[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 1, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2797-H2804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT OF 2024

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for 
ancillary activities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2925

       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 ``Mining Regulatory Clarity 
     Act of 2024''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF MINING CLAIMS FOR ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES.

       Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Security of Tenure.--
       ``(1) Claimant rights.--
       ``(A) Definition of operations.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `operations' means--
       ``(i) with respect to a locatable mineral, any activity or 
     work carried out in connection with--

       ``(I) prospecting;
       ``(II) exploration;
       ``(III) discovery and assessment;
       ``(IV) development;
       ``(V) extraction; or
       ``(VI) processing;

       ``(ii) the reclamation of an area disturbed by an activity 
     described in clause (i); and
       ``(iii) any activity reasonably incident to an activity 
     described in clause (i) or (ii), regardless of whether that 
     incidental activity is carried out on a mining claim, 
     including the construction and maintenance of any road, 
     transmission line, pipeline, or any other necessary 
     infrastructure or means of access on public land for a 
     support facility.
       ``(B) Rights to use, occupation, and operations.--A 
     claimant shall have the right to use and occupy to conduct 
     operations on public land, with or without the discovery of a 
     valuable mineral deposit, if--
       ``(i) the claimant makes a timely payment of--

       ``(I) the location fee required by section 10102; and
       ``(II) the claim maintenance fee required by subsection 
     (a); or

       ``(ii) in the case of a claimant who qualifies for a waiver 
     of the claim maintenance fee under subsection (d)--

       ``(I) the claimant makes a timely payment of the location 
     fee required by section 10102; and
       ``(II) the claimant complies with the required assessment 
     work under the general mining laws.

       ``(2) Fulfillment of federal land policy and management act 
     of 1976.--A claimant that fulfills the requirements of this 
     section and section 10102 shall be deemed to satisfy any 
     requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) for the payment of fair 
     market value to the United States for the use of public land 
     and resources pursuant to the general mining laws.
       ``(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection--
       ``(A) diminishes any right (including a right of entry, 
     use, or occupancy) of a claimant;
       ``(B) creates or increases any right (including a right of 
     exploration, entry, use, or occupancy) of a claimant on lands 
     that are not open to location under the general mining laws;
       ``(C) modifies any provision of law or any prior 
     administrative action withdrawing lands from location or 
     entry;
       ``(D) limits the right of the Federal Government to 
     regulate mining and mining-related activities (including 
     requiring claim validity examinations to establish the 
     discovery of a valuable mineral deposit) in areas withdrawn 
     from mining (including under--
       ``(i) the general mining laws;
       ``(ii) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
     (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
       ``(iii) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.);
       ``(iv) sections 100731 through 100737 of title 54, United 
     States Code (commonly referred to as the `Mining in the Parks 
     Act');
       ``(v) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.); or
       ``(vi) division A of subtitle III of title 54, United 
     States Code (commonly referred to as the `National Historic 
     Preservation Act')); or
       ``(E) restores any right (including a right of entry, use, 
     or occupancy, or right to conduct operations) of a claimant 
     that existed prior to the date that the lands were closed to 
     or withdrawn

[[Page H2798]]

     from location under the general mining laws and that has been 
     extinguished by such closure or withdrawal.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2925.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.
  In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
affirmed a lower decision revoking an approved mine plan for the 
Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona. Commonly called the Rosemont 
decision, this determination upended decades of regulatory precedent 
and specific U.S. Forest Service regulations that allow approvals of 
operations on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet 
environmental and regulatory standards.
  If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the 
discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that 
operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable 
deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.
  However, operators' plans of operations must include the intended 
uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock 
placements, mills, offices, and roads. The mining plan of operations is 
key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which in 
turn factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are 
commercially developable and, therefore, valid.
  In short, the court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails 
to reflect the actual process of how one develops a mine. This bill 
would restore status quo as it existed before the misguided Rosemont 
decision and clarify that mine operators can continue to operate on 
Federal lands as they have for decades.
  According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, ``It 
is the policy of the United States that . . . the public lands be 
managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic 
sources of minerals.'' The Rosemont decision blatantly disregards this 
statement.
  With mineral demand expected to grow exponentially in the coming 
decades, Congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to 
access our own resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of 
H.R. 2925, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong but respectful opposition to H.R. 
2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, as it has been named here, the 
fifth bill this week brought to you by our friends across the aisle, 
the GOP, who, unfortunately, this week seem to stand for guns, oil, and 
pollution.
  My home State of New Mexico has a wealth of minerals, many of which 
are critical to the clean energy transition. We also have a very long 
history of mining. Mining, of course, has created thousands of jobs, 
supported economies across the Southwest and the country, and, of 
course, is an important part of our economies and communities. It has 
also left a toxic legacy of pollution in its wake.
  As we move to the clean energy future, we cannot repeat the 
shortsightedness and injustices of the past. The Mining Law of 1872--
let me say that again, 1872--a 150-year-old law that was signed into 
law by President Ulysses S. Grant after the Civil War, is still the law 
that governs mining on public lands to this day.
  It gives mining companies rights over public lands that all other 
industries could only dream of. It makes mining the top priority use of 
our public lands and gives companies the right to develop any valid 
mining claim, no matter if that land is a sacred site, a beloved local 
recreation spot, the headwaters of a critical watershed, or a priority 
area for other kinds of development--not even if it would pollute a 
nearby community's water supply.
  The Mining Act of 1872--not the bill before us but the one that is 
currently in effect--contains no environmental or community 
protections, does not require Tribal consultation, and does not charge 
companies a cent--not one--in royalties for the minerals that they 
extract on our public lands. Oil, gas, and coal don't even have that 
good of a deal.
  Mr. Speaker, you heard that right. These mining companies, many of 
which are foreign-owned at this point, don't pay a cent back to the 
American people for the royalties of those publicly owned minerals. Not 
even Big Oil has a deal that good.
  We cannot build a sustainable mining future for the United States on 
such a flawed foundation. This is a law from when the government was 
helping out prospectors, when it was chasing manifest destiny, and we 
didn't care if we destroyed everything in our wake.
  Wake up. It is the year 2024. We don't have to manage our public 
lands using laws from the 1870s. Many of us agree that the mining law 
is badly in need of reform. Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leaders, 
local leaders, environmental advocates, even members of the mining 
industry themselves think that it is insufficient. What is astounding 
about the bill that is on the floor today, the so-called Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act, is that it doesn't clarify the situation at 
all. In fact, it chooses to take us in the opposite direction, to 
before the 1870s. This bill removes the one frail safeguard that we 
have in that mining law of 1872. Under current law, a mining claim is 
valid only if it contains valuable minerals. Miners get the rights to 
the land only if there is something they can show to be mined there.

                              {time}  1415

  Under this bill, any American or, frankly, any American subsidiary of 
a foreign company, including those that are located in adversarial 
countries, can put four stakes in the ground on open public lands and 
pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that 
land forever.
  This bill would create a free-for-all on our public lands. It would 
enable our public lands to be given away, not just to the highest 
bidder but to the first person who got there.
  Mining companies--or really anyone with any motive--could lock up any 
public lands to conduct whatever mining-related activities they want, 
from destroying sacred sites to building a power plant to encroaching 
on recreational areas.
  What if the public wanted to use the land for recreation? What if it 
was an important site for cultural reasons? What if we wanted to put 
renewable energy on that land?
  Too bad. Under this bill, the mining industry can use it for whatever 
it wants, including to dump toxic waste.
  Now, some of my colleagues say that this is just codifying the 
existing practice, but let me tell you, that is not true.
  As bad as the mining law is already, and we are talking about the one 
from the 1870s, it at least allows for the invalidating of claims when 
the claimant can't show or prove that the lands actually contain a 
valuable mineral, but this bill doesn't do that.
  We have seen that in Ranking Member Grijalva's backyard where the 
proposed Rosemont mine wanted to dump toxic waste on public land. It 
wasn't allowed because the mine's land claim was invalid.
  Now, here is the thing: When the company lost its case in court, it 
immediately--and when I say immediately, I mean the same day. That 
company announced that it found an alternative waste site on private 
lands. Wow.
  Clearly, there was not an imminent need. The company simply would 
have preferred to put its dumpsite on land that was basically for free 
from the American people.

[[Page H2799]]

  Let's be honest about what this bill is. It is essentially stripping 
away the only safeguards we have in a deeply flawed, very old mining 
law to give away more giveaways to corporate polluters.
  On behalf of Ranking Member Grijalva, whom our prayers and our 
thoughts are with today, I include in the Record a letter from the Pima 
County Board of Supervisors in support of responsible mining and in 
opposition to this bill.

                                    County Administrator's Office,


                              Pima County Governmental Center,

                                         Tucson, AZ, May 23, 2023.
     Hon. Congressman Raul Grijalva,
     House of Representatives,
     Tucson, AZ.
       Dear Congressman Grijalva: On May 16, 2023, the Pima County 
     Board of Supervisors approved the attached Resolution 2023-12 
     opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act (H.R. 209) and 
     the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (S. 1281), and supporting 
     meaningful mining reform. Since then, we became aware of H.R. 
     2925, which is identical to S. 1281. All three of these bills 
     contain similar language intended to legislatively reverse 
     decisions by the U.S. District Court for Arizona and the 
     Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which halted the construction 
     of the proposed Rosemont mine on the eastern slopes of the 
     Santa Rita Mountains, within the Coronado National Forest. 
     Located south of Tucson, within Pima County, this mountain 
     range provides disproportionally high amounts of water for 
     runoff and ground water recharge for the greater Tucson 
     basin, is recognized worldwide for its biodiversity, is 
     culturally important to a number of tribes, and serves as a 
     respite for Southern Arizonans. The ruling confirmed that the 
     Forest Service should have required proof that the mining 
     company's unpatented mining claims were valid before 
     permitting the mining company to dump waste rock and tailings 
     on public land.
       All three bills contain language that would allow those 
     with mining claims to ``use, occupy and conduct operations on 
     public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable 
     mineral deposit.'' In addition, those with claims could carry 
     out mining activities on other federal lands absent of 
     claims. This legislation prioritizes mining over other 
     equally important interests and is likely to result in 
     significant unintended consequences. This legislation would 
     remove the ability of federal land management agencies to 
     balance the need for other equally important uses of public 
     land. Furthermore, this legislation is not needed. The mining 
     industry still has the ability to gain access to public land 
     via land exchanges, special use permits, and other permitted 
     means. However, because these actions are discretionary, they 
     allow for an informed and balanced approach to managing a 
     multitude of uses across public lands.
       This legislation also has a number of unintended 
     consequences that are alarming for the State of Arizona and 
     Pima County. Not only would these bills increase the ability 
     for nuisance claims on Federal land that could block other 
     necessary federal projects and increase destructive 
     speculation without mineral extraction, our understanding is 
     that they could also impact split estate lands. Split estate 
     lands are lands where the surface is owned separately from 
     the subsurface mineral rights. In Arizona, this is a common 
     occurrence. For instance, the surface can be owned privately, 
     by a local government like Pima County, or managed in trust 
     by the Arizona State Land Department; whereas the subsurface 
     mineral rights are publically owned and managed by the 
     Federal Government. Mining companies or others can make claim 
     to these subsurface minerals, the exploration and development 
     of which can significantly impair the rights of the surface 
     owner to use the surface for its intended purposes.
       As the Bureau of Land Management explains on their website:
       ``When the surface rights to a piece of land and the 
     subsurface rights (such as the rights to develop minerals) 
     are owned by different parties, the mineral rights often take 
     precedence over other rights.''
       In addition, the legislation essentially makes mill site 
     claims moot, which were one way that mines could gain access 
     to federal land for waste and tailings in areas that 
     specifically did not have mineral value. Congressional or 
     administrative mineral withdrawals would also be 
     substantially impacted, or complicated. Valid unpatented 
     mining claims are protected or excluded from withdrawals, but 
     this legislation makes moot the concept of ``validity.''
       What is needed is comprehensive and meaningful mining 
     reform, not these shortsighted changes that provide the 
     mining industry with exclusive rights to public land.
       Please know that Pima County is not anti-mining. The copper 
     mines in Pima County have contributed significantly to 
     national and international copper supplies. Pima County has a 
     good relationship with our two largest copper producers, 
     Freeport-McMoRan and ASARCO, and in particular has taken 
     actions to support expansion of existing mining operations in 
     the area southwest of Tucson. This area is less biologically 
     diverse and more suitable for development, according to the 
     County's comprehensive Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and 
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10 permit, both of 
     which were developed based on the best available science and 
     informed by extensive public input. This area also has 
     significant copper reserves for future development. Pima 
     County has also worked cooperatively with two copper mining 
     companies that proposed reopening an underground mine on Mt. 
     Lemmon, north of Tucson, both of which voluntary offered to 
     comply with the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and 
     related conservation guidelines.
       In summary, Pima County strongly opposes S. 1281, H.R. 2925 
     and H.R. 209 and the damaging intended and unintended 
     consequences to the public health, safety and welfare of our 
     community. In addition, we continue to seek comprehensive 
     mining reform akin to the comprehensive, science-based and 
     community informed conservation planning undertaken by our 
     local community in partnership with Federal agencies.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jan Lesher,
                                        Pima County Administrator.
       Attachment:

    Resolution of the Pima County Board of Supervisors Opposing the 
Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, 
                and Supporting Meaningful Mining Reform

       Whereas, Pima County and the Pima County Board of 
     Supervisors have long advocated for meaningful reform of the 
     1872 Mining Law, acknowledging that mining is necessary and 
     should occur in places and with methods that protect the 
     health, safety, and welfare of our County's residents; and
       Whereas, on January 2, 2023, the ``Permitting for Mining 
     Needs Act of 2023'' was introduced as H.R. 209 in the United 
     States House of Representatives; and
       Whereas, on April 25, 2023, the ``Mining Regulatory Clarity 
     Act'' was introduced as S. 1281 in the United States Senate; 
     and
       Whereas, both Acts do not provide meaningful mining reform 
     and instead would make it easier for mining companies to gain 
     access to federal lands at the expense of all other uses such 
     as recreation, tourism, conservation, watershed protection, 
     climate mitigation, traditional uses by Tribal Nations, 
     cultural and historic preservation, healthy forest 
     management, and other uses that contribute significantly to 
     the local, state, and national economies; and
       Whereas, both Acts would allow mining companies to ``. . . 
     use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land, with or 
     without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.'' This 
     includes dumping waste and tailings on federal land without 
     the need to prove valid mining claims, as well as on federal 
     land absent of claims; and
       Whereas, both Acts would authorize actions where mining 
     companies secure rights on our federal public lands through 
     unpatented mining claims without proving that the claims are 
     valid, actions that have occurred for too many years; and
       Whereas, both Acts are intended to legislatively reverse 
     recent decisions by the United States District Court for the 
     District of Arizona (``District Court'') in 2019 and the 
     Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Ninth Circuit'') in 2022 
     halting the construction of the proposed Rosemont Mine on the 
     eastern slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains, located in Pima 
     County, and the dumping of waste rock and tailings on 2,500 
     acres of unpatented mining claims in the National Forest; and
       Whereas, the District Court's ruling, which the Ninth 
     Circuit later affirmed, confirmed a long-standing concern, 
     raised by Pima County since the beginning of the Rosemont 
     Mine federal review process in 2006, that Federal agencies 
     such as the U.S. Forest Service failed to consider whether 
     Rosemont held valid unpatented mining claims; and
       Whereas, the District Court's ruling confirmed that the 
     Forest Service needs to consider reasonable alternatives when 
     reviewing mining proposals, providing the opportunity for a 
     more balanced approach to public lands management.
       Now Therefore Be It Resolved That:
       1. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes the 
     Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory 
     Clarity Act, as well as any similar legislation that attempts 
     to allow mining projects on public lands in areas without 
     mining claims and in areas with unproven mining claims, and 
     supports meaningful mining reform;
       2. The Pima County Board of Supervisors calls on Arizona's 
     Congressional delegation to oppose the Permitting for Mining 
     Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act;
       3. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs the County 
     Administrator and the County's Federal lobbyists to take the 
     necessary measures to communicate Pima County's opposition to 
     the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory 
     Clarity Act;
       4. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs that 
     communications to our Congressional delegation emphasize Pima 
     County's support for meaningful mining reform and our record 
     of supporting mining projects in Pima County that adhere to 
     local health, safety, and conservation guidelines;
       5. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes piece-meal 
     legislation that does not address the issue of mining reform 
     comprehensively; and
       6. The Pima County Board of Supervisors affirms support for 
     the rulings by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court 
     of Appeals, which is consistent with past resolutions and 
     actions of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, it is not just the mining industry that 
gets

[[Page H2800]]

to have free rein on these lands from other uses.
  One of the things that is important to understand about the language 
in this bill is that any actor with a few dollars to spare could lock 
up these public lands and just sit on them until somebody buys them 
out.
  That means anyone who wants to use the land, and that could be for 
recreation, renewable energy, transmission, or even for another mining 
claim, would be blocked out so long as somebody was sitting on that 
claim. Again, this bill takes away the only requirement to show an 
interest in actually mining the land and just rewards the first person 
to make a claim.
  This bill is not only a giveaway to the mining industry; it is 
literally a giveaway of our public lands. It is completely mystifying 
because this isn't even what the American people want.
  Our friends across the aisle continue to push for an agenda that the 
American people haven't even asked for. They voted to cut veterans' 
benefits, to raise healthcare costs, and to enrich and provide these 
corporate giveaways, just like in this bill. Where is this coming from? 
I ask my friends: Where is this coming from?
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic polluter giveaway, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  With all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, I greatly 
appreciate her passion to protect this administration, to protect an 
administration that is having an attack on American mining, on American 
energy that is causing prices to increase, for inflation to go up, and 
it is causing us to be more dependent on our adversaries like China for 
minerals and elements, like Russia, OPEC, Venezuela, all of the above, 
Iran, for our energy. I understand that she is passionate about that, 
and I respect her passion.
  When we talk about an old, archaic mining law that Ulysses S. Grant 
signed into law in 1872, I am reminded of something our Founders did 
long before that.
  In 1787, they passed or established our Constitution that says that 
there is separation of powers, that the legislative branch legislates 
and that the executive branch enforces.
  Now, almost 250 years later, we have got an administrative branch, 
and thanks to the administrative state in the Administrative Powers 
Act, we have bureaucrats that think their job is to legislate.
  We are not changing the law, the mining law. We are pushing back on 
rules that are being pushed out by an administration that thinks it is 
their job to legislate.
  I will remind my friends across the aisle that 2 years ago, they 
controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They had an 
opportunity to change the mining law, and they didn't do it. We are not 
changing the mining law. We are pushing back on overreaching 
regulations from the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Stauber), the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2925, the 
bipartisan, bicameral Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023, offered by 
my good friend from Nevada, Representative Amodei. I thank 
Representative Amodei for introducing this legislation.
  Nevada and Minnesota are both mineral-rich States, and they are both 
States that the Biden administration has targeted as part of their 
antimining agenda.
  The bill before us is simple. It codifies what is known as the 
Rosemont fix. It restores the longstanding interpretation of the Mining 
Law of 1872, along with agency regulations governing hardrock mining 
policy on our Federal lands.
  In May of 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
upended decades of said law when it affirmed a lower court decision 
revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper mine project.
  The decision limited the ability of the Forest Service to approve 
necessary mining support facilities and activity, which is necessary 
for mining operations. This decision from the Ninth Circuit put 
virtually every new domestic mining project in jeopardy.
  During our legislative hearing earlier this year, an official from 
the Biden administration argued that it won't be necessary to codify 
the Rosemont fix into law simply because of an existing solicitor's 
opinion from last year that he argued addressed the issue at hand.
  However, this same witness also admitted the obvious. The solicitor's 
opinion can be rescinded or changed with the stroke of a pen. The 
solicitor's opinion is an administrative action that can be undone or 
changed at the whim of this or any future administration.
  We all know the durability of administrative actions. These actions 
are law of the land for 4, maybe 8 years in some cases.
  Mr. Speaker, considering domestic mining projects are multidecade 
investments, why would a mining company ever decide to invest billions 
of dollars in a project when they are only guaranteed 4 or perhaps 8 
years of regulatory clarity? That is why the bicameral, bipartisan 
Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is necessary.
  The only way to fix the Rosemont decision is to codify the fix in 
law. This legislation, contrary to what some of my colleagues will 
argue, won't radically change or create new domestic mining policy. It 
simply builds regulatory certainty and reinstates the longstanding 
interpretation of the Mining Law of 1872 and longstanding agency 
regulations that were the law of the land before 2022.
  We are all well aware of the Biden administration's ambitious goals 
to transition to renewable energy and other technologies that rely on 
critical and rare earth minerals.
  Mr. Speaker, if we can't mine these minerals domestically, thanks, in 
part, to the Rosemont decision blocking new domestic mines, where does 
the administration expect these minerals to come from? The only answer 
I can think of is adversarial nations like China.
  Continued lack of clarity on the Rosemont decision is not a benefit 
to the American people but a benefit to the Chinese Communist Party.
  The answer is pretty clear. You can either support domestic mining 
with the strictest environmental and labor standards here in the United 
States and across the world, or you can support Chinese Communist 
Party-controlled mineral supplies that have zero environmental 
standards, zero labor standards, and they use child and forced slave 
labor. That is a fact.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I deeply appreciate my friends across the aisle for their 
clarification of their intent, but unfortunately, we can't go forward 
based on intent. We actually have to go forward based on the bill that 
they introduced and are asking us to vote on.
  I am going to do a little reading from your bill to help clarify for 
the American people what this bill actually says.
  First of all, it addresses security of tenure. For folks that aren't 
familiar with this kind of jargon, that means ownership, who gets to 
hold the rights to this land.
  Then it defines the kinds of operations that would be tied to this 
tenure. So let me read them to you. This is what it says in the bill: 
``Prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, 
extraction, or processing.'' It also goes on to clarify that you can do 
any activity that is found to be reasonably incident to an activity 
described in another clause of this bill.
  It goes on to say right here in the bill, words on the page, and this 
is what we were asked to vote on: The ``Rights to Use, Occupation and 
Operations''--which we have already laid out is basically anything you 
want to do on the land--``A claimant shall have the right to use and 
occupy to conduct operations on public land, with or without the 
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. . . . `'
  Yo. This is a giveaway of our public lands. You can say whatever you 
want on the floor, but the bill that we are voting on literally says: 
Whatever you want to do on that land, as long as you pay the fee of 
$10, you show up, and you

[[Page H2801]]

make the claim, it is yours. This is a giveaway of public lands. It 
guts the only safeguard from our Mining Law of 1872.
  I want to just make that clarification, and in a moment, we will get 
more into Rosemont, but I do want to take the opportunity to yield to 
my dear friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for 
yielding, and I thank her for also actually reading the bill. Sometimes 
the truth matters in these debates.
  We have to take many things with a grain of salt. We have been 
lectured about national security from folks who just last week voted to 
deny aid to Ukraine. The pro-Putin caucus is actually lecturing us 
about national security. You have to take it all with a grain of salt 
or maybe with a glass of vodka in this particular case.
  In regard to this bill, the mining industry says they need this bill 
to provide regulatory clarity. Well, if it is clarity our colleagues 
across the aisle are seeking, this bill certainly delivers it because 
in the name of regulatory clarity, they would let any mining company 
do, essentially, whatever they want in any open area of public lands.
  We have our long-outdated Mining Law of 1872 that already gives more 
rights to miners than any other public land users by far.
  Under current law, as long as they have four stakes in the ground and 
keep up with their nominal annual fees, any open public lands are 
theirs for the taking.
  Of course, for our colleagues across the aisle, that is not enough. 
For the mining industry, it is never enough.

                              {time}  1430

  Under this bill, the land that they are after wouldn't even need to 
have valuable minerals for miners to hold a valid mining claim. Under 
this bill, they actually don't even need to have a mining claim at all. 
This bill would allow any activity even slightly related to 
prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, 
extraction, or processing of minerals, regardless of whether that 
activity is carried out on a mining claim. It also waives any payment 
of fair market value for the use of public lands and resources for 
mining-related activities.
  My colleagues say they are interested in clarity. Let's be very clear 
what all of this means. If a mining corporation decided to build a 
large-scale power plant directly outside a national park to support 
their claim, they could do it under this bill. That same mining 
corporation could build a polluting processing plant right next to the 
power plant and suck the aquifers dry to support their mine, under this 
bill.
  They could build a network of pipelines and roads or anything else 
the mining company decides is ``necessary infrastructure'' across 
grazing areas or priority areas for renewable energy development or 
anything else they want.
  They could also permanently bury sacred sites near their mining 
claim. They could bury it in toxic waste under this bill. None of these 
tangential activities would have to go through the usual evaluation of 
public lands use because they would be given the same priority rights 
the mining industry already enjoys on public lands.
  If all of that wasn't enough, under this bill, the mining industry, 
or, frankly, any bad actor with a handful of dollars, could effectively 
block any other use of our public lands, like recreation, like natural 
carbon storage, access to traditional and cultural resources, renewable 
energy projects, or any number of other important uses.
  This bill says that anyone--and I do mean anyone--could do any so-
called mining-related activities on or off a mining claim for a mere 
$10 per acre per year.
  This entire bill is one of the most egregious giveaways of our public 
lands and resources most of us have ever seen, and that is saying 
something because we have seen a lot of proposed giveaways from our 
friends across the aisle. Our public lands would become the mining 
industry's playground or dumping grounds as they see fit.
  There are other important uses for our public lands. Our public lands 
and waters should also be considered for solar, for wind, and for 
geothermal resources. This bill threatens to hand absolute control to 
mining companies and would jeopardize the crucial role public lands can 
play in responsible, renewable energy production, among other important 
uses.
  Our public lands serve as substantial carbon sinks, aiding both 
communities and ecosystems in adapting to the challenges brought on by 
the climate crisis that our friends ignore and deny.
  These lands should not belong to the mining industry and other 
exploitive actors. They should belong to all Americans.
  Our public lands deserve our protection. We need real reform of this 
antiquated mining law from 1872 to put other uses of our public lands 
on equal footing with the mining industry. We need to prioritize Tribal 
sovereignty, community input, and environmental protection to give 
Americans a fair return for their public minerals.
  The good news is, that bill already exists, and I am a proud 
cosponsor of ranking member Grijalva's Clean Energy Minerals Reform 
Act. It would do all of those important things. That is the bill we 
should be considering today. Instead, we have the bill before us that 
would double down on the mining law of 1872's worst ideas.
  This is the wrong move for a modern, sustainable mining industry, it 
is the wrong move for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I talked earlier about the Constitution and how it is the 
legislature that makes the laws, it is not through an administrative 
rule and it is also not by court decision, not the third branch of 
government that gets to make the laws. It is Congress that gets to make 
the laws.
  When the Court has stepped in and made a ruling that creates 
uncertainty, it is causing mines not to be developed in the United 
States. Mining companies don't know if they can get a permit. If they 
cannot get a permit, they have to prove that there is material there 
before they get a chance to develop the permit. We need this 
legislative fix that only Congress can provide, to provide clarity and 
certainty so that we can develop these mineral resources here in the 
United States, which simply isn't happening today.
  I will remind my friends across the aisle that under the law that 
this bill would codify, operators must still, as they have for decades, 
submit a mine plan of operations to the BLM or Forest Service for 
approval before building a new mine under the authorities that we would 
be giving them in this legislation.
  The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service both have strict 
time-bound requirements on what a claimant must do to maintain a claim 
and what they can do with a claim on Federal land to conduct mining.
  If a claim holder does not meet these requirements, BLM or the Forest 
Service has the power to enforce compliance or immediately suspend the 
claimant from the area.
  Now, while my friends across the aisle are doubling down on this 
administration's attack on American mining and energy development, 
while they are cheering on the Ninth Circuit, Republicans are taking 
action.
  Mining is not happening in the United States because of the 
impediments that my friends across the aisle are causing.
  Where is mining taking place? It is happening in China. If you go 
back just to 1995 and take one mineral that is critical to the lower-
carbon energy sector that my friends talk about so much, you can't do 
that without copper. In 1995, the United States produced over three 
times more copper than China. If you look at 2020, China is producing 
about 10 times more copper than we are.
  This is one metal. We could repeat this chart for critical elements 
and for other metals. If you look at it for steel, we produced more 
steel than China in 1995. They produce 12 times more steel than we do 
today.
  When these renewable energy projects take place, when mandates are 
put out there to build electric vehicles, where are these materials 
coming from? We don't have the processing capacity anymore either. We 
have got two copper smelters. China has got over 50.
  China controls 60 percent of global production, an estimated 90 
percent of

[[Page H2802]]

processing, and over 75 percent of manufacturing of critical minerals. 
In terms of individual minerals, China refines 72 percent of global-
refined cobalt, 98 percent of global gallium, and 85 percent of global-
refined rare-earth elements.
  China also currently dominates the world's electric battery market, 
producing about 90 percent of the raw materials and 77 percent of 
global EV battery manufacturing capacity.
  Disallowing domestic mining will only drive both our allies and 
ourselves into further reliance on China. We are disallowing mining at 
the same time we are putting mandates out there for people to drive 
electric vehicles.
  By breaking even the first link in the Chinese global supply chain, 
we will be able to send strong market signals to American companies 
looking to invest in domestic mining and processing ventures. That is 
what H.R. 2925 would do.
  The Republican ideas are pro-America and pro-American supply chain. 
They are using the resources that God has blessed us with. If we don't 
pass this bill, we are just going to be more reliant on China, and we 
are going to see less development in the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to take on some of these arguments to make sure that folks 
understand the broader context in which American mining and 
manufacturing occurs.
  First of all, we just heard some claims that these mining companies 
can't figure out how to get their mines permitted. Well, I hate to 
inform my colleagues across the aisle, but most of our companies these 
days are multibillion-dollar, multinational companies that spend 
literally millions of dollars a year to lobby Federal, State, and local 
entities and to employ folks to navigate these processes. These are not 
entities that are struggling to figure out processes.
  Secondly, the United States has not disallowed mining. There are many 
mines in operation. If my friends across the aisle would like to visit 
New Mexico, I can take you to one of the largest copper mines in North 
America. There is lots of mining happening in the United States.
  It is true that up until the 1990s, we were a net exporter of 
critical minerals here in the United States. What caused American 
production to tank was not laws and regulations; it was global 
commodity prices, just like oil and gas. What happens when there is 
international competition is that local entities cannot compete because 
of competitiveness on the global commodities market.
  We are all for American competition. We are all for Made in America. 
That is why our President, of course, has led, and the Democratic 
Congress passed, three major bills for a renaissance of American 
manufacturing and our economy: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the 
American Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which 
are making the largest single investment in reshoring American jobs in 
modern history. That is the reality of what is happening on the ground.
  I want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend and my 
sister from New Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Ledger Fernandez).
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, America was blessed by our creator 
with natural beauty and an abundance of natural resources, from grazing 
to farmlands to minerals, fossil fuels, solar, and wind so we could 
feed our families and fuel our progress.
  We owe the American people, and, most importantly, our children and 
grandchildren, a duty to protect those resources so they are available 
for future generations and Americans are not left with public lands 
that have been degraded, mines that have been depleted, and profits 
sent off to foreign corporations. Yes, there are profits sent to China 
because they own some of those mines.
  H.R. 2925 would make it harder to protect the lands that make this 
country beautiful. Worst of all, it favors the biggest mining 
corporations and even allows foreign corporations to take American 
resources for free.

  There is a long history of bad actors exploiting, misusing, and 
abusing their mining claims, especially those corporations with ties to 
foreign adversarial nations.
  H.R. 2925 would give away our Federal lands to these bad actors. Why 
would Republicans work on a bipartisan basis to ban China from mining 
American data with TikTok but then be okay with China mining American 
natural resources for free? Why?
  Under the Republicans' proposal, Chinese corporations with the money 
could put four sticks in the ground, pay a fee, and then claim that 
land for mining without even proving the existence of these important 
minerals.
  I also point out, in response to my esteemed colleague, that there is 
mining going on. As noted earlier, we have the Chino mine in New 
Mexico. It produces copper. It has been producing copper for 
generations, in fact, for hundreds of years.
  Guess what. It is an American company. Freeport-McMoRan is an 
American company. It is international, but it is American.
  We want to do that. We want to make sure that American companies are 
the ones mining American resources. These are public resources.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
  My amendment would bar companies from adversarial nations, including 
China, from conducting mining activities on our public lands. They 
shouldn't be allowed to exploit American resources and pollute our 
public lands and to take those resources back to China for free.
  Let's make sure the profits stay here, the resources stay here, and 
the innovation stays here. Why wouldn't my Republican colleagues 
support that kind of amendment?
  I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record the text of this 
amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me 
in pushing back against China owning our resources and voting for this 
and making sure American companies are the ones owning our resources. I 
hope they will vote for the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it very rich that my friends across the aisle are 
bringing China into the equation now. The simple fact is that, under 
this administration and under this court ruling, nobody is going to be 
mining in the United States. They know China is not going to mine 
anything here under their policies, but also no American companies are 
going to be able to develop mines under their policies.
  At the same time, they are pushing this electrification of everything 
and electric vehicles. They approved billions and billions of dollars 
in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That is hard to say because 
we all know it drove inflation higher. In that bill, the IRA, they 
approved billions of dollars to invest in things that require metals 
and critical minerals.
  The question was asked in the opening statement: Who wants this? Who 
wants mining in the United States?
  I think the answer is everybody wants what comes from mining except 
my friends across the aisle. They don't want it in their backyard. They 
want their cake, and they want to be able to eat it, too. They want to 
have all these metals and critical elements that can be used to make 
and manufacture the things that they think are going to save the 
planet, but they just don't want it to happen here in the U.S., where 
we have the strictest mining laws, the strictest labor laws, and the 
strictest safety laws. We do things right here. We recover mines 
correctly.
  What they want to do is have all their electric cars, solar farms, 
windmills, and transmission lines and magically get this material from 
somewhere else.
  There are mines. There are still mines all across this country, but 
the

[[Page H2803]]

fact is they are not even coming close to meeting the demands that we 
have. Even though we have everything we need in the U.S., it is just in 
the ground.
  Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 would require more copper than 
has been produced over the entire course of human history. That is the 
challenge we face under Democratic policy: a demand for more copper 
than we have mined in human history between now and 2050 if we were 
going to get to net zero emissions.
  How are we going to do that if we don't use the elements and minerals 
that God has blessed us with here in our country? The simple answer is 
that we are going to have to rely on somebody else to supply that. 
Guess who the number one supplier of nearly every one of those metals 
and elements is in the world today? It is China. That is the simple 
fact.
  We can make a decision to either support H.R. 2925 and support 
American minerals and resources, or we can leave the status quo under 
the Rosemont court ruling and rely more on China and others, even 
Russia. We have talked about nuclear power, which could be a great 
contributor to zero emission energy. Most of our uranium now comes from 
Russia.
  So whom do we want to rely on? Where do we want that wealth to go 
when Americans spend their money on energy and minerals? I would rather 
it stay here in America supporting American mining, supporting American 
jobs, and supporting American processing and manufacturing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we do have mining in our 
backyards. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico and I both noted, we have 
multiple mines in New Mexico. What we don't want are mines poisoning 
our watersheds and destroying sacred sites irrevocably. What we fear 
and what we know, based on the language that is in the bill that we 
will be voting on and that we are debating today, is that that would be 
the outcome of what they are trying to pass.
  I also want to clarify for the record that we actually had Secretary 
Deb Haaland this morning in front of our committee. She stated this 
morning that the Biden administration has approved 40 new mines or 
mining modification permits just since President Biden took office, 
including 5 critical minerals mines, so the assertion that we heard 
this afternoon that there has been no new mining is just false.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this story, as well. My 
colleagues can try to frame it that they are okay with it in their 
backyard because they have some of it there, but for the future, they 
don't want any more of it in their backyard.
  I am from Arkansas. We have about 10 percent of our landmass as 
Federal lands, but when you go out West, Federal lands can account for 
as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain States and can 
account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.
  When you look at that, Mr. Speaker, more than one-half of federally 
owned public lands are already either restricted or banned to mining 
operations due to withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, the Antiquities Act, and specific congressional 
actions.
  If land hasn't been withdrawn from operation under the mining law, 
such as the land outside the Grand Canyon, then no new mining claims 
can be staked.
  So, I am asking, how much is enough? How much of our land do we have 
to lock up and say that you can't have access, can't manage it, can't 
produce energy off of it, and can't mine on it?
  It seems as if, as time goes on, the answer is all of it. We want to 
lock all of it up. We want to be reliant on somebody else who is doing 
a lot more damage to the environment somewhere on the planet than we do 
here in the U.S. when we mine in a very environmentally friendly manner 
and sustainably with the highest levels of standards.
  Mr. Speaker, we can try to frame this any way you want to, but when 
we are having to import so much of our metals and critical minerals 
when they are right here in the ground in the United States, then that 
is a ``not in my backyard'' policy.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address the specific example that 
was just brought forward about a mining exclusion in the Grand Canyon 
because I believe that the exclusion that we are talking about was to 
mine uranium in the Grand Canyon.
  Now, I ask the American people: Is that what you would like to see?
  In New Mexico, we know the legacy of uranium mining. Our communities 
are dying from it, the mining communities whose water has been poisoned 
for generations and those who have been impacted by the materials that 
were built from that uranium.
  That is why Congresswoman Leger Fernandez has been leading an effort 
that is bipartisan and bicameral with our colleagues from New Mexico to 
get a RECA amendment passed in this Chamber so that we can help address 
those communities.
  That is why we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to assert my firm belief that we should not be 
mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.
  Nobody was ever proposing to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon, but a 
favorite talking point of my colleagues across the aisle is to say that 
these evil mining companies are going to be mining uranium in the Grand 
Canyon.
  It is as if there is going to be this big excavator reaching over the 
side, digging out and making the Grand Canyon even more grand. The 
uranium deposits are well outside the boundaries of Grand Canyon 
National Park. They are in land north of the Grand Canyon between the 
boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park and the State of Utah.
  It is an easy talking point to say that we are going to ban mining in 
the Grand Canyon. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I don't know anybody who 
wants to mine in the Grand Canyon.
  I do want to reiterate and push back on the assertion that the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act is unnecessary and that mining companies should 
have to prove the existence of a valid claim before beginning any 
operations.
  A 2020 Department of the Interior solicitor's opinion stated: ``As a 
practical matter, requiring the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit 
before allowing any reasonably incident mining uses, including the 
removal of any minerals, puts the cart before the horse, since such 
uses and removal are necessary to make a discovery. If entering open 
lands to explore for and develop minerals is considered `unauthorized' 
unless or until miners have proven a discovery of a valuable mineral 
deposit, they could not, as a practical matter, ever discover a 
valuable mineral deposit and all mining would effectively be 
prohibited. Such an outcome was clearly not the intent of Congress, in 
no small part because such an interpretation would also leave many, if 
not most, miners legally in trespass.'' That all came from that 
solicitor's opinion.
  It is clear that H.R. 2925 is a legislative fix that only Congress 
can provide. It is needed to provide clarity and certainty in the 
United States' ability to responsibly mine materials essential to our 
national security and to make us economically competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 2925 would like to argue that this 
bill is a surgical fix to a problem created by the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals' decision on the Rosemont Copper Mine. If this is surgery, 
then like the mining law of 1872, it is surgery with an ax, not a 
scalpel. If that evokes an image for you of our post-Civil War surgical 
maneuvers, then that is what this bill

[[Page H2804]]

does because it takes away guardrails to protect our communities.
  Let's clarify. In 2022, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that 
the proposed Rosemont mine in southern Arizona could not use invalid 
mining claims to permanently bury Colorado's thousands of acres of 
national forests in mining waste, including sites that were sacred to 
multiple Tribes. The court ruled that it was not a valid mining claim 
to do this.
  The requirement that mining claims must contain valuable minerals for 
the claim to be valid is a core tenet of the mining law. It is the one, 
as we have said, fragile guardrail that we have in this antiquated law.
  For over 150 years, the mining law of 1872 has given mining 
precedence over all other uses and values of our public lands. This 
imbalance of power has left a toxic trail of pollution, destruction, 
and desecration of sacred sites, and it continues to impact our 
communities today.
  We urgently need to reform the mining law. Instead, the bill that is 
being put forward here today would make things worse and take us back. 
It is such a breathtaking giveaway of our public lands that former 
Department of the Interior Solicitor John Leshy said that it should be 
called the mining charity act because of the giveaways for these mining 
companies rather than the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.
  This bill allows anyone to put a stake in the ground in any open 
public land and pay less than $10 a year to make a claim to those 
rights forever. Our public land managers have long said that once there 
is a mining claim in place, they cannot say no to anything mining 
related on that land.
  If this bill becomes law, then the mining industry would be free to 
pick and choose which of our public lands to lock away and then 
permanently bury, destroy watersheds, or pollute our communities, to do 
whatever it wants on those lands that it has tied up. The unintended 
consequences of this bill go far beyond mining and could hurt our 
communities irrevocably.

  I want to reiterate that this bill empowers anyone with a few 
dollars, including foreign companies in adversarial nations, to blanket 
our public lands in untouchable mining claims and block other uses of 
this land. This bill will create chaos, not clarity, on our public 
lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2925. 
Contrary to the misconceptions that I have heard regarding the bill, 
this legislation does not grant mining companies free license to do 
whatever they want on Federal lands. It does not exempt mining activity 
from NEPA or any other environmental review. It does not allow 
companies to subvert governmental authority or oversight. It simply 
restates over a century of mining law and decades of regulatory 
practice.
  In passing this bill, we will reaffirm American miners' rights to 
operate under the law, just as they have done for decades, to provide 
the essential materials we depend on every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Amodei for his work to bring H.R. 
2925 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  Motion to Recommit
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 2925 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as 
follows:

       Ms. Leger Fernandez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2925 to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 3. BARRING ADVERSARIAL NATIONS FROM OPERATING ON PUBLIC 
                   LAND.

       Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Barring Adversarial Nations From Operating on Public 
     Land.--A mining claimant shall be barred from the right to 
     use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land if the 
     Secretary of the Interior finds the claimant has a parent 
     company that is incorporated in, located in, or controlled by 
     an adversarial nation.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________