Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5609-H5618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington would we be having a
debate about whether 4 years is okay or 2\1/2\ years is okay when we're
talking about a jobs bill. And only in Washington would we talk about
cherry-picking when we're talking about the vast majority of the
production that is sought for permitting, and the vast number of jobs
that is created is not--I want to make this very clear so the record is
clear--is not handled within 3 years.
Now, it may be true that it's less than the Bush administration,
which is fine. Let's assume that it is.
But when you're talking about primarily issues that deal with Western
lands whose States are at or near a majority of Federal ownership, and
you want to talk about the middle class, and you want to talk about
generating jobs, and you want to say, hey, by the way, you can take as
long as you want; we don't know if you're going to have a job in that
industry or not because there are no rules.
Only in Washington would we be defending no time limits whatsoever.
To say 30 months is a bad idea, with language that says, if both sides
agree, you can take longer, is not an unreasonable environmental or
administrative stance.
Nobody wants a nice, crisp denial in 30 months; and by the way, if
the application should be denied, then I presume that it will be
denied.
But what we're seeing now, and you can find no legislative history
for this anywhere in any of the applicable environmental regulations
and statutes, of which all still apply, there is nothing that says, by
the way, if nothing else works, just see if you can drag it out as long
as possible and hope that that capital goes away. Because when you talk
about permitting attractiveness, it's not what these folks are those
folks say, it's where the capital goes. And the capital isn't going
here.
And the strategic interest of having to go to China for your rare-
earths or having to go to other countries to produce those is not
apparent.

[[Page H5610]]

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
My friend on the other side of the aisle says that, evidently, the
agencies that are reviewing these massive projects, projects that can
permanently degrade the environment, permanently degrade the
environment, hurt public health, affect communities, they're doing it
just to be mean to the mining interests.
No, I don't think so. They are charged with protecting the lands that
belong to Americans, the health of Americans, and the long-term welfare
of the communities.
Now, as for China, let's talk about China. We should be talking about
China. We should be concerned about what happens to the rare-earth
minerals around the world and in this country being locked up by China.
Talk to any business searching the venture capital community for
start-up funding, and one of the first things that they will be asked
is, what is your China plan, because if you don't have a China plan,
you won't be very successful.
The bill that we're considering today, once again, shows that
Republicans, in their eagerness to have giveaways for the mining
industry, are wandering in total darkness when it comes to developing a
strategy for dealing with China.
In the Findings section of the bill before us it says:

The industrialization of China and India has driven demand
for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of
resource nationalism exemplified by China's reduction in
exports of rare-earth elements.

True. And these are the rare-earth elements that are necessary for
telecommunications and military technologies and health care
technologies and conventional energy and renewable energy technologies.
So what would this bill do about China's export restrictions?
What would this bill do to ensure that China not restrict exports of
rare-earths to us, or that we keep the rare-earth elements in this
country to be used as strategic input to these strategic industries?
Nothing.
I have news for my colleagues. We do, in the United States, produce
rare-earth. We mine and concentrate rare-earth elements. The Molycorp
facility in California mines one of the richest rare-earth deposits in
the world. They're ramping up to 40,000 tons of production by next
year. That will be a quarter of the global production.

{time} 1430

But guess what? Guess where they are sending much of that production?
Yes, China. That's right. Our rare-earths will go to China to be
refined into alloys and metals. And there they will stay, if the
Chinese Government so determines, for Chinese high-tech manufacturers.
What are we doing about that in this legislation? Nothing.
So why are we doing this legislation first when the bigger problem is
how are we going to have a reliable supply of these strategic minerals.
The Republican solution is, China, we waived our environmental laws.
We're going to turn these out faster and faster from these public lands
that belong to the American people. We'll send them to you, China, so
you can refine them. And please send them back to us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from
New Jersey if he has any further speakers. I'm prepared to close if the
gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. HOLT. I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the
remaining time.
In closing, let me just repeat what we've heard over and over. This
is unnecessary. It's not dealing with the real problems first. It is a
giveaway to the mining industry to exempt them from regulations, to
exempt them from paying a reasonable royalty to the American people for
use of the American people's lands. It would alter nearly all mining
operations on public lands in the United States by reducing or even
eliminating review under the National Environmental Policy Act. It
would change these mining operations not just for these rare-earth
elements but for copper, uranium, sand, and gravel.
The Interior Department testified this legislation would remove many
of the environmental safeguards for almost all types of hardrock mines
on public lands, bypass evaluation of potential impacts under the
National Environmental Policy Act, and limit public involvement in
agency decisionmaking.
Can that be a good idea--to eliminate all those things and not
actually deal with the production and supply and availability of
strategic minerals?
The authors of the bill say it's needed ``because it could take a
developer years to get all government permits in place.'' Well, that's
up to the developer to get those in. And it's up to the government
agencies to make sure they do it in a way that protects the public
health, protects the public lands, protects the future of communities
that would be affected by this.
This bill is not about fixing delays, but really about preventing
proper environmental review and safety and public health reviews.
We should be updating the Mining Act of 1872. We are a century or a
century-and-a-half late in updating that mining law. Maybe there was a
time in the 19th century where we wanted to send people out to develop
the great expanses of the western United States and give them carte
blanche. We've come a long way since then.
We should get up to date here in the House of Representatives. We
should be dealing with the hundred thousand known abandoned mines that
are a danger to people and to the environment. Promoting the
development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities
and that are genuinely susceptible to disruptions should be an area
where both sides, Republicans and Democrats, can work together.
Instead, we're dealing with special interests, giving them free rein in
a handout.
I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, before I make my closing remarks, I want to thank
Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee for his cooperation in
helping schedule this bill for consideration. We have an exchange of
letters to that effect.
Mr. Chairman, much has been debated here on the floor about what is
strategic and what is not strategic. Let me posit a suggestion here on
the fact that there are two ways that you could define this. You could
define it by making a definition so narrow that in effect the
legislation picks winners and losers. Or you could write statutory law
that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be
the driver of what is strategic. That means the marketplace is the one,
then, that decides what is strategic. I think that's a much better
approach because when I talk about this, I recall hearing that in the
late 1890s the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--and I could be
off a little bit--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent
Office because everything that has been invented, has been invented.
This is in the 1890s. This is before we were flying airplanes. This is
before the car became commercially available. This means all the
minerals that go into those things weren't even thought of at the time.
So what we do then in this bill is just very straightforward. We say
that the strategic minerals will meet these criteria. By the way, you
can find this on page 5, section 3, ``Definitions'':

(A) For national defense and national security.

That is so self-evident, it hardly needs to be debated.
Second:

For the Nation's energy infrastructure, including
pipelines, refining.

That's from an energy standpoint. That certainly should not be
debated because we have to have a good energy source if we're going to
have a growing economy.
And:

Of course, that includes agriculture and housing. In other words, to
support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of
strategic minerals for that?
Finally:

(D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of
trade.

That makes eminently good sense because we are seriously out of
balance

[[Page H5611]]

now with China, as has been brought up.
So this approach is more of a long-term solution because I dare say
that 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find
that will be used for new technology. But if we have defined it so
narrowly that we don't know what that technology is, we have in fact
been picking winners and losers. That's the wrong approach. The right
approach is what's embodied in this bill to say that these conditions
will be the ones that will define strategic minerals.
Finally, let me close on this: everybody likes to make fun of sand
and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that after the
earthquakes in northern and southern California, when the freeways
collapsed, I can tell you very, very strategically that cement and sand
and gravel fit that category.
So under the conditions, I think this fits what we are attempting to
do in the long term.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2013.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings, I am writing with respect to H.R.
761, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals
Production Act of 2013,'' which the Committee on Natural
Resources reported favorably. As a result of your having
consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 761 that fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I
agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration
of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the
House floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our
Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the
bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our
Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks
that you support any such request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 761, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration of H.R. 761.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 3, 2013.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act of 2013. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources
ordered reported the bill, as amended, on May 15, 2013. I
appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before
the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand
that the Committee on the Judiciary will forego action on the
bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at
this time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference
committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter
and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee
on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Doc Hasting,
Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support efforts to enhance
our domestic security by reducing our reliance on foreign sources of
strategic and critical minerals, but aside from its short title, the
pending legislation has nothing to do with that goal.
In fact, this legislation provides relief to any and all types of
minerals on public lands--minerals such as gold, silver and copper
produced under the Mining Law of 1872.
These are minerals that are mined for free, with no royalty charged
in return for their removal from lands owned by all Americans.
Yet, the pending legislation would provide multi-national
conglomerates with even more relief in their pursuit of mining free
gold from federal lands.
It is not limited in scope to, for instance, rare earth minerals used
in fuel cells and solar panels among other applications. Rare earths
are certainly strategic and critical.
Instead, the bill provides relief to any ``mineral exploration or
mine permit'' with plans of operations issued by the BLM under its 3809
regulation and the Forest Service under it counterpart regulations.
Read the bill. Look up those regulations.
The BLM 3809 regulations are clear, they apply to ``all operations
authorized by the mining laws on public lands where the mineral
interest is reserved to the United States.''
The Forest Service regulations referenced in the bill state they
apply to ``the surface of National Forest System lands in connections
with operations authorized by the United States mining laws . . .''
So I say to my colleagues, understand what you will be voting on.
Understand that this bill provides additional relief to mostly foreign
owned companies who are extracting gold, silver and other hardrock
minerals from our lands, our public lands, without paying a royalty in
return.
Mine coal on federal lands, you pay a royalty. Drill for oil and
natural gas on public lands, you pay a royalty. But not gold, not
silver, and not copper.
I oppose this legislation.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill,
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 761

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The industrialization of China and India has driven
demand for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of
resource nationalism exemplified by China's reduction in
exports of rare-earth elements necessary for
telecommunications, military technologies, healthcare
technologies, and conventional and renewable energy
technologies.
(2) The availability of minerals and mineral materials are
essential for economic growth, national security,
technological innovation, and the manufacturing and
agricultural supply chain.
(3) The exploration, production, processing, use, and
recycling of minerals contribute significantly to the
economic well-being, security and general welfare of the
Nation.
(4) The United States has vast mineral resources, but is
becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of these
mineral materials, as demonstrated by the following:
(A) Twenty-five years ago the United States was dependent
on foreign sources for 30 nonfuel mineral materials, 6 of
which the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation's
requirements, and for another 16 commodities the United
States imported more than 60 percent of the Nation's needs.
(B) By 2011 the United States import dependence for nonfuel
mineral materials had more than doubled from 30 to 67
commodities, 19 of which the United States imported 100
percent of the Nation's requirements, and for another 24
commodities, imported more than 50 percent of the Nation's
needs.
(C) The United States share of worldwide mineral
exploration dollars was 8 percent in 2011, down from 19
percent in the early 1990s.
(D) In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment,
out of 25 major mining countries, the United States ranked
last with Papua New Guinea in permitting delays, and towards
the bottom regarding government take and social issues
affecting mining.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic
and critical minerals'' means minerals that are necessary--
(A) for national defense and national security
requirements;
(B) for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including
pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and
transmission, and renewable energy production;
(C) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture,
housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation
infrastructure; or
(D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of
trade.
(2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency,
department, or other unit of Federal, State, local, or tribal
government, or Alaska Native Corporation.
(3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral
exploration or mine permit'' includes plans of operation
issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 3809 and 36 C.F.R. 228A or the
authorities listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13, respectively.

[[Page H5612]]

TITLE I--DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC SOURCES OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL
MINERALS

SEC. 101. IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL
MINERALS.

Domestic mines that will provide strategic and critical
minerals shall be considered an ``infrastructure project'' as
described in Presidential Order ``Improving Performance of
Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects''
dated March 22, 2012.

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY.

(a) In General.--The lead agency with responsibility for
issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit shall appoint a
project lead who shall coordinate and consult with
cooperating agencies and any other agency involved in the
permitting process, project proponents and contractors to
ensure that agencies minimize delays, set and adhere to
timelines and schedules for completion of the permitting
process, set clear permitting goals and track progress
against those goals.
(b) Determination Under NEPA.--To the extent that the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applies to any
mineral exploration or mine permit, the lead agency with
responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall determine that the action to approve the
exploration or mine permit does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the procedural and
substantive safeguards of the permitting process alone, any
applicable State permitting process alone, or a combination
of the two processes together provide an adequate mechanism
to ensure that environmental factors are taken into account.
(c) Coordination on Permitting Process.--The lead agency
with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall enhance government coordination for the
permitting process by avoiding duplicative reviews,
minimizing paperwork and engaging other agencies and
stakeholders early in the process. The lead agency shall
consider the following best practices:
(1) Deferring to and relying upon baseline data, analyses
and reviews performed by State agencies with jurisdiction
over the proposed project.
(2) Conducting any consultations or reviews concurrently
rather than sequentially to the extent practicable and when
such concurrent review will expedite rather than delay a
decision.
(d) Schedule for Permitting Process.--At the request of a
project proponent, the lead agency, cooperating agencies and
any other agencies involved with the mineral exploration or
mine permitting process shall enter into an agreement with
the project proponent that sets time limits for each part of
the permitting process including the following:
(1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(2) A determination of the scope of any document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(3) The scope of and schedule for the baseline studies
required to prepare a document required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(4) Preparation of any draft document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(5) Preparation of a final document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(6) Consultations required under applicable laws.
(7) Submission and review of any comments required under
applicable law.
(8) Publication of any public notices required under
applicable law.
(9) A final or any interim decisions.
(e) Time Limit for Permitting Process.--In no case should
the total review process described in subsection (d) exceed
30 months unless agreed to by the signatories of the
agreement.
(f) Limitation on Addressing Public Comments.--The lead
agency is not required to address agency or public comments
that were not submitted during any public comment periods or
consultation periods provided during the permitting process
or as otherwise required by law.
(g) Financial Assurance.--The lead agency will determine
the amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a
mineral exploration or mining site, which must cover the
estimated cost if the lead agency were to contract with a
third party to reclaim the operations according to the
reclamation plan, including construction and maintenance
costs for any treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal,
State or tribal environmental standards.
(h) Application to Existing Permit Applications.--This
section shall apply with respect to a mineral exploration or
mine permit for which an application was submitted before the
date of the enactment of this Act if the applicant for the
permit submits a written request to the lead agency for the
permit. The lead agency shall begin implementing this section
with respect to such application within 30 days after
receiving such written request.
(i) Strategic and Critical Minerals Within National
Forests.--With respect to strategic and critical minerals
within a federally administered unit of the National Forest
System, the lead agency shall--
(1) exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in
Land Use Designations, other than Non-Development Land Use
Designations, in existence as of the date of the enactment of
this Act from the procedures detailed at and all rules
promulgated under part 294 of title 36, Code for Federal
Regulations;
(2) apply such exemption to all additional routes and areas
that the lead agency finds necessary to facilitate the
construction, operation, maintenance, and restoration of the
areas of identified mineral resources described in paragraph
(1); and
(3) continue to apply such exemptions after approval of the
Minerals Plan of Operations for the unit of the National
Forest System.

SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE.

In evaluating and issuing any mineral exploration or mine
permit, the priority of the lead agency shall be to maximize
the development of the mineral resource, while mitigating
environmental impacts, so that more of the mineral resource
can be brought to the market place.

SEC. 104. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION
AND MINING PROJECTS.

(a) Preparation of Federal Notices for Mineral Exploration
and Mine Development Projects.--The preparation of Federal
Register notices required by law associated with the issuance
of a mineral exploration or mine permit shall be delegated to
the organization level within the agency responsible for
issuing the mineral exploration or mine permit. All Federal
Register notices regarding official document availability,
announcements of meetings, or notices of intent to undertake
an action shall be originated and transmitted to the Federal
Register from the office where documents are held, meetings
are held, or the activity is initiated.
(b) Departmental Review of Federal Register Notices for
Mineral Exploration and Mining Projects.--Absent any
extraordinary circumstance or except as otherwise required by
any Act of Congress, each Federal Register notice described
in subsection (a) shall undergo any required reviews within
the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Agriculture and be published in its final form in the Federal
Register no later than 30 days after its initial preparation.

TITLE II--JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS RELATING TO EXPLORATION AND
MINE PERMITS

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE.

In this title the term ``covered civil action'' means a
civil action against the Federal Government containing a
claim under section 702 of title 5, United States Code,
regarding agency action affecting a mineral exploration or
mine permit.

SEC. 202. TIMELY FILINGS.

A covered civil action is barred unless filed no later than
the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
final Federal agency action to which it relates.

SEC. 203. RIGHT TO INTERVENE.

The holder of any mineral exploration or mine permit may
intervene as of right in any covered civil action by a person
affecting rights or obligations of the permit holder under
the permit.

SEC. 204. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.

The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered
civil action as expeditiously as possible.

SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or
approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that
such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than
necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement,
and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that
violation.

SEC. 206. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES.

Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of
title 28, United States Code (together commonly called the
Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to a covered civil
action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action
receive payment from the Federal Government for their
attorneys' fees, expenses, and other court costs.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 113-
214. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
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.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 5, strike lines 3 through 16 and insert the following:
(1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic
and critical minerals''--
(A) means--
(i) minerals and mineral groups identified as critical by
the National Research Council in the report entitled
``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'', dated
2008; and
(ii) additional minerals identified by the Secretary of the
Interior based on the National Research Council criteria in
such report; and
(B) shall not include sand, gravel, or clay.
Page 5, strike lines 21 through 26 and insert the
following:

[[Page H5613]]

(3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral
exploration or mine permit''--
(A) means a mineral exploration or mine permit for
strategic and critical minerals; and
(B) includes any plan of operation for strategic and
critical minerals that is issued by the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I was puzzled when I read the bill title,
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, and then
went on to read the bill text. Surely there must have been a mistake
when drafting this bill. Strategic and critical minerals were certainly
not meant to include sand, gravel, and clay.
But right now, section 3 of this bill is written so broadly that it
would include very common nonstrategic and noncritical minerals--even
going so far, as I mentioned, to encompass materials such as sand,
gravel, and clay.
The Interior Department recently testified before my colleagues on
the Natural Resources Committee and confirmed that this is, in fact,
exactly the case. The bill that we are now considering is written
expansively beyond critical minerals.
The Interior Department testified:

This legislation would remove many of the environmental
safeguards for almost all kinds of hardrock mines on public
lands, bypassing evaluation of potential impacts under NEPA,
and limit public involvement in agency decisionmaking.

That's why I introduce an amendment that would simply narrow the
bill's definition of purported strategic and critical minerals to
actual strategic and critical minerals, as defined by the National
Research Council.
Why is my amendment critical? It is because instead of ostensibly
fast-tracking only strategic and critical minerals, which this bill I
think does poorly, this legislation appears to be a guise for mining
interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental
protections not just for strategic and critical minerals, but for all
hardrock mining.
We could have a debate about how to ensure America's supply of
strategic and critical minerals, but first we have to get the
definition right.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment really picks up on what my arguments
were at the end of the general debate because the effect of this
amendment would be to pick winners and losers by narrowly defining a
use. And as I stated in my closing remarks, we have four categories
that I think are very broad and change over a period of time.
So what this amendment does is try to restrict what may be decided as
a critical mineral. Of course, that will change over time. If this
amendment is adopted--and I, obviously, urge rejection of this
amendment--but if it were to be adopted, I can make a prediction that I
know would come back, and that is we'll be back here in the future
saying there's another set of critical minerals that we need to define.
And we keep doing that over and over and over. Isn't it much better to
define the categories and then apply those minerals to those
categories? Because they will change.
I find it kind of interesting, too, Mr. Chairman, because I closed my
general debate remarks by talking about sand and gravel. My good friend
from southern California, I guess, alluded to the fact that sand and
gravel don't fit into that category. I'm not going to ask him to answer
me, but I'll just ask the question rhetorically, I wonder if he felt
that way after the earthquake collapsed freeways in southern
California. Would he have liked to wait maybe 4 years for the
permitting process to get sand and gravel in order to build those
freeways that are so important to southern California?
I asked that question rhetorically, of course, Mr. Chairman.

{time} 1445

But I just want to say that this amendment would do exactly opposite
of what the intent of this bill is about, and that is that it picks
winners and losers. I urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I welcome those comments, but let's be real clear what
I'm talking about. I am talking about eliminating a giveaway of almost
all hard rock mining, to really defining what is strategic and critical
as defined by the robust methodology in the National Research Council's
report.
Now, what do I mean by a robust methodology? It says if we look at
all the mining that we have, if we look at what we have to define as
strategic, we have to look along two dimensions in a scientific way. We
have to know: What is the impact of this mineral or this mining if
there was a supply restriction? What would be the impact if there was a
supply restriction? Would it impact defense? Would it impact national
security? If it does have an impact, then it has a high rating on that.
Also, what about the supply risk? We need to measure, if we do not
develop this mine at this place, are there other places that we can?
If, in fact, a mineral has high supply risk, high impact, not only are
those minerals defined now, but the Secretary of the Interior, using
this methodology, will define. This clearly defines what is needed in
terms of strategic and critical, and not just everything.
I remind you that right now we are loosening in the bill the
environmental protections, public participation, judicial review for
everything. We're doing it, as was pointed out, for national defense,
he said, anything that meets national security requirements, for energy
infrastructure, pipelines, refining capacity, power generation,
domestic manufacturing--which includes everything, whether it's
important or not--health care, telecommunications, transportation. What
we're doing is we're gutting protections for everything, not those that
are just needed.
I present a methodology which will allow a real clear definition, not
just of what's in the bill now, but include a methodology that the
Secretary of the Interior can include if the material is really needed
to be mined.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. China is not trying to lock up the world's sand and gravel.
We do have to worry about the supply of yttrium and gadolinium and
these other things that are necessary for jet engines and magnets and
hard drives in laptops and so forth.
Let me just address the point that has to do with this definition
that my friend from Washington talks about, winners and losers. Yes,
this bill has winners and losers. The winners would be the mining
companies. The losers would be local communities, the environment,
water quality, wildlife, and the American taxpayers.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman
is prepared to close.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Again, I introduced this amendment that would narrow
the bill's definition to not what is purported to be strategic but
actually what is strategic, that if we're going to give benefits, they
must be strategic, and my amendment provides for an actual way of
measuring that.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think the gentleman from New Jersey did say this picks winners and
losers--at least he didn't deny it--and then he tried to turn it around
and say that we pick winners and losers. I will acknowledge that from
this standpoint:

[[Page H5614]]

the winners will be those States that have huge, huge swaths of Federal
land. The winners will be the communities in those States that have
large swaths of Federal land that want to create jobs, because jobs are
created because of the natural resources in those States. So from that
sense, yes, we are picking winners and losers, and, frankly, I am proud
of that.
But I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. In listening to my friend's
argument on this, keep in mind what this bill does. This bill tries to
provide certainty for those that would want to get into the mining
business by saying that you have to have a decision made in 30 months.
Now, the decision doesn't have to be affirmative, but there has to be a
decision.
What this gentleman is saying, what the effect of this amendment is,
as I hear his argument, is there is one more layer we have to go
through before it is strategic, and that's the Secretary of the
Interior. Does that not suggest that that might be a political problem,
then, rather than a problem based on what is needed? No. The four broad
categories is a much, much better way to do it.
I think the gentleman's amendment is misplaced. I urge its rejection,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Veasey

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 5, after line 26, insert the following:

SEC. 4. PUBLICATION OF CRITICAL MINERALS.

The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal
Register--
(1) by not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a list of the minerals that are
strategic and critical minerals for purposes of this Act; and
(2) every 5 years thereafter, an updated list of such
minerals.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Veasey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer this amendment because, Mr. Chairman, mineral
exploration and mining have a deep history in our country. We have vast
resources in America that we have been able to use for our own
security, innovation, and economic benefit. This is why we must
continue to explore these resources in a smart, environmentally
sensitive manner.
It is dangerous for America to depend on countries like China for
rare-earth elements and rare metals. These elements are necessary for
telecommunications, military technologies, health care technologies, as
well as conventional and renewable energy technologies. But the
underlying bill goes far beyond these specific minerals in defining
what constitutes ``strategic and critical.''
While the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act
gives four characteristics for what should be a strategic and critical
mineral, it leaves the exact minerals open to interpretation. The
majority has stated that their purpose in leaving the definition so
broad is to allow for flexibility over time. This bill would cover
virtually all hard rock mining on Federal lands.
I think most Americans will agree that sand and gravel are important
to our economy, but how many would be willing to go on Federal lands,
places such as the Grand Canyon, in order to mine these two elements?
That is why I have proposed my amendment to H.R. 761. My amendment
would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to specifically
list what are strategic and critical minerals and make this information
available to the public. After a given number of years looking at the
global and national landscape for mineral exploration, the Secretary
would have the authority to change this list as factors dictate. This
allows for flexibility in responding to global mineral markets while
protecting our public resources.
Mr. Chairman, I know both Democrats and Republicans strongly support
the development of rare-earth elements and other critical minerals
necessary for our national security and national competitiveness, but
we must refrain from allowing the mining industry to define what is
critical solely in accordance with their economic needs. That is why I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to define what
minerals are of national public interest and to protect the prestige of
our public lands.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Clearly, with the last amendment and this amendment, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are really disturbed about what strategic
is. I guess I can understand that. I obviously disagree with that.
This is very similar to the last amendment, except it specifically
gives the Secretary of the Interior that power to decide what is
critical or not.
Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think from a policy standpoint
we should give that much power to anybody to say what is critical and
not as far as minerals concerned that support our economy. Let me just
give you a case in point of how we run into problems with this.
Less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group
metals used in computers and electronics and the pending shortfall of
copper. So because we hadn't defined these broad categories--see, if we
had this bill in place 10 years ago, this category would have taken
care of itself because the market would have suggested we need new
minerals in order to support a certain sector of the economy. But no,
when you pick winners and losers, then you have to go through the whole
process and the hand-wringing and the high prices and all of those
things that slow down the economy.
So, once again, in deference to my good friend that offered this
amendment, in a bill that is trying to add certainty to the regulatory
process, this adds another layer of uncertainty by giving it to the
Secretary of the Interior. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that
is good policy.
This goes along again with the last amendment. By voice vote, that
was rejected. This should be rejected in a like manner. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Washington, in this bill, who would decide what is a strategic and
critical mineral?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be more than happy to tell you.
And I made this. If you look on page five, under Definitions: Strategic
and Critical Minerals. The term ``strategic and critical minerals''
means minerals that are necessary--and there's four categories--for
national defense and national security requirements. I can't predict in
25 years which mineral will support our weapons, for example, but that
is a category in which that would be a critical mineral.
B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines,
refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and
renewable energy production. Now, I have no idea what, in the future,
critical minerals we will need to support those activities, but I know
before wind and solar took hold, nobody was worrying about those
minerals. But this category, if you had it by category, you would not
have to go through the hand-wringing to find out where that source is.
C, to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing,
telecommunications, health care, and transportation infrastructure.

[[Page H5615]]

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, I want to ask
the gentleman: Who would decide what is strategic and a critical
mineral? I mean, I listened to the gentleman in his explanation, and I
never heard exactly who would decide in his explanation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VEASEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, just let me finish then because
there's only one more, and I do want to say that.
For the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. So once that
category is defined and somebody wants to refine some element--I don't
know, pick a name; there are all these new names; I can't pronounce
them anyway--and they find out that there's a new industry that wants a
certain element, if an entrepreneur wants to mine for that, they make
the permit and it's decided by the Federal agency. Very simple. And if
it fits this category, he gets the permit. That's the beauty of it.
Mr. VEASEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that
would be the Secretary of the Interior.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1500

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
I just want to say that we have somewhat exhausted this; but the
difference between this gentleman's amendment and the broad categories
I say is that he--he--or I should say the Secretary of the Interior--
picks that. The Secretary picks it.
Under the underlying bill, yes, the Secretary picks it; but if it
meets these broad categories, then, of course, he has to pick that
mineral. That makes perfectly good sense because it responds to the
marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Beginning at page 6, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 7, line 9, and insert the following:
(b) Determination Under NEPA.--The lead agency with
responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall determine any such action would constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
Beginning at page 7, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 9, line 7.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Here we go again. Another week, another attempt by the House majority
to gut critical environmental protections that we know save lives and
communities. Right before we left for the August recess, a break I
urged the Republican leadership to forego, the House passed a reckless
offshore oil drilling bill that risks our shoreline communities along
the Atlantic, Pacific, and gulf coasts. And for what? To continue our
dependence on fossil fuels.
H.R. 761 is not unknown to Congress. In fact, we had passed a rule
and were set to consider it only a few weeks ago before the House
majority abruptly pulled it from the floor and rammed through a
partisan farm bill instead--a bill that protected farm subsidies, crop
insurance guarantees, and handouts for Big Agribusiness, including some
Members of this very body, at the expense of the neediest among us,
including more than 210,000 children.
Yet here we are today. Once again, the House majority is attempting
to not only remove environmental safeguards provided under the National
Environmental Policy Act, but to set arbitrary deadlines for its
approval process.
I am pleased to once again offer this commonsense amendment that will
preserve NEPA protections and ensure that a thorough safety review is
conducted.
In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, a
bipartisan act with strong Republican support, including President
Richard Nixon, who understood then that environmental impacts on large
projects must be explored, understood, and eventually mitigated.
Under NEPA, any infrastructure project that could have a significant
impact is now subject to an environmental impact statement, which
outlines the purpose of the project, possible alternatives, the
affected environment, and the consequences of completing the project.
The findings are then considered prior to final project approval.
Projects with less environmental impact may be subjected to a less
detailed environmental assessment instead. Some projects, like the
construction of a foot trail, may be deemed to have no significant
environmental impact and can receive a categorical exclusion.
Make no mistake, the bill before us today has no foot path. We are
talking about major mining projects that could devastate entire
communities. There are many aspects of mineral exploration policy for
which statutory changes should be considered, such as closing Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act loopholes. Unfortunately, that's not what we're
doing here.
As I've noted before, considering that all other major projects, even
transit projects with clear environmental benefits, must still go
through an environmental impact statement, it is absurd to turn around
and exclude from such analysis activities or put an arbitrary time
limit on it that has such potential to actually destroy ecosystems and
regional economies.
My commonsense amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply restore that
process so that there can be peace and comfort of mind to affected
communities, and I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, if you like the current 7- to 10-year
timeframe to do mining permits in this country, then you will love this
amendment; but this bill is all about making it possible to do mining
in this country and use our natural resources in a reasonable,
commonsense way.
Other countries, like Australia and Canada, have a 2-year time cycle
from beginning to end to get your application and permit done so you
can begin mining. In this country, it's 7 to 10 years. That's why we
have declining activity of the well-paying jobs that mining produces,
the resources that are available from mining so we don't have to rely
on countries like China.
This amendment would eviscerate, this amendment would gut, what this
bill is trying to do. It's unnecessary because NEPA already applies.
NEPA remains in force. This just allows needless and endless
bureaucratic delays by allowing NEPA to do an environmental impact
statement at almost every step in the whole process.
It is important to have a certainty of when the process is over so
you know whether or not you can invest in a long-term project like
this. Seven to 10 years is beyond any of our economic cycles. It is not
feasible from a business standpoint to wait that long in a commodity
market like minerals and metals to make these investment decisions. You
to have certainty, you have to have closure, you have to have a time
certain that you're done.
So the 30-month timeframe is critical. We respect and uphold NEPA. It
remains in effect, but we get rid of the ability to do it at every step
in the process.
This amendment would be a backward step and back to the current
status quo which makes it harder to have

[[Page H5616]]

mining projects in this country with the jobs that they create, with
the benefit to our economy that these minerals allow for.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge a strong ``no'' on this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time is left on
this side.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I certainly respect my friend and his point of view about the mining
industry. I wish it were true that the other side of the aisle respects
the NEPA process; but, frankly, we've had bill after bill and amendment
after amendment in excess of 100 that actually attack everything from
the Clean Water Act to the Clean Air Act that have resisted regulation
even when it comes to public health and particulate matter, for
example. They have assaulted the NEPA process every step of the way.
In this bill, there's a huge carve-out for one industry--the mining
industry. It is not true that the average is 7 to 10 years. It may be
true that some have had that. But it is also true that a NEPA process
protects communities. It answers questions. It answers the very
uncertainty my friend talked about. But sometimes it answers that
uncertainty in a way that the industry and its supporters don't like.
I think our job here is not so much to protect wealthy advocates of a
particular industry who may also positively influence the financing of
campaigns. I think our first duty is to protect public health and
safety, those communities that have found themselves devastated because
proper environmental analysis, in fact, had not been done. We have seen
that all across America from Appalachia to southern Illinois to in the
West.
I, too, want to make sure we unlock strategic minerals and that the
United States has them available when it needs it. But I don't believe
that the tradeoff has to be at the expense of every community that
could potentially be the site of a mine.

Mr. Chairman, I actually strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
for this commonsense amendment to restore an environmental analysis
process that, in fact, has worked.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to remind my colleague from Virginia that this
administration has streamlined NEPA for several uses during its time in
office for renewable energy projects, for highways, for the so-called
``stimulus'' that we had in 2007. So this administration at times,
anyway, sees the need to balance the creation of jobs with protecting
the environment, but not allowing environmental regulations to be used
to endlessly delay projects.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I'm afraid, would endlessly delay the
production of the projects that we need to produce critical and
strategic minerals. For that reason I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and
friend from New Mexico, Representative Pearce.
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would make a comment to my friend from Virginia that
we in the West are being protected from ourselves, we are being
protected from jobs. The devastation is in our jobs.
I have one county--I have 18 counties--one county is 7,000 square
miles. That is three times the size of Delaware. It is six times the
size of Rhode Island. It has a population of 3,725 people. The jobs
have gone away. There used to be 11 rare-earth mineral mines in the
southern district of New Mexico. Today there are none. All of those
jobs have gone to China.
This is just a commonsense bill that says we are going to go through
the process. We have economies that are being devastated, but it's not
an environmental devastation. It is from the environmentalist who will
sue to stop every single job in the West. We've lost our mining jobs;
we've lost our timber jobs. These are areas that are not sitting out
here making life unlivable and unhealthy; these are areas that are
looking for jobs.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment with respect to my
friend.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time
and say that if you think it's a good situation for the United States
to be lumped in with Papua, New Guinea, dead last among mining
countries in this world, as shown by a recent study, in that it takes 7
to 10 years to get mining projects off the ground, then you would like
this amendment. But if you don't, if you think we can protect the
environment at the same time as creating jobs and strike that balance,
which this bill does, then you will vote ``no'' on this amendment and
``yes'' on H.R. 761.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 9, line 14, before ``The lead agency'' insert the
following:
(1) In general.--
Page 9, line 21, before the period insert ``, the cost of
cleanup in the event of any release occurring at such site,
and the costs incurred by the United States to implement this
subsection''.
Page 9, after line 21, insert the following:
(2) Form.--Such financial assurance shall be in the form of
a surety bond, letter of credit, or other instrument that
would routinely be accepted in commerce.
(3) Amount based on type of operation.--The amount of such
financial assurance shall be based on the type of mining
operation to be conducted.
(4) Inspections.--The lead agency shall conduct annual
inspections and reviews of financial insurance required under
this subsection.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me read the amendment. It's very short:

The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral
exploration or mine permit may not issue such permit until
the applicant for the permit has fully reimbursed the United
States, each State, and each Native American tribe for all
costs incurred by the United States and such State and such
tribe respectively for issuance of the permit. Such
reimbursement shall include costs of all Federal, State and
tribal reviews and approvals required for the permit,
contracting costs and salaries, including benefits for State
and Federal employees and the conduct of reviews by State, a
State that under authority delegated to the State under
Federal law.

{time} 1515

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today to H.R. 761 would
reimburse the costs of permitting in order that the National
Environmental Policy Act requirements be met. Those who complain about
the National Environmental Policy Act permitting--and it has been said
here repeatedly on the floor, and when I was managing the rule earlier
today, it was said--often cite timing as a concern. With budget cuts,
furloughs, and other competing work, it is not possible to meet all the
demands. The reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve
this issue and provide for meaningful public participation in the
decisionmaking process for the use of Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I would ultimately ask that my amendment be made in
order.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H5617]]

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intention behind this
amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I do want to
reassure him, though, that the bill and current law already satisfy
what he is after, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Let me read specifically from the language of the bill. This is on
page 9. I'm going to read a paragraph, and, hopefully, this will
alleviate your concerns:

(g) Financial Assurance. The lead agency will determine the
amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a mineral
exploration or mining site, which must cover the estimated
cost if the lead agency were to contract with a third party
to reclaim the operations according to the reclamation plan,
including construction and maintenance costs for any
treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal, State or
tribal environmental standards.

So, in case the company goes bankrupt--in the worst case scenario--it
has to post a bond, and I believe it's equal to 140 percent of what the
reclamation cost would be.
We already have comprehensive regulations in addition to the bill
language from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service. These regulations have been revised during both the Clinton
and Bush administrations so that, today, both BLM and Forest Service
regulations require that exploration and mining activities have the
resources necessary to ensure reclamation after it's over even if the
company goes bankrupt.
I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, but I believe it is
completely unnecessary. So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge
a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I need to make a correction.
I had two amendments in the Rules Committee last night. The one that
I just read into the Record and that my friend and colleague just
responded to was the one that was not made in order, but I will be very
brief because the one that was made in order, amendment No. 4, which we
are addressing, requires financial assurance in the form of a surety
bond, a letter of credit, or other instrument that would routinely be
accepted in commerce.
In the interest of time, I would only offer, Mr. Chairman, that my
full statement on amendment No. 4 be placed in the Record. I am sure my
colleague has time to respond to amendment No. 4. If he does not, I
would be prepared to yield to him whatever time I have in order for him
to respond.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today to H.R. 761, would
reimburse the cost of permitting and order that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements be met. Those who complain
about NEPA permitting, often cite timing as a concern. With budget
cuts, furloughs, and other competing work, it is not possible to meet
all demands.
Reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve this issue,
and provide for meaningful public participation in the decision-making
process for the use of Federal lands.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the Committee to make my amendment in
order.
At the end of title I (page 12, after line 2) add the
following:

SEC. _01. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF MINERAL
EXPLORATION OR MINE PERMIT.

(a) Recovery of Costs.--
(1) In general.--The lead agency with responsibility for
issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit may not issue
such permit until the applicant for the permit has fully
reimbursed the United States, each State, and each Indian
tribe for all costs incurred by the United States, such
State, and such tribe, respectively, for issuance of the
permit.
(2) Costs included.--Such reimbursement shall include--
(A) costs of all Federal, State, and tribal reviews and
approvals required for the permit; and
(B) contracting costs and salaries (including benefits) for
State and Federal employees.
(b) Conduct of Reviews by States.--A State that, under
authority delegated to the State under Federal law, performs
any function required for the issuance of a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall perform such function in
accordance with all requirements that would apply under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) to performance of such function by a Federal agency.
(c) Extension of Time Limits.--Any period of time
established by Federal law for the issuance of a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall be extended by the period of
any delay in such issuance that is attributable to a failure
of the permit applicant to timely complete any action
required for such issuance, including any failure to timely
submit any request or payment.

Mr. LAMBORN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize by saying that we
already have it in current law and that it's already addressed in this
bill that there must be adequate financial assurances given, including
the posting of bonds to ensure that the reclamation can take place by
contract for third parties if the company goes bankrupt or, for
whatever reason, can't follow through. All of our western public land
States also have comprehensive regulatory and bonding programs covering
hard rock mining. That's in addition to the Federal laws and
regulations. In many of these States, the Federal and State agencies
work together to jointly manage the reclamation and bonding projects.
As of June of 2013, BLM, in conjunction with its State partners,
currently holds more than $2.2 billion in financial assurances to
reclaim potential mining sites around the U.S. So you can see this is
an active and well-funded program that is in place. Under regulation,
these holdings are reviewed and adjusted annually to make sure that
costs won't spiral out of control if we have inflation or unforeseen
contingencies. In some instances, mining companies are required to
establish trust funds and to build them over the course of the mine
life to ensure adequate funding for any long-term treatment facilities
that might be necessary to meet Federal, State, or tribal environmental
standards.
So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are already in place
appropriate and adequate protections and regulations and that the bill
respects that also. I respect the gentleman for his intentions on this
amendment, but I believe that it is unnecessary, and for that reason, I
would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would just say to my colleague that there
are deficiencies and inadequacies of funding in the measures that you
cited, and they do not cover the cost of cleanup and accidents. That's
why we are addressing it.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask and urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on
this measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. SECRETARIAL ORDER NOT AFFECTED.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to affect any
aspect of Secretarial Order 3324, issued by the Secretary of
the Interior on December 3, 2012, with respect to potash and
oil and gas operators.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment today to H.R. 761, the
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
My amendment is very simple. It only serves to clarify the scope of
the bill by stating that it does not impact the rules put in place by
Secretarial Order No. 3324, issued by the Secretary of the Interior
late last year. That order sets in place buffer zones between potash
mines and oil and gas drilling, among other requirements. The Permian
Basin's potash reserves are some

[[Page H5618]]

of the purist in the world, and our oil and gas drilling plays a key
role in the current energy boom that the country is experiencing.
There is a very long history between potash and drilling operators in
the region, and the secretarial order helped to clarify some of those
issues. I've spent the better part of my career in Congress working to
facilitate an agreement between these two industries to ensure both are
able to thrive simultaneously. While some have criticisms of the
secretarial order, it is an important step in the process of assuring
the safe extraction of mineral resources.
My amendment simply clarifies that the text of the bill cannot be
used by the Bureau of Land Management to show favoritism for either
potash or oil and gas leases within the area laid out in the
secretarial order. It does not affect the underlying bill, and it does
not cost the American taxpayers a single dime. It brings economic
stability to the Permian Basin and ensures that these two mineral
resources can be safely and properly developed side by side.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time that is allotted to
the opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose
it.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
on this amendment because it makes a point very well that I was making
earlier today.
We have criticized this bill because, while it is being sold as
necessary for critical and strategic minerals, the definition is so
broad that it would cover virtually all mining on public lands. Mr.
Pearce shares our concern. The gentleman is worried that, if H.R. 761
is enacted, the definition is broad enough that it would cover even
potash.
Now, potash is important as fertilizer for crops and for other
purposes, but let's be clear--it is not used very much in high-tech
manufacturing; it is not used in manufacturing items that are important
for our national defense; and it is not scarce. It is one of a long
list of minerals that produces money for miners, but it should not be
covered under this very broad definition in the underlying bill.
I agree with Mr. Pearce that potash could be covered under this
legislation, and we agree that elevating mining for potash on public
lands under this bill could impact other uses of those lands, including
the development of oil and gas, so I am happy to support this amendment
to clarify this overly broad definition.
I would like to note that we had an amendment a few moments ago,
offered by our colleague Mr. Lowenthal, which would fix the definition
in this bill by limiting the bill to truly strategic and critical
minerals determined to be, as the gentleman Mr. Lowenthal described, a
really thorough and, let's say, academic definition of those minerals.
It would address not only Mr. Pearce's concerns, but it would solve one
of the overall problems of this bill.
I am happy to support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for
making our case for us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to differ with the gentleman
from New Jersey, my friend.
He said that potash is not very high-tech. When you use a scoop
shovel to follow the cows around and use the byproduct from the cattle
to fertilize with, potash is extremely high-tech.
So, with that one exception, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, nothing in this bill impacts the important multiple use
mission of our Nation's public lands. One of the great stories of
America is that our Nation recognizes the importance of balancing our
land use for many different needs, including mineral and oil and gas
development, renewable energy projects, grazing, timber harvests,
hunting, fishing, recreation, and other important activities that bring
economic vitality to our public lands.
This legislation doesn't change that. It simply addresses the long
bureaucratic and burdensome permitting timelines required for mineral
exploration and mine development by building on executive orders
requiring coordination by regulatory agencies to process permits for
infrastructure projects in a timely manner and without compromising
environmental safeguards.
Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no other comments, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1530

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fortenberry, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had
come to no resolution thereon.

____________________