[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 214 (Thursday, December 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H6044-H6049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1366) to provide for the location of multiple
hardrock mining mill sites, to establish the Abandoned Hardrock Mine
Fund, 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 951, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1366
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''.
SEC. 2. HARDROCK MINING MILL SITES.
(a) Multiple Mill Sites.--Section 2337 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (30 U.S.C. 42) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Additional Mill Sites.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Mill site.--The term `mill site' means a location of
public land that is reasonably necessary for waste rock or
tailings disposal or other operations reasonably incident to
mineral development on, or production from land included in a
plan of operations.
``(B) Operations; operator.--The terms `operations' and
`operator' have the meanings given those terms in section
3809.5 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect
on the date of enactment of this subsection).
``(C) Plan of operations.--The term `plan of operations'
means a plan of operations that an operator must submit and
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture, as applicable, must approve before an operator
may begin operations, in accordance with, as applicable--
``(i) subpart 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations
(or successor regulations establishing application and
approval requirements); and
``(ii) part 228 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations
(or successor regulations establishing application and
approval requirements).
``(D) Public land.--The term `public land' means land owned
by the United States that is open to location under sections
2319 through 2344 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.), including--
``(i) land that is mineral-in-character (as defined in
section 3830.5 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as
in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection));
``(ii) nonmineral land (as defined in section 3830.5 of
title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the
date of enactment of this subsection)); and
``(iii) land where the mineral character has not been
determined.
``(2) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b),
where public land is needed by the proprietor of a lode or
placer claim for operations in connection with any lode or
placer claim within the proposed plan of operations, the
proprietor may--
``(A) locate and include within the plan of operations as
many mill site claims under this subsection as are reasonably
necessary for its operations; and
``(B) use or occupy public land in accordance with an
approved plan of operations.
``(3) Mill sites convey no mineral rights.--A mill site
under this subsection does not convey mineral rights to the
locator.
``(4) Size of mill sites.--A location of a single mill site
under this subsection shall not exceed 5 acres.
``(5) Mill site and lode or placer claims on same tracts of
public land.--A mill site may be located under this
subsection on a tract of public land on which the claimant or
operator maintains a previously located lode or placer claim.
``(6) Effect on mining claims.--The location of a mill site
under this subsection shall not affect the validity of any
lode or placer claim, or any rights associated with such a
claim.
``(7) Patenting.--A mill site under this section shall not
be eligible for patenting.
``(8) Savings provisions.--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 land
that is not open to location under the general mining laws;
``(C) modifies any provision of law or any prior
administrative action withdrawing land 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;
``(v) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
``(vi) division A of subtitle III of title 54, United
States Code (commonly referred to as the `National Historic
Preservation Act'); or
``(vii) section 4 of the Act of July 23, 1955 (commonly
known as the `Surface Resources Act of 1955') (69 Stat. 368,
chapter 375; 30 U.S.C. 612);
``(E) restores any right (including a right of entry, use,
or occupancy, or right to conduct operations) of a claimant
that--
``(i) existed prior to the date on which the land was
closed to, or withdrawn from, location under the general
mining laws; and
``(ii) that has been extinguished by such closure or
withdrawal; or
``(F) modifies section 404 of division E of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-42).''.
(b) Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a separate account, to be known as the
``Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund'' (referred to in this
subsection as the ``Fund'').
(2) Source of deposits.--Any amounts collected by the
Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the claim maintenance
fee under section 10101(a)(1) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f(a)(1)) on mill
sites located under subsection (c) of section 2337 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (30 U.S.C. 42) shall be
deposited into the Fund.
(3) Use.--The Secretary of the Interior may make
expenditures from amounts available in the Fund, without
further appropriations, only to carry out section 40704 of
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (30 U.S.C. 1245).
(4) Allocation of funds.--Amounts made available under
paragraph (3)--
(A) shall be allocated in accordance with section
40704(e)(1) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (30
U.S.C. 1245(e)(1)); and
(B) may be transferred in accordance with section
40704(e)(2) of that Act (30 U.S.C. 1245(e)(2)).
(c) Clerical Amendments.--Section 10101 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28-
28e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``sections 2319
through 2344 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (30
U.S.C. 22 et seq.)'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the second sentence, by striking ``Such claim
maintenance fee'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Fee.--The claim maintenance fee under subparagraph
(A)''; and
(ii) in the first sentence, by striking ``The holder of''
and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The holder of''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the second sentence, by striking ``Such claim
maintenance fee'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Fee.--The claim maintenance fee under subparagraph
(A)''; and
(ii) in the first sentence, by striking ``The holder of''
and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The holder of''; and
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ``The location
fee'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Fee.--The location fee''; and
(B) in the first sentence, by striking ``The claim main
tenance fee'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The claim maintenance fee''.
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 gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 1366.
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. 1366, to restore clarity
and stability to mining operations and support reclamation of abandoned
hardrock mine land.
First, I thank my colleague from Nevada, Representative Amodei, for
his work on this bipartisan legislation.
[[Page H6045]]
In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revoked an approved mine
plan of operations for the Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona. The ruling,
known as the Rosemont decision, limited the Forest Service's ability to
approve support activities necessary for conducting mining operations
on Federal land. This decision upended over 40 years of regulatory and
legal precedent.
Before developing a mine on Federal lands, an operator must obtain a
mine plan of operations from the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land
Management. This plan must detail the intended uses of the surface of
the mining claim, including waste rock placement, mills, offices, and
roads.
Under the Rosemont decision, however, operators must prove the
existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a
plan of operations can be approved. This obvious problem is that the
economic viability of a site cannot be determined until after the mine
plan of operations is approved by the Federal Government.
The ramifications of the Ninth Circuit's decision are substantial.
Although the Rosemont decision involved Forest Service lands, it has
prompted multiple lawsuits targeting projects on BLM lands based on
similar regulations.
If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision will thwart hardrock
mining projects across Federal lands, further jeopardizing domestic
mineral supply chains, energy security, and national security.
Mr. Amodei's bill provides needed regulatory clarity by creating a
new category of mill sites for activities ancillary to mining that
operators can include within the boundaries of an approved plan of
operations.
The legislation also creates an abandoned hardrock mine fund to
support the reclamation program by using claim maintenance fees to
inventory, assess, and remediate abandoned hardrock mines.
Simply put, our reliance on foreign critical minerals is one of the
greatest strategic vulnerabilities facing our Nation today. America has
been truly blessed with vast natural resources. This bill would create
the regulatory clarity and stability that companies need to attract
investment and responsibly develop these resources.
With mineral demand expected to grow exponentially in the coming
decades, Congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to
access its own resources.
Again, I applaud my colleague Mr. Amodei for this commonsense but
urgently needed bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind everyone that we are at the end of this year.
We are running out of time to fix the healthcare crisis that
Republicans have created. Christmas break is right around the corner,
and hardworking Americans are struggling. They are being crushed under
the weight of rising costs.
What do our Republican friends have us voting on?
The next bill that we have up today, H.R. 1366, the so-called Mining
Regulatory Clarity Act, is just a gift for folks who really ought to be
on the naughty list this time of year: foreign mining companies.
I strongly oppose this bill.
According to its sponsors, it is a legislative fix to the Rosemont
court decision, a court case that determined that a mining company was
not allowed to dump its toxic mine waste on public lands based on an
invalid mining claim.
You see, Mr. Speaker, for years, mining companies were allowed to
dump their waste wherever they wanted without paying fair market value
for that land, without public land managers having any real option to
say no regardless of which precious public lands might be destroyed
forever.
However, in the Rosemont decision, the court held that under current
law, a mining claim is only valid when it actually contains valuable
minerals. That makes sense. That is common sense, if we want some
common sense.
However, the mining industry didn't like that. They were not happy
that they could no longer dump their toxic waste on phony, invalid
claims anymore.
So here we are today passing a so-called fix for the industry.
{time} 1110
Now, let's remember that enormous benefit is stacked on another one:
Mining companies don't pay back the American people a cent in royalties
for the minerals that belong to the people of the United States. The
antiquated Mining Act of 1872 essentially gives away America's valuable
mineral resources for free, often to foreign-owned mining companies,
even companies controlled by our adversaries.
Even so, the industry calls the Rosemont decision an existential
threat. Give me a break.
You know what happened to the Rosemont mine after that court decision
came down? The next day, the company paid for private lands for its
waste disposal. The mine wasn't stopped. It is just the industry would
prefer to use the public lands, your lands, and to be able to dump for
free.
Industry argues that this bill would provide certainty and clarity
for mining and exploration. In practice, this fix would just allow
mining companies to use a different type of claim called a mill site
for unlimited mine-waste dumping. They could use it for pipelines and
processing whatever else they would like, again at cut-rate prices.
For the record, I have found no evidence that any mines are currently
being held up because of the Rosemont decision anywhere in America.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
Time and time again, Democrats have raised legitimate concerns with
this legislation, and we have offered good-faith amendments to address
those concerns.
I offered an amendment to strike the broad definition of operations
in the bill, which effectively means that mining operations don't need
a mining claim at all.
Representative Lee from Nevada offered an amendment to clarify that
mining companies should only use the public lands that are actually
necessary for their operations, and to make clear that nothing in the
bill limits the rights to regulate mining and related activities on
Federal lands.
Representative Leger Fernandez offered an amendment to exempt
companies that are owned and controlled by our adversaries from these
incredible benefits under this bill.
All of these amendments were very straightforward. None of the issues
raised should be a surprise to the majority. They have had time to work
with us, but they chose not to. They rejected all of these amendments.
I guess they would rather let foreign mining companies controlled by
our adversaries pillage our public lands for cheap or even for free.
Noted.
Again, I strongly oppose this legislation and reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) the subcommittee chair on Energy and Mineral
Resources of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1366, the
bipartisan, bicameral Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), my good friend.
The bill before us is simple. It restores longstanding interpretation
of agency regulations governing hardrock mining policy on Federal lands
that were upended by the courts in May of 2022 in what is known as the
Rosemont decision.
At the time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a
decision that upended decades of settled law when it affirmed a lower
court decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper
mining project. The decision limited the ability of the Forest Service
to approve necessary mining support facilities and activity, known as
ancillary uses, which are necessary to conduct mining operations. This
decision from the Ninth Circuit puts virtually every new domestic
mining project on Federal lands in jeopardy.
This decision from the Ninth Circuit puts us at odds with what we
need to succeed in a 21st century economy.
[[Page H6046]]
Based on anticipated increases in demand for metals and minerals for
everything from energy and infrastructure to manufacturing and national
security needs, we require new domestic mining operations to provide
essential mineral supply chains.
During the previous administration, the Department of the Interior
issued an opinion that provided a temporary fix known as the Rosemont
fix. This provides a path forward for mining projects, but it can be
reversed with the stroke of a pen.
Domestic mining projects are multidecade investments. Mining
companies that invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a project
require regulatory certainty and clarity.
Mr. Speaker, considering this, why would a mining company invest here
in the United States without this certainty that they will actually be
able to develop a project? That is why the bicameral, bipartisan Mining
Regulatory Clarity Act is necessary. The only way to fix the 2022 court
decision is to codify the fix in law.
This legislation, contrary to what some of my colleagues will argue,
doesn't create new domestic mining policy. It simply builds regulatory
certainty and reinstates the longstanding interpretation of the mining
law and the agency regulations that were law of the land before being
misinterpreted by the courts.
Mr. Speaker, if we can't mine these minerals domestically thanks in
part to the Rosemont decision blocking new domestic mines, where do the
opponents of this bipartisan bill expect needed minerals to come from?
The only answer I can think of is from China.
Continued lack of clarity resulting from the court's decision is not
a benefit to the American people, but a benefit to the Chinese
Communist Party. The answer is clear: You can either support domestic
mining with the strictest environmental and labor standards here in the
United States of America or you can continue to export your
environmental guilt and support importing minerals from countries that
have zero environmental standards and utilize child and forced slave
labor to mine these minerals.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. When we talk
about domestic mining, we are richly blessed. The good Lord has blessed
this country with the natural resources that we need for our everyday
lives. I want American industry, American workers, and American
communities to be able to mine these minerals that we are richly
blessed with.
I do not want another Biden administration supporting memorandums of
understanding with Third World countries to get these minerals and then
import them to the United States so we can put them in our technology,
our vehicles, our phones, our cell phones, our computers, our medical
instruments that we manufacture.
I would much rather mine these critical minerals here under our
environmental and our labor standards. We can lead the world. By the
way, Mr. Speaker, we also need to process these here in the United
States. That is why our permitting reform is so important. This could
be a win-win.
As long as we don't mine here, as long as we put up every single
roadblock, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy. They
will sit in this House of Representatives and say, ``We support
mining'' so long as it never happens, so long as the bureaucratic
nightmare, the ``blue tape'' continues where we can't mine here.
Enough is enough. The American people have seen enough, and we are
going to mine not only in Minnesota, but we are going to mine in North
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, California, Arizona,
and Washington. We are going to mine in Pennsylvania. We are going to
mine in Texas. We have to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers.
I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota for listing all of
those States and places because it is important for the American people
to know that if this becomes law, a free toxic dump site on your public
lands is on its way in all of those places. That is what this is about.
One of the cynical euphemisms we keep hearing is ``regulatory
certainty,'' so let's talk about what that really means.
Mining permitting has continued after the Rosemont decision. The
Rosemont mine itself proceeded. It wasn't impacted. There is no
legislative fix needed to this fake problem. This bill would codify
only the most industry-friendly interpretations of the mining law and
introduce additional uncertainty around the government's ability to
enact basic commonsense regulations on mining on public lands.
To expand on that, the bill's current definition says that mining
operations include: ``All functions, work, facilities, and activities
in connection with the prospecting, development, extraction, and
processing of mineral deposits and all uses reasonably incident
thereto, including the construction and maintenance of means of access,
whether the operations take place on or off the claim.''
This is sweeping. Effectively, this means that mining operations
don't need a mining claim at all to conduct operations on your public
lands. While this definition is currently in regulation, the Interior
Department, and the leading public land law treatise have found that
offsite mining activities do not currently get the same rights and
priority use as mining claims. That is what is at stake in this
legislation.
{time} 1120
Permanently codifying this into law would further put mining over
other uses of our public lands, doing an end run around the multiple-
use balancing requirements that are foundational to public land
management.
While our land managers have limited discretion right now to deny a
mine on public lands, they do at least have some authority over their
roads, pipelines, and toxic waste dumping. That would all be taken away
by this legislation.
This is not regulatory clarity. It is regulatory charity to an
industry that has already gotten 150 years of giveaways.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter of
opposition from 189 organizations, Tribes, companies, and local elected
officials.
December 17, 2025.
Dear Member of Congress: The 189 undersigned organizations,
Tribes, companies and elected officials are writing on behalf
of our millions of members and supporters to express our
strong opposition to H.R. 1366, The Mining Regulatory Clarity
Act (MRCA). The legislation includes sweeping provisions that
would weaken the already outdated 1872 Mining Law and give
even more control over our public lands to the mining
industry. We ask you to oppose The Mining Regulatory Clarity
Act.
Most mining in the United States is governed under a 150-
year-old, extremely permissive law enacted when Ulysses S.
Grant was president. The law disempowers frontline
communities, has no environmental guardrails, and doesn't
require mining companies to pay a royalty on the billions of
dollars of publicly owned minerals they extract. This law
governs mining on public lands that are currently being
dismantled by the administration and their Congressional
allies with active threats to sell off millions of acres of
our lands, roll back protections such as National Monuments
and mineral withdrawals in secret, and firing thousands of
workers whose jobs are essential for the future existence of
our public lands. Additionally, recent executive orders were
signed invoking emergency powers to increase domestic mining
and processing of minerals, including those by foreign owned
mining companies. They cover not just critical minerals, but
others like gold. The executive order explicitly calls for
agencies to prioritize mining above all other uses of public
lands, and aims to provide funding and loans for mining
projects, as well as accelerate permitting processes under
the guise of the Defense Production Act. If you combine the
antiquated mining law, the recent EO's, and the
administration's efforts to dismantle our public lands, along
with the now unpredictable compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (due to President Trump's
executive actions) communities are now more at risk from
mining harms than they were even 10 years ago.
History already paints a clear picture of the risks posed
by irresponsible, deregulated mining for critical resources
across the country. The EPA estimates that 40% of headwaters
and 50% of lakes have been contaminated by hardrock mines,
decimating
[[Page H6047]]
watersheds and the communities that depend on them for
freshwater, including drinking water. Recent research reveals
that the vast majority of critical mineral resources in the
United States are located within 35 miles of Native American
reservations. As demand for hardrock minerals grows
domestically and globally, it is critical that we ensure
mining laws and standards protect communities and the
environment while strengthening and securing our supply
chains. Unfortunately, the MRCA would take us backward, not
forward, and create more conflict over mines, not less.
First, the MRCA would allow mining companies to claim
indefinite numbers of millsites on public land, without
meaningful limitations, where multinational mining companies
can permanently dump toxic waste and construct infrastructure
like pipelines and roads. These millsites could block public
lands from being used for more suitable purposes, such as
renewable energy projects, watershed protection, cultural
resource access, and recreation. This provision would remove
any effective limits on millsites and eliminate the
requirement that such claims be located only on non-mineral
land, a key feature that prevents lands with valuable
minerals from being buried under waste or made inaccessible.
Second, several additional provisions contained within MRCA
would weaken, if not negate, over a century of precedent that
has limited the amount of damage to public land caused by our
permissive mining law. According to current law, operators
must first prove that there are in fact valuable minerals on
a mining claim before they gain the right to conduct large-
scale operations on those claims. Additionally, operators
cannot conduct operations outside of their claims without
obtaining further permits. MRCA could render these
requirements meaningless by codifying a regulation that
defines all activities related to mining under the term
``operations,'' even if they are not directly on a mining
claim. This could allow mining companies to build pipelines,
roads, and powerlines and conduct other activities across
public lands without ever having to get a permit for them.
The MRCA does not contain any meaningful limits to prevent
abuses of the millsite provision. It states that mining
companies may use public lands in accordance with an approved
plan of operations. But that is of little assistance given
the bill grants mining companies an unlimited, statutory
right to use those lands--a right that cannot be denied in a
mining plan of operations. The offered protections are thus
no protections against the giveaway of public lands.
Finally, MRCA includes a savings clause that states mining
companies still have to prove that there are valuable mineral
deposits on claims within lands that have been withdrawn from
mining. However, the exclusion of similar language for claims
on unwithdrawn lands could be read by a court to imply that
Congress intended to eliminate the requirement for such
checks on unwithdrawn lands, which make up the vast majority
of public lands. Altogether, these sections essentially give
mining companies a nearly unlimited right to dump waste
across an indefinite number of acres of public lands under
the proposed millsites provision.
This bill's provisions will have a devastating impact on
frontline communities, cultural resources, and sensitive
ecosystems. Instead of passing this legislation, Congress
should enact true reforms to our mining laws such as those
identified by the 2023 Interagency Working Group on Mining
Laws, Regulations, and Permitting, especially those that
would close loopholes for foreign companies, improve
environmental standards, and create competitive leasing to
balance the nation's clean energy mineral needs with other
public land uses. We urge you to oppose the passage of S. 544
& H.R. 1366, whether as a standalone bill or as a part of a
larger legislative package.
Sincerely,
1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, 350 Bay Area
Action, 350 Hawaii, A2 (Anthropocene Alliance), Access to
Thrive, Alaska Clean Water Advocacy, Alaska Community Action
on Toxics, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Alaska
Wilderness League, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Amigos
Bravos New Mexico, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, Arizona
Faith Network, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Arizona Trail
Association, Arizonans for Community Choice, Basin and Range
Watch, Becky Daggett, Mayor of Flagstaff, AZ (as an
individual, Biofuelwatch, Bitterrooters for Planning.
Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, Black Hills Preservation
Project, Bold Visions Conservation, Borderlands Restoration
Network, Cabinet Resource Group, California Environmental
Voters, Californians for Western Wilderness, CalWild, Cascade
Forest Conservancy, Cascadia Wildlands, CDT Preservation
Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Chilkat Indian
Village, Circle Z ranch, Citizens for a Safe & Clean Lake
Superior, Citizens to Protect Smith Valley (NV), Climate and
Community Institute, Climate Justice Alliance, Coalition for
Sonoran Desert Protection, Colorado Citizens Against
ToxicWaste Inc, Concerned Citizens Retired Miners Coalition.
Conservation Northwest, Conservatives for Responsible
Stewardship, Continental Divide Trail Coalition, Corona de
Tucson Preservation Alliance, Day One, Deer Tail Scientific,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice Action, Earthworks,
EcoFlight, Emily Mine Information Group, Environmental
Protection Information Center--EPIC, Esker Cycles, Friends of
Santa Cruz River, Friends of Sonoita Creek, Friends of the
Amargosa Basin, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the
Clearwater, Friends of the Inyo, Friends of the Kalmiopsis.
Friends of Santa Cruz River, Friends of the Sonoran Desert,
Gallatin Wildlife Association, Gila Resources Information
Project, Global Witness, Grand Canyon Trust, Grand Staircase
Escalante Partners, Great Basin Resource Watch, Great Basin
Water Network, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, GreenLatinos,
High Country Conservation Advocates, Idaho Conservation
League, Idaho Rivers United, Imperial Valley Equity and
Justice, Inclusive Development International, Indigenous
Environmental Network, Information Network for Responsible
Mining, Investor Advocates for Social Justice.
Izaak Walton League Rapid City SD Chapter, Jeff and Karen
Ives, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, Kalmiopsis Guides
Association, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Klamath Forest
Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, League of
Conservation Voters, Living Desert Alliance, Living Rivers &
Colorado Riverkeeper, LNE Engineering and Policy, Local
Environmental Action Demanded (LEAD) Agency, Inc., Los Padres
ForestWatch, Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, Lynn Canal
Conservation, Madrean Archipelago Wildlife Center, Malach
Consulting, Maricopa Audubon Society, Mennonite Central
Committee U.S., Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin.
MiningWatch Canada, Montana Chapter Sierra Club, Montana
Environmental Information Center, Mount Shasta Bioregional
Ecology Center, Multicultural Alliance for a Safe
Environment, Native American Land Conservancy, Native Village
of Fort Yukon, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature For
All, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Nevada
Conservation League, New Mexico & El Paso Interfaith Power
and Light, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Next 100
Coalition, Nicole Palese PLLC, Noowuh Knowledge Center, North
Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Northeastern
Minnesotans for Wilderness, Northern Alaska Environmental
Center, Norton Bay Watershed Council.
Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Wild, Our Roots
Multi-Cultural Center, Partnership for Policy Integrity,
Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, Patagonia, Inc., Pipe Line
Awareness Network for the Northeast, Prairie Hills Audubon
Society (of Western SD), Progressive Leadership Alliance of
Nevada, Protect Thacker Pass, Protect the Kobuk, Public
Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Responsible Jewelry
Transformative, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Rivers Without
Borders, Rock Creek Aliance, Rural Arizona Engagement, San
Juan Citizens Alliance, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council.
San Pedro 100, San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham
Nation, Save Lake Superior Association, Save Our Cabinets,
Save Our Sky Blue Waters, Save Our St. Vrain Valley, Inc.,
Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, Save the South Fork Salmon,
Sheep Mountain Alliance, Sierra Club, Sierra Protection
Action Network, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice
Team, Sky Island Alliance, Smith River Alliance, Soda
Mountain Wilderness Council, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council, Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary
Commission, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Southwest
Research and Information Center (SRIC), SPAN.
Sustainable Ocean Alliance, Sustainable Tucson, The
Becoming Project INC, The Calabasas Alliance, The Healthy
Environment Alliance of Utah, The Native Village of Dot Lake,
The Ocean Project, The Wilderness Society, Tri-Valley CAREs,
Tucson Bird Alliance (formerly Tucson Audubon), Turtle Island
Restoration Network, Universidad Popular, Upper Peninsula
Environmental Coalition, Uranium Watch, Washington Wild,
Water Legacy, Weber Sustainability Consulting, West Berkeley
Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, Western Shoshone
Defense Project, Western Shoshone Nation.
Western Watersheds Project, Wild Arizona, Wild Connections,
Wild Hope, Wild Horse Education, WildEarth Guardians,
Wildlands Defense, Wildlife for All, Yellow Dog Watershed
Preserve.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the signers of this letter express their strong opposition
to this bill. Specifically, they argue that it would weaken the already
outdated 1872 mining law and give the mining industry even more control
over our public lands.
They note that mining in the United States is already governed under
a law that is 150 years old, enacted under President Ulysses S. Grant.
These organizations, Tribes, and leaders remind us that the 1872 law
has no environmental guardrails, that the mining industry is already
the only industry that doesn't have to pay any royalty when it extracts
our minerals on public lands, and that 40 percent of headwaters and 50
percent of lakes have been polluted by mining activity.
They also raise specific concerns within the Mining Regulatory
Clarity Act.
[[Page H6048]]
First, the bill would allow multinational companies to claim an
indefinite number of mill sites to permanently dump toxic waste on our
public lands for free.
Second, it could block renewable energy development, recreation, and
other uses of our public lands by allowing mining companies to build
roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure by right and without any
permits, as long as they are connected to a plan of operation.
Finally, the bill could be read to eliminate the requirement that
mining companies prove that there are even some valuable minerals to
validate their claims on the vast majority of our public lands.
The letter urges us to enact real reforms to the 1872 mining law that
would improve environmental safeguards for communities and ecosystems
impacted by mining, give Federal land managers a say in deciding where
mining is and is not appropriate, and close loopholes that allow
foreign companies to exploit our public lands.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), who has shown great leadership on this seemingly
commonsense need to put some guardrails in place to make sure that
foreign-owned mining companies, including those owned and controlled by
our adversaries, don't have the benefit of all these lavish giveaways.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, mining corporations, including
foreign-owned, pay nothing in royalties when they take our publicly
owned minerals on our Federal lands.
The American people get nada, zero, for our copper, gold, or critical
minerals.
H.R. 1366, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is yet another giveaway
to big mining companies by making it easier for them to dump their
waste on more of our public lands.
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 amendment to prevent mining projects from qualifying
for the expanded public lands access if the project is owned or
operated by a foreign entity of concern like China or one of its
subsidiaries.
Why should we let the Chinese Communist Party take advantage of the
copper, gold, and critical minerals on our Federal lands? Chairman
Moolenaar of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between
the United States and the Chinese Communist Party offered a similar
amendment to the Rules Committee last Congress on the same bill.
Republicans refused to make it in order.
I don't know why Republicans are afraid to limit China's access to
America's critical minerals.
If we are not going to make international mining companies pay for
our precious minerals that they take from us, the least we could do is
stop foreign adversaries, like China, from dumping mine waste on our
public land. We should not treat our public land like a big trash pile
available to international mining corporations.
Republicans should focus on making life more affordable for
Americans, not giving away more land, and not making those big
international companies even richer. They should focus on bringing down
costs for Americans, not giving a big giveaway to the big corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on 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 voting for the motion to recommit and stop letting China and its
adversaries use our public lands like their big trash dump.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is another unnecessary giveaway to the mining
industry. It lets literally anyone, including foreign mining companies
controlled by our adversaries, claim as much of our Nation's public
land as they want for next to nothing, extract our publicly owned
minerals without paying a cent in royalties back to the American
people, and then permanently bury our public lands in toxic mining
waste.
Our mining laws need reform. They don't need this.
With bipartisan interest in securing our critical mineral supply
chain, we actually have an opportunity to create modern mineral
policies that would empower American innovators to recover the minerals
we need while honoring indigenous sovereignty, protecting the
environment, and making sure American workers and communities share in
the benefits, as well as the American taxpayers. Instead, the majority
is doubling down on the extraction above all land grab from the gold
rush back when we codified this 1872 mining law.
They refuse to engage with Democrats to include even commonsense
safeguards against letting foreign adversaries take our public minerals
for free. They refuse to limit the industry's waste dump mill sites to
only the public lands necessary for their operations. Ominously, they
refuse to clarify that this bill does not affect the Federal
Government's ability to regulate mining on public lands, which the
unnecessary Savings Clause in this bill calls into question.
It bears repeating that the mining industry already has a sweetheart
deal on our public lands. We are the only industrialized Nation that
lets anyone claim whatever they want on public lands and extract public
minerals for free.
This bill is no minor technical fix to overturn a court decision. It
is a massive giveaway of public lands to an industry afraid that one of
those many giveaways that they have had for all of this time was about
to be challenged.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the issues that were just
brought up.
First, the foreign entity of concern restrictions, I agree, and I
think everybody would agree, that we should scrutinize foreign direct
investment to ensure that it does not pose a threat to the United
States.
We have programs to do that, programs that possibly should be
strengthened. However, imposing arbitrary standards could prevent
publicly traded, non-Chinese companies from mining domestically. Doing
what? Forcing a continued reliance on China.
We all know that China is already doing whatever it can to prevent us
from building out secure domestic supplies of critical minerals. The
CCP has repeatedly used its dominant market position to strategically
flood markets and make U.S. projects uneconomic.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, when they see a project announced in the United States,
they dump product on the global market, lowering the prices and making
our mining operations uneconomical to investors.
If we create an arbitrary standard, they will continue to play even
more dirty. The CCP will simply buy shares of publicly traded companies
to disqualify the companies from mining on Federal lands. We are being
naive if we think that China won't use any tool and loophole at their
disposal to stop mining in the U.S. In any event, this bill is about
regulatory certainty so that we can start mining again in America.
I have already mentioned this, but we are blessed with resources here
in America. A lot of those resources are on Federal lands. This issue
has come up about royalties. It continually comes up. People say this
bill would allow mining companies to extract valuable public assets
without paying any royalties to Americans.
I want to remind everybody of something. U.S. mining companies
already pay between 40 and 50 percent of earnings in Federal, State,
and local taxes, as well as other fees. These taxes are vital to
funding school systems, roads, and other infrastructure projects,
especially in rural communities.
Now, thanks to the Rosemont decision, on top of paying those taxes,
companies must pay millions more in litigation. The developers would be
required to pay fees for any mill sites established under this bill.
These fees would go toward remediating abandoned hardrock mine lands,
something my Democrat colleagues have repeatedly pushed for.
[[Page H6049]]
If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, and cutting-
edge mining practices that provide billions to the public's coffers and
essential materials to the American people, we need to support H.R.
1366.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to call attention to a letter we received,
signed by 28 organizations from A to Z. It is literally from A to Z.
Starting with A, the Alaska Miners Association, American Exploration
and Mining Association, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Battery
Materials and Technology Coalition, Colorado Mining Association,
National Mining Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Women's Mining
Coalition, Wyoming Mining Association, and I will round it out with Z,
the Zero Emission Transportation Association.
These organizations stress the importance of Congress enacting this
bipartisan legislation. They stated: This legislation will ensure the
U.S. can utilize its vast domestic resources to build essential mineral
supply chains. Your efforts to enhance mineral supply chain security,
while upholding our leading safety and environmental standards, are
crucial. The passage of H.R. 1366 will support the trajectory of
innovation in the U.S. and maintain the Nation's economic leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is common sense, supporting American
industries that are working to bolster our domestic mineral supplies.
I also want to draw attention to a letter we received from Nevada
democratic Governor Joe Lombardo in support of the Mining Regulatory
Clarity Act. His letter states: Advancement of this bipartisan,
bicameral legislation is indispensable to the long-term economic
resilience of our rural communities and Nevada's ability to help
achieve domestic mineral security.
Again, this bill is common sense. It is bipartisan, and it bicameral.
It supports a key industry for States like Nevada. It should be
strongly bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the abundant minerals that we are
blessed with across the United States, I think of the claim that our
colleague from Alaska (Mr. Begich) also says. He talked about the
Ambler Road district. Of 50 things listed on the U.S. List of Critical
Minerals, he says in the Ambler Mining District, 49 of those exist in
abundant capacity to develop, process, and mine. Yet, we are yet to be
able to get a road into this area to process these materials.
When I look at my home State of Arkansas, we have the largest deposit
of lithium possibly in the world. At least 15 percent of the world's
lithium is in brine water on public land in the great State of
Arkansas.
We have all these minerals available all across the country.
According to the ``2025 Mineral Commodity Summary'' from the U.S.
Geological Survey, the U.S. is 100 percent dependent on imports for 14
critical minerals, many from China and Russia.
Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Navaho Nation. They have abundant
deposits of uranium they could recover from former mining operations.
We are so dependent on uranium imports. The last number I saw, we
produced only one-half of 1 percent of the uranium we use for fuel in
U.S. reactors. Do my colleagues know where most of that comes from? It
comes from Russia and Kazakhstan. These are the kinds of minerals we
are dependent on foreign actors for.
If my colleagues support growing our domestic supplies of critical
minerals, this bill provides the regulatory certainty necessary to
strengthen domestic mineral supply chains. If my colleagues support
weakening China's global control over minerals, join us in voting for
the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.
Let's talk a little bit more about China. We need not only more
mining here in America, but we need to do more processing and refining
in the U.S. to meet our energy infrastructure and national security and
defense needs. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will help strengthen
domestic mineral supply chains.
I have a chart here that shows where we are at with China on rare
earth and their monopoly. They control 70 percent of the mining in the
world. It is not in China. It is all over the world.
My colleague mentioned child slave labor being used to extract cobalt
in Africa. It is atrocious where they go and mine these materials and
the lack of standards that they have. The environmental, human health,
human safety, and human rights that are violated in the mining is also
appalling.
They take that back to China, and they process 90 percent of it in
China. This is all of the world's critical minerals. Then they
manufacture 93 percent of the things that are manufactured with
critical minerals.
If my colleagues want to help China maintain their stranglehold over
our critical mineral supply chains, we should oppose this bill. Look no
further than the chart behind me. We will see we can't continue to
allow China to have the monopoly and the stranglehold on our economy
and on our defense that they currently have through the critical
mineral supply chain.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I
appreciate my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for bringing it to the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 951, 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 moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1366 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. 1366 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. EXCEPTION.
(a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act do not apply with respect to a project that is owned or
operated by--
(1) a foreign entity of concern; or
(2) an entity that is a subsidiary of a foreign entity of
concern.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered nation.--The term ``covered nation'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4872(f) of title 10, United
States Code.
(2) Foreign entity of concern.--
(A) In general.--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.--For purposes of this section, a foreign
entity of concern is subject to the jurisdiction or direction
of a government of a foreign country that is a covered nation
within the meaning of section 40207(a)(5)(C) of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42 U.S.C.
18741(a)(5)(C)) if the foreign entity of concern is more than
10 percent owned, directed, controlled, or 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. 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.
____________________