[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 103 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4791-H4796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1240
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4402, NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND 
                CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 726 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 726

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4402) to require the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop 
     domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of 
     strategic and critical importance to United States economic 
     and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 112-26. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days 
during which they may revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides for a structured rule 
for consideration of H.R. 4402, which is the National Strategic and 
Critical Minerals Production Act, and provides for 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, and makes in 
order seven specific amendments out of ten which were filed at the 
Rules Committee. Five of the seven are Democratic amendments and two 
are Republican. So this is a fair and generous rule and will provide 
for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this important piece of 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in 
support of this rule, and especially the underlying legislation, which 
is H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production 
Act of 2012.
  I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who understands this situation very well and 
has put a great deal of time and effort into coming up with a rational 
and legitimate solution to a problem which we face. Mr. Amodei, as well 
as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), are to be commended in forwarding this bill 
to the full House for our consideration today.
  Our Nation has been blessed with tremendous natural resources, and 
over the last century these abundant resources are one of the key 
reasons that has allowed our Nation to emerge as a leading world 
economic and industrial power. In many aspects, we have only scratched 
the surface with regard to the development of these abundant natural 
resources, whether it be in energy, such as coal or oil shale or 
natural gas deposits, or whether it be in various natural minerals.
  One of the cornerstones of manufacturing in the United States 
includes the access to a stable and steady supply of these types of 
resources. Unfortunately, in recent decades, much of the development 
and mining of these domestic mineral resources has been hampered or 
shut down entirely by a combination of special-interest politics by 
certain self-appointed environmental groups and by bureaucratic red 
tape here in Washington. Often these two factors seem to go hand in 
hand, particularly under the current administration.
  We have all felt the pain of seeing what these failed policies have 
done to energy production in our country. We are more dependent than 
ever on foreign sources, increasing our trade imbalance, sending our 
dollars overseas, often to areas of the world that do not have our best 
interests at heart. It has led to escalating gas prices and escalating 
price spikes for energy and other commodities, and has made our economy 
more vulnerable to external international forces largely beyond our 
immediate control. These failed policies have also led to job losses in 
the United States in the energy and mining sector, which historically 
and ironically have been some of the highest paying jobs that middle 
class work has available.
  The bureaucratic delays and regulations regarding the mining of 
strategic and critical minerals is the exact same

[[Page H4792]]

thing. By their very nature, these minerals are absolutely essential to 
manufacturing in electronics, metal alloys, ceramics, glass, magnets, 
and catalysts used in countless commercial and, especially, defense 
applications.
  Procurement of certain strategic and critical minerals is so crucial 
that the Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency manage 
stockpiles of such materials which are deemed so critical that an 
adequate supply must be maintained at all times to ensure national 
military preparedness and readiness.
  More and more, we have seen that these materials are unfortunately 
being purchased from overseas and not from U.S. producers, making us 
wholly dependent upon other countries to ensure our own national 
security. Critical weapons visions, such as night vision equipment, 
advanced lasers, avionics, fighter jet canopies, missile guidance 
systems, and many, many others could not be built without these rare 
Earth minerals.
  The primary duty of Congress under the Constitution is to provide for 
the common defense. This bill takes us in the right direction for 
helping to restore U.S. domestic production of critical and strategic 
minerals by facilitating a more timely permitting process review for 
mineral exploration projects and to ensure that such essential mineral 
mining projects are not delayed unnecessarily by frivolous litigation.
  Let me be clear, this bill does not predetermine the outcome of 
agency review of such permit applications. It merely brings clarity to 
the process and ensures that the appropriate agencies will not 
unreasonably delay consideration but will, at the conclusion of 30 
months, issue either a ``yes'' or ``no'' decision based on the merits 
of each individual application.
  This bill will also help cut the flow of frivolous lawsuits, which 
are often filed simply as delay tactics.
  It's a good bill. It's a fair rule and a good underlying bill, and I 
urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals 
Production Act. Much of what the gentleman from Utah said I agree with 
in terms of the strategic need for critical minerals for our industrial 
and military production. However, that's only a teeny part of what this 
bill does.
  Now my colleague, Mr. Tonko, offers an amendment that would in fact 
limit this bill, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals 
Production. In addition, it's my understanding that bipartisan 
legislation has emerged from the Natural Resources Committee that would 
address the strategic need for critical minerals. However, that is not 
the bill that is being brought forth under this rule. Instead, we 
essentially have yet another rollback of public health, of water and 
environmental protections for the mining industry, which is our 
Nation's top toxic polluter.
  So I'm very disappointed that the House majority has chosen to bring 
forward this bill instead of the bipartisan bill that passed committee. 
It shuts out several sensible amendments that have been offered by 
Democratic Members. And the underlying legislation doesn't limit itself 
to strategic and critical minerals. In fact, it's so broad that, 
despite the bill's title, it would expand mining companies' ability to 
mine on public land for nearly all minerals, including plentiful 
minerals like sand and clay and even coal. So this really is not a 
discussion of strategic and critical minerals if we're talking about 
sand and clay.
  In fact, yesterday, in our Rules Committee, Chairman Hastings 
admitted during the Rules Committee hearing when questioned by Mr. 
McGovern that this bill applies to a lot more than strategic and 
critical minerals. In fact, Chairman Hastings, when asked on this 
issue, said:

       We talk about a form of minerals as being rare Earth. 
     There's no question they are rare. But to say that some 
     minerals aren't critical to our well-being I think defies 
     logic.

  Chairman Hastings went on to cite the use of sand and gravel to build 
our interstate system as an example of a critical use.
  A lot of what the gentleman from Utah said is true and is important. 
However, when we're talking about sand and gravel, they don't fit the 
commonsense definition of the Strategic and Critical Minerals 
Production Act that were cited by the gentleman of being of national 
importance.
  So the chairman of the committee has made clear this bill isn't about 
rare Earth minerals at all. It's not the kind of bipartisan bill that's 
targeting critical resources. Rather, it's about giving mining 
companies a blank check to take anything they want out of the ground 
anywhere, anytime.
  Under the bill, the mining sponsor is handed control over the timing 
of the permitting decision, irrespective of the project's impacts on 
natural, cultural, historic resources, its local impact, taking into 
account the effect on the economies of our counties, and jobs. Rather, 
it gives the mining companies a blank check. It permits nearly all 
mining operations to circumvent meaningful public health and 
environmental review processes. And when you consider the large and 
complex mining operations covered under this bill, it's even more 
inappropriate to reduce or eliminate the public comment or review 
process because of the sheer size of some of these projects.
  The actual harm that this legislation would produce is far-reaching. 
As drafted, the legislation threatens to increase pollution of water in 
our Western United States. For States already dealing with the extreme 
drought conditions like my home State of Colorado, also the site of 
several deadly fires, the last thing we need is to jeopardize our 
already scarce water resources. We can't afford to affect our water 
quality and quantity with additional mining operations without 
understanding their impacts on our water supplies.
  Democrats and Republicans agree that we should be crafting a strategy 
to develop our rare Earth and other critical minerals. In fact, a year 
ago in this very same Congress the Natural Resources Committee marked 
up H.R. 2011, a bill supported by the National Mining Association and a 
bill that had strong bipartisan support that would help develop our 
rare Earth and other critical minerals. So why aren't we considering 
that bill on the floor today? Instead, we're considering an ideological 
bill that will go nowhere and has a statement of opposition from the 
President as well.
  Why the House majority sees a need for this legislation to promote 
mining is somewhat mystifying, considering that under President Obama's 
administration the average time it takes to approve a plan of operation 
for a mine has decreased substantially. According to BLM data, plans of 
operation for hardrock mines are being approved 17 percent more quickly 
under the Obama administration than the Bush administration. Eighty-two 
percent of plans of operation were approved within 3 years under the 
Obama administration. According to the BLM, it takes, on average, 4 
years to approve a mining plan of operations for a large mine--more 
than a thousand-acre mine--on public lands. There's a lot of issues--
county issues, civic issues, economic issues--around a thousand-acre 
mine. And there needs to be a thoughtful process about how it affects 
communities where it is located and how it affects air and water.
  Mining companies already extract billions of dollars of minerals from 
our public lands. This bill would continue to line the pockets of an 
industry that already has significant profit margins, and actually this 
bill jeopardizes jobs and our economic recovery by failing to take into 
account the local economic impact of mines--and not mining for 
strategic and critical mineral production but mining for nearly 
everything under the sun, including clay and gravel, again.
  So I think, again, while we can be grateful that President Obama has 
accelerated the approval process, there's certainly work to continue. I 
urge my colleagues to bring forth a bipartisan bill that would 
specifically look at real strategic and critical minerals. But this 
bill and this rule are unduly restrictive, and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4793]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who understands this issue very directly 
with his experience both on the Resources Committee as well as in his 
home State of New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 4402, the National 
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. The gentleman from Utah 
has stated it right: It's a fair rule, it's a good bill. All it does is 
simply defines a critical mineral as any related to national security 
or the Nation's energy infrastructure. That clarity is needed. But 
additionally, it affects one thing that the people are constantly 
clamoring about in my particular district: Where are the jobs?
  This bill understands what the President began to hint at in his 
March 22, 2012, executive order. The President in that executive order 
said:

       Our Federal permitting and reviews processes must provide a 
     transparent, consistent, and predictable path for both 
     project sponsors and affected communities. They must ensure 
     that agencies set and adhere to timelines and schedules for 
     completion of reviews, set clear permitting performance 
     goals, and track progress against these goals.

  The President has moved toward the problem that we see in this 
country--that many of our mines are moving outside this Nation. New 
Mexico used to be the home for 11 rare Earth mineral mines. Today, it's 
the home of zero. Those mines have relocated over in China.
  As we look at the rare Earth minerals, those are strategically 
important. That's one thing that this bill attempts to get at--the 
definitions that will really give teeth to the President's executive 
order from March 22.
  People in New Mexico constantly ask: Why don't the two parties work 
together? I think there are many opportunities for the parties to work 
together. The President has begun the process, and we're simply adding 
the reverse piece to it that would make it a completed argument. The 
President has said in the past, for instance, that we're not working 
together, and he has stated in both the last two States of the Union 
that we must reform corporate taxes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. PEARCE. I requested the President work with us to affect those 
taxes. Let's lower those corporate taxes. Let's get companies back 
here. But the President has at this point kept those discussions at 
arm's length. This bill is simply another attempt to reach out to the 
President and say we all want to create jobs. We want commonsense 
solutions to the problems that we face. Work with us to define the 
strategic and critical minerals. And let's do it in this act.
  So I think it's something that the President should be reaching out 
to this body and saying, ``Yes, good, go.'' I would thank the sponsor 
for bringing the bill. Let's work together to create jobs and get those 
mining industries back here in America.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  We are just hours removed from House Republicans' voting to take away 
health care for 30 million Americans and put the insurance companies 
back in charge of our health care system. And it's back to business as 
usual for the GOP-controlled House.
  Yes, it's time to get back to more giveaways to the Nation's 
wealthiest companies. Because when House Republicans aren't voting to 
take away health care from ordinary Americans, from poor Americans, 
they're voting for ``wealth care'' for the most profitable industries 
in the history of the United States of America. In fact, the majority 
continues to bring largely the same legislation to the floor over and 
over again, only the name of the industry reaping the windfall changes.
  Two weeks ago, the Republican majority voted to give away nearly all 
of our onshore public lands to the oil and gas industry. The majority 
has passed bills to put rigs off our beaches in California, off our 
beaches in Florida, and off our beaches in New Jersey without passing 
any new safety requirements after the BP oil spill just 2 years ago. 
They have passed legislation to allow old-growth forests to be clear-
cut and to hand over land to a multinational mining company without 
protecting Native American sacred sites or local water quality.
  In fact, this Republican majority has cast so many votes to give away 
our public lands to the oil, the gas, the mining, and the timber 
industries, it's almost hard to remember which industry is getting a 
special giveaway each week.
  So I have a suggestion that I think could help everyone out there 
keep track. Each week, we can consult this handy-dandy chart, the ``GOP 
Wheel of Giveaways,'' to figure out which industries are going to get 
their turn benefiting from handouts from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle on the same day they're going to take away health 
benefits from the poor, the sick, the elderly, and ordinary families in 
America.
  Let's see who the big winners are on the House floor today as they 
take away the health care benefits for ordinary people. Let's give it a 
spin here. Let's see what happens as we look at what is happening out 
there in this great land of ours this week.
  This week, it's the mining industry, ladies and gentlemen. Come on 
down. You are this week's big winner in the GOP giveaway game. The 
mining industry is the big winner on this giveaway show here today on 
the House floor. That's because the bill that the majority is bringing 
to the floor tomorrow, despite being entitled the National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Act, has absolutely nothing to do with developing 
these minerals. In fact, this bill is all about gutting the 
environmental safeguards and the proper review of large mining projects 
on public lands for virtually all minerals, including coal.
  Under this legislation, sand apparently could be considered as rare. 
Gravel could be a critical mineral. Crushed stone or clay could be a 
strategic resource. Even abundant minerals like gold, silver, or copper 
could potentially qualify as a rare Earth product under this bill and 
have lower environmental standards as a result in drilling for them 
that would endanger ordinary families again and their health. But of 
course they would never provide any health care benefits for them 
because that's the other bill we're going to be having out here on the 
House floor and gutting here today.
  Indeed, the only rarities created under the Republican bill would be 
environmental protections or public input.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. And while this bill provides new giveaways to large 
multinational mining companies, it does nothing to change the Mining 
Law of 1872--1872, ladies and gentlemen--which allows mining companies 
to pull taxpayer-owned hard rock minerals out of our public lands 
without giving Americans a fair payment. In fact, under the 140-year-
old law, mining companies can extract gold, silver, uranium, copper, 
and other hard rock minerals without paying taxpayers one cent in 
royalties for the minerals on the public lands of the United States of 
America. This law isn't just outdated, it's outrageous.
  These are the same people here who are saying we can't afford to pass 
the law which protects against preexisting conditions in health care of 
ordinary Americans. These are the people here saying we can't pass a 
bill to protect against discrimination against women in our society.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. This law isn't jut outdated, it is outrageous.
  On the game show ``The Price is Right,'' a $1 bid is strategic. But 
under the Republican giveaway game show, it is an actual price that 
these huge industries can continue paying for the rights to our public 
lands. The Republicans want to continue giving away

[[Page H4794]]

grazing rights for a little more than $1 per acre and allow oil 
companies to warehouse public lands for $1.50 an acre.
  And after more than 250 votes against the environment and more than 
110 votes to benefit the oil and gas industries, the American people 
are going to look at the record of this Republican majority and say, 
``No deal.''
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican proposal.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would stay here a 
second, I understand from the Congressional Quarterly that it is your 
birthday today. In which case, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I 
wish you a happy birthday.
  I appreciate the visual that you had. Unfortunately, as you tried to 
spin it, we realized it didn't work. So hopefully that is for your 
birthday party because nothing else works. But I appreciate and I wish 
you a happy birthday.
  I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  And if it were possible to retard the aging process, that would be 
something that I think all of us could agree upon. But in the absence 
of that breakthrough medically, I thank the gentleman for his 
bipartisan wishes of a happy birthday.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And as someone with whiter hair than you have, I 
understand what you're talking about.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), 
who does indeed have some of these industries in his district and 
understands full well what this bill is actually attempting to 
accomplish.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the rule and rise in support of 
H.R. 4402.
  Tomorrow, we will be considering H.R. 4402, that takes significant 
steps towards making much-needed reforms to our Nation's mineral 
exploration and mineral permitting process. H.R. 4402 will force the 
hands of unyielding bureaucrats who seem intent on obstructing any and 
all mining, despite the detrimental effects that their actions have on 
the American people.
  At a time when China threatens to hamstring our military capabilities 
and cripple American health care, telecommunications, and renewable 
energy markets by controlling or reducing our access to rare Earth 
minerals, we must take responsible action to ensure our access to 
minerals that are vital to our prosperity and security. In short, the 
timely licensing of mineral applications is critical to our Nation's 
survival and to preserving the American way of life, which is 
opportunity for all to live a decent life.
  While investigating this issue, the Natural Resources Committee found 
that it often takes over 10 years for agencies to license mineral 
projects. This is simply unacceptable. But the forces that arrogantly 
stand in the way of these permits should be of no surprise to us. They 
are the same gang who routinely stand in the way of technological and 
scientific advancement. That's right, extreme environmentalists--I 
remember Ronald Reagan said that some of these people would rather live 
in a bird nest--some of whom are Federal bureaucrats and some of them, 
of course, belong to activist organizations that seem to sue for sport 
and constantly stand in the way of any development of natural resources 
that were put here by God not to be sitting in the ground, but to help 
ordinary people live well.

                              {time}  1310

  The people who are stopping us from getting those minerals are 
standing in the way of ordinary people having a decent life, which is 
so important and we're so proud of here, that every American should 
have those opportunities.
  This mindset that puts the well-being of insects above the health, 
safety, and quality of life of human beings has contributed to the 8.2 
percent unemployment rate--and that's a low figure, as far as I'm 
concerned. The real unemployment is far beyond that. But the 
restrictions that we've had on our people that would like to use these 
natural resources for the well-being of our people has contributed to 
that unemployment.
  Fortunately, however, we are here today to say that we've had enough.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would say that luckily we are coming to our senses 
and having courage enough to stand up to this obstructionism by setting 
reasonable time limits for litigation and by setting a total review 
process for the issuing of permits to 30 months; 30 months is a very 
reasonable time.
  The reforms that we put in place will ensure that American mineral 
mining projects are not indefinitely delayed by frivolous lawsuits or 
by unwilling bureaucrats, or by activists who, as I say, care more 
about the habitat of insects and lizards than they do about the well-
being of the American people.
  I come from California. I am a surfer, and I am in the water a lot--
anytime I can get out there. We have had offshore oil and gas reserves 
in the hundreds of billions of dollars available to us, but denied the 
people of California. Even as we cut the programs that our seniors and 
our children need, these radicals will not let us get to those oil and 
natural gas resources. That is a sin against those older people in 
California and the young people.
  We need to clean up that situation. Whose side are we on? We're on 
the side of ordinary Americans leading a decent life, and that's what 
this bill is all about.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, in briefly addressing the gentleman from California, 
I would encourage him to support President Obama's proven track record 
of success in accelerating the access to public lands, a 17 percent 
improvement in speed of access over the Bush administration.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. There is no reason we could not 
have an open rule on this legislation--well, unless there are 
amendments the majority does not want the Members to vote on. 
Obviously, my colleague, Representative Holt, has offered one such 
amendment. The Rules Committee did not make his amendment to require 
companies that earn a profit mining on public lands to disclose their 
public donations in order. Why not? Vast amounts of secret money are 
ruining our democracy.
  It is the ultimate irony that free speech now has such a high cost. 
Our democracy has truly become the best that secret money can buy. 
That's not good news for the average voters who do not have tens of 
thousands of dollars to shower on their preferred candidates.
  Representative Holt's amendment would shine some light on this 
practice and ensure that the entities profiting from public resources 
are accountable to the electorate. The public, I believe, has a right 
to know, a right to know who is funding our elections. Apparently, 
under this rule, they don't even have the right to know where Members 
of this House stand on this issue.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Could I inquire of the gentleman from Colorado 
how many additional speakers he has.
  Mr. POLIS. We have one remaining speaker at this point. We might have 
one other, but we have one currently here.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Then, Madam Speaker, let me yield myself just 1 
minute.
  To try and put things in parameter of what we're actually doing in 
this bill, in the sixties to the eighties, the United States was 
actually the leader in the production of most of these minerals. Today, 
97 percent of the rare Earth oil, or 97 percent of the rare Earth 
oxide, 89 percent of the rare Earth alloy, 75 percent of--I can't 
pronounce the words--and 60 percent of the small cobalt magnets all 
come from China. We have lost that to them. The reason for doing that 
is actually part of bureaucratic delay.
  Once again, unlike a lot of comments that have been made about this 
bill, it doesn't pick winners or losers. It doesn't even change the 
process. All it does is tell the bureaucracy in Washington to do it, to 
do it within 30 days, making sure that we have now sped up the process 
so that we now can do something. Instead of in 7 years, in 4 years, 
does not help reality. That's the point of this bill. It has nothing to 
do with other issues. It's only trying to

[[Page H4795]]

get the process to be sped up so decisions are made in a timely 
fashion.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Frankly, I would say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle 
that there probably could be, in many instances, common ground about 
the exporting of mineral exploration. Many of us would look to this as 
a positive strategy for creating jobs.
  I think it is important to say to my friends that, in fact, this bill 
is not even coming to the floor of the House today. It is not even 
going to be debated today. So that is one fracture, if we talk about 
creating jobs.
  But another fracture is, of course, that we are substituting this 
legislation--that might, if it was bipartisan, be able to move forward 
on creating jobs--for wasting time and casting votes and debating on 
the Affordable Care Act, an act that has already proven that it has 
saved lives, provided coverage for small businesses; exempted 
businesses under 50 persons, allowing them to have insurance; closed 
the doughnut hole on the prescription drug benefit; and saved billions 
of dollars.
  Here in this legislation, of course, one of the challenges that I 
have is that even though one would call this a bureaucracy, in 
actuality it is expediting and overlooking the National Environmental 
Policy Act, and therefore expediting necessary environmental review. It 
is being called an ``infrastructure project'' for purposes of the 
executive order entitled Improving Performance of Federal Permitting 
that was designed to reduce permitting time. But more importantly, 
there are environmental impacts that should be considered.
  There is no opposition to creating jobs. There is no opposition to 
the value of our minerals. But I do believe there is opposition to 
expediting the process and excluding an environmental review and, more 
importantly, limiting this debate--that might create jobs, might have 
opportunities for more amendments, might have more time on the floor--
by what we're going to do today, which is frivolity, again, for those 
of us who believe that we can come together in a bipartisan way to work 
on the underlying premise of the Affordable Care Act of saving lives, 
expanding opportunities, and adhering to the Supreme Court's decision 
that this is the right law of the land that works for all people.
  I'd ask my colleagues on the underlying rule to oppose it, and maybe 
we can get down to the work of the people of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to 
the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation, who will do a 
couple of things, I hope, as he gets up there. One, he will remind us 
all that no environmental laws are waived by this process; it's about 
timing. And, number two, he will clarify that when I said 30 days, I 
meant 30 months. That's why I don't talk well without a script in front 
of me.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who has 
clearly understood this issue and put it together.
  Mr. AMODEI. I thank my colleague from the Beehive State.
  I want to start out with, obviously, support for the rule. I think 
the rule is very open in the context of the legislation.
  For those that haven't reviewed the legislation, it's about 11\1/2\ 
pages long. It's available out here; it's available online. I recommend 
you to do it. Because when we talk about what it really does, it's not 
a wheel of giveaways. When you talk about strategic and critical 
minerals, here are some words from the bill: ``Strategic and critical 
minerals means minerals that are necessary.''
  Here's some thoughts to ponder: national defense and national 
security. Now, do you know what those minerals were 10 years ago, and 
do you know what they're going to be 10 years from now? It's not meant 
to be as specific--and my colleague from Colorado is absolutely right, 
these are broad definitions because, you know what, we don't do this 
every day. We're not going to check this every year and spend time like 
this on it. So when you talk about some flexibility there, it's not an 
accident; it's supposed to be broad.
  Here's another thing: strategic and critical. How about the Nation's 
energy infrastructure? Kind of important if you care about things like 
energy, regardless of what side of the fence you're on.
  A couple other things. Strategic and critical, those minerals, to--
here it is out of the bill--support domestic manufacturing. Oh, my 
goodness. How about support agriculture? Don't care about that.

                              {time}  1320

  How about support housing, telecommunications? There was a mention of 
health care. Are those strategic and critical for the lifestyle or the 
health and welfare of this Nation?
  Strategic and critical. Transportation infrastructure. Oh, and the 
last couple of things, the Nation's economic security and balance of 
trade. God forbid that we think about those things when we talk about 
the minerals industry. Are those broad? They absolutely are.
  But here's the part that nobody mentions. There is nothing in those 
11\1/2\ pages that say that a Federal land manager can't, in response 
to an application, say, my first finding is that it is not a critical 
and strategic mineral.
  So if somebody comes in for sand and gravel, and it's not that 
important, then guess what? Under the regulations that the Department 
of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior are doing, I assume 
they'll give them the ability to make that finding. And if somebody 
doesn't like it, under this bill they've got 60 days to sue them on it. 
But we don't want you to know that because we're going to spin wheels 
and talk about the giveaway of the day.
  By the way, while we're giving stuff away, please show me in the bill 
where it says that you get a certain result?
  And when we talk about reducing the time, this says, both sides can 
execute agreements that say 30 months. Okay? Guess what? It also says, 
oh, by the way, if both sides agree, you can extend the 30 months. Now, 
for those who are familiar with the process and how that works, tell me 
how an applicant is benefited by a nice, crisp 30-month ``no.''
  So if there's an issue about water quality, or there's an issue about 
anything that is being talked about--oh, and can I see the repeal 
sections on NEPA? I don't see that language in here.
  You know, I don't envy Federal land use managers. It's a tough job. 
And when you look at this, see the red? That's federally-owned 
property. This is to talk about the time it takes to process a permit 
request to mine on federally-owned property.
  So, with all due respect, and plenty of respect for my colleague from 
Colorado, who's in this, knows it, 36 percent of his State is federally 
owned, no disrespect to the birthday boy who's somewhere south of 1 
percent.
  When you talk about economic development, regardless of whether 
you're riding an elephant or a donkey, guess what? This complicates it. 
So, when you talk to those Federal land use managers locally and you 
talk about things, just a couple more things here, because we can't 
have this. I mean, this is awful stuff. If we talk about enhanced 
government coordination, permitting review, engage other agencies and 
stakeholders early in the process, coordinate and consult with project 
proponents and opponents. I mean, I'm sorry.
  And by the way, where's the part in the NEPA bill that was enacted in 
1969 that said what we're really trying to do here is see how long you 
can wait with that application pending?
  So guess what? If you get a ``no,'' you get it in 30 months. Or if 
there are legitimate issues that aren't taken care of in 30 months, why 
wouldn't you, as an applicant, say, you know what? We'll execute 
something, as provided in this bill, to say you get six more months. 
Going off to court is not the optimal thing for anybody.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. AMODEI. We talk about additional giveaways or whatever. Nobody 
gets anything out of this other than they get a time certain in the 
review

[[Page H4796]]

process. And if there's more time needed, then guess what? It provides 
for that.
  What's the idea here? Collaboration between Federal land managers and 
stakeholders, all stakeholders. If you're an applicant, you want a 
``yes,'' but there's no magic in getting a 30-month ``no.''
  My final point is this. When you talk about the changes that have 
been made by the present administration in permitting time, I find it 
incredibly interesting to hear in committee that that permitting time 
was actually less than what this proposes.
  This cuts nobody off. It's a good place to talk, and it gets rid of 
the part that is never in NEPA, which is, we're going to outwait you 
and hope you go away.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to close. Bad bill, bad idea, 
bad rule. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Great bill, fair rule. I urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________