[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5606-H5609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 761.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 347 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 761.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1355


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 761) 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, with Mr. Fortenberry in the chair.

[[Page H5607]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 761, the National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  Not a day goes by when Americans don't use a product that is made 
from critical minerals. In fact, life as we know it in the 21st century 
would not be possible without these minerals. There would be no 
computers, no Blackberrys or iPhones. There would be no MRI, CAT scan, 
or X-ray machines. There would be no wind turbines or solar panels. Mr. 
Chairman, the list is exhaustive of these things that depend on 
critical minerals that make modern life possible.
  Rare-earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical 
minerals, are core components of these products in the 21st century. 
Yet despite the tremendous need for rare-earth elements, the United 
States has allowed itself to become almost entirely dependent on China 
and other foreign nations for these resources.
  America has a plentiful supply of rare-earth elements, but roadblocks 
to the development of these crucial materials have resulted in China 
producing 97 percent of the world's supply. Our current policies are 
handing China a monopoly on these elements, creating a dependence that 
has serious implications on American jobs, on our economy, and on our 
national security.
  Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and 
onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S. 
for more than 10 years. These unnecessary delays cost American jobs as 
we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for these raw 
ingredients. The lack of America-produced strategic and critical 
produced minerals are prime examples of how America has regulated 
itself into a 100 percent dependence on at least 19 unique minerals. It 
has also earned the United States the unfortunate distinction of being 
ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects. In 2012, 
the U.S. was ranked last, along with Papua New Guinea, out of 25 major 
mining countries on the pace of permitting. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak 
for Papua New Guinea, but the reason the U.S. Government is so slow to 
issue new mining permits is very simple: government bureaucracy.
  H.R. 761, introduced by our colleague from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, will 
help us to end the foreign dependence by streamlining government red 
tape that blocks America's strategic and critical mineral production. 
Instead of waiting for over a decade for mining permits to be approved, 
this bill sets a goal of total review process for permitting at 30 
months.

                              {time}  1400

  Now this isn't a hard deadline, Mr. Chairman. It can be extended. But 
it is a goal to push the bureaucrats into action on these important 
infrastructure projects. It shouldn't take a decade to get a project 
built for minerals that we need in our everyday life and for our 
national security.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, above all, this is a jobs bill. The positive 
economic impact of this bill will extend beyond just the mining 
industry. For every metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3 
additional jobs are generated. And for every nonmetal mining job 
created, another 1.6 jobs are created.
  This legislation gives the opportunity for American manufacturers, 
small businesses, technology companies, and construction firms to use 
American resources to help make the products that are essential to our 
everyday lives.
  As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare-earth elements, 
we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will 
bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to America. The National 
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act is important to our jobs 
and to our economy. We must act now to cut the government red tape that 
is stopping American mineral production and furthering our dependence 
on foreign minerals.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today we are considering H.R. 761, the so-called National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. Now, despite the bill's 
title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic and critical 
minerals production. In fact, under the guise of promoting the 
development of minerals critical to the United States' national 
security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public 
lands for almost all minerals.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill's classification of ``critical minerals'' is 
so broad that even sand and gravel and other such things can fall under 
its definition. Critical and strategic minerals? The Democratic 
amendments we will consider today will attempt to tailor this 
legislation to cover only minerals that are truly critical and 
strategic and will address the egregious provisions that would truncate 
important environmental review.
  Make no mistake, this bill is a giveaway. It is free mining, no 
royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty 
payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption 
from legal enforcement of the protections. And it's unnecessary.
  There is a real debate that we could be having about the mining laws 
in this country. It should start with reforming the mining law of 1872, 
which is as archaic as its name suggests--the mining law of 1872. We 
should be discussing abandoned mine reclamation. We should be 
discussing ensuring taxpayers a fair return on industrial development 
of our public lands.
  Mr. Chairman, in the Natural Resources Committee markup on May 15 of 
this year where H.R. 761 was reported out on a nearly party line vote, 
the committee also reported two other bills on a bipartisan basis, two 
other bills that would lay the groundwork for developing critical and 
strategic mineral production. Those bills, H.R. 1063, the National 
Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, and H.R. 981, the 
RARE Act, were unanimously reported out of the Natural Resources 
Committee and legitimately would be worth debating here in the House as 
part of any serious effort to improve our understanding of critical 
strategic mineral deposits and to aid in their development.
  We reported out bills on a bipartisan basis that would do what this 
legislation purports to do. We could be discussing those bills. 
Instead, we're taking up legislation which is a giveaway. The 
legislation we could be dealing with would actually deal with strategic 
and critical minerals. Now, if the majority were to bring it to the 
floor, I'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming, bipartisan way and 
would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law. In fact, 
in the last Congress, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals 
Policy Act--not to be confused with the Production Act that we are 
considering today--was supported by the National Mining Association.
  The president and CEO of the National Mining Association issued a 
statement when that bill passed out of committee last Congress, and he 
said: ``The House Natural Resources Committee took important bipartisan 
action today to ensure U.S. manufacturers, technology innovators, and 
our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the 
products they produce and use.'' He went on to say that legislation, 
``will provide a valuable assessment of our current and future mineral 
demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through 
domestic minerals production.''

  We could be considering legislation like that.
  We should be able to work in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to 
improving our supply of rare-earth minerals and other strategic 
minerals and ensuring that we are not dependent on China and other 
nations for their supply. But the majority seems to be not interested 
in that. Evidently, they don't want to work in a bipartisan fashion to 
produce legislation that all sides out there in the country, in 
industry, people who look after public lands and the environment could 
agree on. Instead, they're

[[Page H5608]]

moving this bill, H.R. 761, which has almost nothing to do with 
strategic minerals, is really about giveaways to the mining industry.
  This bill would be a Trojan horse if it were to become law; however, 
it has no chance of becoming law. Maybe the American people should be 
grateful we won't pass this giveaway, that the American people--I say, 
those American people who don't stand to get rich by this mining 
giveaway.
  But can the American people really feel good that we're wasting time 
and actually not looking after the critical and strategic minerals that 
American products, American defense depends on? Why are we playing 
these games? Why, I should say, are they playing these games with our 
legitimate needs to develop strategic minerals? We should be working in 
the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill.
  The majority should shelf this giveaway to the mining industry and 
bring to the floor serious proposals that we could honestly debate as 
part of a legitimate bipartisan discussion regarding rare-earth policy 
and supply.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), the author of this 
legislation.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, having a real debate on this issue is 
something that I wholeheartedly support.
  We probably ought to start with the facts. First of all, you've heard 
much about the overly broad definition. H.R. 761 deliberately contains 
a broad definition of strategic and critical minerals. Here are some of 
the reasons why:
  In 2006, prior to the worldwide economic downturn, there was great 
concern over the future availability of platinum, group metals, and 
copper. At the time, projections in demand for copper indicated that by 
2016, 30 large-scale copper deposits would have to come online to meet 
worldwide demand. At the time, there were not enough copper deposits in 
the permitting pipeline to make up for the projected downward curve.
  And you have heard much about sand and gravel. Even sand and gravel 
and other construction mineral materials can be in short supply or not 
available, as the USGS discovered in 2009 during the great California 
shakeout. What they discovered during that was that, in its assessment 
of scope and damage and materials needed for construction in the event 
of a large-scale earthquake, USGS discovered there were not enough 
sand, gravel, and other construction materials available in the region 
to meet the affected area's reconstruction needs.
  So when you talk about the ability to foretell the future and you 
say, well, we should just limit things to the i-u-m ending minerals, I 
say you probably ought to think about what it takes to get a bill 
through Congress to respond to those things because it's less timely 
than the Federal permitting process.
  Much has been made about getting rid of NEPA review. You know, when 
all else fails, read the bill. Take a look at page 7. And when you look 
at lines 4 through 9 there, these are not the words that you would be 
using if you were trying to get rid of the NEPA process. Starting up at 
page 6, line 24, it says, ``The lead agency with responsibility for'' 
permitting. Then you go down to page 7, line 5, it says, ``if the 
procedural and substantive safeguards of the permitting process 
alone,'' they must find that those are there. Look at line 5, ``if the 
procedural'' are found. That is unlimited discretion in an executive 
branch agency.
  So don't tell me that we're getting rid of NEPA, because the bill 
would have been written differently if we were trying to get rid of 
NEPA.
  I want to also point your attention to the base of this is an 
infrastructure executive order from the current administration that 
talks about avoiding duplication of efforts. I also want to point out 
some words in there. It says, ``infrastructure projects in sectors, 
including surface transportation''--oh, by the way, I think that has 
something to do with sand and gravel--``aviation''--runways I think 
have some of those elements that people don't think are critical--
``ports, waterways, water resource projects, renewable energy 
generation, electricity transmission, broadband, pipelines''--hello, 
Keystone. See how good it's done them.
  If this is an attempt to skirt environmental regulations, somebody 
probably should have written it differently. We didn't. It is simply 
not the truth.
  And I want to talk about fair return on all this taxation stuff. In 
my State, which is 85 percent owned by the Federal Government, the 
Federal Government gives $22 million a year to the rural counties in 
Nevada for PILT. And I know some of my colleagues from east of the 
Mississippi don't understand what that acronym means. It's payment in 
lieu of taxes, $22 million. What this bill is really about is about 
jobs.
  The final piece is this. This does not require anybody in the Federal 
permitting agencies to say, Yes, you can have your permit in 30 months. 
It requires an answer in 30 months. Nobody seeks to apply this to get a 
nice, crisp ``no'' in 30 months, which is why the language is in there, 
Mr. Chairman, that says, by the way, if both sides agree, you can have 
longer to process it.
  Now, when you bounce that off the claims of 3\1/2\ and 5 years, under 
existing administration permitting timelines, asking them to set a 30-
month timeline is not something which undoes environmental 
responsibility, rapes the landscape, and outdoes the taxpayers out of 
their normal revenues that are there.
  Mr. HOLT. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 23\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Well, I will repeat. This bill is a giveaway. It is free mining, no 
royalties. I referred to the archaic legislation that goes by the 
archaic name of the Mining Act of 1872 which excuses miners from 
royalty payments. That would apply here.
  And as for excusing the miners from environmental regulations, the 
legislation says that the lead agency shall determine that a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment 
has not occurred or is not occurring. In other words, the mining 
activities are excluded from, excused from, the triggering language of 
the Environmental Policy Act. No significant environmental policy 
review would be undertaken under the National Environmental Policy Act 
if the agency can say, Well, the State is doing something; the State is 
doing something, whatever that may be, however adequate that may turn 
out to be.
  So I call that a relaxation, if not an exemption, of environmental 
protection. And I repeat, these mining activities do not allow for a 
fair return to the taxpayer, the owners of this land, for the use of 
this land.

                              {time}  1415

  And under this, we could call anything at all strategic and critical. 
Yeah, sometimes the military might need to build a runway or extend a 
runway, but to say that the sand and gravel that's necessary to do that 
becomes strategic is a real perversion of the idea of strategic and 
critical.
  So let's deal with those things that we need for aircraft engines and 
powerful magnets, lanthanum and neodymium and gadolinium and dysprosium 
and these other so-called rare-earth elements, some of which are 
actually not so rare, but they're dispersed and, therefore, hard to 
mine and hard to get adequate quantities of them and some of which are 
truly rare.
  Let's deal with the legislation that makes those available for 
manufacturing needs, for national security needs, rather than having a 
catch-all mining definition that excuses any kind of mining from 
royalties and from environmental regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a new member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Congressman for 
recognizing the need to correct a major supply chain vulnerability in 
the United States, that of critical and strategic minerals.
  Many of us in Congress only heard of the concept of strategic 
minerals after

[[Page H5609]]

we became lawmakers. Most of the time, we hear about exotic elements at 
the bottom of the periodic table like neodymium and europium, but the 
fact is that we are facing down potentially devastating supply 
disruptions for a much more familiar material, lead.
  In my district, we know a lot about lead because my district produces 
more lead than any other district in the Nation. We rely on lead for 
everything from bullets, missiles, ships and tanks, to batteries for 
vehicles and energy storage, to TV and computer screens, to storing 
nuclear waste. Almost every one of us drives a car powered by a lead-
acid battery.
  It may be hard to believe that lead could be a strategic 
vulnerability for the United States because we have used it in so many 
products for over a century. Over the past generation, we have taken 
lead out of things like gasoline and paint to help protect human 
health.
  But the fact is lead is still crucial as a critical material that we 
use safely in a vast number of American-manufactured technologies. 
There is only one primary lead producer remaining in the United States 
today, and that facility is scheduled to close at the end of 2013. And 
environmental regulations are making it more and more difficult for 
lead producers to extract and process economically.
  Today, China produces three times the lead that the United States 
produces, and our global market share is shrinking. At the same time, 
global demand for lead is expected to grow by 5 to 6 percent a year, 
increasing prices and competition for our domestic resources.
  American innovators are working hard to improve the efficiency of 
lead production and make sure as many lead-acid batteries as possible 
are recycled so their contents can be repurposed. But the U.S. simply 
cannot meet its national security needs and commercialize important new 
technologies without a more robust, secure supply.
  I hope that H.R. 761 will open doors for lead production in the 
United States, and that any future legislative efforts on critical 
minerals will also account for lead supplies.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This legislation is fundamentally a solution in search of a problem. 
Now, according to analysis of data provided by the Bureau of Land 
Management for hardrock mines on public lands, for which there is 
complete data, the average time it takes to approve a plan of operation 
for a mine has actually decreased under the Obama administration. We do 
not need a relaxation of regulations in order to speed things up.
  According to the BLM data, plans of operation for hardrock mines are 
being approved roughly 17 percent more quickly under the Obama 
administration than under the previous administration. Thank you, 
President Obama.
  And despite the majority's claims, 82 percent of plans of operation 
for hardrock mines are approved within 3 years under the Obama 
administration.
  Now, the mining company will say, oh, 3 years, that's so long. Well, 
according to the BLM ``it takes, on average, 4 years to approve a 
mining plan of operation for a large mine, more than 1,000 acres on 
public lands.''
  Now, my colleagues on the other side have asked repeatedly what the 
problem is with their legislation that would truncate and eviscerate 
proper review of all mines on public lands if the majority of plans are 
approved within 3 years.
  Well, it's because a little more than 15 percent of hardrock mines 
take more than 4 years to approve. For these mines, where mining 
companies may not have submitted a complete application, or may not 
have posted sufficient bond to ensure that the mine is cleaned up after 
the work, or where additional environmental review is required because 
the mine is large or potentially damaging to our environment and to 
public health, this bill would prevent proper review.
  We're already approving hardrock mines more quickly under the current 
administration than under the previous administration. We should not be 
eviscerating proper review of virtually all mining operations on public 
lands, including sand and gravel, I repeat, as this Republican bill 
would do. We should certainly not be doing it under the pretense of 
developing critical and strategic minerals.
  Now, the other side likes to cherry-pick. They cherry-pick one 
statistic out of a report, without having, apparently, read the rest of 
the report.
  If you look at the full report by the international consulting firm 
Behre Dolbear, it states that ``permitting delays are a global issue'' 
and that ``the business environment will likely favor firms that 
aggressively take a proactive stance concerning societal and 
environmental issues.''
  Plans under the current administration, under the current BLM, plans 
of operation for hardrock mines are being approved roughly 17 percent 
more quickly than previously.
  They say that the United States is last, ranked last, in mining. No. 
What they fail to note is this very report says that the United States 
is one of the most attractive countries in the world for mining, sixth, 
to be precise, sixth most attractive. We are number six in the world 
when you take all factors into consideration and all countries into 
consideration.
  Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to cherry-
pick and say that the United States is so unfair to the mining 
interests that we have to give them a break, that we have to give away 
all of these mining resources on the public's lands, with no royalties 
and very few questions asked.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Missouri) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________