[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 155 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7107-H7119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 481 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on
[[Page H7108]]
the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1937.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1323
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. 1937) 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. Marchant in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1937, the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015. This bill was introduced
by my good friend and colleague, Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada,
and myself as the first cosponsor.
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 BlackBerries, no iPhones. There would
be no MRIs, CAT scans, 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 and strategic minerals that make our
lives 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 critical materials have resulted in China
producing 97 percent of the world's supply. That is 97 percent.
Our current policies are handing China a monopoly on these elements,
creating a dependence that has serious implications for American jobs,
for 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, such as China,
for these raw materials.
The lack of domestically produced strategic and critical minerals are
prime examples of how the U.S. has regulated itself into a 100 percent
dependency on at least 19 critical and unique minerals. It has also
earned the United States the unique and unfortunate distinction of
being ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects.
The 2014 ranking of countries for mining investment out of 25 major
mining countries found that the 7- to 10-year permitting delays are the
most significant risk to mining projects in the U.S. We are dead last
in that ranking. I can't speak for the other countries, but the reason
the U.S. is so slow to issue new mining permits is very simple:
government bureaucracy.
H.R. 1937, introduced by my colleague from Nevada, will help us end
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 for the total review process for permitting at 30 months, 2\1/2\
years.
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 lives and for our
national security. No company can reasonably forecast the price of
minerals 10 years in advance.
Finally, above all, this is a Jobs bill. The positive economic impact
of this bill will extend beyond just the mining industry. For every
good-paying metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3 additional jobs
are generated. 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 a U.S. mining renaissance that will bring mining
and manufacturing jobs back.
The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, H.R.
1937, is important to our jobs and to our economy. We must act now to
cut the Government red tape that is stopping American domestic
production and furthering our dependence on foreign countries for our
mineral needs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill takes us in the wrong direction. It not only fails to make
any meaningful reforms to our antiquated system of mining in this
country, but it proposes to make them worse. We have a mining system
that was put together in the 1870s when the number one goal for
President Grant at that time was to get people to settle in the West. I
am here to tell you, Mr. Chair, the West has been settled.
As a resident of southern California, we have this 150-year-old bill
that really makes things as easy as possible for miners. We still have
a law that doesn't require any royalties to be paid on the extraction
of hard rock minerals on public lands. Let's be clear. If you drill for
oil or gas on public lands or mine coal or soda ash or potash or a
number of other minerals, what do you do? You pay a royalty to the
American taxpayer, but not if you mine copper or silver or platinum or
gold or other valuables. You get to mine royalty free.
When the Mining Law of 1872 was enacted, there was no such thing as
environmental safeguards. There was no concept of the multiple uses of
public lands to ensure that mining could coexist with grazing, with
recreation or conservation. There were no requirements for miners to
clean up after themselves when they were done mining. Simply mine as
long as it is profitable, and when you are done, just pick up and
leave, and don't worry about it, except that the people who live
anywhere near the half million abandoned mines in this country need to
worry about it. Communities located near the tens of thousands of miles
of polluted rivers with toxic acid mine waste, they need to worry about
it, and, certainly, the United States Congress needs to worry about it.
But, instead of tackling this problem, what does this bill do? It
declares that the biggest problem we have with mining in this country
is that we are not doing it fast enough.
So this bill proposes to undermine one of our bedrock environmental
laws--the National Environmental Policy Act--and it makes land managers
who are reviewing mine plans prioritize mineral production over every
other potential use of the land, which threatens hunting, fishing,
grazing, and conservation.
Mr. Chair, it would be one thing if the data showed that a large
number of mines were being delayed for no good reason; but, in fact,
according to the data from the Bureau of Land Management, mines are
getting approved much faster. We just heard that it takes a decade, but
let's be clear what the data says.
Between 2005 and 2008, on average, 54 percent of the plans were
approved in less than 3 years. In 2009 to 2014, 69 percent of the plans
were approved in less than 3 years. So, in reality, rather than
[[Page H7109]]
taking a decade, we are seeing that the Obama administration is
permitting mines at a much faster rate than the Bush administration.
Now, I have an amendment that would address one of the key problems
in this bill. This bill has an incredibly broad definition of what is a
strategic and critical mineral. I have yet to hear anyone tell me--and
we asked in committee--what mineral now doesn't qualify as strategic
and critical under this bill. Certainly, none of the witnesses we had
at our Natural Resources Committee hearing could, and the majority
hasn't suggested anything. Now we are talking about expediting the
process for sand and gravel, crushed stones, gold, silver, diamonds.
All of these are now going to be considered strategic and critical by
the definition in this bill. All get an expedited process for
permitting, and they have weaker environmental reviews.
But, even if this bill were limited to the definition for critical
minerals that the rest of the world goes by--basically, that those
minerals be important, they be unique, and, most importantly, we are
defining them as strategic and critical minerals because they are
subject to a supply risk--it is clear that this bill does not help.
We had one rare earth element mine start up in this country a few
years ago. The rare earth elements are ones that are truly critical.
Two months ago, that mine stopped operating because prices were too
low. That is what has happened. That one mine was already permitted,
already built, and already operating, and it had to be shut down
because of economics.
I don't think changing the environmental laws in any way solves the
problem of economics, but it certainly would help major international
mining conglomerates--companies based in Canada or Australia. It is
going to help them grease the skids when they want to open their next
giant copper mine or gold mine or uranium mine right next to a national
park or a sensitive watershed.
Mr. Chair, this bill is bad policy. The outcomes here won't be any
different than the outcomes over the past two Congresses. This bill is
dead on arrival in the Senate, and the administration has already
expressed its strong opposition.
What should we be doing?
We should be here today, discussing how to fix our outdated and
antiquated mining laws, how to make mining companies pay their fair
share, how to clean up the half million abandoned mines that litter our
landscape from coast to coast. We shouldn't be here talking about a
bill that is only going to make things worse.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1937.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out to my friend and colleague from California that the
National Research Council study has said: ``All minerals and mineral
products could be or could become critical to some degree depending on
their importance and availability.''
So you have to look at the total circumstances surrounding the
current supply of a mineral and what that mineral is, and they all,
literally, could fit that definition according to the National Research
Council.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great
State of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), my colleague, who is also the vice
chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I want to thank Chairman Lamborn and my good friend and
fellow Western Caucus member, Nevada Representative Amodei, for their
work on this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, let me start by addressing why strategic minerals
matter and why we ought to have a piece of legislation like this.
My home State of Wyoming is the headquarters for our Nation's nuclear
intercontinental ballistic missile force. These missiles ensure that
those who would do us harm are deterred from using nuclear weapons.
These weapons are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but they
need regular maintenance and replacement components. Rare earth
elements are an important part of these components--from batteries, to
computer chips, to display screens and engines. These components--
components vital to our technological edge--would require elements that
can be difficult to procure.
Now, China controls nearly 80 percent of rare earth production. As we
know, China has used this leverage to bully our allies, to limit
exports at a time of a dispute, especially recently, with Japan over
the control of islands in the South China Sea. The U.S. Navy plans to
conduct operations in the area to remind China of the importance of
respecting maritime boundaries and the freedom of navigation; but China
is using its 80 percent share of rare earth minerals to leverage our
allies. They can do it anytime they want because they have such massive
control of this resource.
The bill that Mr. Amodei is sponsoring, the National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act, would simplify the permitting process
for domestic mines that will provide resources used in components that
are vital to our national security. That is why we need to do it.
Here is an example of the existing problem.
In my home State of Wyoming, the Bear Lodge Critical Rare Earth
Project has been going through the current process since 2011. It will
be the only large-scale production facility in the U.S. for some rare
earth elements designated as critical by the U.S. Department of Energy.
They have to coordinate their permit application between the Forest
Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Department of Energy.
Under Mr. Amodei's legislation, one Federal agency would become the
lead agency and set project timelines for permit applications and
decisions. The total review process would not be authorized to exceed
30 months unless extended by all parties involved. These parties would
include State and local governments and local stakeholders. This
ensures that local voices will be heard.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough how important I think this
legislation is. I am a cosponsor of the legislation. It passed the
House in previous Congresses on a bipartisan basis. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1937. I thank Mr. Amodei for his
thoughtful consideration of this bill.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to point out that the proponent of the bill has
said--I believe it was the National Research Council--that all minerals
and products could be or could become critical to some degree. That is
really what they said, but let's be clear what this bill says and what
the National Research Council's definition is. That is, really, what we
are talking about, and we are going to discuss that later on.
Just what is the definition?
In the bill that we see before us, in terms of strategic and critical
minerals, the term ``strategic and critical'' means minerals that are
necessary for national defense and national security requirements--
there certainly are some of those--for the national energy
infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical
power generation, and transmission and renewable energy products, for
supporting the domestic manufacturing of any mineral for agriculture,
housing, telecommunications, health care, transportation and
infrastructure, or for the Nation's economic security and balance of
trade. For that reason, they are saying let's shorten the process,
eviscerate NEPA--the National Environmental Policy Act--and let's
expedite this process.
I ask you: What mineral is not included in this definition? They are
including everything.
Let's see what, in actuality, the National Research Council said.
They published the report in 2008. It was called: ``Minerals, Critical
Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it defined what should be our
definition of strategic and critical minerals.
It states: ``To be `critical,' a mineral must be essential in use.''
We agree. They talk about strategic, and those proponents talk about
essential minerals; but the National Research Council also says: ``To
be considered `critical and strategic,' it must be subject
[[Page H7110]]
to supply restriction.'' We do not see anything in this bill about
supply restriction.
Therefore, what it is is a blank check for mining companies to mine
anywhere, to have an expedited process so as not to protect
communities; and I think that is a great mistake and takes us the wrong
way and is exactly the opposite of what the National Research Council
has called for.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is also a member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1937, the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act.
This commonsense legislation will streamline the permitting process
and allow for better coordination amongst the relevant State and
Federal agencies in order to foster economic growth, create jobs, and
ensure a robust domestic supply of strategic and critical minerals.
People have been digging in Arizona for precious metals for
centuries. In the 1850s, nearly one in every four people in Arizona was
a miner. Without a doubt, mining fueled the growth that makes Arizona
the State it is today. In fact, it is part of the five Cs that built
Arizona with copper.
{time} 1345
Today, the Arizona mining industry is alive. Minerals such as copper,
coal, gold, uranium, lime, and potash are still mined throughout my
district, but not at the levels they used to be.
These projects employ hundreds of my constituents with high-paying
jobs, jobs that pay over $50,000 to $60,000 a year, plus benefits. In
rural Arizona, these types of jobs are few and far between.
As I meet with companies that do business throughout my State, the
message is clear: we could do better. The length, complexity, and
uncertainty of the permitting process is stymieing development and
discouraging investors from committing to U.S. mining.
The folks on the ground tell me that because of regulatory excessive
overreach by the Federal Government and the cumbersome permitting
process, that it can take as long as 10 years. It is becoming a bad
business decision to even attempt to get a new U.S. mine off the
ground, despite a bountiful supply of domestic resources. We must
correct this problem and prevent more American jobs from leaving
America.
Rare earth and other critical minerals have been discovered
throughout rural Arizona, have been the main economic driver and
provider of jobs for communities that otherwise probably wouldn't make
it at all. The critical minerals produced in these areas are resources
our country badly needs to meet the demand for production of everyday
items like cell phones, computers, batteries, and cars.
Let's lessen our dependency on importing critical minerals from
countries like China and restore some sanity to our permitting and
regulatory process so we can get American miners back to work. Imagine
our slogan, ``Made in the USA with materials mined in the USA.'' Now,
that is what this bill is all about.
I applaud Mr. Amodei for his leadership on this critical issue and
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1937.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, today we are debating yet another
Republican bill restricting access to the courts to only those with
deep pockets. H.R. 1937 continues the alarming trend of Republican-
sponsored legislation that proposes to limit the average American's
access to the courts so businesses that line the pockets of these
politicians with campaign contributions can continue to profit.
Misleadingly disguised as a bill stimulating the increased production
of strategic minerals, this legislation is actually about shielding the
mining industry's poor environmental practices from accountability to
victims while simultaneously disenfranchising mining-impacted
communities.
H.R. 1937 allows regulators to exempt mining projects from the Equal
Access to Justice Act, EAJA. The EAJA allows average Americans access
to legal representation to protect their communities. Without EAJA,
impacted communities cannot afford lawyers, much less the litany of
scientific and technical experts needed to mount a serious challenge to
a multinational mining company. This exemption cripples the ability of
those concerned with environmental protection to seek representation
and redress in the courts.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and
preserve justice for all.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), a senior member of the Natural Resources Committee.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I am very proud of this bill, and I
am a sponsor of this bill, and no one is lining my pockets. I resent
that comment. I am thinking of the United States of America and how we
are importing these 31 known minerals and the process that we have to
go through to mine our own natural resources in our great Nation.
It impedes our capability to be secure, regardless of what one might
say. You just don't do this overnight. You have to have time to
develop, especially the rare earths. The rest of the minerals we are
importing using outside people, countries to import those products
from, which we live with. We have people in this Congress and across
this place who say we don't need it. We have to follow the example.
By the way, if a miner tries to develop a mine, you have to go
through so many different permits; and then when you get done, guess
what we have. The lawyers from the big, big environmental organizations
like the Safari Club, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, all 58
different groups, file suit by a legal body that impedes the progress
for this Nation.
We cannot continue to import all which we need to have this living
style we have today, yet that is what a lot of people on that side of
the aisle insist upon.
This is a good bill. Mr. Amodei thought about this bill. How do we
retain our security? But more than that, how do we keep jobs within the
United States? His comment is ``made in the United States by resources
mined in the United States.'' That is what we should be looking at as
this Congress instead of following, I call it, the blind piper: We
don't need to drill our oil; we will buy it from abroad. We don't need
to mine our minerals; we will buy it from abroad. And, by the way, we
will ship our jobs overseas, and we will be further in debt $18
trillion.
We need our resources. That is what made this Nation great.
Everything in this room, in these hallowed Halls, this body came from
the earth. It was mined, it was cut, it was manufactured from the
earth. Why should we buy it from abroad?
Let's be American. Let's mine for our resources. Let's cut our trees
for our resources. Let's build our resources. As it says right up
there: ``Let us use our resources God has given for the benefit of
mankind.'' If we don't do that, we are abusing the job we have here.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would really like to discuss in a little bit more detail the idea
that the permitting process is so onerous, that it takes so long to do
it.
In 2012, 2013, and 2014, let's talk about the last 3 years of
permitting of mines, of plans of operation, what really is the data? I
will tell you that of all the plans of operation that were approved in
2012, 93 percent of them were done in 3 years or less; in 2013, 79
percent were done in 3 years or less; and in 2014, it was 68 percent.
In summary, in the last 3 years, close to 80 percent of all plans of
operation were permitted in less than 3 years. So we are not talking
about an onerous time.
Also, let us remember that the same bill was twice introduced last
year. It was twice introduced in the last session, and it was also
introduced once in the 112th Congress. It never got taken up in the
Senate.
This bill, if it ever did get through, let's see what the
administration says. I read to you a Statement of Administration
Policy:
[[Page H7111]]
``The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1937, which would
undermine existing environmental safeguards for, at a minimum, almost
all types of hardrock mines on Federal lands. Specifically, H.R. 1937
would undermine sound Federal decision-making by eliminating the
appropriate reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act if
certain conditions are met, circumventing public involvement in mining
proposals, and bypassing the formulation of alternatives to proposals,
among other things. The Administration also opposes the legislation's
severe restrictions on judicial review. Although the legislation
purports to limit litigation, its extremely short statute of
limitations and vague constraints on the scope of prospective relief
that a court may issue are likely to have the opposite effect.
``The Administration strongly supports the development of rare earth
elements and other critical minerals, but rejects the notion that their
development is incompatible with existing safeguards regarding the uses
of public lands, environmental protection, and public involvement in
agency decision-making.''
If we are really concerned about updating this old law, let's work
together and come up with a better definition of what is a critical and
strategic mineral and let us not eviscerate the environmental
protections and the public participation which we now afford people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an exchange of
letters between Chairman Bishop and Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary
Committee on this bill.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, 28 July 2015.
Hon. Robert Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 9, 2015, the Committee on
Natural Resources ordered favorably report H.R. 1937,
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of
2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on
Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it
may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no
way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support having the Committee on the
Judiciary represented on the conference committee. Finally, I
would be pleased to include this letter and your response in
the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources
to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the
Congressional Record when the bill is considered by the
House. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and
for your continued strong cooperation between our committees.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, July 28, 2015.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop, I am writing with respect to H.R.
1937, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals
Production Act of 2015,'' which the Committee on Natural
Resources recently ordered reported favorably. As a result of
your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 1937 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. 1937 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 ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this
matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration of H.R. 1937.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, they once asked the famous spitball
pitcher Gaylord Perry if he put a foreign substance on the ball, and he
calmly answered: No. Vaseline is 100 percent American product.
We used to only have to import a handful of rare earth minerals in
this country, like eight. Today, we are importing dozens of them
because we have, with this administration, a policy of trying to
stockpile these resources. Hopefully, when we get through them, we will
be able to find some other country that can help us to resupply those
resources, kind of like Blanche in ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' where
we are dependent on the kindness of strangers at all times.
Would it not be wiser for us simply to have a consistent policy where
we actually have a workforce that is developing, on a regular basis,
these rare earth minerals that we can have for our use so that we can
have the jobs from them, it can help our economy, and it could give us
the security we desperately need? We don't need to keep importing stuff
into this country. I mean, we imported the Expos from Montreal to here
in Washington. That should be sufficient. That is enough.
I read an article the other day about mining rare earth minerals in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo where rare minerals, necessary for
iPhones and the Samsung Galaxy phones, were being produced. Miners used
their bare hands to filter out the minerals in order to earn a whopping
$5 a day. If the miners use their hands to find the rare minerals, how
do you think they handled environment protections and how do you think
they reclaimed these projects?
What we need desperately is to use 21st century technology and pay
our labor force 21st century wages to produce the strategic and
critical minerals that are necessary for our way of life and not be
dependent on other countries for these minerals and not take advantage
of their miners. This is a no-brainer. Let's do the right thing. As
Satchel Paige said: Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.
We know what we are doing. Pass this bill. It is a good bill.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in
contravention of the law and rules of the House.
The Sergeant At Arms will remove those persons responsible for the
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Benishek), who is also a member of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1937,
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
Over the past several decades, our Nation has lagged far behind much
of the world in the development and extraction of domestic mineral
resources. Falling behind on this front has made our Nation dependent
on foreign sources of many vital mineral resources that our economy and
national defense need to continue functioning.
Falling behind has also led to the loss of good-paying jobs
throughout the country. We have seen this in my district in northern
Michigan in the mines that have shut down and the mines that have not
been permitted. There is a mine in the western part of my district that
has been over 10 years in the permitting process and is still not near
open. These jobs are critically needed in my district.
The mines of the U.P. have served our country in times of need,
providing many of the raw minerals that we have needed for national
defense. If the resources that we have beneath our feet were needed
today, these mines would have to go through a significant permitting
process that would likely take almost 20 years.
While I support making sure that we behave in an environmentally
responsible manner, it is ridiculous that overly burdensome Federal
regulations are keeping us from being competitive in the world economy.
This bill will cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape that is
holding our economy back, leading to a nation that is less dependent on
foreign resources for vital natural resources and creating jobs.
[[Page H7112]]
I urge all my colleagues to support the responsible development of
our domestic natural resources and to vote in favor of this commonsense
and long-overdue legislation.
{time} 1400
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
the Silver State, Nevada (Mr. Amodei), a former member of the Committee
on Natural Resources and the author of this bill.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, God forbid we place dealing with bedrock
American issues ahead of the culture of political cliche. It is always
nice to be informed of what the status is in the Intermountain West by
people from towns that end in the name ``Beach.''
I find it incredibly interesting that we have heard on several
occasions that the administration's average for the supermajority of
applications is 36 months or less and how we need to work together on
things when the legislation on the floor right now calls for a 30-month
timeframe, which is extendable, by the way, with the consent of both
parties.
So instead of, Well, let's have an amendment to make it 36 months and
put this on the suspension calendar, we are subjected to ``This is
bad'' and ``It disenfranchises the public'' and all that.
Let's talk about what this is really about. There is an old saying in
the law: When you have got the facts, you argue the facts. When you
have got the law, you argue the law. When you don't have either, you
just argue.
Here we are. Because everybody in the room knows, depending on what
side of the issue you are on, the big tool in this thing is, if we can
outwait them, the capital will go elsewhere. Guess what. The folks that
believe in that are winning.
When we talk about those bedrock American issues, things like jobs,
things like public participation--you know, 30 months, that is longer
than we get to hang out here after the people of our district give us
their voting card. That is longer--used to be--than somebody would take
to try to talk you into voting for them for Governor or President.
Nobody can accuse this legislation, at 2\1/2\ years, extendable by
stipulation, of forcing the public to sit on their hands. Jobs,
participation of the public, balance of trade, that is not important.
I mean, why should we be concerned about balance of trade and
exporting the minerals that this country is wealthy with? You want to
talk about abandoned mines? In my State, those folks happen to be doing
a great job. If you want to talk about the culture of the 1870s, yeah,
but it has come a long way.
God forbid, when we talk about paying your fair share, in my State,
the industry pays north of $80,000 a year. Those people pay Federal
income taxes. They buy goods and services that are federally taxed:
gasoline, tires, all that stuff. But, no, let's send those jobs
overseas where none of that happens. None of that happens. That is
smart policy. I simply disagree.
God forbid we talk about commercial supplies, national security,
strategic supplies. Other speakers have talked about that. This is not
some dream job for the minerals extraction industry.
Oh, by the way, let's not look at the folks down in the Palmetto
State right now who are experiencing phenomenal floods that might need
materials to kind of rebuild their State.
God forbid we talk about sand and gravel for those folks in the
Golden State after the Loma Prieta earthquake and they needed to
rebuild things called freeways lickety-split.
This is not about supplying sand for your kid's sandbox. This is not
about gravel for your driveway in your subdivision. This is about
having flexibility to address issues that are mineral related. Because
you know what, nobody has called this place, regardless of who is
running it, nimble.
When one of these issues comes up, God forbid you give them: That is
right, folks. Hang on to your hats. Thirty months to try to get the
permission from the Federal Government to extract minerals on that.
With all due respect, what this is all about is: Do you continue to
let folks who are opposed to things try to starve them out and wait and
wait and wait until the capital goes elsewhere or do you take the folks
and the administration's word: Nice job. Takes you 36 months? You want
us to change it to 33 months and put it on the suspension calendar? I
will do it. But short of that, me thinks thou doth protest too much.
I solicit your earnest support, and I am looking forward to the
Senate work on it this time because we are nimble compared to those
folks on the north end of the building.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, we have heard in this discussion that we should have a
sweeping definition, every mineral should be under the definition of a
critical mineral, and that we should not be beholden to foreign sources
if we don't do that. Well, I agree in many ways. We should not be.
This bill doesn't really deal with that issue because, if the authors
were really concerned about restrictions to the supply, they would make
the definition of ``critical'' and ``strategic minerals'' much
narrower. We would not give up our environmental protections. We would
not give up our public participation. We would not give up our legal
protections when, in fact, there is no danger to the Nation's supply of
this mineral.
The problems are really that we are now broadly including everything
under this definition, and the bill that is in the Senate under--I
think it is Senator Murkowski--has a much more limited definition of
what is a strategic and critical mineral.
I urge the authors here, the proponents, to really amend this bill so
that we can all work together on this to really restrict the two very
specific occasions of when we would enable a change in the protections
that we already have under NEPA. Right now, everything is included.
This eviscerates all of our protections. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, much has been debated here on the floor about what is
strategic and what is not strategic. Let me suggest two ways that you
could define strategic minerals.
You could define it by making a definition so narrow that, in effect,
the legislation picks winners and losers or you could write law that
says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the
driver of what is strategic and critical. That means the marketplace
will decide what is strategic and critical.
I think that is a much better approach when I talk about this because
I recall hearing that, in the late 1890s, the U.S. Patent Office issued
a statement--I think I have this correct here--saying that we ought to
close down the U.S. Patent Office because everything that can be
invented has been invented.
That was in the 1890s. That was before airplanes. That was before
cars were commercially available. That was before most
telecommunications. This means all the minerals that go into these
things weren't even thought of at that time.
What we do in this bill is just very straightforward. We say that the
strategic and critical minerals will meet any of the following four
criteria--and, by the way, you can find these on page 5, section 3,
under ``Definitions'':
A, for national defense and national security. That is so evident, it
hardly needs to be debated.
B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines and
refining. That is because of the importance of energy. That certainly
should not be debated because we have to have a good energy source if
we are going to have a growing economy.
Also, C, to support domestic manufacturing. That includes, obviously,
agriculture and housing as well. In other words, to support our
economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of strategic and
critical minerals for that?
Finally, D, for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade.
That
[[Page H7113]]
makes such good sense because we are seriously out of balance now with
China.
This approach is more of a long-term solution because 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, as the other
side would suggest, that we don't know what that technology is, we
have, in fact, been picking winners and losers, and that is the wrong
approach.
The right approach is what is embodied in this bill to say that these
four conditions will be the ones that define strategic and critical
minerals.
Finally, let me close on this: Some people make fun of sand and
gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that, after a major
earthquake in northern or southern California, when the freeways
collapse, I can tell you that cement and sand and gravel will
absolutely fit that definition.
In this bill, strategic and critical minerals are not defined, as
some have suggested, as all minerals all the time. Instead, H.R. 1937
allows any mineral to be deemed strategic and critical at a given time
when the appropriate situation warrants it. This is vital to protecting
our economy, our jobs, and our way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1937
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 2015''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The industrialization of developing nations has driven
demand for nonfuel minerals 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 45 nonfuel mineral materials, 8 of
which the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation's
requirements, and for another 19 commodities the United
States imported more than 50 percent of the Nation's needs.
(B) By 2014 the United States import dependence for nonfuel
mineral materials increased from 45 to 65 commodities, 19 of
which the United States imported for 100 percent of the
Nation's requirements, and an additional 24 of which the
United States imported for more than 50 percent of the
Nation's needs.
(C) The United States share of worldwide mineral
exploration dollars was 7 percent in 2014, down from 19
percent in the early 1990s.
(D) In the 2014 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment
(out of 25 major mining countries), found that 7- to 10-year
permitting delays are the most significant risk to mining
projects in the United States.
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--
(A) Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
authorizations for pre-mining activities that require
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) plans of operation issued by the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and
36 CFR 228A or the authorities listed in 43 CFR 3503.13,
respectively, as amended from time to time.
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 within the lead agency 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.--
(1) In general.--To the extent that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
applies to the issuance of any mineral exploration or mine
permit, the requirements of such Act shall be deemed to have
been procedurally and substantively satisfied if the lead
agency determines that any State and/or Federal agency acting
pursuant to State or Federal (or both) statutory or
procedural authorities, has addressed or will address the
following factors:
(A) The environmental impact of the action to be conducted
under the permit.
(B) Possible adverse environmental effects of actions under
the permit.
(C) Possible alternatives to issuance of the permit.
(D) The relationship between local long- and short-term
uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity.
(E) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources that would be involved in the proposed action.
(F) That public participation will occur during the
decisionmaking process for authorizing actions under the
permit.
(2) Written requirement.--In reaching a determination under
paragraph (1), the lead agency shall, by no later than 90
days after receipt of an application for the permit, in a
written record of decision--
(A) explain the rationale used in reaching its
determination;
(B) state the facts in the record that are the basis for
the determination; and
(C) show that the facts in the record could allow a
reasonable person to reach the same determination as the lead
agency did.
(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. For purposes of this
subsection, the lead agency shall consider the following
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) Memorandum of Agency Agreement.--If requested at any
time by a State or local planning agency, the lead agency
with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit, in consultation with other Federal agencies with
relevant jurisdiction in the environmental review process,
may establish memoranda of agreement with the project
sponsor, State and local governments, and other appropriate
entities to accomplish the early coordination activities
described in subsection (c).
(e) Schedule for Permitting Process.--For any project for
which the lead agency cannot make the determination described
in 102(b), 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 for the following:
(1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(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.
[[Page H7114]]
(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.
(f) Time Limit for Permitting Process.--In no case should
the total review process described in subsection (d) exceed
30 months unless extended by the signatories of the
agreement.
(g) 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.
(h) 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.
(i) 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.
(j) 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 of 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 marketplace.
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.
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. No amendment to this bill is in order except for those
printed in House Report 114-301. 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 114-301.
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 1 through 15 and insert the following:
(1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic
and critical minerals''--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means--
(i) minerals and mineral groups identified as critical by
the National Research Council in the report titled
``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S Economy'' and
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) does not include sand, gravel, or clay.
Page 5, line 25, after ``ties'' insert ``for strategic and
critical minerals''.
Page 6, line 3, after ``operation'' insert ``for strategic
and critical mineral mines''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix a critical problem with this
bill, namely, that the name of the bill doesn't match the substance of
the bill.
When you read the title, you would think this bill has something to
do with critical and strategic minerals, but, in fact, as currently
written, the bill would define practically every mined substance--and
that is every mined substance in the United States--as being strategic
and critical. Sand, gravel, gold, copper, clay, all of these, are
strategic and critical under this bill, and I think that is going too
far.
In fact, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what mineral
wouldn't fall under the definition of this bill. Certainly none of the
witnesses at our June Committee on Natural Resources could name one.
The National Research Council published a 2008 report called
``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it states:
To be critical, a mineral must be both essential in use and subject to
supply restriction.
They go on to point out some specific examples of minerals that are
essential, but not critical, such as copper, iron ore, and construction
aggregates, such as sand and gravel, except that this bill would
completely ignore the National Research Council and many other
organizations that know what criticality means and define all of
these--copper, iron ore, sand, gravel, and more--as strategic and
critical minerals.
There is no doubt that these minerals are essential, but they are
widely produced in the United States, and there is no danger of a break
in the supply chain. Let me state that again. There is no danger of a
break in the supply chain.
Let's talk about the sand and gravel that was just mentioned before.
There are roughly 6500 sand and gravel quarries in the United States.
We are not
[[Page H7115]]
going to run out of gravel by not permitting one more gravel mine.
Gravel is important, but no one from the National Research Council or
the Department of Energy or any organization that knows the real
definition of critical minerals would consider sand and gravel to fall
in that category, period, end of discussion.
My amendment would ensure that the scientifically vetted definition
determined by the NRC is what the Secretary of the Interior uses to
assess the criticality of minerals to be mined under this bill. It
would ensure that the bill actually addresses the intent that is
suggested by its own title: critical minerals.
{time} 1415
It puts no time limits on the identification of these minerals. So,
as conditions change over time, the Secretary would be able to add or
remove items from the list of critical minerals, as necessary.
Republicans in the Senate understand this. Senator Murkowski, the
chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which oversees
mining, has introduced a bill that requires a methodology for
determining which minerals would qualify as critical.
That methodology is to be based on an assessment of--I quote in her
bill--``whether the materials are subject to potential supply
restrictions and also important in use.''
I may not agree with everything that is in Senator Murkowski's bill,
but I believe that she at least understands the definition of a
critical mineral and is making a serious attempt to expand the
production of minerals that are actually critically important and
strategic.
But without my amendment, this bill is just a guise for mining
interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental
protections for all hardrock mining.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response, I just have to say one word: earthquake.
During the 2008 Great Southern California ShakeOut, which studied and
analyzed the potential effects of a major earthquake, the USGS
discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials,
namely, sand and gravel, if there was a major earthquake, God forbid,
causing significant damage in the L.A. basin and the surrounding areas.
This amendment, if we accept it, would preclude that sand and gravel
would be defined as critical, hindering expedited development of these
resources.
Furthermore, by explicitly excluding sand, gravel or clay, this
amendment is at fundamental odds with the National Research Council
study--I have quoted it earlier--which stated: ``All minerals and
mineral products could be or could become critical to some degree,
depending on their importance and availability.''
The California Geological Survey recently released information
forecasting a continuing shortage in California of permitted aggregate
resources so as to meet only one-third of demand over the next 50 years
in the State of California.
So we have a shortage coming, whether people like it or not, and that
is without a major earthquake. Once again, God forbid.
The bill, as currently structured, does allow the market and the
Nation's needs to define a mineral as critical, thereby allowing the
flexibility necessary for carrying out the provisions of the act.
However, this amendment would hinder the efficiency and fluidity this
bill seeks to inject into the permitting process for critical and
strategic minerals by imposing an extra bureaucratic determination to
be made by the Secretary of the Interior. It also picks winners and
losers in the mining industry.
So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in conclusion,
that we are talking about a definition of critical and strategic
minerals that comes from the NRC, or the National Resource Council,
that really talks about things that are essential.
But it also says that, to be declared critical, it must have a danger
of disruption in the supply chain. We must have a limit to where we can
access other materials.
As it was just pointed out, what happens if there is an earthquake in
Southern California? God help us. Let's hope that there is not going to
be an earthquake in Southern California. And there is a limitation on
the supply.
I would like to urge us to say that the Secretary has the ability to
change what is on that list or not under my amendment.
I urge support of my amendment.
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 Mrs. Dingell
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 114-301.
Mrs. DINGELL. 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 7, strike line 5 and all that follows
through page 8, line 18, and insert the following:
(b) Treatment of Permits Under NEPA.--Issuance of a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall be treated as a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment for purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
Beginning at page 9, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 12, line 21.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
There are several troubling positions in this legislation, many of
which my other colleagues have already addressed this afternoon. But I
am particularly concerned with how H.R. 1937 treats the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as it has become known.
If this bill were to become law, public comment would be severely
limited and, in some instances, a proper environmental review may not
be conducted at all.
The underlying bill employs a functional equivalence standard, which
would permit the lead agency to circumvent a NEPA review if other
agencies have performed reviews that are determined to be equivalent.
There are several problems with this approach.
First, it is not clear that the six factors listed in the bill
compromise all that a NEPA document would explore. So if functional
equivalence was applied, the public may not have the complete story
about the environmental impacts of a specific project.
Second, case law demonstrates that functional equivalence has
historically not been extended to other agencies beyond the EPA because
they are simply not equipped to do that kind of work.
That is why the committee heard testimony earlier this year that this
provision ignores Congress' choices in NEPA, as well as the judiciary's
struggle with functional equivalence.
My amendment strikes the functional equivalence provisions and
replaces it with the language that makes it clear that all mine
explorations or mine permits are major Federal actions and would
require an environmental impact statement under NEPA.
It is well known that hardrock mining can have adverse health
impacts, and these projects deserve a formal environmental review.
NEPA has a simple premise: Look before you leap. This landmark law
gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions
proposed by
[[Page H7116]]
the government, adding to the evaluation process unique perspectives
that highly specialized, mission-driven agencies might otherwise
ignore.
We should be preserving and protecting this important tool for public
participation rather than undermining it.
I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would urge rejection of this amendment because it would make the
permitting process for critical and strategic minerals even worse than
it currently is. It is already 7 to 10 or more years. It is dead last
in the 25 major mineral-producing countries in the world, according to
that recent study we cited earlier.
This amendment would strike several key sections of the bill,
including the NEPA provisions, the expedited schedule provision, the
time limit provision, and the applicability of this law to existing
permit application provision.
First, this amendment seeks to remove the NEPA provisions. Our
provision does not sidestep or avoid the NEPA process in any way;
rather, it codifies a judicial determination for NEPA known as the
functional equivalence doctrine.
This doctrine provides that, when an agency action, whether State or
Federal, has addressed the substantive requirements of NEPA, such
action may be substituted as sufficient rather than having to prepare
an entirely new and duplicative environmental study.
This amendment rejects the functional equivalence doctrine and
mandates that the issuance of every mineral exploration or mine permit
constitutes a ``major Federal action,'' thereby requiring the
development of costly and time-consuming environmental impact
statements, regardless of a proposed project's size.
Furthermore, this amendment strikes the provisions of the bill that
requires the authorizing agency to develop a schedule for the permit
process, and it removes the 30-month time constraints that would be put
on said authorizing agency.
In other words, it restores the current 7- to 10-year permit process
that plagues the mining industry and the production of jobs and the
growth of our economy.
Let me mention one thing about automobile manufacturing in
particular. An automobile contains rare earths for magnets, copper,
aluminum, platinum, and many other critical minerals and elements.
According to Rare Earth Technology Alliance, the average hybrid car
contains 61 pounds of rare earth metals. So it is important that we
pass this bill.
This amendment unfortunately guts the bill. I would urge opposition
to it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly respond to some of the
points made by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I do recognize the importance of those metals in auto production. It
is important to me. But this bill isn't going to impact them.
To be frank, I think this bill is a solution in search of a problem.
NEPA is often a scapegoat for permitting delays, but this does not hold
up when you closely examine the facts.
In fact, since 2008, the approval time for hardrock mines has
decreased. Last year the average time it took to approve a plan of
operations for a hardrock mine was 17 months--17 months--not 10 years.
I want jobs as much as my colleagues do on the other side of the
aisle, but I want to protect people. Project complexity, local
opposition, and the lack of funding are almost always the culprits for
a project being delayed, but everybody wants to blame NEPA unfairly.
Hardrock mines could pose significant threats to public health,
water, and the environment. We must ensure that every mining
application is properly reviewed under NEPA, as my amendment proposes.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind us all that America
has a plentiful supply of rare earth elements, but there are roadblocks
to developing them, such that China produces 97 percent of the world's
supply and there are at least 19 unique minerals that the U.S. has zero
supply of.
So if we continue the current regime of 7 to 10 years to permit a
mine project--and that is what will happen if we don't pass this bill--
then we are going to be dependent on other countries and automobile and
all kinds of manufacturing will be affected.
The 2014 ranking of countries for mining investment, out of the 25
major mining companies, found that the delays that we have in this
country are the worst in the world; yet, we have such tremendous
resources if we were only to use them.
So I think this bill is a good faith and reasonable effort to strike
the balance between proper environmental protection by keeping
functional equivalence and, yet, producing the minerals that will give
us the jobs we need.
Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cartwright
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 114-301.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, 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 14, line 1, strike title II.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, just off the floor of the House of Representatives, steps
outside the door, we have a magnificent statue of one of our Founding
Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson said: ``I consider trial by jury as the only anchor
ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the
principles of its constitution.''
The amendment I offer today, Mr. Chair, ensures that an important
right of the American people is preserved: the right to hold the
government accountable for their actions, the right of ordinary
Americans to go into court and hold the government accountable.
The right to challenge the government in court should not be limited
to large groups that are well funded and have the financial ability to
pay for a lawyer, and that is exactly what this bill would do. This
right should be extended to every American citizen, every small
business, every nonprofit organization regardless of the size and scope
of their wallets.
Now, as a lifetime courtroom lawyer, I know the importance of being
able to access the court system. For many years, I fought to make sure
that ordinary Americans could have their day in court and hold
wrongdoers accountable.
Access to the courts is a key right envisioned by not only Thomas
Jefferson, but all of the Founding Fathers, and is protected by the
Equal Access to Justice Act, the EAJA, which allows eligible
individuals to recover fees and expenses from the government if they
win their day in court. As a Congressman and former trial attorney, I
cannot and will not stand by silently and watch this bill chip away at
this American right without standing up and speaking out.
By exempting exploration and mining permits from the Equal Access to
Justice Act, this bill prevents valid
[[Page H7117]]
claims from reaching the courts by prohibiting the government from
reimbursing legal expenses to parties that win in court. This overturns
30 years of legal precedent aimed at opening the court's doors to the
public.
What I can't understand is why any of my colleagues across the aisle
would want to limit review of the government's actions, given the
fairly consistent message we hear that government has gotten too big
and continues to come up with unnecessary rules and rulings.
EAJA allows average citizens to challenge this kind of thing in
court, challenge the very kind of supposed overreach that the majority
always likes to talk about.
We have heard time and time again from the majority that blocking
access to the courts is necessary to halt frivolous and unnecessary
litigation, as if judges are incapable or lack the intellectual rigor
to be able to figure it out for themselves; but it is this bill that is
frivolous and unnecessary, and the Congressional Budget Office proves
it.
The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimates that this bill,
H.R. 1937, would reduce direct spending by less than $50,000 a year. We
are throwing up a barrier to access the courts for a paltry $50,000 a
year.
But the larger point is this is money that is awarded to successful
claimants against the government. Why would you want to punish the
successful claimants in the name of cutting down on frivolous
litigation? Frivolous litigation, by definition, is claims that are so
bad, they couldn't possibly win in court and never do.
The only reason I can see for the EAJA exemption in this bill is that
it further solidifies industry's free pass to mine on U.S. public
lands. First, this bill limits public and agency consideration by
waiving the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and setting
unrealistic time limits. Then title II puts the nail in the coffin by
eliminating the public's last opportunity to review a mine's permit by
challenging it in open court.
My amendment today would strike all of title II, including the EAJA
exemption, in order to maintain this vital, time-honored American
public right to challenge the government's decisions in court.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes title II of the
bill, which addresses the judicial review of agency actions relating to
exploration and mine permits. This title is designed to address one of
the primary contributors to the long permitting timelines and delays we
have been talking about this afternoon: relentless litigation brought
by environmental organizations.
Regulatory agencies routinely try to craft a lawsuit-proof NEPA
document. However, that is impossible. They are going to get sued no
matter what. So title II seeks to provide some certainty in the
litigation process. Rather than prohibit or block litigation, it does
several reasonable things:
It expedites the judicial process by requiring timely filings no
later than 60 days after a final agency action. It just keeps the ball
rolling. That is entirely reasonable.
It requires the court to proceed expeditiously on reaching a
determination in the case. That also is entirely reasonable.
Furthermore, title II provides the project proponent a guaranteed
right to intervene. If a company has invested millions or even billions
of dollars in a project, they deserve an opportunity to go to court on
something that could adversely impact their investment. That, too, is
entirely reasonable.
Also, title II limits certain prospective attorneys' fees under the
Equal Access to Justice Act. This provision affects all parties to the
lawsuit, including permitholders, and has as its purpose dissuading
frivolous suits that would harm the Nation's ability to provide these
vital resources. That, too, is entirely reasonable.
So for those reasons, I would say, let's reject this amendment. Let's
keep title II in the bill. It is essential to have a predictable and
reasonable permitting timeline so that we can explore and develop these
resources to make our economy stronger. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I acknowledge my colleague from Colorado.
However, his silence on the point I was making is deafening.
The point I made is that cutting out EAJA from this act means that
you are attacking successful claims. If your point is to attack
frivolous lawsuits, you don't cut out reimbursing legal fees and costs
for successful claims. What are we really up to by doing that?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, just in answer to the gentleman's question, I
would point out that what happens right now is that the EAJA is
actually gamed. People can put in 15 or 20 frivolous claims, but if
they have a finding on one substantial thing--and always, those
lawsuits have a multitude of claims, but then one thing will be tucked
in that is simply procedural that the agency forgot the deadline, it
didn't have a meeting--and if the judge finds on one, then all are paid
for. So they are allowed to bring frivolous actions with one
substantiating claim, and it is those frivolous things that tie up and
hold up development.
No one objects to the fact that sometimes the agencies are wrong.
People do object to the fact that frivolous lawsuits come under the
cover of one thing that is just almost inane in the whole discussion.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I have a simple question.
Name one Federal judge who has granted all of the attorneys' fees
where there are 15 frivolous claims and one successful one.
I have never heard of such a thing.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. I would be happy to respond. I will provide the
documentation to the gentleman afterwards. I don't have it right here.
But we see these things in New Mexico.
Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, I will just conclude, Mr. Chairman,
by saying that this amendment is not a good amendment for the bill
because it guts title II.
We need some predictability in the litigation process as well as in
the government bureaucratic process. This allows parties to go to
court. It prevents the abuse of EAJA.
It is not the legitimate use of that law that we are after; it is the
abuse of that particular law. That is why it is addressed in this bill.
I would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 114-301.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike title III (page 15, beginning at line 15) and insert
the following:
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. SECRETARIAL ORDER NOT AFFECTED.
This Act shall not apply to any mineral described in
Secretarial Order 3324, issued by the Secretary of the
Interior on December 3, 2012, in any area to which the Order
applies.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, 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. Chair, in the Permian Basin, which the Second
District
[[Page H7118]]
of New Mexico falls just in the corner of that, two or three counties
have tremendous assets. It is home to some of the most prolific and
purest forms of potash, which is used for fertilizer, and then it also
has significant oil and gas.
When I was elected to Congress in 2002, one of the first things that
next year that we began to discover is that the oil and gas and potash
industries have had an approximately 50-year running battle against
each other. We began to try to sort through the differing opinions,
working with the agency, the Interior Department, and over the next 10
approximate years, worked out an agreement with the Secretary of the
Interior and the two different industries on how to both get along in
the same area. That was a significant undertaking. It was a significant
finding by the Interior Department and, again, took almost 10 years of
very delicate negotiations. So my amendment to this bill, H.R. 1937, is
simply to clarify that nothing in the bill overturns that agreement
that has been reached.
Again, this agreement came under the Obama administration but dated
back through the Bush administration, so it has been pretty well looked
at by both sides, both parties, and has been functioning very well.
It is my desire to simply get the clarifying language that nothing in
the bill is going to change that Secretarial order, and, likewise, the
amendment does nothing to change the language in the bill. It is just
clarifying that this is what we are going to do.
It is extremely important for New Mexico, but also for the Nation,
because the potash provides the fertilizer for food sources across the
Nation; but also, the oil and gas industry is providing much of the oil
and gas that is coming into America's supply right now and driving down
the price. The discoveries in that particular region will produce more
oil and gas in one county than has been produced in the entire State
for its entire history. So it is not as if these questions are
insignificant.
Again, my amendment is very straightforward. It just seeks to clarify
that nothing is going to affect that Secretarial order.
{time} 1445
Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. We support the amendment and commend the author for
offering it.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time that is allotted to the opposition to this amendment, although I
do not intend to oppose it.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting that this
amendment is coming up, as it has in the past, because it simply proves
the point we have been trying to make.
The larger point is that this bill is simply too broad. It covers
every possible mineral you could mine, including potash. I think the
gentleman from New Mexico would agree that potash is not a strategic
and critical mineral. It does not need the environmental review waivers
that this bill would provide.
What many of my colleagues and I are saying is that potash is no
different from many other minerals. The concern for southeastern New
Mexico is that potash development and oil and gas drilling should be
able to occur without conflict. This bill would threaten that.
Well, we want to make sure that mineral development doesn't conflict
with other things as well throughout the country, like hunting,
fishing, camping, grazing, recreating, conserving, and other legitimate
uses. Unfortunately, this bill threatens that, and we are likely not
going to grant exemptions for these purposes like we are for the oil
and gas industry.
I would certainly like it if sportsmen were protected from hastily
adopted and permitted sand and gravel quarries the same way you want
your oil and gas drillers to be protected from hastily permitted potash
mines.
Interestingly, potash is a mineral where we import over 80 percent of
our supply. We are entirely self-sufficient in sand and gravel. So, by
that standard, you could say that potash is more critical and strategic
than sand and gravel. But the majority will allow this amendment to be
adopted because it benefits oil and gas producers.
Mr. Chairman, meanwhile, the Lowenthal amendment, which takes sand
and gravel out of this bill for the benefit of everyone else in this
country, is likely to get voted down. I think that is unfortunate.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, this is an amendment that does not
change the underlying language of the bill. It simply seeks to clarify
to all parties that no change was intended and no change will occur to
the existing order from the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge everyone to support the amendment and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, 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.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 114-301.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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 __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. _01. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.
This Act shall not apply with respect to a proposed
strategic and critical minerals mining project unless the
project proponent demonstrates that the combined capacity of
existing mining operations in the United States producing the
same mineral product that will be produced by the project,
whether currently in operation or not, but not including
mining operations for which a reclamation plan is being
implemented or has been fully implemented, is less than 80
percent of the demand for that mineral product in the United
States.
SEC. _02. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND
SALE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
If any intermediate or final mineral product produced by a
strategic and critical minerals mining project is to be
transported or sold outside the United States, and the
project proponent cannot demonstrate that the annual
production of such product in the United States exceeds 80
percent of the demand for that product in the United States,
the project proponent shall publish at least once prior
notice of their intent to make such transport or sale in
national newspapers or trade publications, by electronic
means, or both, and on any Internet site that is maintained
by the project proponent.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, when I saw H.R. 1937 as submitted, I
agreed with the minority on the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee that it was in need of a significant amendment, in
particular, in the definition of ``strategic and critical minerals.''
The amendment submitted by Congressman Lowenthal is also a good basis
and would correct the bill. However, as this has been rejected in the
past, I took a less stringent approach that I believe would be a basis
that would at least eliminate the most egregious aspects of the
definition.
This bill addresses a real problem, which is that long permitting
delays for mining projects in the United States, especially in remote
or environmentally sensitive areas, can reach 7 to 10 years in some
cases.
This represents a significant project risk for potential investors,
which makes them historically more likely to develop projects outside
of the United States when there are opportunities to produce the same
mineral products.
Increasing international government scrutiny on environmental issues
for mining projects outside of the United States along with civil
instability in many mineral resource-rich countries
[[Page H7119]]
has prompted project proponents to look to the United States as a safer
alternative, given that projects can be developed in a reasonable
timeframe.
That said, Mr. Chairman, the majority's claims of mining permit
delays for all kinds of mining projects that prompted this bill are
unfounded. Last year the average time it took to approve a plan of
operations for a hardrock mine was 17 months, and since 2008, the
approval time has actually decreased. As of last year, the Obama
administration had approved 69 percent of hardrock mines within 3
years.
Rather than addressing the problem directly with the responsible
agencies, as President Obama did in his Presidential order ``Improving
Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure
Projects'' dated March 22, 2012, this bill is an end run around the
permitting process, the authority of the permitting agencies, and the
courts.
H.R. 1937 includes a very broad definition of ``strategic and
critical minerals'' that does not take into account whether these
minerals are actually in short supply in the United States. Under the
definition as written, cement, and wallboard, as well as gold and
diamonds would qualify. It makes one wonder if there is a strategic and
critical shortage of jewelry in the United States.
The authors of this bill say that they do not wish to identify which
mineral products are ``strategic and critical'' since this may change
over time with changes in national priorities. Therefore, this
amendment adds a simple test. This amendment requires proposed
``strategic and critical minerals'' projects to demonstrate that
domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical minerals is less
than 80 percent of domestic requirements. This would eliminate mineral
products such as sand and gravel, which the authors claim the bill was
never meant to encompass.
The amendment also requires that unless or until the domestic
capacity for a ``strategic and critical mineral'' product exceeds 80
percent of domestic requirements, the public will be notified of the
intent to transport or sell any final or intermediate strategic and
critical mineral products outside of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble understanding
where this amendment is headed and what it is really trying to do. If I
understand correctly, it proposes to limit export of strategic and
critical minerals if the supply of those minerals is greater than 80
percent of domestic demand. As I am trying to figure that out, one
thing that jumps out at me is why is 80 percent a significant
milestone? It seems sort of plucked out of thin air. It seems
arbitrary.
How would you measure and find that 80 percent of something that is
used in many ways around the country, I am not sure how that would be
done, by advertising in national newspapers or something? I am just a
little unsure.
Also, the amendment appears to be internally inconsistent. On one
hand, the amendment seeks to prevent the use of the bill's provisions
if the supply is greater than 80 percent of domestic demands. On the
other hand, the amendment says that the project proponent cannot show
that production exceeds 80 percent of domestic demand, the project
proponent must advertise that fact in a national newspaper, trade
publications, or Web site.
I am just a little confused as to what this amendment is really
trying to get at. But it does seem to be, in the final analysis, a
continuation of the overregulation that has produced this problem in
the first place. We have so many regulatory obstacles to producing
minerals that it does take 7 to 10 years.
Now, if you take a certain slice out of that process, it may sound
like a smaller period of time. But when you add in litigation and
everything else that accompanies the process, it is literally 7 to 10
years, especially for hardrock mine projects that produce rare earth
minerals and things like that.
There might be a few exceptions for clay or other items that are of
less concern, but for hardrock mining, there is no way to avoid the 7
to 10 years, unfortunately, in our country today. This would be another
example of the kind of regulation that just gums up the whole process.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the rejection of this amendment.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
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. 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.
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.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, 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. 1937) 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.
____________________