[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 8, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2963-H2967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT OF 2024
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, 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 1194, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 118-416
is 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 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
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
General Leave
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2925.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. STAUBER. 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 court's decision revoking an approved mine plan for
the Rosemont Copper Mine project in Arizona.
This determination commonly called the Rosemont decision upended
decades of regulatory precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service
regulations that allow approvals of operation on or off a mining claim
so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory
standards.
Essentially, this court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and
fails to reflect the process of how a company actually develops a mine.
I think there is some confusion about the mine approval process and
what the term ``valid'' claim means.
First, when looking to develop a mine, an operator must submit
something called a Mine Plan of Operations to the United States Forest
Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This plan must include the
intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for
waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads.
The Mine 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.
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.
Remember, a mine cannot move forward if the Federal Government does
not approve any facet of the Mine Plan of Operations. Further, mineral
validity cannot be determined until after the economic viability of a
site--as is laid out in the Mine Plan of Operations--is verified by the
Federal Government, as well.
[[Page H2964]]
H.R. 2925, Mr. Speaker, would reverse this backward determination of
the court, allowing American mining to resume on Federal lands. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill, 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 in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, and I will
remind my friends across the aisle that mining is already happening on
American lands and on our public lands.
However, this week, instead of working on meaningful legislation on
behalf of the American people, our friends have opted instead to focus
on a toxic free-for-all on our public lands and have opted to focus on
legislation to rollback energy efficiency in home appliances.
In fact, they put forward a bill this week called Hands Off Our Home
Appliances because they are so concerned about the American people that
they want to regulate the efficiency of their toasters, their
dishwashers, their refrigerators, and undermine the ability of our
immigrant and our Hispano communities to have representation in the
United States Census and, yes, to allow a free-for-all on our public
lands.
Now, the American people are not asking us to do this. They are
asking us to work on real problems: to work on the economy, inflation,
helping families put food on the table and a roof over their head,
protecting our reproductive rights and access to the ballot box,
protecting our democracy, and dealing with the international crises
that are happening on multiple continents.
My question is: Why the heck are we back on the House floor one week
after we voted, on a bipartisan basis, to send this bad bill back to
committee when it couldn't even be supported on the floor once?
Yet here we are, and our friends are trying to pass it once again,
without revision, without changes because they think they found a few
extra spare votes.
Let's talk about mining laws. The existing mining law of 1872 already
gives our mining companies, including foreign-owned companies, the
right to extract on our publicly-owned lands. They can also do so
without having to pay even one cent in royalties. That includes
companies that are controlled by governments of adversarial nations.
This is not only a shameful giveaway, but a huge national security
vulnerability for the United States. This bill is not about clarifying
a court decision, it is about giving more minerals away to those who
would like unfettered access to our public lands. It would give
opportunities for multinational corporations and adversarial nations to
control even more of our resources without having to pay royalties to
the U.S. Government, and to tie up claims on our public lands, whether
or not there are minerals actually present there.
This would make it impossible to invalidate a mining claim, even if
their real intent was other things, maybe to lock up development on
other uses or buying them for other uses, including construction of
transmission lines or other things that they would want to do.
This should be of deep concern to anyone who does not want
adversarial nations or the companies that operate in them to control
our public lands or minerals.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that it is either
mine here or mine abroad and create a false equivalency, but it is not
that simple. Some of the countries that are trying to expand their
mining operations here in the United States, in fact, many of these
multinational corporations are owned as subsidiaries under countries
like China and other countries that we have adversarial relationships
with.
{time} 1330
They also engage in practices that we know cause human rights abuses,
things like slave labor elsewhere in the world. While my friends across
the aisle have tried to claim that this is really about mining on
American lands, it is about granting unfettered access to these
corporations.
In fact, these entities can ship the minerals that they take from
American lands anywhere in the world and smelt those materials on the
cheap, often relying on human rights abuses abroad to cut costs.
As I said, we already had this debate last week. The outcome was the
entire House, right here on this floor, voted to send this toxic bill
back to the Natural Resources Committee. In fact, that hasn't happened
in years because this bill was so flawed and such a giveaway to foreign
national owned companies and a threat to our national security that it
was agreed that it wasn't ready for prime time and shouldn't be passed
on the floor.
My colleague from New Mexico, Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez,
offered to send the bill back to committee so that we could discuss
amending the bill to ban these adversarial corporations operating in
adversarial nations from mining and locking up our public lands.
I have to say, I was heartened. We had six Republicans join the
Democrats to do just that. They said they were not going to vote for
that bill. Well, it was about time. We need some bipartisan support to
double down on protecting U.S. interests.
In fact, as I said, it has been decades since the House sent a bill
back to committee like that, but as we see today, here we are.
Republican leadership is trying once again to get the bill passed
through brute force without addressing serious concerns, without
sending it back to committee, without going through due process. Here
we are, debating it and about to take a vote again.
These concerns aren't new. Last year, the bill was included in H.R.
1. At that time, one of my Republican colleagues offered a very similar
amendment banning mining on our public lands by foreign companies with
records of human rights violations. We are literally talking about
companies that have child slave labor records. That amendment passed
through committee on a bipartisan basis, yet they stripped it out and
are trying to pass the bill without it here today on the floor.
I find it absolutely jaw-dropping and extremely telling that this was
the amendment that was stripped out of the bill and that we are back
here a week later after this bill failed on the floor.
I think it is very clear what is going on here. This is really about
advancing the interests of corporations, interests on our public lands,
and opening them up for exploitation.
I think it is important that we talk about how outrageous this is. We
have to ensure that our public lands are not open to our adversaries,
to these multinational corporations that will exploit our minerals for
free. We need some bipartisan action to make sure that that cannot
happen.
We should be back in committee discussing the vulnerabilities,
discussing the national security implications, discussing American
competitiveness, discussing energy policy, not trying to jam through a
bill that will violate human rights and international trade.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear: This bill will
not allow mining companies to do whatever they want on public land.
That is a fact.
Mining activity will not occur if any facet of a mine plan of
operations has not passed our strict Federal guidelines and our strict
environmental guidelines.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the
Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Amodei).
H.R. 2925 would resolve harmful permitting uncertainty and litigation
delays caused by a harmful 2019 rogue court decision known as the
Rosemont decision. This decision revoked a previously approved mine
plan in my great State of Arizona, ignoring 40 years of Federal
permitting and land management regulations.
The uncertainty caused by Rosemont threatens to add years of delays
to any proposed mining project on Federal lands in the United States.
Congress should act to remedy the fallout created by Rosemont and
must work to expedite mine permitting and build up domestic mineral
supply chains.
[[Page H2965]]
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill
that will provide much-needed certainty for domestic mining projects.
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Porter).
Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, we have heard repeatedly from across the
aisle that mining pollution is a thing of the past, that today's modern
mining industry operates under the highest environmental standards, and
that after the mining operations stop, the industry cleans up after
itself. If that sounds too good to be true, it is because it is.
Our current regulations require companies to post financial
assurances to cover the cost of cleanup after their mining operations
stop, but it is not enough. Dangerous pollution still happens far too
often. Depending on the mine type and location, between 74 and 82
percent of modern-day mines are polluting beyond what their permits
allow.
The kicker? Taxpayers pay domestic and foreign mining companies for
their subsidies and often the entire cost of cleanup. Given the $54
billion backlog to clean up mines abandoned before our current
reclamation regulations, which continue to pollute our lands, waters,
and communities, the American taxpayer literally cannot afford new
mining pollution.
That is why I filed an amendment to this bill to improve bonding
requirements and make mining companies keep up with the new mining rush
that this bill would enable.
This is a commonsense amendment. If we are going to allow a toxic
mining free-for-all, we should at least make sure that taxpayers are
not footing the bill. After all, this bill opens up our lands to our
foreign adversaries, and I don't expect them to clean up after
themselves out of the goodness of their hearts.
My amendment would make sure operators post financial assurances to
fully cover reclamation of all mining activities. It would correct for
inconsistencies in both BLM and Forest Service regulations and codify
those corrections into law. It would have made sure these financial
assurances were real money, like surety bonds, irrevocable letters of
credit, certificates of deposit, or cash, not insurance policies that
lapse if the mining company goes bankrupt.
It is time we hold industry accountable and make sure they cannot
pass on the costs of cleaning up after themselves, the costs of their
earning profits, to the American people.
Guess what? The Republican majority refused to even consider my
amendment. They blocked it from getting a debate on the House floor and
even from getting a simple up-or-down vote.
It is outrageous, and it paints a dark picture of the House
Republican's priorities: polluters over people, and China over the
American taxpayer.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar), my good friend, for his words of support for this legislation.
Again, this legislation would correct a misguided court decision
revoking an approved mine for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in
Arizona.
Arizona produced the second-most amount of minerals in the United
States in 2023. It also has over 30 million acres of Federal lands. If
the Rosemont decision stands, over 40 percent of Arizona's lands will
be taken offline in the U.S. in the battle to produce enough minerals
to meet our ever-growing needs.
As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the Democrats brought
an expert forward, Madam Speaker, an anti-mining expert. In fact, she
said we have to stop hard-rock mining because the reclamation process
doesn't work. I invited her to our great State of Minnesota to show her
a reclaimed mine where we have deer hunting, bears, eagles, bees,
birds, haymaking. We have drinking water that comes from mines that are
not in operation. We have recreation in our mines in Minnesota and
elsewhere in this country.
This hard-rock mining expert said it is too dry in Arizona and too
wet in Minnesota to mine. I asked where she would like us to mine these
minerals for our national security. She said the quiet part out loud.
She said nowhere. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse
to allow mining to happen in this country.
The Communist country of China was just mentioned. This
administration today, Madam Speaker, is in consultation with Congo,
where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child slave labor owned by the
Chinese Communist country.
The Biden administration is entering into memorandums of
understanding to have critical minerals mined by child slave labor in
Congo, where there are zero environmental standards and zero labor
standards, to meet their green agenda, Madam Speaker. They are okay
with that but will not allow mining to happen in this country that
follows our environmental and labor standards.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I live in the heart of
mining country, and the best water in Minnesota is in the heart of
mining country. We can drink it right out of the ground in Buhl,
Minnesota.
I can tell you that this country better take part in mining
domestically. Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves, Madam Speaker,
in deep, deep trouble.
The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense say we need
more domestic mining. We cannot rely on China and other adversarial
nations. This is a simple fix.
We believe the court erred, so it is our job to re-legislate this
part of mining that is so important to the United States of America. It
is so important to our communities where we are blessed to have these
natural resources.
For my good friends and colleagues from California, let's go back
many years. California started on a gold rush. It began because of
mining. Safe to say, we don't want to follow California much longer,
with what is happening in that great State.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I believe this is going to
pass in a bipartisan fashion. It is a good piece of legislation. I look
forward to passing it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Speaker, yes, California is a great State.
Madam Speaker, six Republicans joined Democrats in voting to stop
this bill and send it back to committee, something that hasn't happened
in 32 years. Of the Republicans who voted to send the bill back to
committee, one had an amendment to say that if a company is guilty of
human rights abuses, including slave labor in other countries, than
they are not welcome to our land and minerals for free.
By the time the bill came to the House floor last week, Republican
leaders had stripped the amendment right out. I guess Republicans want
to take the win on supporting drug cartels and child sex traffickers,
groups that benefit from human rights violations.
In addition, the Republican chair of the Select Committee on the
Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese
Communist Party also filed an amendment to close the loophole. That one
was blocked twice by Republican leaders.
Republicans have voted to keep foreign adversaries from accessing our
oil and gas. How are our minerals different? Insert side eye here
because it doesn't add up.
Pardon my skepticism that there is not bipartisan concern here. This
bill is a toxic national security giveaway to our foreign adversaries.
It undercuts our competitiveness, and it is unconscionable on human
rights. That is why we are seeing some Republicans buck their party on
it, and I hope they will stand strong.
{time} 1345
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert my side eye, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The disastrous results of the Rosemont decision will redirect the
huge amounts of capital needed to mine domestically to countries like
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia.
When we choose this out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality approach to
[[Page H2966]]
mining, development flows to other nations with significantly lower
environmental and labor standards. Indonesia, for example, is currently
the world's largest nickel producer and its dominance is only expected
to grow in the coming years.
Indonesian mining is accomplished with sweeping deforestation and
pollution, many of which are financed, again, by the Chinese Communist
Party. These operations consistently ignore environmental impacts on
local communities and leave the land far worse off than they found it.
On the other hand, American mines, like this mine project in Nevada,
adhere to the best standards in the world and are committed to
restoring the land after minerals are extracted.
In fact, again, mines are not even permitted until the Federal
Government approves a full Mine Plan of Operations, which must include
a robust plan and financial assurance for reclamation after the project
is complete.
Madam Speaker, this is simple. Either we do it here or we let foreign
adversarial nations take over. This is a strategic national security
interest.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, last week, House Republicans
tried to pass H.R. 2925 to make it easier for the biggest mining
corporations to take our public lands and mineral resources without
giving the American people a dime.
I filed a motion to send the bill back to the committee to consider
my amendment, which would have prevented companies owned or controlled
by our adversaries from taking our gold, copper, and precious rare
earth minerals to use against us in the market or in national security.
Fortunately, last week, a bipartisan majority, including six
Republicans, passed my motion. We stood up together for our national
security. However, the Republican leadership ignored last week's
bipartisan vote, and here we are again.
What is worse, the Rules Committee Republicans rejected Chairman
Moolenaar's amendment to ban foreign entities of concern from
conducting mining operations on our public lands.
Let me remind everybody, Chairman Moolenaar heads the Select
Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and
the Chinese Communist Party. It is his job to know how dangerous
China's mining of our precious minerals is to our economy and national
security.
The Republicans blocked their own Republican chair's amendment. I
believe in bipartisanship, so when I see an amendment I like and
recognize is good, I support it.
Madam Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee once again. If House rules
permitted, I would offer the motion with Chairman Moolenaar's
amendment, which would block foreign entities of concern from mining
our public lands.
When Republicans block even consideration of an amendment which would
ban China from taking away the precious metals that belong to the
American people, Republicans are putting the interests of wealthy
foreign corporations over the American people.
I hope the six Republicans who were courageous enough to stand up for
American security interests last week stand for America today.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bice). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I urge support for my motion so
that the Natural Resources Committee can consider this amendment, this
time in good faith.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Federal lands account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in
certain Western States, and these same States account for 75 percent of
our Nation's metals production.
The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is needed to ensure that we have
certainty of access to these essential mineral deposits.
If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, clean mining
practices that provide billions in taxes that support our roads,
bridges, schools, and other essential services, along with the
essential materials to the American people, then we also need to
support H.R. 2925.
Madam Speaker, really quick, you are hearing the other side of the
aisle not necessarily debate the actual legislation. We have heard them
talk about the process. When you can't debate the legislation, then you
go after the process.
This is a very, very good piece of legislation, and I look forward to
it passing in just the next hour or so.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
to close.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, which rolls out the welcome
mat to our foreign adversaries to exploit our minerals and violate
human rights as well as national security.
We must defeat this bill. We did last week. We debated the merits. It
is bad for America. It is bad for national security. It is bad for our
economy. It is bad for American mining. It is bad for the environment,
and that is why we must send it back.
Madam Speaker, I support the gentlewoman's motion to recommit. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Let's be clear: There are no mines operating on Federal lands that
are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Zero. Zero. Anybody that
mines in the United States will follow our environmental standards and
our labor standards. It doesn't matter which company it is. They are
going to follow our rules.
For this administration to turn a blind eye to the atrocities and the
human rights violations to meet their green agenda, it is
unconscionable. We can do it here in the United States with the best
labor standards, the best environmental standards, with our technology,
and be proud of these minerals that we produce. We can lead the rest of
the world on how to do it. Nobody does it better than the United States
of America and our workers, period.
Madam Speaker, let me address some of the misinformation we have
heard about this bill. This bill does not allow mining companies to
continue to operate under conditions that don't follow our labor and
environmental standards.
If the outlandish circumstances that my friends on the other side of
the aisle have been telling you will happen if this bill is enacted
could have actually happened all along, including land lock-ups and
subversion of environmental and governmental oversight, then why didn't
it happen?
It is because the harm they claim this bill could inflict upon our
Federal lands is actually not true. It is inaccurate.
This bill would, however, allow America to become a global leader in
mineral production once again.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Governor of
Nevada in support of H.R. 2925.
Office of the Governor,
May 1, 2024.
Hon. Dina Titus,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steven Horsford,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Susie Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Titus, Horsford, and Lee: I write in
support of the Congressman Amodei's Mining Regulatory Clarity
Act of 2024 (H.R. 2925) and encourage you to vote in favor of
this critical bill when it reaches the House floor. In doing
so you will stand in solidarity with Senator Cortez Masto and
Senator Rosen, sponsors of the Senate companion bill (S.
1281), and the State of Nevada to support a key pillar of our
economy. Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, also known as the Rosemont decision, the
future of hardrock mining in Nevada and the West has been
plagued by uncertainty. This matter must be favorably
resolved for the Silver State and bipartisan, bicameral
legislation must be signed by the
[[Page H2967]]
President to help ensure the economic viability of our robust
mining industry.
The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (MRCA) simply reinstates
the contemporary mining policy and permitting practices that
were upended by the Rosemont decision. Contrary to the scare
tactics of critics, the MRCA does not open the door to
unrestricted use of public lands, block renewable energy,
recreation, or conservation, or allow mining in National
Parks, wilderness areas, and other special areas. Rather, it
provides much-needed business certainty and protects the
14,700 direct high-paying jobs and an additional 20,000
indirect jobs that are supported by the mining industry in
the state. In addition to providing employment with high,
family supporting salaries averaging over $100,000, the
industry provides $4.9 billion of our state's gross domestic
product and $12.7 billion in economic output.
Schools and local governments in each of your districts
also benefit from the $389 million the industry paid in state
and local taxes. More than half of the mining Net Proceeds of
Minerals (NPOM) tax revenue goes to the Nevada State
Education Fund. The other half goes to the county where the
minerals were produced. Gold and silver operators further
contribute to the State Education Fund through the Gold and
Silver Excise Tax, or Mining Education Tax which was
established during the 81st Nevada Legislative Session; and
in fiscal year 2023, contributed approximately $68 million to
the State. Beginning in fiscal year 2024, revenue from the
Mining Education Tax will go directly into the State
Education Fund. The Rosemont decision ends hardrock mining as
we know it and threatens the livelihoods and institutions
that rely on it.
Nevada is counting on you to unite and join Senators Cortez
Masto and Rosen and Congressman Amodei to provide certainty
to one of Nevada's critical industries. I look forward to
continuing to work collaboratively to ensure Nevada remains
well positioned as a leader in domestic mineral production,
from lithium and other critical materials to precious metals.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joe Lombardo,
Governor.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I support fair labor standards, high
environmental standards, and increasing our national security. In
short, I support domestic mining. I urge all of my colleagues to do the
same and support H.R. 2925.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, 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. Madam 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. FOREIGN ENTITY OF CONCERN.
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) Foreign Entity of Concern.--
``(1) In general.--A claimant shall be barred from the
right described in subsection (e)(1)(B) if the claimant--
``(A) is a foreign entity of concern; or
``(B) is a subsidiary of a foreign entity of concern.
``(2) Foreign entity of concern defined.--
``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `foreign
entity of concern' has the meaning given the term in section
40207(a)(5) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42
U.S.C. 18741(a)(5)).
``(B) Clarification.--In this subsection, a foreign entity
of concern is subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a
government of a foreign country that is a covered nation (as
that term is defined in section 2533c(d) of title 10, United
States Code) within the meaning of section 40207(a)(5)(C) of
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42 U.S.C.
18741(a)(5)) if such entity is more than 10 percent owned,
directed, controlled, financed, directly or indirectly,
individually or in aggregate, by any individual that is the
citizen, national or permanent resident or is an entity
subject to the jurisdiction of the government of a covered
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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________