HAWLEY
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Peter Stahley, Professional Staff Member
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Justin J. Memmott, Republican Chief Counsel
Valerie Manak, Republican Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, Subcommittee Chair and a U.S.
Senator from Nevada............................................ 1
Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator
from Utah...................................................... 3
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman of the Committee and a U.S.
Senator from West Virginia..................................... 4
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............ 5
WITNESSES
Feldgus, Dr. Steve, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 30
Heithecker, Troy, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture................................. 38
Haddock, Rich, Senior Advisor, Barrick Gold Corporation.......... 44
Wood, Chris, President and CEO, Trout Unlimited.................. 67
Sweeney, Katie, Executive Vice President and COO, National Mining
Association.................................................... 75
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Adorers of the Blood of Christ et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 15
Advanced Energy United:
Statement for the Record..................................... 142
American Exploration and Mining Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 144
Arrow-Weed, Preston J. et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 7
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 161
Catholic Climate Covenant et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 11
Center for Biological Diversity et al.:
Letter for the Record on S. 1742 and S. 1281................. 13
Letter for the Record on S. 1281............................. 163
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Feldgus, Dr. Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 30
Written Testimony............................................ 32
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 106
Haddock, Rich:
Opening Statement............................................ 44
Written Testimony............................................ 46
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 114
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Heithecker, Troy:
Opening Statement............................................ 38
Written Testimony............................................ 40
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 112
Hualapai Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 167
Information Network for Responsible Mining et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 27
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Leshy, John et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 169
Lithium Americas:
Statement for the Record..................................... 174
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
National Mining Association and Zero Emission Transportation
Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 181
National Parks Conservation Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 179
Orutsararmiut Native Council:
Statement for the Record..................................... 182
Outdoor Alliance et al.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 20
Pima County Board of Supervisors:
Resolution No. 2023-12....................................... 183
Sweeney, Katie:
Opening Statement............................................ 75
Written Testimony............................................ 77
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 137
Western Shoshone Defense Project:
Statement for the Record..................................... 185
Wood, Chris:
Opening Statement............................................ 67
Written Testimony............................................ 69
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 134
----------
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be found
on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/
2023/12/subcommittee-on-public-lands-forests-and-mining-hearing-to-
receive-testimony-on-pending-legislation
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Catherine
Cortez Masto, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. The hearing will come to order.
This afternoon's agenda includes two bills pertaining to
the state of domestic mining on our public lands. The first is
S. 1281, which is the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. It is a
bill that I introduced along with my colleague Senator Risch,
and we have co-sponsors, Senators Murkowski, Rosen, and Sinema.
The other bill is S. 1742, the Clean Energy Minerals Reform
Act, which is sponsored by Senator Heinrich. These bills are of
great interest to several members of this Committee and to many
communities and stakeholders across the country. After
Subcommittee members have an opportunity to make an opening
statement, the Subcommittee will then hear from representatives
of the Department of the Interior and Forest Service, who will
provide the Administration's testimony on the bills, and then,
representatives from the mining industry and conservation
community.
At this time, I would like to comment on one of the two
bills, which is the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, S. 1281.
Nevada's critical minerals are the key to our country's clean
energy future. They are vital for everything from electric
vehicles and solar panels to semiconductors and our military's
high-tech weaponry. But right now, the misguided Rosemont
decision is threatening to upend mining projects in Nevada and
across the country. My bill corrects the situation created by
the Rosemont decision, which requires mining companies to prove
that all their operations are on mineral-rich land, even for
ancillary-use activities that are not planned for mining, such
as the placement of waste rock processing, vehicle sheds, and
administrative offices. This is a problem for mines in the
West, who largely have no other choice but to also utilize
public lands near their mines for their accompanying mining
support activities. It makes no economic sense for miners to
use land that has commercially viable minerals to locate mining
support activities. If they are forced to store waste rock or
build administrative offices on mineral-rich land, they can't
access the resource. My bill addresses the decision and
reaffirms long-held practice and previous legal interpretation
that some public land use under a mining claim inherently
accompanies exploration and extraction activities for other
mining support activities, and it directs mining projects and
federal agencies to operate under the pre-existing BLM
regulatory framework.
Contrary to what some have alleged, this bill does not open
up more land to mining or allow mining in national parks or
other protected areas. However, without this bill, mining in
the United States would be severely impacted for the
foreseeable future, setting back the Biden Administration's
efforts to create domestic supply chains for critical minerals,
and to meet climate goals. Without mining of critical minerals
in our country, these goals cannot be met. The key to our clean
energy transition is to invest in the production of clean
energy technologies that reduce our carbon emissions, but we
cannot create those technologies without critical minerals, and
that begins with mining. About 85 percent of my home State of
Nevada is comprised of federal public lands. Nevada also has
the largest mining program on public land in the country, which
BLM estimates supports nearly--it's good-paying jobs, but also
83,000 jobs in the state alone. Mining is at the heart of so
many rural communities in my state, and is the key contributor
to the economy and social safety net for many rural and remote
communities in Nevada. According to the BLM, activity on
Nevada's federal lands in 2022 generated an economic output of
$29 billion, of which $27 billion is generated from mining
activity alone.
Nevada is also a growing nexus for our clean energy and
critical mineral future, as it is the only state in the U.S.
that encompasses nearly every facet of the critical mineral and
advanced battery technology, from the mining of critical
mineral deposits, to research and development, to processing
and manufacturing, and finally, to recycling operations. We
have enough lithium in Nevada to power the world for 85 years,
and we are doing this sustainably. I want to note that Nevada
has established a robust regulatory framework for managing the
mining industry, and we take balancing development and
conservation very seriously. Nevada's regulations have been
described as one of the most extensive and strict environmental
requirements for mining in the world.
As we take the necessary steps to address climate change,
we must do so in a fashion that makes America more productive,
secure, and self-sufficient. That means we must produce
minerals in the United States and not solely rely on foreign
sources, some of whom threaten our national security and don't
uphold the same environmental and labor standards. All of this
means we must address the complications created by the Rosemont
decision. I believe we can and must do this in a way that
incorporates robust engagement with all stakeholders that
minimizes environmental impacts and protects domestic mining
operations.
I also want to recognize an area where I know many
Committee members agree, including my colleague Senator
Heinrich--we have to address issues around abandoned mine
cleanup. There is no dispute that we have to do more. For the
record, the legacy of abandoned mines that we will discuss
today dates almost entirely to the times before our modern
environmental laws and regulations. And although it is not in
our Committee's jurisdiction, Senator Heinrich is advocating
for his Good Samaritan mining reform legislation to allow
interested parties to clean up mine waste that they do not
cause. This is a great goal, which I also support.
I hope today's discussion will also help us find common
ground on the critical need to enhance domestic production of
the minerals that will underpin the decarbonizing of our
economy and turn the tide on climate change.
At this time, I would like to recognize Senator Lee for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thanks so much, Madam Chair, and thanks to all
of our witnesses who have agreed to come out today. We
appreciate your expertise and all of the insight that you are
going to provide today.
We are here to discuss two bills that are at the very heart
of our nation's economic security and our energy security. I
will be blunt. One of these bills is, in my view, a step in the
right direction, and the other one, in my view, is a
significant misstep, one that threatens to undermine our
prosperity and also our energy independence.
Let's first address S. 1742, the Clean Energy Minerals
Reform Act. You know, while the intent of this bill may be to
promote responsible mining, the approach, in my view, is
misguided. The proposed gross royalty, new fees, and the new
more complex permitting process proposed in this bill will, in
my view, stifle the very industry that we rely on for critical
minerals that are necessary for all sorts of things, including
for our energy future. It is ironic and frankly hypocritical
that the Biden Administration, which professes to champion
mining for critical minerals necessary for clean energy, also
supports a bill that would devastate this very same industry.
How the Administration can claim to support the mining of
critical minerals while simultaneously enacting policies to
make those projects economically unviable is beyond my ability
to comprehend. This bill is not something I can fairly
characterize as just reform. It is a regulatory straightjacket
of sorts that will strangle investment and drive our mining
industry into the ground.
Contrast this with S. 1281, the Mining Regulatory Clarity
Act. This legislation is simple and it is a necessary response
to the uncertainty and instability caused by the ruling in
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service from the Ninth Circuit. This is a ruling that is
commonly known as, and referred to as, the Rosemont decision.
This bill simply returns the regulatory environment to the pre-
Rosemont ruling status quo. And it addresses an issue that was
created by the Ninth Circuit in that case and not by Congress.
It provides much-needed certainty and stability to mining
projects, safeguarding the ability to perform mining activities
on federal lands in a responsible, sustainable way.
The Department of the Interior will tell you today that
this legislation is not necessary because the issue was
addressed in a May 2023 Solicitor's Opinion issued by the
Solicitor at Interior. On the contrary, the Solicitor's Opinion
creates even more ambiguity, altering decades of BLM
regulations, ensuring future litigation and uncertainty for
mining on federal lands. S. 1281 provides a durable solution to
the issue, the same issue created by the Ninth Circuit and the
Rosemont decision, providing for a return to regulatory status
quo and clarity for claimholders. Such clarity is vital, not
only for the health of our mining sector, but also for the
broader economic and strategic interests of our economy.
As members of this Committee and Subcommittee, we can't
afford to overlook the immense value that our mining industry
brings to our country in so many ways. It's not just about the
minerals extracted. It's about jobs and livelihoods,
communities and families sustained, and the broader economic
security that results from a strong domestic mining sector. So
in conclusion, while I appreciate the efforts at reform, we
must be cautious not to undermine an industry as integral as
this one is to our nation's prosperity and security. And I urge
my colleagues to consider the real-world impacts of these
legislative proposals and to prioritize pragmatic solutions
that support sustainable growth and innovation in our mining
sector.
Thanks again to our witnesses. I look forward to your
testimony and to a productive discussion on these issues.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator Manchin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. I want to thank all of you for being here
today, and I want to thank my friend Senator Cortez Masto for
convening this hearing and helping to bring everyone to the
table to see if we can find some common ground on two pieces of
legislation modifying the operation of the Mining Law of 1872.
In October 2021, I chaired the Committee's first hearing in
13 years on mining law and opportunities for reform. At that
hearing, it was clear that there is a significant opportunity
before us to find some compromise, to get a fair return for the
American people, and to increase the regulatory certainty for
mining companies to pursue investments in the United States.
Today, we are building on the progress by looking at Senator
Cortez Masto's vitally important Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
and holding the first legislative hearing on a comprehensive
mining reform bill since 2009--Senator Heinrich's Clean Energy
Minerals Reform Act. Debate surrounding our public lands and
natural resources are very complex, so I am very glad to once
more have several of the same expert witnesses before us again
for this discussion.
I have been clear, the American people should receive fair
compensation for mining the federal minerals that we own, but
we must strike a balance and make sure the United States also
remains an attractive jurisdiction for mining investments. With
a national debt right at $34 trillion, the fact that over $5
billion in federal mineral dollars can be mined each year and
sold without a single penny in royalties is just absolutely
insane. Right now, the Federal Government spends nearly $300
million a year addressing mines that were abandoned before
modern environmental laws and bonding regimes. Unlike the coal
industry, where every coal company pays into an abandoned mine
land reclamation fund, there is no revenue stream to address
the enormous legacies of environmental degradation from
hardrock mining in the U.S., especially the western U.S. If we
can find a path forward on this issue while maintaining
certainty for claims and the open access that are key aspects
of the mining law, our nation will be better off for it.
Now, more than ever, developing new sources of critical
minerals is vital to our energy independence and national
security with all the bills that we just passed in the 117th
Congress. As our industry witnesses have said, reduced
investment in mining on federal lands would counteract those
efforts. I understand that there is a trade-off when
instituting new royalties or fees. These costs affect the
ability to invest, especially with our drawn-out permitting
processes and the inevitable litigation that follows. This
means that anything that raises costs must be paired with
benefits when it comes to permitting and legal certainty. With
that in mind, it makes all the sense in the world to reverse
the impacts of the Rosemont court decision, as Senator Cortez
Masto's Mining Regulatory Clarity Act attempts to do. The
Rosemont court's holding in the Ninth Circuit upends the Forest
Service and BLM regulatory frameworks for permitting new mines.
These regulations have been in place since 1974 and 1980,
respectively, and the Ninth Circuit's new approach will slow
mining development until Congress steps in and fixes it. It's
no secret that I remain committed to trying to find a broader
deal for permitting reform that would address issues across all
types of energy and mining projects.
Some of my colleagues and some in the mining industry feel
that with all the new demand for critical minerals, that we
should avoid changes to the Mining Law. Instead, I believe that
now is the time that we must find bipartisan solutions and
improve the law for the sake of industry and our entire nation
by addressing abandoned mine lands and instituting a royalty.
If we do so, one of the most common objections of mining
opponents would be taken off the table, and public support for
mining projects would be greatly improved. Because a bipartisan
compromise will have durability, it will remove the threat of
destructive changes that are raised by mining opponents every
few years.
Last Congress we saw a partisan push in the House to change
the Mining Law through reconciliation. I am confident that our
Committee can show that a bipartisan path is possible. Finding
a path forward will not be easy. I think you all know that.
Meaningful compromise never is. However, we have the right
people in this hearing room right now to make some progress
toward that path.
I want to thank the Chairwoman.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich, do you have an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. I do. Thank you, Chairwoman Cortez Masto.
And I want to thank you for your leadership and for holding
this hearing on a topic of critical importance to both of our
states and really, to communities across the entire western
United States.
I would like to start by asking unanimous consent to submit
for the record a number of letters from conservation groups,
outdoor recreation organizations, and hunting and fishing
groups in support of the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.
Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
[Letters of support for S. 1742 follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Heinrich. The law that governs metal mining on most
public lands in the West was written in 1872, more than 150
years ago. Yellowstone had been a national park for barely two
months when the Mining Law was signed and New Mexico would
still be a territory for another 40 years. We have learned a
lot since 1872. How to manage public land for public benefit.
How to conserve habitat for sustainable fish and wildlife
populations. How to protect our drinking and irrigation water
from toxic pollution. And how to ensure a fair return for the
commercial development of resources that belong to the American
people. And yet, our hardrock mining law remains stuck in the
19th century right when we need to build the clean energy
technologies of the 21st century. The 1872 Mining Law charges
no royalties for mining federal hardrock minerals. It provides
no mechanism to clean up old mines that pollute our rivers and
streams. And it provides no way for communities to identify
places that are simply inappropriate places for a mine.
If you mine coal that is owned by the American people, you
have to bid on a lease, pay a royalty, and pay into a fund that
cleans up old abandoned coal mines. Hardrock mining is not
responsible for any of this. Our national forests and BLM lands
are multiple-use lands, and we have public planning processes
that decide what activities will happen on which parcel of
public land. Recreation, grazing, transmission lines,
pipelines, wildlife habitat, wilderness, oil and gas
development, hunting and fishing, all of these are weighed and
balanced in the public planning process. But because our mining
laws are still a holdover from the Homestead Era, hardrock
mining is exempt from this entire process. Unless there is a
specific withdrawal of the land from mineral development,
hardrock mining takes priority over all other uses of public
land. All public land users deserve to be on equal footing with
companies that want to mine on our public lands. We need
responsible mineral development in this country, and public
lands can play an important role in that development.
But we can't do that with the outdated law that we have on
the books. Mining law reform can finally bring public-land
mining into the 21st century and provide the minerals that we
need for the energy technologies of today. Chairwoman Cortez
Masto, I look forward to working both with you and all of our
colleagues on this Committee to figure out how we can make our
mining laws work for today's needs. And thank you again for
holding this hearing.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
If there are no more opening statements from the members,
let's get to the witness panel, and I would like to introduce
Dr. Steve Feldgus, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior.
Troy--Heithecker?
Mr. Heithecker. Heithecker, yes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Heithecker--the Associate Deputy
Chief for the U.S. Forest Service.
Rich Haddock, who is the Senior Advisor to Barrick Gold
Corporation.
Chris Wood, President and CEO of Trout Unlimited.
And Katie Sweeney, Executive Vice President and COO for the
National Mining Association.
I would ask each of you to limit your remarks to no more
than five minutes. After everyone on the panel has given their
statement, we will turn to a round of questions from the
Committee members.
Dr. Feldgus, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE FELDGUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Feldgus. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Steve Feldgus, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the Department of
the Interior, and thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on S. 1281, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act and S.
1742, the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.
The Biden-Harris Administration welcomes the opportunity to
work with the Subcommittee to update our mining policies,
reform the general Mining Law of 1872, and promote the
sustainable and responsible domestic production of minerals.
The Administration recognizes the important role that mining
plays in the modern economy and the growing need for
responsibly sourced minerals to meet our climate,
infrastructure, and global competitiveness goals.
Starting with S. 1742, the Clean Energy Mineral Reform Act,
the legislation would make significant changes to the way that
the administration of mining operations occurs on federal
lands. Among other provisions, the bill would establish a
royalty for hardrock minerals produced from federal lands,
establish a new permitting process for exploration and mining,
enact environmental and reclamation reforms to protect special
areas from mining, and establish a funding source for the
remediation of legacy hardrock mining pollution. The Department
supports many of the provisions in S. 1742, which would govern
federal hardrock mineral resources similar to the way that
other mineral resources are managed on federal lands and align
with the recommendations of the Interagency Working Group on
Mining Laws, Regulations, and Permitting. The bill would help
generate a fair return for the American taxpayer, conserve
unique resources in special areas, and enhance tribal
consultation. And the tribal consultation requirements, in
particular, align with our commitment to strengthening
government-to-government relationships with tribal nations,
reduce conflicts with local communities, and improve
environmental, social, and economic outcomes.
In particular, the Department supports the bill's
establishment of a royalty for hardrock minerals, similar to
how oil, gas, and coal production is currently managed and as
recently recommended by the Interagency Working Group. The
Department notes that hardrock mining is the only extractive
industry on public lands that does not pay royalties, while
nearly every other state and country charges royalties on
hardrock mineral production. In addition to providing taxpayers
with a fair return, establishing a royalty rate for hardrock
production would also help provide funding that could be used
to mitigate the potential adverse environmental and social
impacts from mineral development. This, in turn, would help
improve economic and public health outcomes for underserved
communities. The Department also supports the proposal in the
legislation to use claim maintenance fees above what the Bureau
of Land Management needs to fund its program to help fund
abandoned hardrock mine reclamation, which does not currently
have a dedicated source of funding.
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Subcommittee on a few amendments to the bill, including the
addition of language to provide adequate liability protections
for Good Samaritans wishing to undertake cleanup activities.
Turning to S. 1281, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, the
bill would define the term ``operations'' with respect to
locatable minerals, which would include various mining
activities, the reclamation of areas disturbed by those
activities, and any actions reasonably incident to those
activities, such as the construction and maintenance of any
necessary infrastructure, regardless of whether it's carried
out on a mining claim. The bill would also grant mining
claimants the right to use, occupy, and conduct operations on
public land with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral
deposit. The claimants would only need to have paid the
location fee and the claim maintenance fee, or those claimants
who qualify for a small miner waiver may instead comply with
the required work assessment. The Department's understanding is
that S. 1281 seeks to address a ruling in the Ninth Circuit's
Rosemont decision.
While the Department supports the goals of S. 1281, it is
important to note that we have already taken action to address
this issue administratively by issuing a Solicitor's M-Opinion
that identifies options for potentially impacted operators. The
Department is also concerned that, as written, the bill could
lead to a number of unintended consequences. In particular,
granting claimants the right of use and occupancy prior to
showing the discovery of a valuable mineral greatly expands the
rights conferred under the Mining Law. This could encourage the
filing of nuisance claims that attempt to interfere with or
prevent other authorized uses and could lead to unauthorized
non-mining industrial uses and residential occupancy.
The Department would like to work with the sponsor and the
Subcommittee on improvements to the bill that maintain the
intent of the legislation while limiting potential unintended
consequences.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these
bills, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Feldgus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Heithecker.
STATEMENT OF MR. TROY HEITHECKER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heithecker. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Cortez
Masto, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on two bills under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Forest Service. It is a pleasure and an honor to be
here today. My name is Troy Heithecker and I currently serve as
the Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System. I
have been a career employee with the Forest Service for over 25
years, and in my current position, I am responsible for policy
management and oversight of the 154 national forests and 20
national grasslands spanning 193 million acres from Puerto Rico
to Alaska.
The Forest Service administers mineral and geologic
resources, including mineral exploration, development, and
reclamation activities on National Forest System lands. In
2022, the agency administered more than 5,000 federal mineral
leases across four million acres for oil, natural gas, coal,
phosphate, and other mineral commodities. In 2022, the agency
also managed around 75,000 mining claims on National Forest
System lands and completed over 1,800 mineral material sale
contracts and permits. These mineral activities result in an
estimated $5.6 billion annual contribution to the nation's
economy and support nearly 40,000 jobs. The Forest Service
administers surface uses of National Forest System lands in
connection with mining activities under the 1872 Mining Law.
This work is complex, it is important, and we take it very
seriously.
The Forest Service understands that the intent of S. 1281,
the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023, is to address the
Rosemont decision and change how agencies treat activities
ancillary to mining operations located on federal lands. The
bill sets forth a process to allow mining operators to use,
occupy, and conduct operations on public land regardless of
whether a valuable mineral deposit has been discovered. While
the Forest Service supports the goals of this Act, we believe
that the bill, as currently written, would change the scope of
rights under the Mining Law in ways that could have unintended
consequences. We are therefore committed to working with the
sponsor and the Subcommittee on reforms that advance
Administration priorities to provide certainty and stability
for the industry, strengthen domestic mineral supply chains,
protect local and tribal communities, and advance environmental
standards, all while ensuring a fair return to taxpayers.
The Clean Energy Mineral Reforms Act of 2023, S. 1742, aims
to amend the 1872 Mining Law to eliminate patenting on federal
lands, collect royalties on hardrock minerals, establish a
hardrock minerals reclamation fund, implement a permitting
process, and revise the mineral withdrawal process. Effective
October 1, 1994, Congress imposed a moratorium on spending
appropriated funds for the acceptance or processing of mineral
patent applications that had not reached a defined point in the
patent review process. Since then, the rider has prevented the
Department of the Interior from accepting new patent
applications, including those for National Forest System lands.
The Department of Agriculture supports the proposal, since it
will simply codify current practices.
The Forest Service is not able to comment on royalty
relief, as this is a Department of the Interior-directed
proposal. The Forest Service does support a dedicated funding
mechanism to address abandoned mine cleanup. The proposed
legislation would also require exploration permits and mining
operations permits on federal lands. The Forest Service
currently requires an approved mine plan of operations for
proposed activities that may cause significant surface resource
disturbance, including exploration, development, production,
and reclamation operations. We therefore support the intent of
the provision to help balance conservation and mining on public
lands, and would like to discuss this provision further with
the Committee and the bill sponsor.
Section 307 of the proposed bill requires the Forest
Service, within three years of enactment, to conduct a review
of National Forest System lands that are suitable for
wilderness, roadless areas, areas included in the Wild and
Scenic River System, and where mineral activities pose a
reasonable likelihood of substantial impacts on National
Conservation Area lands. Based on that review, the proposed
bill would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to recommend and
the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw those lands from
availability under the Mining Law of 1872. The proposed
legislation also removes the two-year segregation period from
the date of the Secretary's determination and the 20-year limit
to administrative withdrawals. The Forest Service advocates for
a balance between the need for domestic critical mineral
production to support a renewable energy economy and protecting
the environment, and believes the existing process is
sufficient to do both. However, the Forest Service is committed
to working with the sponsor to ensure that the review includes
consideration of mineral potential reports and reasonably
foreseeable development scenarios, as recommended in the
Interagency Working Group's Final Report on Recommendations to
Improve Mining on Public Lands. We support the bill's
requirement to consult with tribes, as the Forest Service
manages millions of acres of land and waters that are of
significant cultural and historical importance to our tribal
partners, as is evidenced in our 2023 Tribal Action Plan. The
Forest Service is committed to strengthening tribal
consultation and nation-to-nation relationships, and the
proposed legislation parallels that commitment.
Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my remarks, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heithecker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Haddock.
STATEMENT OF RICH HADDOCK, SENIOR ADVISOR,
BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION
Mr. Haddock. Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for meeting today to
discuss these important bills. My name is Rich Haddock, I am a
Senior Advisor to Barrick Gold, having recently retired as the
company's general counsel. I am here today to support the
Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023 and to discuss the Clean
Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2023. In the full Committee on
September 28th this year, you heard a lot of discussion about
the uncertainty and long timeframes associated with mine
permitting in the U.S. The Ninth Circuit decision on Rosemont
and its progeny just add to the uncertainty. S. 1281 eliminates
that uncertainty and restores the BLM and Forest Service
regulation of mining plans of operations to its pre-Rosemont
status quo, nothing more.
There is some history you need to know about the anti-
mining advocacy that led us here today. This is not a criticism
of the advocates. I respect them. I just disagree with them.
The approach was first reflected in the writings of Professor
John Leshy in the 1980s. He wrote that to force Congress's hand
to revamp the Mining Law, ``It might even be appropriate for
the Interior Department and courts to consciously reach results
that make the Mining Law unworkable.'' One way to make the
Mining Law unworkable is to take away the places where a mine
operator can put the overburden, or what we call waste rock, or
other necessary components for the surface of a mining
operation. There are two ways to do this in the Mining Law.
Ancillary use is shorthand that refers to the use of a surface
of a 20-acre load claim near your mine for workings that are
essential to the operation of the mine. The mill sites are
five-acre claims that can also be used for ancillary
activities, but will usually be further from the mine mouth
because the land has to be ``non-mineral in character.'' If you
eliminate ancillary use and make the use of mill sites
impracticable, the Mining Law becomes unworkable for almost all
open pits and perhaps many underground operations. Prior to
1997, neither ancillary use nor use of as many mill sites as
necessary had been seriously questioned and was reflected in
the regulations going back to the 1980 FLPMA regulations.
Then, during the Clinton administration, then-Solicitor
John Leshy issued an opinion that concluded a miner can only
use one five-acre mill site for each 20-acre load claim and he
followed up with an opinion that ancillary use was unavailable
unless a claim was valid against the United States as opposed
to valid against rival claimants. By happenstance, neither
opinion was used to stop a mine during the waning years of the
Administration, and in fact, Congress stepped in to stop the
application of the mill site opinion to a specific project. To
clear any confusion, BLM rescinded the Leshy opinions, and in
2005 and 2008 promulgated regulations that re-iterated
longstanding interpretations regarding mill sites and ancillary
use, and these regulations are still in force. The Rosemont
decision and its Ninth Circuit progeny are based on the
arguments in the Leshy ancillary-use opinion. Currently on
appeal from the D.C. District, some of the Rosemont advocates
are challenging the mill site regulation, arguing to the D.C.
Circuit that the one-to-one ratio for mill sites should be
imposed. Against this backdrop, the current Interior Solicitor
has issued an opinion directing Interior to implement Rosemont
nationwide. But the effects of Rosemont need to be reversed
immediately, and the opinion leaves many issues unanswered,
offers mostly impracticable alternatives, and will only foster
further litigation.
Now, with respect to S. 1742, while Barrick believes the
Mining Law works, by and large, we acknowledge that it's not
perfect and we would happily work to achieve appropriate
targeted refinements. Barrick applauds some aspects of S. 1742.
It recognizes and retains two core principles of the Mining
Law--specifically self-initiation and security of title. But we
cannot support other aspects of the bill. One big concern is a
royalty and fee structure that would result in the U.S.
Government total take of about two-thirds of the mine's
production. That would make the U.S. a developed-world outlier,
and would create an insurmountable disincentive to mining in
the United States. As I testified to the full Committee back in
2021, Barrick supports a reasonable net royalty and reasonable
increases in claim fees, but we do not support gross royalties
for all the reasons we discussed in detail then. We would
support dedicating funds from royalties and from claims fees
for abandoned mine reclamation.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer questions and submit
additional information as needed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haddock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Haddock.
Mr. Wood.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS WOOD,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Wood. Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, and
Subcommittee members, my name is Chris Wood, and I am the
President and CEO of Trout Unlimited.
TU's mission is to bring together diverse interests to care
for and recover rivers and streams so that our children can
experience the joy of wild and native trout and salmon. In
pursuit of this mission, TU has long been involved in mining
issues, from protecting special landscapes, such as Bristol Bay
in Alaska, to working with the mining industry to
collaboratively clean up legacy abandoned mines. Domestic
mineral production helped to build our nation. It helped to
fuel our western expansion. It helped us to win two world wars.
And it provides the raw materials for modern society.
Unfortunately, mining that often occurred before the era of
modern environmental laws left hundreds of thousands of
abandoned mines. These mines dot the landscape like ticking
time bombs releasing their deadly brew of lead, zinc, cadmium,
and arsenic into our rivers and streams. There is no
constituency for acid mine drainage and orange rivers. They do
not have lobbyists for working for them in DC.
There are two central challenges to cleaning up abandoned
mines. The first is potential legal liability to those would-be
Good Samaritans that want to clean them up. The second is the
lack of dedicated restoration funding. Two members of this
Committee, Senators Heinrich and Risch, and seven other
Committee members, are working hard to solve that first
problem, and we appreciate that. Just about every commodity
produced off our public lands has an associated royalty or fee
that is used to clean up legacy development. I appreciate the
fact that mining companies must make years and often millions
of dollars in investments before they can mine, but there
should be a common-sense royalty to help pay for the cleanup of
legacy mines. We urge Congress to enact a royalty for minerals
extracted from public lands. We do it for oil. We do it for
gas. We do it for coal. We should do it for hardrock minerals.
S. 1742 would achieve these objectives by establishing an
adjustable royalty for new mines. I don't claim to be an expert
in royalties, but certainly, reasonable people should be able
to come together and determine a fair royalty that would allow
the industry to plan with certainty while helping to finance
the cleanup of abandoned mines.
The overall need for critical minerals could increase by as
much as six times by 2040. Critical minerals such as lithium
and cobalt are important in electric vehicles, solar panels,
and wind turbines. A critical minerals mining rush will create
new environmental and social challenges, and the Subcommittee
is smart to take a hard look at the Mining Law of 1872, as well
as the implications of the Rosemont decision. Rosemont has
created uncertainty, as we have heard, for mining on public
lands. The solution should not create additional uncertainty.
S. 1281 ties the validity of a mining claim to the payment of
claim maintenance and location fees. So long as these fees are
paid, mining claims would be valid with or without the
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. While this approach
would resolve Rosemont, it does not distinguish between lands
that are open for mining and those that have been withdrawn,
such as wilderness areas and national monuments. Under existing
regulations, mining can only be allowed in protected areas if
pre-existing claims have been determined to be valid, meaning
that there has been the discovery of a valuable mineral
deposit. However, if the provisions of S. 1281 were to become
law, the valuable discovery standard would be eliminated in
protected areas, and it could become unlawful to deny
prospecting, mining, and exploration activities.
We have fought, bickered, and disagreed over mining on
public land for decades. Certainly, there is a common-sense
compromise within our reach that would fund and make it easier
to clean up abandoned mines and allow that certain landscapes
are inappropriate for mining while addressing the legal and
regulatory certainty needed by the mining industry to help us
transition to a clean energy future.
I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. Sweeney.
STATEMENT OF KATIE SWEENEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND COO,
NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
Ms. Sweeney. Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, and
Subcommittee members, I appreciate being here on behalf of the
National Mining Association's hardrock mining companies in
support of S. 1281, the bipartisan Mining Regulatory Clarity
Act. I also thank the Committee for their efforts to pursue
much-needed minerals policies that support, rather than harm,
domestic mining.
America's mining industry supplies the essential materials
necessary for nearly every sector of our economy, and we do so
in accordance with world-leading environmental, safety, and
labor standards. No country mines more responsibly than we do
here in the United States. The most mineral-intensive moment in
human history is upon us, and the U.S. is woefully unprepared.
Looking solely at demand coming from the electric vehicle
market, the Energy Transitions Commission estimates we need up
to 250 new mines by 2030, Benchmark Minerals says 384 by 2035,
and the Frasier Institute says 388 by 2030. It is clearly not a
question of if we must mine, but where. With the right
policies, the U.S. could ramp up domestic mining, reduce
reliance on China, and create high-paying, American jobs. The
mining industry needs lasting certainty that is not tied to any
political agenda. The stakes are higher than ever, not just for
mining companies that can spend hundreds of millions or even
billions of dollars before seeing any return on investment, but
for society, if we don't get this right.
Regulatory certainty is at the core of our discussion
today. S. 1281 reinstates much-needed clarity in the face of a
fundamentally flawed court decision that conflicted with more
than a century of legal precedent, including Supreme Court
decisions. It returns us to the longstanding framework that
existed prior to the Rosemont decision, nothing more, nothing
less. Regulatory certainty is essential for mine permitting
that can take an average of seven to ten years or longer.
Opening a mine in the United States typically involves multiple
agencies and between a dozen and a hundred of local, state, and
federal approvals. Valid environmental concerns should be fully
addressed, but permitting processes should not be an excuse to
trap mining projects in limbo. Lengthy mine development time
frames were highlighted by Dr. Daniel Yergin in testimony
before this Committee this fall. His global data on 127 mines
demonstrated that a major new resource discovery today would
not become a productive mine until 2040, at the earliest. He
also cautioned against overzealous attempts to source minerals
primarily from allied countries while blocking domestic
projects, noting that such availability is not guaranteed.
Regulatory certainty is equally important to investors. Our
cumbersome permitting process already negatively impacts
investment attractiveness. Consulting firm McKinsey Metals and
Mining recently cautioned that regulatory uncertainty could put
the energy transition at risk, as such ambiguities impair
potential investors' ability to accurately forecast cash flows
and result in investment decision delays. That conclusion is
particularly alarming, as the International Energy Agency
estimates that the energy transition requires $360 to $450
billion worth of new mineral investment by 2030.
Regarding S. 1742, its fundamental upending of the Mining
Law is the antithesis of regulatory certainty. The Mining Law
works as intended as a land tenure statute to promote mineral
exploration and development on federal lands. It is
complemented by exhaustive local, state, and federal
environmental laws and regulations to ensure responsible
operations. Remaking the Mining Law will further slow mine
permitting and force the doubling down of our outside reliance
on countries with questionable labor, safety, and environmental
practices. S. 1742's worthy goal of promoting cleanup of
abandoned legacy mines that predate the modern regulatory era
is undermined by its failure to recognize the effectiveness of
existing regulations and modern mining practices. Under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, activities must be
conducted to prevent ``unnecessary or undue degradation,''
which requires compliance with applicable federal and state
environmental and cultural resource laws. Furthermore, the
standard is inherently self-updating to allow for continual
improvement. As federal and state laws are strengthened, so is
this standard. Promoting regulatory certainty does not mean
that laws and regulations should never change or that we are
not always seeking improvements. In my 33 years with the
industry, I can assure you that NMA's members are committed to
continuous environmental improvement.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sweeney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Ms. Sweeney.
All right, for the benefit of the panelists and members, we
are in the middle of votes this afternoon. So I just talked to
Senator Lee, and I think what we are thinking is, the closer we
get to the second and third votes, we may recess. We are going
to go until we can get to, hopefully--then recess, go vote for
the second vote and the third vote and come back if we have to,
to finish the hearing. Okay?
So we are now going to start the Q&A period for the
members. I will begin. Thank you so much to all of the
panelists for being here and your comments already.
We know the Biden Administration has set climate change
mitigation goals to drastically decarbonize our economy and has
stated that their policy is to do so by securing domestically
sourced critical minerals used to manufacture those clean
energy technologies. Mr. Haddock, how is our ability to meet
the Biden Administration's climate goals impacted by the
Rosemont decision, and how is our ability to develop domestic
critical minerals impacted by that decision as well?
Mr. Haddock. Thank you, Senator.
The Rosemont decision results in really an irrational
operation of a mine. The purpose of ancillary use was to be
able to effectively and rationally organize and operate a mine.
If you aren't able to do that, then you may not be able to
develop certain mines. You may not be able to economically
develop certain mines. Even if the mill site opinion is upheld
in the D.C. Circuit, you have to go further away to dispose of
waste rock. That is at a very high cost, and it can make the
mine uneconomic. So from my perspective, the other problem is
that it results in permitting and litigation delay. From a
permitting standpoint, there still is an open question as to
what you have to show under the Solicitor's Opinion to meet the
``some evidence'' test. That certainly is ripe for litigation
in every case, and there are additional open issues with
respect to the use of roads and pipelines that have always been
a part of a unified plan of operations. And so, that will also
affect the ability to rationally permit a mine.
Senator Cortez Masto. So Mr. Haddock, can you explain a
little bit for those folks that aren't familiar with hardrock
mining or haven't been to a hardrock mining site, talk a little
bit about the Rosemont decision and how you believe that it's
going to extend the already lengthy permitting process? You
talked a little bit, but give us examples.
Mr. Haddock. Well, I mean, environmental impact statements
that are going on right now that I am familiar with, they have
been delayed for months while the agency tried to understand
exactly what was required, why the mining company went back and
tried to gather the information that was required from the
permitting agency. And so, it has just created another step
and, you know, imposed additional burden on an already busy
agency.
Senator Cortez Masto. Can I ask you, because of your
expertise and your legal background, particularly with the
Mining Clarity Act, there is a lot of misinformation around it,
so I want to ask you a couple questions to verify whether this
is true or not. There is a myth that somehow the bill locks out
other uses of public lands such as for renewable energy
projects or conservation. Does the bill lock out other uses of
public lands?
Mr. Haddock. It does not. I think there is a misconception
that somehow this is a whole new mining law in this section.
What this is is an amendment to Section 28f of the Mining Law,
and it fits in the entire Mining Law framework, and it is
subject to all of the other legal requirements, including the
FLPMA requirements for permitting. It doesn't change anything
with respect to excluding other activities.
Senator Cortez Masto. So can I ask you very quickly then,
because I only have so much time----
Mr. Haddock. Yes.
Senator Cortez Masto [continuing]. Does the bill give
mining companies unrestricted access to public lands?
Mr. Haddock. It does not.
Senator Cortez Masto. Does the bill allow mines to be built
within national parks, wilderness areas, and other areas
already withdrawn from the Mining Law?
Mr. Haddock. It does not.
Senator Cortez Masto. Does the bill automatically grant
rights-of-way for roads, pipelines, or transmission lines on
public lands?
Mr. Haddock. No, it does not.
Senator Cortez Masto. Does the bill give new rights to
claimants who have not discovered any valuable minerals?
Mr. Haddock. It does not.
Senator Cortez Masto. Does the bill undermine tribal
rights? And for the record, if it did, I would not be
introducing this bill, but does it undermine tribal rights?
Mr. Haddock. It does not. It does not affect the National
Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological Protection Act,
treaty rights, any of those issues.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
And then, finally, Dr. Feldgus brought something up at the
very end of his testimony, and can you clarify this for me,
which you said this bill could lead to a number of serious
unintended consequences, in particular, granting the right of
use and occupancy to claimants prior to showing the discovery
of a valuable mineral, and could encourage the filing of
nuisance claims that attempt to interfere with or prevent other
authorized uses. And then he also said it could also lead to
unauthorized non-mining industrial uses and residential
occupancy. Is that true? And by the way, did that occur even
prior to the Rosemont mine decision?
Mr. Haddock. Abuse of mining claims----
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
Mr. Haddock [continuing]. Is something that happened prior
to the Rosemont decision, but it does not happen much anymore.
A mining claim that is located for any purpose other than
mining is void ab initio--it doesn't exist. The agency can go
ahead and approve rights over the top of such a claim. And you
know, it was really more of a problem pre-FLPMA. And since
FLPMA came, now the agency knows where all the mining claims
are and they know when things are built on public land. You
have to have a permit to do so. If somebody tried to use a
mining claim for residential purposes, BLM would look at the
plan, they'd go out and inspect, and they would not allow it to
happen.
Senator Cortez Masto. And then, finally, why is the
Solicitor's Opinion not a fix, or is it?
Mr. Haddock. The Solicitor's Opinion isn't a fix because it
basically makes Rosemont the law of the land, not just in the
Ninth Circuit, it makes it the law everywhere, despite the
regulations that are on the books elsewhere in the country. It
also does not resolve the issue that the--it is not binding on
the mining opponents, but one of the issues that they want to
litigate, they wanted to litigate it in the Thacker Pass case,
but the Ninth Circuit would not allow them. Sent them back to
the District Court. They wanted to litigate whether or not the
standard was actually to show by full feasibility--full
validity of a claim--rather than the ``some evidence'' standard
that is in the Solicitor's Opinion. They also indicted in the
Thacker Pass case, but the court would not let them because
they raised it late, that they wanted to challenge use of the
surface for roads, pipelines, the distribution lines, and the
other surface facilities, other than waste dump trucks and
tailings. And they are preserving that issue for another case.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Dr. Feldgus, I would like to start with you,
and I have a lot to cover with a lot of witnesses, so for these
answers, I would love it if you could give me a yes or a no.
Does the Biden Administration support the new gross royalty
that is proposed in S. 1742?
Dr. Feldgus. We support a royalty.
Senator Lee. And again, yes or no. Does the Biden
Administration want to see increased investment in domestic
mining?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, we do.
Senator Lee. Good.
Ms. Sweeney, you are an expert, and your organization, the
National Mining Association, has a really good pulse on the
industry. Will a new gross royalty lead to more investment or
less investment in domestic mining in America?
Ms. Sweeney. Less investment.
Senator Lee. Okay.
Mr. Haddock, I would like to ask you the same question.
Will a new gross royalty lead to more investment or less
investment in domestic mining?
Mr. Haddock. A royalty is a cash cost and any cash cost is
a disincentive to investment.
Senator Lee. Okay. So Dr. Feldgus, we have just heard from
two industry experts who have both definitively said that a new
gross royalty will have a deleterious effect in this area and
will stifle investment in domestic mining projects. Now, given
the Biden Administration's stated support for domestic mining
of critical minerals, I am really scratching my head here. And
I start to wonder how on Earth could one justify endorsing
legislation that would, as we have just heard, cripple domestic
mining on federal lands by imposing new fees and royalties. I
just, I don't get it.
Now, Ms. Sweeney, proponents of new mining fees and
royalties will often try to justify these measures by a
familiar trope. They tend to say that these measures are
acceptable, in fact, they are necessary as a way to ensure that
taxpayers are getting a ``fair return'' on mining activities
that happen to occur on federal lands. But it seems to me that
there won't be any fair return at all, as there won't be any
return if there isn't any mining. And there won't be any mining
if there is not investment. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Sweeney. Correct.
Senator Lee. Coal, oil, and gas--they all pay a royalty.
Why would a similar royalty and framework not work for hardrock
minerals?
Ms. Sweeney. So there are several reasons that a gross
royalty approach doesn't work the same way for hardrock
minerals, and it's really that the market fundamentals are just
vastly different. When you are out there exploring for hardrock
minerals, it's very elusive. You are looking for smaller
concentrations, so there is so much upfront work to be done
that can take a decade. Compare that to oil and gas, or coal,
where you have broad areas with often known resources. Another
difference is----
Senator Lee. You know where the vein is if it's coal, or
you know where the oil or gas is.
Ms. Sweeney. Yes, you know where the basin is, where the
oil might be, or there is a lot of information, government
information even, about where the coal resources are. We don't
have the same information for hardrock minerals. Another
difference is that the period between exploration and
extraction is usually much longer. So there is a lot greater
risk, right, that the project could be economic before you get
to that production stage. And then there is significantly more
processing required on the hardrock mining side before you get
to a saleable product. And then I think another important
distinction is there is no pass-through of cost, including for
a royalty for hardrock mining in the same way that there is for
oil and gas and coal. So I think those are some of the
important distinctions.
Senator Lee. Okay.
Now, Mr. Haddock, under S. 1742, an exploration permit
would be required for all mineral exploration on federal land,
eliminating the possibility of the current existence of notice-
level exploration. Notice-level exploration, of course,
requires operators to submit a notice of intent for activities
causing more than just a minimal surface disturbance, but not
quite extensive enough to necessitate a full plan of operations
ensuring environmental considerations are addressed. So notice-
level exploration strikes a balance between allowing for
reasonable exploration activities on the one hand and
protecting the environment on the other. Could you describe the
importance of grassroots mineral exploration and how, for
example, a new permit requirement might impact the exploration
process?
Mr. Haddock. That notice-level activity is really the most
fundamental kind of testing exercise in exploration. When a
geologist develops a concept, he needs to go out and he needs
to test it. And notice-level activity, as you say, balances the
environmental protections because you have to avoid cultural
resources. There are a bunch of rules you have to follow. You
have to reclaim. But it allows you to go out and get, for the
first time, real data. And it needs to be done over and over
and over and over again before you actually get to a real
prospect where you have notice-level, or where you actually
have to go and file a plan of operations.
If you can't do that, and you start adding transactional
expense in the neighborhood of $100,000 or $200,000, which is
what you do for a full-blown exploration plan, it's just going
to stifle grassroots exploration.
Senator Lee. And I am reading it correctly--to get rid of
notice-level exploration?
Mr. Haddock. Yes.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairwoman Cortez Masto.
I do think we need to get some level of certainty on this
issue of claims inside protected areas. So Mr. Wood, and I
know, frankly, that that is not the sponsor's intent, but Mr.
Wood, as you read it, would S. 1281, as drafted, allow mining-
related activities on existing claims that are within protected
areas like parks and wilderness areas, even if those mining
claims are not valid?
Mr. Wood. We know that that is not the Senator's intent,
but I think this demonstrates the challenge of applying a 150-
year-old mining law to modern mining. There are 1,100 mining
claims in our national parks today. And to mine in a protected
area, pre-existing claims have to be determined valid. And you
have to prove the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. Now,
there are people here who know a lot more about this than I do,
but if you take away the requirement to ascertain whether or
not there is a valuable mineral deposit there, the area could
be perceived as open.
Senator Heinrich. But that seems like something we ought to
be able to fix in the specific language, right?
Mr. Wood. Completely.
Senator Heinrich. Yes. Great.
Mr. Wood. It sounds like that's no one's intent.
Senator Heinrich. Perfect.
Mr. Wood. So it's eminently fixable.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Mr. Haddock, I wanted to ask you, you know, setting aside
what the right number is, is it reasonable to expect mining
companies to pay some federal royalty for hardrock minerals?
Mr. Haddock. Yes, Senator. As I have said, we support a
reasonable net royalty. And the reason we support net, and I
think this is really important--a gross royalty would be akin
to putting the oil and gas royalty on the product at the pump--
that price--because every mine has to have a custom, very
expensive process to refine the ore to make the saleable
product. And we believe that net actually represents the value
of what the government is bringing to the table with their
product, with their rock.
Senator Heinrich. So Nevada has a net royalty, for example,
right?
Mr. Haddock. It does. And that is exactly how it operates.
Senator Heinrich. When--what year did that come into being?
Mr. Haddock. It's in the Nevada Constitution.
Senator Heinrich. The royalty?
Mr. Haddock. Yes.
Senator Heinrich. Okay.
And has that prevented investment in Nevada mining?
Mr. Haddock. It works because, while any cash cost is a
disincentive, and it's a cost, it works because it recognizes
the difference in kinds of deposits, it recognizes the cycles.
It recognizes the different--it works well across that whole
range of different kinds of minerals that have different
economics and different processing requirements.
Senator Heinrich. Dr. Feldgus, estimates to clean up all
abandoned hardrock mine sites in the U.S. are in the tens of
billions of dollars, is that correct?
Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
Senator Heinrich. How much do we spend in Interior right
now on mine cleanup each year?
Dr. Feldgus. Probably between $20 and $30 million a year.
Senator Heinrich. Million, with an M?
Dr. Feldgus. Million with an M, yes.
Senator Heinrich. So I said billion earlier. How many more
zeros are there in a billion than a million?
Dr. Feldgus. Three more.
Senator Heinrich. Yeah, so it's a million millions to make
a billion, okay. So we aren't getting at that very quickly, is
that correct?
Dr. Feldgus. That is correct, yes.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Wood, according to the GAO, officials
from 13 western states have identified over a quarter million--
three zeros--abandoned hardrock mine features within their
states, including about 126,000 features that pose physical
safety or environmental hazards, and we suspect those numbers
are actually conservative. The scale of the problem of
abandoned hardrock mines in the West can be hard to comprehend
until you experience what we experienced at the very visible
and destructive Gold King Mine disaster in 2015 in Colorado and
New Mexico.
Can you talk a little bit about what are some of the
consequences for communities where abandoned hardrock mines
have not been cleaned up?
Mr. Wood. Well, first of all, I want to commend you----
Senator Heinrich. And for sportsmen.
Mr. Wood. Yes, first of all, Senator, I want to commend you
and Senator Risch for your leadership on actively trying to fix
this problem by helping to pass Good Samaritan legislation.
The effects on fish and wildlife are profound. You have
rivers in the West where kids can't swim in them. We did our
first abandoned mine cleanup, Senator Lee, in Utah, outside of
Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. There were tailings piles there
that Snowbird wouldn't touch because of the liability concerns.
And we ended up working with the Forest Service and the EPA and
created a Good Sam agreement. The tailings piles had dirt bike
trails over them. Kids were riding their dirt bikes, you know,
and doing wheelies and such over these mounds, and EPA measured
the lead levels at 1,100 times the safe standard. So I mean,
these are profound impacts, and they are often acute and they
are often in indigenous communities. And these are totally
tractable issues. We know how to clean these things up.
Gold King was almost a Superfund type situation. We are
talking about piles of rock that are left and they are leeching
acid mine drainage into rivers and streams. It's totally
fixable.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, Chris, good to see you again. Chris and I
worked together when I was Governor doing the Roadless Rule for
Idaho. I have always greatly appreciated that and acknowledge
it again publicly, notwithstanding the fact that Chris comes to
our state occasionally in the fall to try to make the elk
extinct. And he hasn't contributed much in that regard.
Well, first of all, thank you for having this hearing. This
is a really critical hearing as we really move to a different
time, I think, in our country. My home state, aptly named the
``Gem State,'' has a long history in mining. Indeed, we have a
miner pictured very clearly on our state seal and we are very
proud of our mining history. Historically, Idaho has been one
of the most productive silver producing regions in the world.
And we also have deposits of many other minerals in high demand
today, including antimony, cobalt, and rare earths. Despite
having these deposits in places like Idaho, the United States
has reached a dangerous and hazardous position for our mineral
supply chain. Our supply chain questions came clearly into
focus during the COVID times, and now, since the wars have
broken out, we have had a chance on all of the committees to
deal with national security to look at these things and realize
that we are in a very dangerous situation.
Most people--most Americans--don't understand that when
they pick up anything, whether it's their watch, their smart
phone, or anything else, that material had to come out of the
ground, then it had to be processed, and then refined before it
could be used. And people take this for granted without really
a thought of where it came from and how difficult these things
are to come by. And these aren't--we are over 50 percent
import-reliant on over 50 minerals. And these are not minerals
serving obscure or niche interests, they run our cell phones,
cars, support clean energy development, and power defense
capabilities. Even worse, we source many of these minerals from
Russia and China or from supply chains that they have control
over or other supply chains in the world that are notoriously
unreliable.
This reliance had already reached a tipping point, and then
came the Rosemont decision. This upended 150 years of mining
law precedent to make it even less advantageous to develop
minerals in this country. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act,
which I introduced with the Chairman, which I appreciate,
brings us back to the status quo, but that should be just the
start. It's more important now than ever before that our mining
laws are workable and regulations do not inhibit the industry.
If we cannot produce the minerals needed for manufacturing,
energy, and national defense in concert with our allies and
partners, we will remain reliant on unsecured supply chains and
reliant upon our adversaries. With this in mind, this Committee
needs to be extremely careful that any other changes to our
mining policy will incentivize growth and investment in
domestic mining, not inhibit it.
Enacting a gross royalty structure or other burdensome
requirements that would make mining less advantageous would be
a grave mistake. To secure our supply chains, support clean
energy development, and provide for our national defense, we
need domestic mining. We have a great deal of domestic natural
resources and we need to take advantage of them. And thank you
very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you.
Dr. Feldgus, I wanted to start--I could not help but notice
your title, Deputy Assistant Secretary, and tell a quick story.
When I worked on the Senate staff some years ago, I was setting
up hearings such as this, and I called the Administration one
day and asked for a witness on a particular topic and the
fellow said we are sending you a Deputy Under Secretary or some
long title, and I said, well, I don't really know what those
titles mean. Who is this guy? And the fellow gave me an answer,
which if I ever write a book about Washington, will probably be
the title. He said, the highest level where they still know
anything.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. And I realize that you are at that level and
I am now above it. So----
[Laughter.]
Senator King. Just to be clear: that's an absolutely true
story.
Mr. Haddock and Ms. Sweeney, why shouldn't the royalties on
gold or lithium or anything else be the same as oil and gas?
What is the difference?
Please be brief in your answer.
Mr. Haddock. Senator, for example, the royalty on oil and
gas goes back to the wellhead. It takes out all processing and
transportation costs after the wellhead. Our minerals are like
that in the sense that when they come out of the mine, they go
through a multi-billion-dollar processing plant in----
Senator King. But so does oil and gas. It goes through
refining and all of that.
Mr. Haddock. But the royalty isn't charged on the value of
the gasoline, it's charged on the value of the oil at the
wellhead.
Senator King. Would you accept that as a standard?
Mr. Haddock. What we are advocating is a net royalty, like
the Nevada Net Proceeds of Minerals royalty, which does that,
Senator.
Senator King. Well, my problem with the word net is, I
remember learning from Mario Puzo, the author of the
Godfather--never take a percentage of the net because you don't
have any control over the accounting. Isn't there--is there a
way to measure this? I mean, I worry that your companies, with
all due respect, will be doing their accounting in such a way
that there is never a net, just like there is never a net on a
Hollywood movie, as Puzo learned to his regret.
Mr. Haddock. Senator, my answer to that is simple, which
is, if it actually tracks the Nevada Net Proceeds and Minerals
Tax, Nevada has a great track record of being able to audit and
confirm it, but even more important than that, those are also
elements that go into your federal tax return, your corporate
tax return. And a company like Barrick, we have the IRS in our
office every quarter, confirming our tax returns, and when our
tax return is filed, it is audited.
Senator King. So----
Mr. Haddock. So they are the same numbers.
Senator King. Ms. Sweeney, similar, you are okay with a net
royalty?
Ms. Sweeney. Yes, NMA has been on record as supporting a
reasonable net royalty, yes.
Senator King. And I want to be clear. I believe strongly
that we have to support, and in fact, move forward with mining
in this country. I said a couple of years ago, you can't love
EVs and hate lithium mines. To my surprise, that turned into
almost a billboard online. Ms. Sweeney, you may have had
something to do with that, but in any case. So I understand
that. We have to talk about permitting reform. I am surprised
that hasn't come up today. Isn't that a part of this
discussion, to be sure, because we can't afford 14 years to
permit a lithium mine to support the EV industry. Eighty-five
percent of the lithium we are now using comes from China. That
is downright dangerous.
Mr. Haddock. We wholly agree that permitting reform is an
important aspect of what we need to do to be able to secure our
supply chain.
Senator King. When a new mine is being permitted, is there
any requirement for a cleanup fund to be guaranteed as part of
the permitting process? Usually that is often the case in any
kind of permitting of a major development.
Mr. Haddock. There is, Senator. We have bonding
requirements. Dr. Feldgus has said that the bonding in Nevada,
the bonding in the United States is the best in the world. We
also provide long-term funds for long-term----
Senator King. So the problem of abandoned mines is really
for mines that are in the past, not new mines that are going
online in the future?
Mr. Haddock. That is correct.
Senator King. I would appreciate it if you could share with
the Committee your thoughts on permitting reform in terms of
what changes might be required in federal permitting
requirements. Obviously state are all different, but that would
be helpful to us if you have suggestions because there are
discussions going on, on this Committee, about permitting
reform that will go over into next year. So that is a bit of
homework for you.
Dr. Feldgus, changing the subject entirely, the last time
we talked I asked you about the Administration's position on
the RISEE Act, revenues for offshore wind to match revenues for
oil and gas. Can you tell me today whether that is something
you can support?
Dr. Feldgus. We are certainly open to the discussion. I
think a lot of the question is where would the revenues go, and
what would they be used for?
Senator King. But you would support some revenue scheme
that would apply to offshore wind development just as oil and
gas does?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, I can't speak for the Administration at
this moment, but certainly, as I said, we welcome additional
discussions on that.
Senator King. We welcome the discussion. That is a pretty
clever way to avoid an answer.
Thank you, Dr. Feldgus, I appreciate it.
Thank you all very much.
Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Senator King, that is what you say to
me all the time. You welcome the discussion, and then you tell
me why I am wrong. So I know how that works.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hickenlooper. Let me start with Mr. Wood, and I
certainly don't always, but I do try to glance through people's
resumes the night before, and I did not go to Middlebury, but
went to Wesleyan University, a similar school, and we had no
major in fishing and hunting and political science. A dual
major, or tri-major, obviously goes a long way in the right
direction.
We heard a little bit there just about permitting reform,
litigation risk. Obviously, I think that is a big part of what
we, who believe that climate change is accelerating and a grave
threat, that we have to have a sense of urgency. And I am sure
you saw Bill McKibben's article some months ago entitled ``Yes
in Our Backyards,'' as someone who founded those efforts to
slow things down. What is your sense of opportunities to reform
judicial review of permitting in ways that protect a
community's ability to challenge projects for valid reasons,
but at the same time, make sure that those developing our
future minerals that we need to combat climate change, to make
sure that we can get those minerals, and that they can have
long-term certainty and be willing to expend those billions of
dollars of capital?
Mr. Wood. Thank you for the question, Senator. As you can
imagine, trout are sort of the canaries in the coal mine when
it comes to climate change. They depend on cold, clean water
every day. I think there is a grand bargain that is right in
front of us, and I will speak on behalf of my friends at the
agencies, having worked at both Interior and the Forest
Service, I know they won't say this, but first of all, they
need more people to help process a lot of the permits. They
need more staff, which will help accelerate the permit review.
I also think there are likely modernizations that need be made
to the Mining Law that, while giving the industry the certainty
that they need, will also give more discretion for logical
places where we should not be mining, and perhaps even
accelerating permitting review to allow it in areas where it
makes sense to mine.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right, good.
Mr. Wood. And of course, I would be remiss not to say,
whether it's net or gross, there needs to be a royalty so we
can deal with these legacy issues that are polluting our rivers
and streams.
Senator Hickenlooper. No, I think--I had never heard what
Mr. Haddock described as the causality behind--the difference
between minerals like oil and gas that aren't processed until
after the royalty is paid. That makes all the sense in the
world. I think that is partly why so many recommendations have
included it as a net royalty. I agree that Senator King has a
challenge for a lot of people that they do think of net as a
way to obfuscating, but clearly in a case like this, the
revenues received for selling the mineral products is pretty
easy to measure.
Dr. Feldgus, I wanted to ask you, just, do you feel roughly
similar to Mr. Wood, in terms of recognizing and having an
urgency to make sure that we don't have endless permitting?
Dr. Feldgus. Certainly. In the Interagency Working Group's
report that came out a few months ago, we had a number of
recommendations for how to make the permitting process more
efficient.
Senator Hickenlooper. Good, I appreciate that.
Ms. Sweeney, in terms of the--well, actually, let me talk
to Mr. Haddock first, and I am going to ask you the same
question, but I want to hear his answer first. Do you think it
makes sense--I mean, clearly having more public input earlier,
upfront, creates a better project for everyone--is that a
useful place to take some of the net royalties and put them
into making sure that we have that upfront process in place?
Mr. Haddock. We work very hard to have as much upfront
engagement with the communities as we can, and if, you know,
funding some of the community needs could come from royalties,
we would support that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, well, that makes sense. And I
certainly have heard much about Nevada and how the state
approaches trying to make sure you get that certainty and
recognizes that we need minerals, but at the same time we have
to protect the public interest.
Ms. Sweeney, why don't you take a stab at that as well?
Ms. Sweeney. Yes, so one of the issues that we have
identified for a long time as to why the permitting process
sometimes gets hung up is that you are not having those
discussions early, and you need everybody involved, including
all the federal agencies that might have a role as well.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right. And I think as we get further
into--I think of it as this great transition into cleaner
energy--that we are going to recognize that globally our mining
companies are going to have to have more upfront processes, and
to make sure that those local communities are fully aware of
what is going on and how their water and their health are going
to be protected. Just, they will make the same demands that we
make here.
I yield back to the--I do want to mention, I said it
softly, but not loudly enough, that we hear all the time about
how Nevada has such great laws.
Senator Cortez Masto. For the record, thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Sweeney, we don't control where deposits of minerals
exist. Many of the deposits in the United States are on federal
land and in the West. Roughly half of all federal land, of
course, is off limits to new mineral exploration and
production. Would you discuss the importance of keeping federal
land open to mineral production?
Ms. Sweeney. Absolutely. Over 70 percent of our known
resources of minerals are in the West. And as you said, a lot
of that West belongs to the Federal Government. If we don't
have access to those mineral-rich lands, then we are not going
to meet our clean energy goals or our goals for infrastructure,
manufacturing, economic security, national security.
Senator Barrasso. So I am thinking about, since the
Chairman is here, Senator Cortez Masto, it is my understanding
that the Ninth Circuit's Rosemont decision relied on a novel
interpretation of our nation's mining laws. Is it fair to say
that the Ninth Circuit's decision is a radical departure from
how our courts have interpreted our country's mining laws?
Ms. Sweeney. Absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. And is it fair to say that the Ninth
Circuit Court's decision is a radical departure from how both
Democrat and Republican administrations in the past have
interpreted our country's mining laws?
Ms. Sweeney. Absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. And is it fair to say that the Cortez
Masto bill, along with Senator Risch, who is also a member of
this Committee, that that simply returns us to where we were
before 2019, a status quo that was in place for decades?
Ms. Sweeney. Yes, we need that return to knowing the rules
of the road. This was a huge speed bump.
Senator Barrasso. So what are the consequences if Congress
fails to pass the Cortez Masto-Risch bill and doesn't do it
soon enough?
Ms. Sweeney. It undermines the investment attractiveness of
the United States. We are seeing different groups litigating
that issue over and over again. They are raising it in comments
on mines that are being proposed right now.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Haddock, would you like to add
anything to that question about the consequences if Congress
fails to pass the Cortez Masto-Risch bill?
Mr. Haddock. I would just add that as I kind of outlined,
there are a lot of open issues. And I am even starting to see
the Rosemont argument creep into state permits.
Senator Barrasso. So Ms. Sweeney, one of the two bills that
we are considering today would impose new taxes and new fees on
mining on federal lands. It would also make it easier for the
Administration to block mineral exploration and production on
federal lands. If enacted, what impact would that bill have on
investment in mining in the United States?
Ms. Sweeney. We might as well say goodbye to mining.
Allegedly, we need 400--nearly 400 new mines to meet all these
energy transition goals. We're not going to be doing it here,
for sure.
Senator Barrasso. So what might that do to the United
States in terms of our dependence on China for minerals?
Ms. Sweeney. We are already highly overreliant on China and
all of their different tentacles around the world. That would
just increase that reliance.
Senator Barrasso. Would it make the United States more or
less dependent on countries like the Congo?
Ms. Sweeney. Congo and Russia and other places that are
actually also controlled by China.
Senator Barrasso. So today, we have talked about a bill
that would make it harder to mine in the United States. We have
also talked about a bill that would fix a bad court decision
from 2022. So what can this Committee do to actively encourage
mineral production on federal lands?
Ms. Sweeney. You are making it an easy lay-up. I think we
could move forward and pass Senator Cortez Masto's bill.
Senator Barrasso. And Mr. Haddock, would you like to add
anything?
Mr. Haddock. I agree that the first step, because it's not
Mining Law reform, is to pass Senator Cortez Masto's bill. If
we want to talk about actual Mining Law reform issues, we can
do that in due course and we are willing to.
Senator Barrasso. Okay. So Ms. Sweeney, would you explain
how a gross royalty would impact mineral production here in the
United States?
Ms. Sweeney. Yes. So a gross royalty would definitely
impair investment attractiveness. It would put us out of line
with our competitors, like Australia and Canada, because the
government take would exceed, you know, where they are. If you
look at the legislation that has been introduced, it's not just
a 5 to 8 percent gross royalty, it truly is an 8 to 11 percent
gross royalty once you add on the so-called fee for
reclamation. So that would truly drive investment away from the
United States.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Haddock, anything you would like to
add to that?
Mr. Haddock. I would just add also on the leasing front,
that bill includes kind of a provision for an oil and gas style
leasing program. That does not work for our industry. And the
citation for that is, well, Canada and Australia do it. Canada
and Australia don't do it. What happens in Canada--self-
initiation is preserved. You go and you locate a mining claim,
a set of mining claims, and then you explore and when you get
to the point where you are going to build your mine, you
outline the boundaries of where your mine is going to be and
they call that a mining lease. The claims persist. They survive
inside the mining lease. That mining lease is basically the
legal equivalent of our plan of operations boundary. It is
critical that any mining leasing discussion preserve self-
initiation.
Senator Barrasso. Final question, Ms. Sweeney. What is the
impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rosemont in terms of
on mining on federal lands?
Ms. Sweeney. So it truly has undermined, I think, some of
that regulatory certainty because we are looking at, you know,
a century of legal precedent, including Supreme Court cases
that lay out how you were supposed to go out and prove up your
claims and your ability to use those claims for ancillary
purposes. If you can't use those claims for ancillary purposes
and you don't have other places to put those uses, then there
will be no mining.
Senator Barrasso. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony
today. Thank you all for being here.
Some members of the Committee may submit additional
questions in writing. And if so, we will ask you to submit
answers for the record. Committee members will have until 6:00
p.m. tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record.
We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks to
receive any additional comments.
And the Subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]