[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.

                          ____________________