[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11269-11294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2012


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4402.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 726 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4402.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) 
to preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0915


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4402) to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 
of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the 
minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to 
United States economic and national security and manufacturing 
competitiveness, with Mrs. Capito in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considereed read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, the United States of America is rarely last at anything. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to permitting mining 
projects. In 2012, the U.S. was ranked dead last, along with Papua New 
Guinea, out of 25 major mining companies on the pace of mining 
permitting. Now I can't speak for Papua New Guinea, but the reason the 
U.S. is so slow to issue new mining permits is simple: government 
bureaucracy.
  Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and 
onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects for more than a 
decade. These unnecessary delays cost Americans jobs as we become more 
and more dependent on foreign countries for raw ingredients to fuel 
manufacturing and our economy. The lack of American-produced strategic 
and critical minerals are prime examples of how America has regulated 
itself into 100 percent dependence on at least 19 unique elements.
  Rare Earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical 
minerals, are often used as core components for the manufacturing of 
everything from national security systems to consumer electronics to 
medical equipment to renewable energy components and everyday household 
items. Even though America has a plentiful supply of rare Earth 
elements, our negative approach to producing these crucial materials 
has resulted in China producing 97 percent of the world's rare Earth 
elements. Just like the United States' dependence on foreign oil causes 
pain at the pump, Americans will soon feel the impact of China's 
monopoly on the rare Earth element market. Those impacts will be felt 
when they need a CAT scan or they want to buy a new computer for their 
small business or purchase an iPhone or install solar panels on their 
roof.
  H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production 
Act, introduced by our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) will help to 
end this foreign dependence by streamlining government red tape that 
blocks strategic and critical mineral production. First and foremost, 
this is a jobs bill, and the positive impact of this bill's intent will 
extend beyond the mining industry. For every metals mining job created, 
an estimated 2.2 additional jobs are generated. And for every nonmetal 
mining job created, another 1.6 jobs are created. This legislation 
gives the opportunity for American manufacturers, for small business 
technology companies, and construction firms to use American resources 
to help make the products that are essential for our everyday lives, 
and in the process this will put Americans back to work.
  As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare Earth elements, 
we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will 
bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to the United States. The 
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act will help 
supply our national security, high-tech, health care, agriculture, 
construction, communications, and energy industries with homemade 
American materials. This bill is the latest example of House 
Republicans' commitment to and focus on American job creation. The 
House has passed over 30 job creation bills that still sit in the 
Senate, where their leaders, unfortunately, refuse to take any action.

                              {time}  0920

  This includes several bills from the Natural Resources Committee to 
increase production of our all-of-the-above energy resources and to 
protect our public access to public land.
  H.R. 4402 will enable new American mineral production. We must act 
now to cut the government red tape that is stopping American mineral 
production that furthers our dependence on foreign minerals.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this underlying 
legislation; and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  It is really quite fitting that the Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives is taking up a bill today to weaken environmental 
regulations for the hard rock mining industry. Because just last night 
the Republican candidate for President held a lavish $25,000-a-plate 
fundraising dinner out in Montana. For those who don't know, the Daly 
mansion where that event was held was owned by a famous guy, Marcus 
Daly, was one of the three ``copper kings'' of Montana during the 
Gilded Age. He was infamous for his epic battles with other robber 
barons for control over the copper industry in Montana and around the 
country.
  In fact, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision to invalidate the 
Montana election law of 1912 overturned a law that was originally 
enacted to respond to the very excesses of mining barons like Marcus 
Daly.
  So here we are out here on the House floor embracing the Gilded Age. 
But here in the Republican House, we are not in a Gilded Age; we are in 
a Giveaway Age where every week the Republicans seek to hand even more 
giveaways to the oil, the gas, the timber, the coal, and the mining 
industries. The bill we are considering today is so broadly drafted 
where apparently sand, gravel, and crushed stone are considered rare 
and strategic that the majority actually appears to be trying to usher 
in a new stone age. Under this bill, the next time you go to the beach, 
you should put some sand in your pocket because the majority apparently 
believes that it is a rare element. That gravel in your driveway is 
protected because, under this bill, it is apparently strategic to 
America's national security.
  Rare Earth elements are indispensable to a wide range of military, 
electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a variety of clean 
energy technologies. But this bill isn't giving us just the futuristic 
technologies of the Jetsons. It's giving us the prehistoric 
technologies of the Flintstones. Volumes of reports have been written 
about rare Earth minerals and other critical and strategic minerals; 
and none of them define things like gravel,

[[Page 11270]]

sand, and clay as critical or strategic minerals.
  What we could be doing and what we should be doing on this House 
floor is developing a policy to break China's grip on the rare Earth 
minerals that are important to our high-technology sector and to 
national defense. But we aren't doing that with this bill. No, what we 
are doing here is using strategic and critical minerals as a pretext 
for gutting environmental protections relating to virtually all mining 
operations.
  Now, because the majority has cast so many votes to benefit these 
industries that it gets hard to keep track, we have created this chart 
to help everyone keep track of which industry is benefiting each week 
in the GOP giveaway game show. Yesterday, my colleague from Utah seemed 
extremely interested in making sure this chart functioned properly in 
order to aid the body. So I brought it back today so we can give it a 
spin and make sure we all remember who is getting a special giveaway 
today. But for the Republican Congress, this isn't the game show 
``Wheel of Fortune.'' This is the Wheel of Fortune 500 Companies where 
we can spin to see which large, multinational companies will get 
handouts.
  In ``Jeopardy,'' you state your answer in the form of a question. In 
the GOP House of Giveaways, answers are stated in the form of 
questionable policies. And the GOP's final answer in their running game 
of ``Who Wants to Be a Millionaire'' is always the same: it is the 
largest corporations in America at the expense of American taxpayers 
and the environment. In fact, the majority is bringing this bill chock-
full of giveaways to the mining industry on the floor without 
addressing the 140-year-old loophole that allows mining companies to 
extract gold, silver, uranium, and other hard rock minerals from public 
lands without paying taxpayers any royalty payments.
  This rip-off is even worse when you see that every western State 
actually charges royalties of between 2 and 12 percent for companies to 
mine hard rock minerals on State lands; but on Federal lands, which 
might be right next door, the mining companies don't have to pay 
taxpayers a dime in royalties.
  The robber barons are long gone, but mining companies can still 
operate under a law put in place during their heyday. Yet the 
majority's answer is not only to do nothing to end this free mining on 
public lands. They are trying to hand even more giveaways to this 
industry in this bill. This is a bad bill, and it should be defeated. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is the 
chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee on the 
Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 4402, the 
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012, 
introduced by my colleague, Representative Amodei, of which I am a 
cosponsor. This bill was heard in our Energy and Mineral Resources 
Subcommittee on April 26.
  Although Americans hear a lot about our dependence on foreign oil, 
they may not know about our dependence on foreign countries for 
minerals critical to our manufacturing, national defense, 
communications, and medical care needs.
  Over the years, we have allowed frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary 
regulations to stifle our domestic production of these vital minerals. 
Today, the United States is nearly 100 percent reliant on countries 
such as China for rare Earth elements that are essential to our 
economy. We should all be troubled by China's recent policies 
restricting exports of these critical minerals. But rather than 
complain about that to the World Trade Organization, as the Obama 
administration is doing, we should simply support our efforts to allow 
production of and access to our own vast domestic supplies.
  This bill is a bipartisan plan that cuts red tape by streamlining the 
permitting process for mineral development which will create jobs and 
help grow the economy. Under current laws and regulations, it could 
take a developer up to 10 years to get all the government permits in 
place. This bill would shorten that time down to just over 2 years.
  These minerals are essential components of technologies in everyday 
items ranging from cell phones, computers, medical equipment, renewable 
energy products, high-tech military equipment, and building supplies. 
They are vital to our country's manufacturing sector and our ability to 
create jobs. Every job in metals mining creates an estimated 2.3 
additional job.
  It's time for America to get serious about rare Earth and strategic 
minerals. We can start by opening up our $6 trillion worth of untapped 
mineral resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey as much time as 
he may consume.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend, the ranking member.
  Madam Chair, today we're considering the so-called National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012. Now, despite the bill's 
title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic and critical 
minerals production.

                              {time}  0930

  In fact, under the guise of promoting the development of minerals 
critical to the United States' national security, this legislation 
would reshape mining decisions on public lands for almost all minerals. 
You heard Mr. Markey talk about gravel and sand and other things that 
can fall under the definition here of critical minerals.
  There's a list of problems with this bill that is long, and several 
of the amendments we'll consider today will attempt to address the 
egregious provisions that would truncate important environmental 
review.
  Make no mistake, this is a giveaway. It is free mining, no royalties, 
no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty payments, near 
exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption from legal 
enforcement of the protections. And it's unnecessary.
  Madam Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has already reported 
out legislation, on a bipartisan basis, to lay the groundwork for 
developing critical and strategic mineral production. Nearly a year 
ago, July of 2011--yes, 12 months ago--the committee reported out H.R. 
2011, on a bipartisan basis, the National Strategic and Critical 
Minerals Policy Act of 2011, by unanimous consent. That bill would 
improve our understanding of critical strategic mineral deposits and 
aid in their development.
  That legislation is not only bipartisan, it's supported by the 
National Mining Association, for heaven's sake. The president and CEO 
of the National Mining Association, Hal Quinn, issued a statement when 
the bill was passed out of committee, saying, ``The House Natural 
Resources Committee took important bipartisan action today to ensure 
U.S. manufacturers, technology innovators, and our military have a more 
stable supply of minerals vital to the products they produce and use.''
  He went on to say that legislation ``will provide a valuable 
assessment of our current and future mineral demands and our ability to 
meet more of our needs through domestic minerals production.''
  Yes, a year ago we reported out a bill, on a bipartisan basis, that 
would do what this legislation purports to do. Instead, we're taking up 
this legislation, which is a giveaway.
  The legislation we could be dealing with actually deals with 
strategic and critical minerals. If the majority were to bring it to 
the floor, I'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming, bipartisan way 
and would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law.
  We should be able to work in this fashion when it comes to improving 
our supply of rare earths and other strategic minerals and ensuring 
that we're not dependent on China and other nations for their supply, 
but the

[[Page 11271]]

majority is not interested, evidently, in working in a bipartisan 
fashion. Instead, they're moving this bill, H.R. 4402, which has almost 
nothing to do with strategic minerals and is really about giveaways to 
the mining industry. This bill is a Trojan horse and has no chance of 
becoming law.
  Why are we playing these games? Why are, I should say, they playing 
these games with our need to develop strategic minerals? We should be 
working in the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill.
  The majority should shelve this giveaway to the mining industry and 
bring up the other Critical Minerals Policy Act to the floor 
immediately.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I'm going to follow on the theme from my 
colleague from the Garden State: Why? Why an 11\1/2\-page bill that 
does two things; sets a 30-month--not rock-hard, no pun intended--time 
limit on Federal permitting decisions for mines and says, if you don't 
like that decision, you've got to sue in 60 days?
  Why are you not talking about what's the problem with 2\1/2\ years to 
talk about the permit? What's the problem with providing some 
predictability to the timing of the permitting process? What's the 
problem with not stringing people out under NEPA for over a decade for 
mine decisions? Why are we not hearing about that?
  The giveaway stuff is phenomenally entertaining. This does nothing to 
tax law. This does nothing to safety law. This does nothing to supplant 
NEPA, and this does nothing to supplant any State fix. This is an 11-
plus-page bill that says you've got 30 months--and by the way, if you 
both agree, you can use more than 30 months. Now, what's the 
translation of that? God forbid we have collaboration between an 
applicant and a Federal land use agency in this process.
  Why are you afraid of collaboration? Why are you afraid of setting a 
time limit? And where in the 1969 NEPA law--since we're talking about 
old stuff--does it say this is a marathon, and if you can outwait 
them--forget about the facts, forget about the science, forget about 
the technology--we're going to obfuscate and delay and hope that you 
will go away? Because, you know what--my hat's off--it's become a great 
weapon in this.
  But when less than 1 percent of the surface area of Federal land in 
this Nation is impacted by mining, I think what it's really about is we 
don't want any predictability for this because we're basically against 
an industry.
  Everybody's got a definition of ``strategic.'' When you talk about 
transportation, medical devices, national defense, the economy, I think 
those are strategic and critical things.
  So I would urge your support on this, to bring some collaboration, 
truly, instead of making this an administrative marathon for purposes 
of permitting.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, the bill we are considering 
today isn't about ensuring our supply of ``strategic and critical 
minerals.'' This bill is about deregulating the mining industry and the 
pipeline industry.
  It's misnamed. It should be renamed the Koch Brothers Mining and 
Pipeline Deregulatory Act of 2012. It's consistent with everything that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been about during 
this 112th Congress. It's been about deregulation; it's been about tax 
breaks for the wealthy; and it's been about cutting the ability of the 
government to do what it needs to do.
  While they're cutting the ability of the Federal agencies to assess 
the propriety of these kinds of activities--mining and gas line 
production--while they are cutting the ability to do that, they are 
reducing the time within which the remaining assets of the various 
agencies have to do the work that they are supposed to do. I'll tell 
you, it's important that we assess the environmental impact of various 
proposals on our environment, but my colleagues on the other side don't 
care about the environment.
  Almost a year ago, the Natural Resources Committee produced H.R. 
2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act, a 
bipartisan bill that actually did address supply vulnerabilities for 
truly strategic and critical minerals policy. I was proud to work with 
Ranking Member Markey and Chairman Hastings to coauthor that 
legislation, and it was passed unanimously by their committee.
  That bill, H.R. 2011, would have passed this body with broad 
bipartisan support and would probably have passed the Senate, too. It 
could have been a rare glimpse of actual governance in this totally 
politicized Tea Party House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I 
understand that bill was obstructed by Republican leadership. I wonder 
why.
  Could it be the Koch brothers? Things go better with Coke. Could it 
be because the mining industry instructed them to attack environmental 
regulations instead? Did someone get a phone call from Rush Limbaugh 
with instructions?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Rather than bringing the bipartisan H.R. 
2011, here we have a wolf in sheep's clothing, a bill that purports to 
serve our national security interests but, in truth, just seeks to 
undermine environmental regulations that protect the health and well-
being of Americans throughout this great country.

                              {time}  0940

  It's just another episode in a long saga of misleadingly named 
Republican legislation, bills that claim to help the country, but 
really just help the special interests. What a shame.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds, and I would yield to the gentleman from Georgia, if he can 
tell me, in this 11-page bill, where environmental laws are gutted, and 
I'll yield to the gentleman if he can give me a specific, what page.
  I'm asking you a question, and I'll yield to you if you respond to my 
question.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You asked me a question and I'm going to 
answer it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. What page?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. The overall scheme of this bill----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. What page?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. The overall scheme of this bill is to take 
away----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. What page? I asked the gentleman--I'm 
yielding to him to respond to me at what page. The gentleman cannot 
respond.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You're not interested in debate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman obviously can't respond. I 
reclaim my time.
  I am very pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4402.
  My home State of Arizona is known for the five Cs: cattle, cotton, 
citrus, climate, and, lastly, copper. People have been digging in 
Arizona for precious metals like copper for centuries. In the 1850s, 
nearly one in every four people in Arizona were miners. Without a 
doubt, mining fueled the growth that makes Arizona the State it is 
today.
  Today, the Arizona mining industry is alive, but it is not what it 
used to be. A wide array of other critical minerals such as copper, 
coal, uranium, lime, and potash are mined throughout my district. These 
projects employ hundreds of my constituents with high-paying jobs, jobs 
that pay over $50,000 to $60,000 a year plus benefits. In rural 
Arizona, those types of jobs are few and far between--in fact, they are 
few and far between across this country.
  But there is some potential, and there's so much more. As you can see

[[Page 11272]]

from the graphic, rare Earth and other critical minerals have been 
discovered throughout rural Arizona and are suitable for development. 
These are minerals our country badly needs to meet the demands for 
production of everyday items like cell phones, computers, batteries, 
and cars.
  So what is the holdup?
  As I travel throughout rural Arizona talking with companies that do 
business throughout my State, the message is clear. The length, the 
complexity, the uncertainty of the permitting process is stymieing the 
development of and discouraging investors from committing to U.S. 
mining.
  If you do not believe this, how about a real life example? I will 
give you an example right out of rural Arizona. Down here in Safford, 
in the southeastern part of my district, is the home of the newest mine 
in North America. It took 13 years for all the necessary permitting. 
Imagine that. Time is money.
  I was the first cosponsor of H.R. 4402 because the government has to 
work more efficiently. This legislation streamlines the process and 
sets benchmarks while ensuring continued environmental protection.
  Let me be clear. Despite what the opposition says, this bill does not 
exempt the industry from complying with environmental regulations. It 
tackles the problems on the government approval process.
  Let's restore some sanity into the permitting process.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GOSAR. If the current bureaucratic gridlock was in place 150 
years ago, I do not believe Arizona could exist as it does today. 
Copper would not be one of our five founding Cs.
  Let's restore some sanity to the permitting process and get American 
miners back to work. Vote ``yes'' on the National Strategic and 
Critical Minerals Production Act. Our economy deserves and depends on 
it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  I just wanted to address the point raised by the committee chair. 
Where in the bill, he asks, are there exemptions from environmental 
review?
  Well, section 102 is where they are, right at the front of this bill, 
page 4, if he wanted to know the page number. Under section 102, the 
lead agency can determine whether the NEPA law, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, even applies to a particular project. The 
whole idea of the National Environmental Policy Act is that there would 
be an independent review that involves public input, input from all 
affected interests, and input from somebody who speaks for the land and 
somebody who speaks for the trees.
  One of my colleagues a few moments ago said mining affects only a 
tiny, tiny fraction of the land. Well, that is, if you ignore everybody 
who's downstream and downwind.
  Section 102 allows deferring and relying on data from reviews that 
have been performed not under NEPA standards. The majority says, well, 
State reviews should suffice.
  Well, does anybody remember a State called Montana that was 
controlled by copper interests? Do you think that State's reviews of a 
copper mining environmental impact would suffice?
  Well, that's the kind of thing that would be permitted under this 
legislation. It would be whether to prepare a document, the 
determination of the scope of any review, the submission and review of 
any comments from the public. They could say no public comments are 
permitted. I consider that a real abrogation of our responsibility and, 
yes, a real removal of environmental protection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
my friend from New Jersey.
  He talked about section 102. Section 101, which is the basis of all 
this really, talks about what the President did with his executive 
order, by improving performance of Federal permitting and review of 
infrastructure projects. Now, we are simply duplicating what the 
President has already said is okay in other areas.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4402, the National 
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  It's nice to hear on the floor who it is that's speaking for the 
trees in New Mexico. We've just burned down 300,000 acres of those 
trees in New Mexico because of the voices coming from Washington saying 
don't cut a single one of them. Let the fuels build up in those forests 
until they burn down.
  All this bill is doing is saying, let's hold our government 
accountable to some standard of performance. We want our government 
servants to do the same work they would do in 10 years in maybe 30 
months. That is not an unreasonable assumption for us in America, who 
are looking for the jobs.
  New Mexico used to be the home to 11 rare Earth mineral mines. Those 
are the ones that create cell phone batteries, the minerals that create 
technological things. And we now have pushed those out of New Mexico 
and the rest of the West, and we've pushed them over to China so that 
they have the jobs and we no longer have them in this country.
  We have people here who are willing to scream foul on every single 
thing when we ask the government to simply do its job in a little bit 
more efficient manner.
  We actually did that in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. An amendment 
placed in the Resources Committee actually improved the permitting 
process. It had categorical exclusions. It created pilot offices.
  I just had a chance to visit with the State director of BLM last 
week. He said that our processes are so much better today because of 
that bill. That's all we're trying to do in this bill here today.
  H.R. 4402 simply listens to the President. We were talking about, 
from the other side of the aisle, we should rename it. Well, why don't 
we rename it, We're Listening to You, Mr. President? You asked on March 
22 that our Federal permitting and review processes must provide a 
transparent, consistent, and predictable path. The President is asking 
for it, and this bill simply gives it.
  The reason that we don't have jobs in this country is because we're 
sending them to other countries. Companies cannot wait for 10, 12, 15 
years. They can't invest in that permitting process to get to the point 
of where their process is finished.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PEARCE. They can't invest 10 to 12 years in a permitting process 
to be told at the end of it, we're sorry; we're not going to do it.
  We could call this the Let's Reinvest in American Green Jobs. Green 
jobs require aluminum; 100 percent of that is imported. Green jobs 
require nickel; 100 percent of that is imported. Green jobs require 
platinum; 91 percent of that is imported.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle speak from both sides of 
their mouth. We want green jobs, but we don't want to have any of the 
productive assets here. We want to import them from other countries. 
Let's reinvest in America.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, how much time remains on either side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to clarify 
further the point raised by the chairman that this does not eviscerate 
environmental protections.
  I talked about section 102, and the chairman came back and said, 
well,

[[Page 11273]]

section 101 just refers to the Presidential order that allows certain 
infrastructure projects to move ahead with expedited environmental 
review. First of all, it is only expedited environmental review--it is 
not with removal of environmental review--and that was talking about 
specific critical construction projects.
  What this would do would allow the exemption, essentially, from 
environmental review for any of the materials that go into the 
construction project, including gravel and sand. All of that would be 
exempt because the mining companies could negotiate a timetable for 
each step of the review process. The mining companies could enter into 
a negotiation for determining whether there would be public comment or 
whether partial previous reviews would suffice.
  Furthermore, section 103 directs the agency overseeing this project 
to prioritize, to give the highest priority, to maximizing the 
production of the mineral resource. In other words, that relegates any 
review, any challenge to the regulatory process, to secondary, tertiary 
or nonexistent status. It says maximizing production has the highest 
priority. This is a giveaway to mining companies. This is not about 
providing strategic and critical minerals.
  The other side has talked at length about the importance of these 
minerals to our modern technology today for batteries and cars and 
magnets and all sorts of other things. They're right, we should be 
ensuring a good supply of these things; but this bill does not do it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman from New Jersey disparaged, I guess, sand and gravel. 
Madam Chairman, I would point out to you that I think, after the 
earthquakes in northern California, when roads collapsed, and after the 
earthquakes in southern California, when the roads collapsed, and when 
the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, I have to believe that those people 
felt that sand and gravel were very critical minerals at that time. 
That's why this bill is broad in its definition of ``critical 
minerals.''
  With that, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I come to the floor today to express my support for H.R. 4402, the 
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. This bill will 
expedite responsible mineral production in the United States by 
reducing Federal red tape and by speeding up the Federal permitting 
process to create new mining jobs.
  My northern Michigan district is blessed with abundant mineral 
resources. From copper mines in Keweenaw and Houghton to the iron mines 
in Marquette and the western parts of the Upper Peninsula, mining has 
been the foundation of northern Michigan's economy. Currently, mining 
contributes over $4 billion to Michigan's economy annually and employs 
over 30,000 people. Today, new mining operations in northern Michigan 
are being explored. These mines have the potential to create thousands 
of new jobs. In fact, just last week, I visited one of these new mine 
sites and was able to see firsthand the work that they are doing to 
responsibly utilize Michigan's vast copper resources.
  Regrettably, the Federal Government and Washington bureaucrats have 
been standing in the way of new mines across this country. Due to 
lawsuits and government inefficiency, the current process of acquiring 
permits for a new mining project can take more than a decade. That's 
right, a decade. While our economy is struggling, we can not afford to 
wait 10 years while the Federal Government sits on its hands. We need 
to encourage the responsible use of our mineral resources to create 
jobs and keep America competitive with the rest of the world.
  Madam Chair, I encourage all Members to support this commonsense 
legislation to speed up this process and create jobs. If we can get the 
Federal Government out of the way, I am confident areas like northern 
Michigan can flourish once again.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have used the phrase ``giveaway,'' as have 
others today several times. The ranking member spoke about the wheel of 
giveaways. One day, it's oil. Another day, it's timber. Today, it's 
mining. There is also a lot of concern about the special interests that 
are represented here by this.
  I offered an amendment to this bill to ensure that the companies 
involved, the mining companies, could not continue to extract valuable 
minerals for free, minerals that belong to the American people, without 
accountability for their expenditures to obtain political influence. My 
amendment, which unfortunately was not allowed by the Rules Committee, 
would have simply required that mineral exploration and mining 
companies disclose their contributions for political influence over the 
previous 5 years in order to obtain new leases--perfectly legal and, I 
would say, perfectly reasonable.
  The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United ruled that corporations 
may spend freely in elections, which I believe constituted a blow to 
popular democracy. It overturned a century-old doctrine going back to 
Teddy Roosevelt restricting corporate money in campaigns. The flawed 
decision opened floodgates on corporate spending to influence, maybe 
even to dominate, our elections. Because of that decision, American 
democracy has come to be defined by super PACs and similar 
organizations.
  The amendment I offered would have helped to restore some sanity and 
transparency to this process by requiring that mining companies 
disclose their campaign contributions over the previous 5 years in 
order to receive new leases for public lands.
  As Speaker Boehner said on ``Meet the Press'' a few years back:

       I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full 
     disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise 
     and how it is spent. I think that sunlight is the best 
     disinfectant.

  I agree. We should be doing that in this case as well. Promoting the 
development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities 
and that are genuinely susceptible to supply disruption, like rare 
Earth elements, should be an area where Democrats and Republicans can 
work together, not one where special interests advance one partisan 
interest over another. Unfortunately, the majority's hurry to give yet 
another handout to the mining industry means that we are not having 
that debate here today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
  I stand here today in support of the bill of my friend and colleague, 
Mark Amodei.
  I think it's really important that we use America's resources 
responsibly to grow jobs in this country. We need American jobs using 
American resources and not relying on foreign imports and driving our 
jobs offshore. This is especially important when it comes to our 
mineral resources. We've heard all the rhetoric on the other side of 
the aisle, all that stuff. Let me just talk to you about the eastern 
Oregon miners.
  They are individual men and women. They are very blue collar. They 
are not part of the wealthy class you hear talked about here. They've 
just been trying to work with this Federal Government for over a decade 
to be able to use the mining claims that they have. Back in 2001 and 
2004, the Forest Service grouped together 49 mining plans of operations 
for analysis and approval. Then in 2005, the Forest Service decision to 
approve the plans was then litigated, and it resulted in the 
requirement that the Agency reduce some of its analysis.

                              {time}  1000

  Today, 11 years later, the Federal Government still can't get their 
work done. This is in an area that at one time in our history produced 
some of

[[Page 11274]]

the most substantial gold, silver, and minerals that we need in the 
United States.
  When we pull out all our little electronic gadgets--you know what?--
if it weren't for the mining interests in America, you wouldn't have 
those gadgets, because that's what goes into what we use. We need to be 
able to use America's resources. This allows us to do it.
  The 42 mining operations in Baker County, if they were allowed to 
work--and these are just average Americans just trying to do what 
they're allowed to do under Federal law but held up because of the 
Federal agency's inability to get their work done or unwillingness to 
in the North Fork and the Burnt River and elsewhere. If they could just 
move forward, if they could just get an answer out of the Federal 
Government in something short of 10 or 11 years, they could be 
producing jobs. They could be producing mineral resources and wealth 
for this country, the United States of America. We can create jobs here 
using our mineral resources.
  Some of these people have died waiting. You shouldn't have to die 
waiting for your Federal Government to get its work done. That's why we 
need this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. I ask once again how much time is remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Washington has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. At this point, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, I'm honored to rise in support of H.R. 
4402, with my colleague Mark Amodei, and to support this.
  This is about setting a definitive timeline for permits, which 
creates certainty and encourages private investment. This is not about 
government investment; this is about private investment. This is not 
about taxpayer dollars, but taxpayers. This is about jobs and the 
American economy.
  Everything from your automobile to your iPhone requires rare Earth 
minerals. Every solar panel, every wind turbine, every electric battery 
for every car, every fluorescent light bulb, your UV glass, audio 
speakers, fiber optics, precision guide munitions, metal alloys, 
magnets, and a whole lot more all require rare Earth minerals.
  We need to understand that China now controls the international 
market of rare Earth minerals, not because they have beaten us in the 
market, but because we have beaten us. We have the resources, but we 
simply made the permitting process so long, complicated, and 
unpredictable that we've killed our supply and allowed other Nations to 
control our future.
  In my district, there is a magnet manufacturing plant that creates 
high-tech magnets dependent on rare Earth minerals. Last year, they 
were able to purchase a certain rare Earth mineral for $4 a pound. Now, 
with China as the only supplier, that is now $55 per pound. That drives 
up the cost of everything that we use those high-tech magnets for, and 
it's very difficult on the manufacturing industry.
  We have allowed China to have the monopoly. We should have the 
ability to produce our own materials here.
  You cannot turn on your car, your lights, your computer without China 
sending us the materials to do it. When we are fighting to get control 
of our energy future, we must not forget that it doesn't matter if we 
have our own energy future if we can't even turn on what we plug in 
because we don't have the rare Earth minerals to produce it.
  We have a manufacturing future if we actually manufacture, and that 
means rare Earth minerals now in this modern economy. Jobs like mining, 
geologists, engineers, truck drivers, manufacturing, service industry, 
yes, even government regulators are all dependent on us getting moving 
on producing our own stuff.
  Right now, as the price goes up, it's time for us to bring the price 
down with more mining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to my colleague from the great State of Washington (Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I thank the chairman from the great State of 
Washington for yielding, and I rise in strong support of Mr. Amodei's 
important legislation, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals 
Production Act, because if we want to build it in America, then we need 
to be able to mine it in America.
  This legislation is important in identifying and promoting strategic 
and critical minerals here in America. It will make us more competitive 
by addressing permitting delays, improving the NEPA process, and 
revitalizing our domestic critical minerals supply chain.
  Madam Chairman, it takes longer to receive a mining development 
permit in the United States than in any of the other 25 mining nations 
in the world. The average waiting period for a permit is 7 to 10 years, 
and in many examples, it's much longer. We can improve this process 
without changing our environmental standards.
  The Kettle River-Buckhorn mine in eastern Washington that employs 
over 400 people in Ferry County knows this all too well. The EIS 
schedule and now the important exploratory permits to keep them 
operating have been delayed for years and was recently delayed for an 
additional year without much explanation.
  This bill is important. It's important to bringing jobs to America, 
bringing job certainty to Ferry County and eastern Washington.
  Right now, many foreign countries are requiring companies that buy 
raw materials from them to produce the products those minerals are a 
part of in that foreign country. If you are concerned about American 
infrastructure, if you are concerned about American manufacturing, if 
you are concerned about American energy independence, American mining, 
or American jobs, I urge you to support H.R. 4402.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This legislation is fundamentally a solution in search of a problem. 
According to the analysis of data provided by the BLM for hard rock 
mines on public lands for which we have complete data, the average time 
it takes to approve a plan of operation for a mine has actually 
decreased under the Obama administration.
  According to the BLM data, plans of operation for hard rock mines are 
being approved roughly 17 percent more quickly under the Obama 
administration than under the Bush administration. Thank you again, 
President Obama, for the great job you're doing in changing the way in 
which the Bush administration held up those permits.
  Despite the majority's claims, 82 percent of plans of operation for 
hard rock mines are approved within 3 years under the Obama 
administration. According to the BLM, it takes, on average, 4 years to 
approve a mining plan of operations for a large mine. That's more than 
1,000 acres on public lands.
  My colleagues on the other side have asked repeatedly what the 
problem is with their legislation that would truncate and eviscerate 
proper review of all mines on public lands if the majority of plans are 
approved within 3 years. It is because a little more than 15 percent of 
hard rock mines take more than 4 years to approve. For these mines, 
where mining companies may not have submitted a complete application 
and may not have posted a sufficient bond to ensure the mine is cleaned 
up where additional environmental review is required because the mine 
is large or potentially damaging to our environment and public health, 
this bill would prevent proper review.
  We're already approving hard rock mines more quickly under the Obama 
administration than under the Bush administration. We should not be 
eviscerating proper review of virtually all mining operations on public 
lands, as this Republican bill would do, and we should certainly not be 
doing it under the pretense of developing critical and strategic 
minerals.

[[Page 11275]]

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  We're here talking about H.R. 4402 that's going to minimize the 
permitting process and the delays and streamline bureaucracy around 
mining.
  I want to be clear that there is no conversation in this House that 
is saying we should do away with the permitting process or we should do 
away with the bureaucracy. We're here to say, Let's streamline it. 
Let's make it easier. Let's make sure that we don't have the 
bureaucracy and the permitting process stand in the way of good 
projects and good paying jobs.
  In my home district in the northwest corner of Wisconsin, we had a 
similar issue come up that we dealt with in our State.

                              {time}  1010

  We have a great vein of iron ore up in Iron County and Ashland 
County. It's a vein that, if mined, would create 600 to 700 new, good-
paying jobs in the northern part of Wisconsin, jobs that pay anywhere 
from $60,000 to $80,000 a year. Many of those jobs would be union jobs.
  What we try to do in the State of Wisconsin is say let's streamline 
the permitting process so those who want to invest in that mine can get 
an answer in a reasonable amount of time. And if we go through a 
permitting process--any of us who live in northern Wisconsin who would 
have found information that would say that this mine would damage Lake 
Superior, which all of us love, we live up there because we love the 
outdoors, we love the lake--if it was going to damage the lake, we 
would all stand opposed to the mine.
  If you can do it in a safe manner and if you can get a permit in a 
reasonable amount of time, why are we saying no to good-paying jobs? 
This is an area that has an unemployment rate of over 10 percent. They 
need good-paying jobs, and we have the permitting process standing in 
the way of these people going back to work.
  We see more and more rules and regulations that stand in the way of 
job growth. That's wrong.
  Let's stand together, let's streamline this process, make sure that 
we're environmentally safe and we're also creating jobs.
  Mr. MARKEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 minute again to the author of 
this legislation, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I would just briefly indicate--and I want to 
thank you for finally looking at section 102 and talking about the 
bill. I appreciate that. It's a great day in my young career that that 
has happened.
  Let's look at what section 102 does that is so insidious for the 
wheel of giveaways, which by the way we want to borrow and paste over 
it. Instead of what you've got, how about the wheel of takeaways? 
Takeaways from national defense, takeaways from communications, 
takeaways from national infrastructure, takeaways from balance of 
trade; oh, and let's talk about takeaways from living-wage jobs without 
standing benefits, some of which are, in fact, union jobs. So the wheel 
of takeaways we won't bore you with, but that wheel can go both ways.
  Section 102, interestingly enough, if you like this, this is a bad 
thing. It requires best practices, Madam Chair, for things like 
considering State agency reports that have jurisdiction over the issue. 
That's a pretty frivolous takeaway. It already exists.
  Or how about considering best practices for conducting reviews 
concurrently? Oh, my God, the Republicans are giving something away, 
conducting reviews concurrently. Oh, my goodness. How about expediting 
rather than delaying the process?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Again, this bill is not aimed at ensuring that we can guarantee that 
we increase the production of the kinds of rare Earth that we need in 
order to compete against China. By the way, if we're really going to be 
using China as the guise for the reduction in the environmental laws in 
the United States because they have rare Earth, and we're ramping up 
our production of rare Earth, what we should really be talking about is 
why in the world are the Republicans supporting the sale of our oil and 
our natural gas to China.
  If they're using precious minerals as an economic weapon against the 
United States, then why don't we use natural gas and oil, which we 
have, against them because that's the most precious of all minerals.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Oil and gas really drive the economy of the world, and every time I 
bring an amendment out here on the floor that says, well, let's drill 
for oil and natural gas on the public lands of the United States, but 
we can't export it after we discover it here, drill for it here, to 
China, the Republicans, every time, vote not to put a ban on that. At 
the same time, they are over there with crocodile tears very concerned 
about China having all of these precious metals that they won't sell to 
us.
  Well, you want to know the best way to get China to sell that stuff 
to us? For us not to sell the stuff we have to them, that they need to 
manufacture those materials. That's the game.
  So you can't have it both ways. You just can't have it both ways. 
Either this is a great threat to our country and we're going to use the 
precious metals we have, the precious minerals that we have, oil and 
gas as our weapon against China, or we're doomed. We don't have a real 
strategy.
  Again, this is not a coherent strategy to deal with the country of 
China and their economic strategy to undermine our competitiveness.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I would just advise my 
friend that I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Massachusetts 
is prepared to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. I am prepared to close.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair.
  China's rare Earth policies do burn America's high-tech manufacturing 
competitiveness, and the Republicans just want to throw gas on the 
fire, American natural gas.
  Our greatest competitive advantage in manufacturing right now is low-
priced domestic natural gas, but the Republicans want to export that 
competitive edge to China and to develop a global natural gas market so 
that the United States natural gas prices triple here domestically, or 
quadruple to match the prices the rest of the world pays.
  China will not send their rare Earth minerals to the United States, 
but Republicans have continually voted to allow exports of our low-cost 
natural gas, our manufacturing advantage, to China.
  This is a one-way ticket to manufacturing oblivion. Natural gas in 
our country is six to seven times less expensive than natural gas in 
China. It is four times less expensive than natural gas in Europe. That 
is our competitive advantage.
  What the Republicans have consistently done since they have taken 
over the majority is to put in place policies to export our natural gas 
that is six times less expensive to China that will then be used in the 
manufacture of every product that they will then sell back to us, 
undermining every manufacturing industry in the United States as we 
supply the very valuable precious natural gas they need in order to 
harm dramatically the American economy.
  Where do they show up? They show up here with crocodile tears about 
the restrictions that the National Environmental Policy Act places upon 
mining

[[Page 11276]]

for sand, mining for gold, mining for silver. You really think that's 
the way we're going to get back into a better competitive stance 
against the Chinese as you're saying no, let's sell our natural gas 
that's six times less expensive than the natural gas they have in 
America fueling their industries?
  That's just an upside-down policy. It's just dealing with the 
periphery of the challenge that China presents to us, and not even in 
an effective way, rather than going right to the core of how they are 
exploiting this mindless commitment to not the American Petroleum 
Institute, but we might as well call it the world petroleum institute 
because they don't represent American interests.
  That's what we have to do here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. That's what our amendments do today to make sure that 
we do for our country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. May I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, for the record, Madam Chair, natural gas is not 
affected at all by this bill.
  Madam Chair, I will submit for the Record excerpts from the March 
2012 Report to Congress by the Department of Defense on the rare Earth 
materials in defense applications on national security dependence on a 
secure supply of high-tech critical minerals.

                              {time}  1020

  Madam Chairwoman, my colleagues have talked about the fact that this 
administration claims that mining permitting timelines have been 
reduced. Yet this President has been in office now for 40 months, and 
while they are filing WTO complaints against China on rare Earth 
minerals, they have yet to permit one rare Earth mine here in America, 
and there doesn't seem like there's any on the horizon that will get 
approval.
  I want to also talk about one other thing, Madam Chairman. President 
Obama has been giving a lot of speeches claiming support for insourcing 
jobs to the United States from foreign nations. Currently, our Nation 
is dependent on foreign nations such as China and India for critical 
materials that American manufacturers and our economy depend upon. This 
bill will help reverse this dependency and insource these good-paying 
jobs right here to the United States. Yet the official position of the 
Obama administration is that they strongly oppose this jobs bill. Not 
only will this bill help create mining jobs in Nevada, Colorado, New 
Mexico, and many other States, it will also help produce the critical 
materials and minerals that American manufacturers need and that 
millions of jobs depend on in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
  So President Obama can give speech after speech claiming support for 
insourcing jobs, but when he should take action to make that happen, 
the Obama administration essentially goes the other way, as he has done 
with this bill.
  Once again, Madam Chairman, this bill simply says that in a given 
time period there should be a decision made. It doesn't say it should 
be a positive or negative, but that a decision should be made. That's 
all. And when we're dealing with materials that are so important to our 
economy and to American jobs, we should be very much in favor of this 
legislation.
  For that reason, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
H.R. 4402, and I yield back the balance of my time.

            Assessment of Rare Earth Materials Supply Chain


                            A. Introduction

       This report is prepared pursuant to section 843 the Ike 
     Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2011 (Public Law 111-383) and Senate Report 111-201, 
     accompanying S. 3454, page 174. The Act requires the 
     Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the 
     supply and demand for rare earth materials in defense 
     applications and Senate Report 111-201 requests discussion of 
     national security issues related to rare earth materials in 
     the defense supply chain.


            C. Congressionally Mandated Assessment Criteria

       In section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, Congress mandated that the 
     Department assess which, if any, of the rare earth materials 
     meet the following two criteria:
       Criterion 1: ``The rare earth material is critical to the 
     production, sustainment, or operation of significant United 
     States military equipment.''
       Criterion 2: ``The rare earth material is subject to 
     interruption of supply, based on actions or events outside 
     the control of the government of the United States.''
       For each rare earth material that meets both criteria, 
     section 843 requires a plan to ensure long-term availability, 
     with a goal of establishing an assured source of supply of 
     such material in critical defense applications by December 
     31, 2015.
       Section 843 states that the plan shall include 
     consideration of risk mitigation methods and states that 
     sintered neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) magnets meet the 
     criteria for inclusion in the plan.


      F. Forecast of U.S. Supply vs. Key Defense Consumption--2013

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Supply    Consumption    Surplus      Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dysprosium..................................................            7            7            0  ...........
Erbium......................................................          1.2         1.14        0.056  ...........
Europium....................................................           21           11           10  ...........
Gadolinium..................................................           42            4           38  ...........
Neodymium...................................................        2,232          110        2,122  ...........
Praseodymium................................................          824           14          810  ...........
Yttrium.....................................................           26          119  ...........           93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Rare earth materials are widely used within the U.S. 
     defense industrial base. Markets for rare earth materials are 
     dominated by commercial end-uses, and the defense industrial 
     base represents a small fraction of overall U.S. consumption. 
     The seven rare earth elements in the preceding table are 
     those which are the most prevalent among defense consumption 
     for the purposes of procurement. The assessment determined 
     that by 2013 U.S. production could satisfy the level of 
     consumption required to meet defense procurement needs, with 
     the exception of yttrium (estimates based on model using 2010 
     data). Since 2010, both expected DoD demand, and, more 
     significantly, actual U.S. commercial demand have decreased 
     significantly. As importantly, the U.S. and global market has 
     responded to market conditions with new investments, 
     corporate restructuring, and technical advances. All are 
     trending positive for a market capable of meeting future U.S. 
     Government demand. It is anticipated the domestic supply of 
     REEs and rare-earth-containing products will continue to grow 
     between now and 2015, and it will be possible for 
     manufacturers within the defense industrial base to obtain 
     some rare-earth-containing products from reliable foreign 
     sources of supply. Despite the many positive developments 
     that indicate an increasingly diverse and robust domestic and 
     global supply chain for rare earth materials, the Department 
     will continue to monitor these supply chains and take actions 
     as indicated in the following sections.


 G. Dod's Recommended Plans to Assure Supplies of Rare Earth Materials

       The DoD plan for ensuring the long-term availability of 
     rare earth materials applies a multi-pronged approach. The 
     following options could be used in conjunction with existing 
     DoD Defense Production Act Title I authorities (e.g., 
     priority claim on U.S. supplies and foreign supplies that are 
     imported into the United States):
       DoD will engage in continuous, rigorous monitoring of 
     markets and production levels;
       DoD will undertake recurring reviews of defense industrial 
     base materials supply chains;
       DoD will make preparations for the possible need to 
     establish buffer stocks that are contractor-owned, U.S. 
     Government-subsidized but not implemented unless certain 
     predetermined marked indicators are met; and
       DoD will make preparations for the possible need to 
     establish contingency measures to obtain vendor-managed 
     inventories when pre-determined market and/or supply chain 
     indicators occur.
       In addition to the elements of supply assurances in the 
     plan above, the following methods will be considered during 
     implementation of the DoD plan, as outlined in section 843:
       Assessment of available financing to industry, universities 
     and not-for profits;
       Assessment of Defense Production Act benefits;
       Assessment of research and development funding for 
     alternatives and substitutions; and
       Assessment of foreign trade practices with relevant U.S. 
     Government components.


                             H. Conclusions

       Rare earth materials are widely used within the defense 
     industrial base. However, such end uses represent a small 
     fraction of U.S. consumption. As a result, when looked at in 
     isolation, the growing U.S. supply of these materials is 
     increasingly capable of meeting the consumption of the 
     defense industrial

[[Page 11277]]

     base. Over the past year, there have been a number of 
     positive developments with regard to both supply and demand 
     within the rare earth materials markets. Reactions to market 
     forces have resulted in positive developments, such as prices 
     decreasing by half from their peak levels in July 2011, 
     increased investment and domestic supply of rare earth 
     materials, corporate restructuring within the supply chain, 
     and lower forecasts for non-Chinese consumption. By 2015, the 
     Department believes this will help to stabilize overall 
     markets and improve the availability of rare earth materials.
       The Department remains committed to pursuing a three-
     pronged approach to this important issue: diversification of 
     supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of 
     waste as part of a larger U.S. Government recycling effort. 
     In addition to the many positive developments that indicate 
     an increasingly diverse and robust domestic and global supply 
     chain for rare earth materials, the Department will continue 
     to monitor these supply chains, prepare possible contingency 
     plans for ensuring their availability, and implement such 
     plans as appropriate.

  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4402 
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  Many Americans might not be aware, but our country is facing a crisis 
when it comes to rare earth elements. These naturally occurring 
elements are vital to our national security because they are essential 
components in defense weapon systems. However, their importance does 
not end there. Everyday items that Americans are accustomed to, such as 
cell phones and computers, require rare earth elements. Our energy 
infrastructure is dependent on these resources, including: pipelines, 
refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and 
renewable energy production. Strategic and critical minerals are also 
used to support the manufacturing, agriculture, housing, and 
telecommunications industries. Even medical equipment utilizes these 
elements.
  During the 1960s and continuing to the 1980s, America was the 
premiere leader in rare earth element production. However, since then 
production has moved almost exclusively to China. They now produce 
about 97 percent of rare earth oxides, are the single exporter of 
commercial quantities of rare earth refined metals, and are the 
manufacturer of the world's strongest magnets.
  What is most disturbing is that China appears to be cutting its rare 
earth exports and restricting other countries' access to these 
resources. America has become almost totally dependent on China for 
rare earth elements, and we have lost our domestic capacity to tap into 
our own supply.
  Madam Chair, this House has had lengthy debates about how onerous 
red-tape and regulations are hurting our country's economy. 
Unfortunately, over-regulation is hurting our ability to produce rare 
earth elements. Frivolous lawsuits and a maze of a permitting process 
have caused America to no longer be a leader in rare earth element 
manufacturing. H.R. 4402 corrects this problem. This legislation will 
allow our country to more efficiently develop these essential 
resources.
  The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act will cut 
red-tape and streamline the permitting process to begin a mineral 
production project which can currently take over a decade. This bill 
will require the permitting review process to be completed within 30 
months. Additionally, the legislation ensures projects are not 
indefinitely delayed by litigation by setting time limits to file legal 
challenges to mining projects.
  Overall, this legislation would require the Departments of Interior 
and Agriculture to better help develop our rare earth elements here at 
home.
  Madam Chair, this bill is vital to our national security and our 
economy, and I urge its swift passage.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, today's legislation has more to do with 
undermining environmental review of mining on public lands than the 
production of rare earths and other critical minerals, and I will 
oppose it today.
  Specifically, H.R. 4402 would let mining companies operating on 
public lands set time limits for each part of the environmental review 
process and then arbitrarily cap total environmental review time at 30 
months. The bill then elevates mining over hunting, fishing, grazing, 
conservation and any other public purpose and places new restrictions 
on judicial review. Finally, the definition of ``strategic and critical 
minerals'' in this legislation is so broad as to encompass virtually 
every mineral that is or could be mined on public lands--including such 
common materials as sand, clay and gravel. If the majority was 
seriously interested in targeting the production of strategic and 
critical minerals on public lands, we would have adopted the amendment 
offered by our colleague Rep. Paul Tonko expressly for that purpose. 
Instead, the Tonko amendment was defeated on a party line vote and so 
we are left with the serious defects of the underlying legislation.
  Madam Chair, we can responsibly develop our natural resources and 
protect our environment at the same time. H.R. 4402 ignores that 
central truth and should be opposed by every member of this body.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-26. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4402

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Strategic and 
     Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The industrialization of China and India has driven 
     demand for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of 
     resource nationalism exemplified by China's reduction in 
     exports of rare-earth elements necessary for 
     telecommunications, military technologies, healthcare 
     technologies, and conventional and renewable energy 
     technologies.
       (2) The availability of minerals and mineral materials are 
     essential for economic growth, national security, 
     technological innovation, and the manufacturing and 
     agricultural supply chain.
       (3) The exploration, production, processing, use, and 
     recycling of minerals contribute significantly to the 
     economic well-being, security and general welfare of the 
     Nation.
       (4) The United States has vast mineral resources, but is 
     becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of these 
     mineral materials, as demonstrated by the following:
       (A) Twenty-five years ago the United States was dependent 
     on foreign sources for 30 nonfuel mineral materials, 6 of 
     which the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation's 
     requirements, and for another 16 commodities the United 
     States imported more than 60 percent of the Nation's needs.
       (B) By 2011 the United States import dependence for nonfuel 
     mineral materials had more than doubled from 30 to 67 
     commodities, 19 of which the United States imported 100 
     percent of the Nation's requirements, and for another 24 
     commodities, imported more than 50 percent of the Nation's 
     needs.
       (C) The United States share of world wide mineral 
     exploration dollars was 8 percent in 2011, down from 19 
     percent in the early 1990s.
       (D) In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment, 
     out of 25 major mining countries, the United States ranked 
     last with Papua New Guinea in permitting delays, and towards 
     the bottom regarding government take and social issues 
     affecting mining.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic 
     and critical minerals'' means minerals that are necessary--
       (A) for national defense and national security 
     requirements;
       (B) for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including 
     pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and 
     transmission, and renewable energy production;
       (C) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, 
     housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation 
     infrastructure; and
       (D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of 
     trade.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency, 
     department, or other unit of Federal, State, local, or tribal 
     government, or Alaska Native Corporation.
       (3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral 
     exploration or mine permit'' includes plans of operation 
     issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest 
     Service pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and 36 CFR 228A respectively.

  TITLE I--DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC SOURCES OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL 
                                MINERALS

     SEC. 101. IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL 
                   MINERALS.

       Domestic mines that will provide strategic and critical 
     minerals shall be considered an ``infrastructure project'' as 
     described in Presidential Order ``Improving Performance of 
     Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects'' 
     dated March 22, 2012.

     SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY.

       (a) In General.--The lead agency with responsibility for 
     issuing a mineral exploration or

[[Page 11278]]

     mine permit shall appoint a project lead who shall coordinate 
     and consult with other agencies, cooperating agencies, 
     project proponents and contractors to ensure that agencies 
     minimize delays, set and adhere to timelines and schedules 
     for completion of reviews, set clear permitting goals and 
     track progress against those goals.
       (b) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a 
     mineral exploration or mine permit shall determine any such 
     action would not constitute a major Federal action 
     significantly affecting the quality of the human environment 
     within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 if the procedural and substantive safeguards of the 
     lead agency's permitting process alone, any applicable State 
     permitting process alone, or a combination of the two 
     processes together provide an adequate mechanism to ensure 
     that environmental factors are taken into account.
       (c) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a 
     mineral exploration or mine permit shall enhance government 
     coordination on permitting and review by avoiding duplicative 
     reviews, minimizing paperwork and engaging other agencies and 
     stakeholders early in the process. The lead agency shall 
     consider the following best practices:
       (1) Deferring to and relying upon baseline data, analysis 
     and reviews preformed by State agencies with jurisdiction 
     over the proposed project.
       (2) Conducting reviews concurrently rather than 
     sequentially to the extent practicable and when such 
     concurrent review will expedite rather than delay a decision.
       (d) At the request of a project proponent, the project lead 
     of the agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral 
     exploration or mine permit shall enter into an agreement with 
     the project proponent and other cooperating agencies that 
     sets time limits for each part of the permit review process 
     including the following:
       (1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       (2) A determination of the scope of any document required 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       (3) The scope of and schedule for the baseline studies 
     required to prepare a document required under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       (4) Preparation of any draft document required under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       (5) Preparation of a final document required under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       (6) Consultations required under applicable laws.
       (7) Submission and review of any comments required under 
     applicable law.
       (8) Publication of any public notices required under 
     applicable law.
       (9) A final or any interim decisions.
       (e) In no case should the total review process described in 
     subsection (d) exceed 30 months unless agreed to by the 
     signatories of the agreement.
       (f) The lead agency is not required to address agency or 
     public comments that were not submitted during the public 
     comment periods provided by the lead agency or otherwise 
     required by law.
       (g) The lead agency will determine the amount of financial 
     assurance for reclamation of a mineral exploration or mining 
     site, which must cover the estimated cost if the lead agency 
     were to contract with a third party to reclaim the operations 
     according to the reclamation plan, including construction and 
     maintenance costs for any treatment facilities necessary to 
     meet Federal, State or tribal environmental standards.

     SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE.

       In developing the mineral exploration or mine permit, the 
     priority of the lead agency shall be to maximize the 
     development of the mineral resource, while mitigating 
     environmental impacts, so that more of the mineral resource 
     can be brought to the market place.

     SEC. 104. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION 
                   AND MINING PROJECTS.

       (a) Preparation of Federal Notices for Mineral Exploration 
     and Mine Development Projects.--The preparation of Federal 
     Register notices required by law associated with the issuance 
     of a mineral exploration or mine permit shall be delegated to 
     the organization level within the agency responsible for 
     issuing the mineral exploration or mine permit. All Federal 
     Register notices regarding official document availability, 
     announcements of meetings, or notices of intent to undertake 
     an action shall be originated and transmitted to the Federal 
     Register from the office where documents are held, meetings 
     are held, or the activity is initiated.
       (b) Departmental Review of Federal Register Notices for 
     Mineral Exploration and Mining Projects.--Absent any 
     extraordinary circumstance or except as otherwise required by 
     any Act of Congress, each Federal Register notice described 
     in subsection (a) shall undergo any required reviews within 
     the Department of the Interior or the Department of 
     Agriculture and be published in its final form in the Federal 
     Register no later than 30 days after its initial preparation.

TITLE II--JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS RELATING TO EXPLORATION AND 
                              MINE PERMITS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE.

       In this title the term ``covered civil action'' means a 
     civil action containing a claim under section 702 of title 5, 
     United States Code, regarding agency action affecting a 
     mineral exploration or mine permit.

     SEC. 202. TIMELY FILINGS.

       A covered civil action is barred unless filed no later than 
     the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the 
     final Federal agency action to which it relates.

     SEC. 203. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.

       The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered 
     civil action as expeditiously as possible.

     SEC. 204. LIMITATION ON PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

       In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or 
     approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that 
     such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 
     necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement, 
     and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that 
     violation.

     SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of 
     title 28, United States Code (together commonly called the 
     Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to a covered civil 
     action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action 
     receive payment from the Federal Government for their 
     attorneys' fees, expenses, and other court costs.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
590. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112-590.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, beginning at line 7, strike paragraph (1) and 
     insert the following:
       (1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic 
     and critical minerals''--
       (A) means--
       (i) minerals and mineral groups identified as critical by 
     the National Research Council in the report entitled 
     ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'', dated 
     2008; and
       (ii) additional minerals identified by the Secretary of the 
     Interior based on the National Research Council criteria in 
     such report; and
       (B) shall not include sand, gravel, or clay.
       Page 4, strike lines 1 through 6 and insert the following:
       (1) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral 
     exploration or mine permit''--
       (A) means a mineral exploration or mine permit for 
     strategic and critical minerals; and
       (B) includes any plan of operation for strategic and 
     critical minerals that is issued by the Bureau of Land 
     Management and the Forest Service.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  My amendment is very simple. It replaces the overly broad definition 
in H.R. 4402 with a definition that truly address the materials 
identified in the title of the bill: critical and strategic materials.
  Since the realization that China was restricting exports of rare 
Earth metals in 2010, the issue of critical and strategic materials has 
reemerged as a concern. This isn't the first time Congress has 
considered our potential vulnerability to resource shortages. Just 
before World War II, Congress passed the Strategic and Critical 
Materials Stockpiling Act of 1939 to address our Nation's requirement 
for materials needed for national defense. We have expanded our notion 
of strategic and critical materials since that time to include civilian 
and economic needs for materials. But there is no precedent for the 
broad definition included in H.R. 4402. The military's current 
definition of strategic and critical materials in the U.S. Code is far 
narrower than the definition in this bill.
  Nine of the ten bills introduced in this Congress dealing with 
strategic

[[Page 11279]]

and critical minerals rely on definitions or specific lists of minerals 
that would conform to the definition in my amendment--not to the one in 
H.R. 4402. The definition in H.R. 4402 would include virtually all 
minerals and materials no matter how available they are. No other 
legislation proposes a definition that would consider sand and gravel 
``critical'' materials.
  The National Academy of Science panel looked at this issue in 2008. 
The panel specified two factors that define a mineral as critical: It 
is essential in use and subject to the risk of supply restriction. H.R. 
4402's definition captures only the first factor that the Academy 
considered. The panel recognized that the list of critical materials 
was likely to change over time due to technological developments, usage 
patterns, changes in mineral reserves, and many other factors.
  They developed a matrix that could be used to evaluate substances and 
used this matrix to examine a group of minerals that are in current 
high demand. Two dozen minerals were identified as critical in the NAS 
report. The rare Earth metals, the platinum metals, and several other 
minerals were included in their list. Oddly enough, sand, gravel, iron, 
copper--all useful materials, to be sure--did not make it to the list. 
The current definition in H.R. 4402 is unnecessary if the purpose is to 
secure additional critical minerals.
  H.R. 4402 undermines the protection of our public lands and elevates 
mining above all other public land uses. If H.R. 4402 is truly a bill 
to address potential shortages of critical minerals, then my amendment 
should be adopted. Let's concentrate on the problem at hand: Securing 
additional rare Earth minerals and other truly critical minerals.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TONKO. I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  So what is the majority doing in this bill? They're saying that sand 
is a ``critical'' material; gravel, clay. There's no crisis in the sand 
industry. We don't need to wad it down, the environmental protections 
for drilling for sand or gravel or clay. There is no crisis. That's 
what this whole bill is. It's a Trojan horse. It's moving in to 
undermine environmental protections where they're working and where 
there's no need to reduce them.
  If they want to talk about scandium or europium or cerium or terbium 
or some other critical strategic material that we should be discussing 
out here that we need for cell phones or we need for solar panels or we 
need for our defense systems, that's one thing. But that's not what 
this is about. This is about watering down environmental protections 
for sand and clay and endangering the health and well-being of the 
Nation for no reason whatsoever because there's no strategic 
relationship between those very prosaic minerals and our national 
security.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment attempts to pick which minerals are 
winners and losers in the Federal permitting sweepstakes. The 
underlying bill that we are talking about focuses on the permitting of 
mines that meet four clear categories of domestic need--and this is 
important--national security, energy infrastructure, domestic 
manufacturing, and our national economic balance of trade.
  The amendment would restrict these down to just a 2008 study done by 
the National Research Council that took a limited and narrow look at 
only the aerospace, the electronic, and automotive industries when 
considering each mineral critical. However--and this is important, 
Madam Chairman--the report also states:

       All minerals and mineral products could be or could become 
     critical to some degree, depending on their importance and 
     availability. The criticality of a specific mineral can and 
     likely will change as production technologies evolve and new 
     products are developed.

  The definition of the strategic and critical minerals in H.R. 4402 is 
written broadly--we acknowledge that--to allow for the most flexibility 
when carrying out the provisions of this act. Less than 10 years ago, 
people were concerned about platinum group metals used for computer and 
electronics and the pending shortfall of copper availability.

                              {time}  1030

  Today, the focus is primarily on the availability of rare Earth 
elements and rare Earth metals that are in China. Tomorrow, the 
shortage could be lithium for batteries, silica for solar panels, and 
any of a host of other minerals.
  Interestingly, in this talk of sand and gravel, during the U.S. 
Geological Survey's great shakeout in California, which simulated a 
massive earthquake and the problems that could be faced, they 
discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials--sand 
and gravel, Madam Chairman--if there were a major earthquake causing 
significant damage in the L.A. basin and the surrounding areas. I think 
that would be very critical if that were to happen. It happened in the 
last 25 years, twice in California and once in Minnesota.
  Mineral production is a key economic activity supplying strategic and 
critical metals and minerals essential for agriculture, communication, 
technology, construction, health care, manufacturing, transportation, 
and the arts. More specifically, strategic metals and metal alloys are 
an integral component of aerospace, defense, and other critical 
infrastructure.
  Minerals, Madam Chairman, are also necessary to satisfy the basic 
requirements of an individual's well-being, and that includes food, 
clothing, shelter and a clean and healthy environment. So we should not 
limit ourselves today by narrowly defining what is strategic and 
critical. That's precisely what this amendment does, and I think that's 
a wrong approach. So, with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Chairman, I understand that the gentleman yielded back his 
time; is that correct?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I 
will reserve my time, and I will not object if the gentleman wants to 
reclaim his time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has asked unanimous consent to 
reclaim the 1 minute he has remaining.
  Without objection, the request is granted.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I appreciate that.
  I just want to state clearly that the amendment itself embraces 
flexibility. It understands that if there are changes in time that are 
requiring the list to be adjusted, we would have the academy adjust 
that so that the flexibility is there recognizing that if, in the 
course of time, the change needs to be made, if we need to further 
extend the list, so be it. But the flexibility is contained in the 
amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am simply saying that this underlying 
bill lays out four strategic areas in which we should have minerals to 
support those areas. And then we say there should be a timeframe, a 
defined timeframe, in which, unless there is an agreement it should be 
longer, activity should be done. It's pretty straightforward. This 
amendment, as offered, would very narrowly say what is critical. I 
think that's the wrong approach.
  So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

[[Page 11280]]

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 112-590.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, strike lines 8 through 10 and insert the following:
       (e)(1) In no case should the total review process described 
     in subsection (d) exceed 30 months unless--
       (A) agreed to by the signatories of the agreement, or
       (B) the lead agency has determined that an adequate review 
     has not been completed due to issues arising not contained in 
     the permit application or otherwise unforeseen by the 
     signatories at the time of submittal of the permit 
     application.
       (2) In a case described in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) the lead agency may extend the total review process by 
     6 months;
       (B) if, at the end of that 6-month period, the issues 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(B) have not been adequately 
     addressed, the lead agency may extend the total review 
     process by an additional 6 months;
       (C) if at the end of that additional 6-month period the 
     issues referred to in paragraph (1)(B) have not been 
     adequately addressed, the lead agency shall issue its final 
     determination on the permit application

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, despite the name of this bill, 
the underlying legislation has, in my judgment, little to do with 
securing a sufficient supply of rare Earth minerals for our country. 
Rather, it is another Republican giveaway to large, profitable 
companies that do not need congressional action to pad their bottom 
lines.
  In fact, today's bill is so broadly drafted that it is not just rare 
Earth mines that will no longer have to adhere to our Federal 
environmental laws, but virtually any mine on public land anywhere, 
including silver, uranium and coal mines.
  Mining operations have severe and permanent consequences for the land 
and residents living nearby. In fact, 75 percent of existing mines end 
up polluting the groundwater despite the designed mitigation plans. The 
need for a complete and thorough review of the environmental impact 
before approval is therefore absolutely necessary.
  What's more, Madam Chair, is that this bill's underlying intent of 
loosening up the permitting process is not even necessary. Mining is 
already the priority use for most public lands, which makes it 
virtually impossible to regulate and control. Mining on public lands is 
also already incredibly cheap. These companies pay little rent to the 
American taxpayer for the use of public land.
  Moreover, under the Obama administration, 82 percent of plans are 
approved within 3 years, with an average of 4 years for the largest 
mines located on public lands. Any delays in permit approval usually 
stem from an incomplete application or problems that arise during 
review which were not anticipated and require supplemental information.
  By giving the lead agency the option to extend the time period for 
review in the event of new information, my amendment makes sure 
agencies can get the job done right while still adhering to a 
predictable schedule. Prioritizing speed over accuracy--I learned 
early, as did all of us, that haste makes waste--as this bill does, 
guarantees that mining companies are able to drill additional mines at 
a faster rate with less consideration for the broader impact of those 
mines.
  My amendment is necessary to give agencies the time they need to make 
sure that this bill will not compromise environmental protections that 
keep our drinking water safe, soil nourishing and nontoxic, and our air 
clean enough to breathe.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment would reverse course on the goal of 
this legislation to streamline red tape. This amendment could add an 
entire year to the time allowed for the government to make a decision 
on a permit. This would then drag out the process 40 percent longer 
than provided for in the underlying bill.
  The 30-month time period set by this legislation is accomplished by 
making government work more efficiently--and I, quite frankly, think 
that's what all Americans would like--by aligning some reviews and 
taking some actions concurrently.
  Establishing a simple deadline for the government to do their job in 
a timely fashion is reasonable, and I think it is reasonable. This is 
especially true since it doesn't change the standards and requirements 
that must be met to get approval. It simply provides that an agency 
work efficiently while still complying with all, and let me emphasize 
all, environmental laws and regulations, studies, consultations, draft 
and file documents--all of them--that are required in order for a final 
record of decision to be issued on a mine plan. All the same review, 
but just in 30 months instead of what has been taking, in many cases, 
over a decade.
  The underlying bill provides for flexibility on the 30-month permit 
timeline should a justifiable need arise for further analysis. Let me 
repeat: it allows for further time if that is needed. Yet this 
amendment would give a Federal agency an automatic excuse to prolong 
the process for a year, and there is no explanation that is needed.
  So this amendment presents bureaucracy with a ``drag your feet for 
free'' card. It would hand over another roll of red tape to the 
government and invite them to string up more obstacles and delay job 
creators from getting a straight answer. And keep in mind, the 30-month 
time period that we're talking about simply says ``an answer shall be 
given.'' It could be negative; it could be positive.
  This bill provides certainty for permit applicants by allowing the 
United States to be more competitive so that we can create more jobs 
here at home and produce more of the critical materials and minerals 
that are needed for our economy and therefore lessen our reliance on 
foreign sources.

                              {time}  1040

  So I oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Florida, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Chair, I understand very clearly what my good friend from 
Washington is saying. My quarrel is in asking that the lead agency be 
given the option to extend the time, as I believe historically mining 
companies--who, under the underlying bill would have the right to sign 
off on the extension--are not likely to do that. There is no history 
showing that they do. They want to hurry up and get on with their 
mining business. When there are unpredictable kinds of circumstances, 
then it would seem to me that the lead agency would be the place that 
would determine the time for review.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  In response to my friend, the legislation says that both sides have 
to agree. I think that's a good way. The gentleman says that there's no 
evidence of that. Well, there's no evidence that the contrary would 
work either.

[[Page 11281]]

  So, to give more time--again, what we have heard over and over and 
over, and especially those Members and the author of this legislation 
who comes from a State that is heavily in the mining industry, the 
uncertainty is what the problem is. What this legislation does is 
provide certainty but flexibility. Now, I think that makes sense. If 
you probably walk to Main Street anyplace in America and said this is 
what the option is of a 30-month time period rather than up to 10 or 
more years, they would say, yeah, I think certainty makes a great deal 
of sense.
  So this amendment offered by my good friend from Florida I think 
extends it, doesn't need to be there, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 112-590.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 22, insert the following new subsection:
       (h) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a 
     mineral exploration or mine permit for hardrock minerals on 
     Federal land after the date of enactment of this Act shall 
     require a royalty payment of 12.5 percent of the value of the 
     minerals produced pursuant to the permit. Amounts received by 
     the United States as such royalties shall be available to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations and in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available, for abandoned hardrock mine lands reclamation.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I have an amendment in order today, and the reason I 
have it in order is that it's a very simple amendment. It would update 
an antiquated mining law to end the free ride that mining companies 
extracting minerals like gold and silver and uranium on public lands 
currently enjoy. It would then send that money to benefit Western 
States by dedicating the funding to cleaning up the more than 160,000 
abandoned mines we have in the West.
  The underlying bill would extend a host of new giveaways to the 
mining industry while doing nothing to ensure taxpayers are getting a 
proper return on these valuable minerals like gold and silver and 
uranium on public lands.
  It is well past time to fix this law that was passed during the 
Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. My amendment would require 
mining companies to pay taxpayers 12.5 percent of the value of these 
hard rock minerals taken off of the public lands. That is the same 
royalty rate that coal and oil and natural gas companies pay to the 
Federal Government to mine and drill on public lands.
  While mining companies pay no royalty on Federal lands to mine for 
gold and silver, they do pay a royalty on State lands that would abut 
those Federal lands. Twelve Western States already require mining 
companies to pay royalties up to 12 percent on mining on their State 
lands. Colorado charges up to 12 percent on minerals taken from their 
State lands. Utah, Wyoming, and California all charge up to 10 percent. 
Nevada charges up to 5 percent. But when it comes to mining on Federal 
lands, which could be right next door to the State lands, these 
multinational mining companies, they still get to play Uncle Sam for 
Uncle Sucker. They pay Federal taxpayers--all of the rest of us in the 
country--no royalties while reaping this massive windfall. So what my 
amendment would do is it would ensure that the States where this mining 
is occurring reap the benefits.
  According to the GAO, there are more than 160,000 abandoned gold and 
silver and copper and uranium and other mines in the West. Some 
estimates put that number as high as 500,000 abandoned mines. These 
mines stopped production decades or, in some cases, more than a century 
ago and have no responsible parties to carry out the proper 
environmental remediation. The result is that the streams and the 
rivers, the aquifers, the soils continue to be contaminated by mercury 
and thorium and arsenic and other toxic pollutants. In fact, the GAO 
says that more than 33,000 mines are already a danger to the public 
health and environment. Arizona has some 50,000 abandoned hard rock 
mines; California has more than 47,000; Utah and Nevada have 17,000 and 
16,000, respectively.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, cleaning up 
abandoned mine sites can cost tens of millions of dollars per mine. 
Well, my amendment would generate nearly $400 million over the next 10 
years that would be dedicated to cleaning up these sites. This would 
ensure that mining companies are paying their fair share to aid our 
Western States in cleaning up these dangerous and toxic sites.
  At this point, I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Madam 
Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is directly contrary to the intent of 
this bill that would create new jobs in the United States and ensure a 
stable domestic supply of the critical minerals that are so important 
to our economy.
  This amendment would impose an entirely new, retroactive fee on 
mining operations on Federal lands. It would impose a royalty that 
would be one of the highest of any country in the world and, thus, 
would probably drive more mining jobs overseas and put American 
manufacturing, once again, at risk.
  In the past, when we've had this issue in front of the Natural 
Resources Committee, we've had Democrat witnesses that have testified 
that an 8 percent gross royalty was unprecedented in the world and 
would not make economic sense, and yet this amendment is talking about 
a 12.5 percent gross royalty.
  In 2006, the World Bank report cautioned against gross royalty 
approaches as compared to ability-to-pay or profit-based approaches. 
Madam Chair, let me quote directly from that report:

       Nations should carefully weigh the immediate fiscal rewards 
     to be granted from high levels of royalty against the long-
     term benefits to be gained from a sustainable mining industry 
     that will contribute to long-term development, 
     infrastructure, and economic diversification.

  So they argue directly against this type of approach.
  Let us keep our focus on what is important here today. We are 
dependent on foreign sources for minerals that sustain our economy.
  We all know that the more you tax something, the less you get. That's 
what this approach is. I could take the gentleman's, my good friend 
from Massachusetts, math that he had out there and change it a little 
bit and say this is where there would be a lot of job losses if this 
amendment were adopted and this were to become law, because that's the 
area that would be affected, the Western part of the United States.
  So, Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, could you advise us as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 11282]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Amodei), once again, the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments.
  I would just like to point out, for the Record, since we're talking 
about Western abandoned mines, what's your definition of abandoned 
mine? Because if it's where somebody pushed up a little dirt and that's 
considered an abandoned mine, quite frankly, we're pretty proud in 
Nevada of the job that our Division of Environmental Protection has 
done on abandoned mine projects. We collaborate with the Feds.
  Quite simply, I believe the phrase was used earlier today, it's a 
solution in search of a problem. We're getting on it. We're doing very 
well. And quite frankly, I hope the Chair is not on this committee, but 
when you see a 12\1/2\ gross proceeds tax subject to the appropriations 
process of my colleagues here, no thank you very much.
  Mr. MARKEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, who has the right to close 
on this amendment?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has the right to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would just advise the gentleman that I 
have no more requests for time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Then I yield myself the balance of my time.
  So this is a very simple amendment. What it says is this: that these 
big mining companies--and the ones I'm talking about have a market 
capitalization of $90 billion--well, they just have to pay to drill on 
public lands, Federal public lands.
  Right now they're paying to drill on State public lands, and when 
they come over to the Federal public lands it's like free parking, free 
rent. You don't have to pay anything.
  Well, where are you going? You're going to where it's free. And who's 
letting them have it for free? Uncle Sam. Uncle Sucker.
  So what the Markey amendment says is we're going to raise $400 
million, charging them to drill for these precious minerals on Federal 
lands, and we're going to give the $400 million over to the States so 
that they can clean up their old mines where there are environmental 
problems.
  So if you care about the environmental problems in these Western 
States, here's your ability to send $400 million in, collected where 
the big companies are now paying nothing to mine on Federal lands, in 
order to help deal with environmental problems there. Not in 
Massachusetts, not in the East, but right here, right where this mining 
goes on, right where the environmental disasters occur.
  Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of the time.
  Once again, as that map is moving away, that's where the jobs would 
go if you add a gross tax to this activity.
  Let me point out just an economic issue here. Like oil and gas, 
probably not quite the same, you really don't know if there's any 
minerals in the ground until you dig. And if you put a royalty of 12\1/
2\ percent, you are going to discourage that activity.
  What does that mean?
  When you discourage that activity, it means the potential for job 
creation and mineral production in this country goes away.
  Now, if that's the intent of some in this country and maybe some on 
the other side, okay, be honest about it.
  I don't think that's the right approach, so I would urge my 
colleagues to reject this gross tax amendment. And with that, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 112-590.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 22, insert the following:
       (h) With respect to strategic and critical materials within 
     a federally administered unit of the National Forest System, 
     the lead agency shall--
       (1) exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in 
     Land Use Designations, other than Non-Development Land Use 
     Designations, in existence as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act from the procedures detailed at and all rules 
     promulgated under part 294 of title 36, Code for Federal 
     Regulations;
       (2) apply such exemption to all additional routes and areas 
     that the lead agency finds necessary to facilitate the 
     construction, operation, maintenance, and restoration of the 
     areas of identified mineral resources described in paragraph 
     (1); and
       (3) continue to apply such exemptions after approval of the 
     Minerals Plan of Operations for the unit of the National 
     Forest System.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It addresses the roadless 
areas in national forests but, specifically, in Alaska. It does not 
overturn the roadless areas.
  This is an attempt, as previously stated in this Congress, that 
highly mineralized areas would not be affected by the roadless area. It 
directly affects the Vulcan find of rare minerals, rare Earth.
  And I have to address my colleagues for a sense. Now, right now China 
controls the rare Earths of this world. Yet, we have tremendous 
deposits in Alaskan lands and in other lands of this Nation. But rare 
Earth is the future of all this high technology that people do support, 
and the so-called things that we try to develop are from rare Earth.
  It's wrong to have China control the price, control the quantity and 
availability for modern technology when we have our own. All we're 
asking in this is to make sure that an area that has high potential 
areas of rare Earth be accessible to the water.
  And the rules of roadless area do not apply. They were exempted 
before. They should be exempted now. But a ruling in 2011 made this 
area unaccessible for the development of rare Earth for this Nation.
  If you believe in the independence of this Nation, if you believe the 
importance of technology for the future, then you'll support this 
amendment. This is the right amendment for the right time to make sure 
we have this development.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
think that his amendment makes eminently good sense. It's exactly these 
sort of rulings that tie up our natural resources, and we should be 
utilizing them.
  I think the gentleman has a good amendment, and I support it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman.
  Again, this is specific for an area of rare Earth that's for the 
future of this Nation. This amendment should be adopted, and I urge a 
``yes'' on my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Almost 15 years ago, the Forest Service began the process 
of reviewing the management of the last remaining, undeveloped forests, 
the so-called roadless areas.
  In 2001, the Bush administration, yes, the George W. Bush 
administration,

[[Page 11283]]

issued regulations to protect these areas in an effort recognized as 
one of the most far-reaching conservation initiatives taken by the 
Federal Government in decades.
  Now, a decade later, after litigation, 60 million acres of our 
forests, and the clean water derived from those forests, are now 
protected from harmful development. Three hundred fifty four municipal 
water supplies flow through roadless areas on their way to homes and 
businesses. These areas include sacred sites for Native Americans. They 
include biological strongholds for fish and wildlife. The continued 
protection of these areas is something that people all over America 
care about.
  I know the gentleman thinks that this is somehow infringing on 
Alaska. The point that must be made is this is in the national 
interest, and continued protection of these areas is common sense. It 
is what I know my constituents tell me they want.
  For the record, there are already 380,000 miles of roads in the rest 
of our national forests, with only 20 percent maintained to adequate 
standards of safety.
  The gentleman from Alaska offers an amendment that purports to waive 
the roadless rule for the purposes of mineral development. However, 
both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management say that the 
current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing 
development sites in our forests. All the current policy requires is 
careful consideration before access for mining operations is permitted.
  I recognize that southeast Alaska, we all recognize that southeast 
Alaska is a unique place that requires access by boat and helicopter. 
However, mine operators have been able to get the approval necessary 
for that access. This is a waiver that is overly broad, which Federal 
agencies tell us is unnecessary for the purposes purported here. And it 
just invites conflict where, for a decade now, there has been 
resolution.

                              {time}  1100

  Congress has debated the roadless policy for a decade--actually for 
many decades, but for a decade--and opponents of the policy have had 
their day in court. Congress, the public, and the courts agree that 
they have supported the protections, including protections for those 
holding valid existing mineral rights. This amendment is not necessary, 
and I urge its defeat.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I enjoy 
people from Massachusetts and New Jersey talking about my State. It 
really always excites me that they really know a lot. They know 
nothing.
  This roadless area was open for mining development; and, actually, 
exemptions of certain rules couldn't allow it. Last year, they said, 
no, this couldn't be done, having access to this rare Earth for the 
Nation--for the Nation--this small area. All they want to do is get to 
the water. What good is rare Earth for this Nation if you can't get to 
it? We might as well stake a claim on the Moon. I mean, this is 17 
million acres of land that have already been set aside, all but 1 
million acres. All I'm asking for is access for the American people, 
access to this mineral deposit for the American people for the future, 
for the technology that is needed so as not to be dependent on China.
  Now, he may be representing China instead of New Jersey, and I 
respect that; but I'm talking about respect for this Nation. This 
amendment should be adopted for the good of the people of this Nation 
if you're thinking about the future. Ironically, that side offered an 
amendment to narrow this bill to only rare Earths. That amendment was 
offered, and I can't understand that.
  All I'm saying is, if you want access to rare Earth, then pass this 
amendment. Make it good for the Nation. Let's not be listening to 
somebody who, very frankly, doesn't understand the need--and this is a 
person who is a doctor, bless his heart, who understands the physical 
needs for the future, yet he says we're going to protect this little, 
narrow spot just to access water for the people of America. This is 
what this amendment does.
  I'm trying to get something done for America. I'm not playing 
politics in this. It really doesn't affect Alaska to that extent other 
than the fact that it's in the State of Alaska. It does affect other 
States, but quite frankly, I want it for Alaska. It's my job. I'm not 
affecting New Jersey. I don't ever introduce an amendment or oppose 
anything for New Jersey. If he wants something in New Jersey, if he 
wants to drill in New Jersey, I'd support it. If he wouldn't want to 
drill in New Jersey, I wouldn't support it. If you follow what I'm 
saying, this is important for the people of America, and I urge the 
passage of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. The gentleman is right, this affects more than Alaska. This 
affects the country at large. The roadless rule has been debated. It 
has been litigated. It should be considered settled.
  The Young amendment, as the gentleman has explained, derives from his 
interest in having road access for mineral development in Alaska. Both 
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--I repeat--say 
that the current policy does not prevent the mineral developers from 
accessing development sites. We don't need to overturn a well-debated, 
well-litigated, settled matter of the roadless rule.
  Just to be clear, the amendment that the gentleman from Alaska offers 
would exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in land use 
designations, et cetera, from the procedures detailed and the rules 
promulgated under title 36, Code of Federal Regulations.
  This is sweeping and it is not necessary.
  Again, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Alaska has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to point out that the areas that this amendment affects 
have already been set aside for mineral development. I want to repeat 
that, Mr. Chairman: these have already been set aside for mineral 
development. That policy has not changed at all. All it ensures is that 
we are going to have access to it.
  I just want to address the irony that the gentleman pointed out. This 
is for rare Earth. This particular one in his State is where we have 
rare Earth, and now they say they don't want it. There is some irony 
here, and I can't quite get my arms around it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, of course we want this country to have the 
minerals that it's dependent on; but need I repeat again that the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management say that current policy 
does not prevent mineral developers from accessing the development 
sites. This amendment is not necessary, and it would overturn very 
important resolutions that protect the public lands in the public 
interest.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. One last comment.
  He says there is no restriction and that we can go ahead and mine 
this Earth. You can't develop it. It's that simple. All exploration had 
to be done by helicopter. There was no access by road. To develop it, 
we must have this road to water access. This is a good amendment. It 
provides this Nation with the right minerals that are necessary for 
future technology. We should adopt this overwhelmingly if you're 
thinking of the Nation instead of an interest group.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page 11284]]

the gentleman from Alaska will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cravaack

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-590.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 22, insert the following:
       (h) This section shall apply with respect to a mineral 
     exploration or mine permit for which an application was 
     submitted before the date of the enactment of this Act if the 
     applicant for the permit submits a written request to the 
     lead agency for the permit. The lead agency shall begin 
     implementing this section with respect to such application 
     within 30 days after receiving such written request.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Today, I rise in support of my amendment, as well as in 
support of the underlying bill.
  H.R. 4402 is a commonsense, pro-growth piece of legislation that 
would simply facilitate a timely permitting process for very important 
mining projects throughout the United States.
  The United States cannot continue to depend on foreign countries to 
supply critical precious and rare Earth metals. This is a vital 
strategic disadvantage to the security of the United States. What 
happens if, one day, a supplying country decides it doesn't want to 
export or decides to restrict precious metals? What if our sea lanes 
become controlled by those who are not friendly to the United States? 
These mines are not something we can turn on and off at the flip of a 
switch.
  These mines are multi-million if not billion, dollar projects that 
take years of capital investment just to get going. This bill is as 
much a strategic defense bill as it is a jobs bill. According to a 
University of Minnesota-Duluth study, 2.5 ancillary jobs are produced 
for every mining job. These are good-paying jobs that we cannot afford 
to lose.
  My amendment will also allow mining projects that have already 
applied for a permit and are currently in the permitting process access 
to the new expedited procedures. My amendment falls along the same 
commonsense thinking that the underlying bill comes from, which is that 
30 months is plenty of time to complete the total review process for 
permitting a mine. Currently, there are numerous projects in the 
permitting pipeline that have taken way too long and that still have no 
definitive end in sight.
  One such project is in my district. PolyMet Mining initiated an 
environmental review of its proposed NorthMet copper and nickel mine 
back in 2005. Since then, the company has invested over $40 million for 
EIS inquiries. That is 7 years and counting for just environmental 
reviews. Another project that is just getting under way in the Eighth 
District is the Twin Metals project, which will also produce thousands 
of Minnesota jobs for both construction and long-term operations.
  In a 2009 study, the University of Minnesota-Duluth found that more 
than 12,000 Minnesota construction jobs will be created in Minnesota if 
all strategic metal mining projects currently under study move forward.

                              {time}  1110

  In 2009, the UMD study also estimated that more than 5,000 direct 
long-term Minnesota mining jobs will be created when all strategic 
metal mining projects currently under study become operational.
  Minnesota needs these jobs, and the country needs the minerals that 
these mines produce, and everyone needs a definitive permitting 
timeline that is reliable. Unfortunately, PolyMet is not a unique 
project. Seven years and $40 million is not even the worst example of 
inefficient permitting. Many other mining projects have been stalled 
for even longer due to inefficient and, at times, an agenda-driven 
permitting process.
  Another example is the Montanore mine in Montana. It has been in the 
permitting process since 2003. The Montanore project was previously 
permitted by the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, and other 
cooperating Federal agencies in 1993, following a full EIS process. The 
company chose not to proceed with the project until 2003 and has been 
working to obtain the same Federal permits since that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I could give example after example of how inefficient 
and onerous our Federal permitting process is, but there's just not 
enough time to do so. These multiyear delays in processing Federal 
permits for many good projects are impeding thousands of jobs, massive 
investments across the country, and are blocking domestic production of 
much-needed rare Earth strategic and critical precious metals.
  This amendment would ensure that these projects, like all future 
projects, are given a firm timeline that communities can count on 
while, at the same time, more than addressing concerns.
  I urge passage of this amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
  This is, as he said in his opening remark: simply a commonsense 
approach that those that are in the process now should avail themselves 
of potential changes in law.
  It is an excellent amendment, and I support it.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the chairman, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. This bill is ostensibly a bill that is supposed to be 
discussing rare Earth. It's supposed to be discussing strategic 
minerals that we can use in our competition to produce high-tech 
products that we're competing with the Chinese and others in order to 
produce in our country.
  The kinds of strategic materials that we're talking about are 
scandium, cerium, europium, and terbium. These are not minerals that 
people ordinarily hear about. And from the high-tech manufacturing 
sector, we hear that they're central to their ability to be able to 
compete.
  What the underlying bill would do is to reduce or eliminate the 
proper review of mining operations on public lands for virtually all 
types of minerals; not just for those rare Earths that I just 
mentioned, but also for gold, silver, uranium, and things like sand and 
gravel that are clearly--I think we should all be able to agree upon 
the fact that sand and gravel are not strategic minerals for our 
country. They're plentiful. They're available. We don't need to be 
watering down environmental laws in our attempt to be able to have 
enough sand and gravel and clay in the United States of America.
  This amendment would not only allow for insufficient review for 
future mining operations, it would allow mining operations that are 
currently being reviewed to also escape proper scrutiny. Even worse, 
this amendment is drafted in such a way that it could potentially even 
apply to mining operations that already have been approved.
  Following environmental review, mines sometimes have to put in place 
mitigation measures to protect the public health and the environment. 
Under this amendment, there is the potential that those companies could 
seek to have those mitigation measures thrown out. In an effort to save 
potentially millions of dollars, I understand what the company is 
trying to do. That might be good for that company, but it's not good 
for the environment or for the American people who already have 
mitigation agreements in place to protect against the mining company 
endangering the health, the well-being, and the water table of the

[[Page 11285]]

area where the mining is going on. It wouldn't just cover europium; it 
would cover, potentially, gravel, sand, and other elements that clearly 
don't need that kind of protection.
  This amendment would likely invite a hailstorm of litigation, which I 
would think that my colleagues on the other side would like to avoid. I 
would also like to think that my colleagues on the other side would 
rather have the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and 
other Federal agencies continue to move forward to approve new mines, 
not be bogged down relitigating mines that have already been approved.
  This amendment makes a bad bill even worse and would have a number of 
unintended consequences that could invite litigation and actually delay 
the approval of future mines.
  I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind our 
colleagues that mines aren't just permitted and then forgotten. They're 
constantly monitored.
  The precious metals we're talking about go into our cell phones, our 
computers, our weaponry, and even our catalytic converters. We need 
these materials now, and we cannot be held ransom by China. May I 
remind you, 600 pounds of copper goes into every windmill.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I understand the business plan here of these mining interests 
that don't even pay royalties to drill on the Federal lands of our 
country. Let's just continue this business plan. That's what they're 
saying to themselves. Maybe we can get it out of this Republican 
Congress. So, in addition to not paying, let's also have rules that say 
we're going to water down the environmental laws, as well, not only for 
europium and cerium and other rare Earths, but also for sand and for 
gravel and for clay. I understand. That's a great business plan.
  It's not for the American people. They get watered-down environmental 
laws, and they also don't even get paid the royalties on the Federal 
lands of our country. It's just one big, bad deal for the United States 
taxpayers, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-590.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 10, line 4, before ``Sections'' insert ``(a) In 
     General.--''.
       Page 10, after line 9, add the following:
       (b) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to a covered civil action filed by--
       (1) a not-for-profit organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from tax under section 501(a) of such Code; or
       (2) an individual.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an irresponsible 
giveaway to the mining industry that has taken enormous profits at 
American taxpayer expense.
  One section in particular is extremely disturbing. Section 205 of the 
bill eliminates awarding of attorneys' fees to litigants bringing 
successful legal challenges against certain agencies' actions, like the 
issuance of a mining permit.
  Eliminating the possibility of fee shifting makes litigation 
prohibitively expensive for groups and individuals that don't have the 
deep pockets of large corporate entities. Indeed, the whole reason fee 
shifting exists in the first place is so that a party does not have to 
be wealthy in order to file a lawsuit.
  Justice should be accessible to all, regardless of their individual 
financial circumstances. Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees 
means that the traditional parties for these kinds of lawsuits, such as 
nearby landowners, small business owners, and environmental groups, 
will no longer be reimbursed for the cause of successfully litigating a 
claim.
  The only reason to eliminate this fee shifting is to discourage 
parties from filing these kinds of suits.
  Who is the biggest beneficiary of reducing the number of permit 
challenges? The permit-holding mine companies, of course. Since 
litigation can be extremely expensive, these cash-strapped plaintiffs 
usually only bring those lawsuits with the most likelihood of success 
because they literally cannot afford to lose.

                              {time}  1120

  Eliminating the awarding of attorneys' fees will increase the 
predictability of the permitting process only by stifling access to the 
courts.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates an exception for the awarding of 
attorneys' fees to successful challenges submitted by either individual 
citizens or nonprofit entities so that justice in this country is not 
reserved for only those who can afford the hefty entrance fee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Quayle).
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, because it would have allowed 
ideological special interest groups to block mining permits through 
lawsuits funded by taxpayer dollars.
  The Equal Access to Justice to Act of 1980 is a law in need of 
reform. Recognizing the Federal Government's vast resources, it was 
intended to help protect small businesses, charities and ordinary 
Americans from unreasonable litigation or administrative proceedings.
  To this end, the EAJA allows individuals with a net worth of under $2 
million and businesses worth less than $7 million to collect attorneys' 
fees up to $125 per hour. Last year the Judiciary Committee 
Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law held a 
hearing on the need for EAJA reform.
  The subcommittee learned that particular groups, particularly 
environmental organizations, are aggressively exploiting the EAJA. The 
EAJA exempts all not-for-profit organizations from the net worth cap, 
and it allows attorneys' fees over $125 per hour if a special factor 
justifies such an award.
  Well-heeled environmental organizations take full advantage of these 
provisions to collect large awards for attorneys' fees. For example, 
the Center for Food Safety recently awarded more than $2.6 million 
under the EAJA, with its lead counsel compensated at a rate of $650 per 
hour. It's a good gig if you can get it.
  Simply by reviewing public court records, a witness of the 
subcommittee's hearing found that 20 environmental organizations 
collected $5.8 million in fees between September 1, 2009, and August 
31, 2010.
  The EAJA was meant to help give small businesses, charities, and 
ordinary citizens a fighting chance against the Federal Government. 
Considering the pressing need for reform, the National Strategic and 
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012 was wisely written to prevent 
any organization or straw man plaintiff who was a member

[[Page 11286]]

of and whose attorneys may be paid by such an organization from slowing 
down the permitting process or advancing its ideological agenda in 
court using public money.
  Now, of course, they can still bring suit, but not on the taxpayers' 
dime.
  For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. May I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just want to make a point here. The Natural Resources Committee I 
have the privilege to chair has been investigating the payment of 
attorneys' fees and court costs to revolving door plaintiffs in 
environmental lawsuits.
  For example, we have learned that based on information that's 
supplied by the Department of Justice, over $2 million in taxpayer 
dollars have been paid to a single organization, the Center for 
Biological Diversity, and they have done that for 50 lawsuits that have 
been filed under a single environmental statute.
  This organization, which would qualify, by the way, for payments if 
the gentleman from Florida's amendment is adopted, they have offices in 
15 States and they pay their executive director in the six figures. The 
question arises: Why should taxpayers be paying for their attorneys?
  It seems like these lawsuit-happy environmental groups make a living 
from suing the Federal Government. When they sue the Federal 
Government, they divert resources from the Federal Government to carry 
out its statutory duties when it comes to environmental issues or 
permitting issues or whatever. I think that this amendment is ill 
advised by singling out some people that should not be covered.
  I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112-590.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. PROTECTION OF HUNTING, FISHING, GRAZING, AND 
                   RECREATION.

       This Act shall not apply with respect to any mineral 
     exploration or mining permit a lead agency determines would 
     diminish opportunities for hunting, fishing, grazing, or 
     recreation on public lands.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that nothing in this 
bill should diminish opportunities for hunting, fishing, grazing, or 
recreation on public lands.
  H.R. 4402 would elevate the interests of the mining industry above 
all others. This legislation contains language requiring that the 
priority of the Federal Government ``shall be to maximize the 
development of the mineral resources, while mitigating environmental 
impacts, so that more of the mineral resources can be brought to the 
marketplace.''
  This legislation would put mineral extraction on public lands above 
all other uses, jeopardizing hunting, fishing, livestock grazing, 
outdoor recreation, and many other critical uses of our public lands.
  When open pits cover the American West, tourists to Arizona may have 
another Grand Canyon to visit. This time, instead of marveling at the 
geologic forces that over the courses of millions of years shaped one 
of the Nation's most awe-inspiring sites, they will be forced to ponder 
chains of manmade chasms left behind by unaccountable mining companies. 
My amendment will make sure that other important uses are not pushed 
aside, that all Americans continue to have access to their public 
lands.
  In fact earlier this week the Department of the Interior issued a 
report on the agency's economic contributions to the Nation. Many of 
these contributions come from uses other than mining. In 2011, there 
were over 435 million recreational visits to Interior-managed lands. 
This activity contributed $48.7 billion in economic activity and 
supported approximately 403,000 jobs nationwide, including 14,000 jobs 
in my home State of Arizona. By elevating the interests of mining 
companies above hunters, anglers, and ranchers, as H.R. 4402 would do, 
we threaten that revenue that local communities have come to rely on.
  Last month we considered so-called urgent legislation from the 
majority here on the House floor that was billed as vitally necessary 
to protect hunting and fishing on public lands. Now my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are doing just the opposite by elevating 
mining on our public lands above hunting and fishing. It seems that 
when the majority was fishing around for new sweetheart deals and ways 
to help the mining, oil, and gas industry, they decided to forget about 
their commitment the previous month to the hunting and angling 
communities.
  My amendment would in no way hamper mining on Federal lands. It would 
simply reaffirm that we should not bury the other important uses of our 
public lands below energy development, as the underlying bill would do.
  Our public lands belong to the American people and have many 
important uses. We should not undermine the ability of the American 
people to hunt and fish on public lands by destroying the current law.
  I can't get my head around the idea that the mining industry will 
have first use above all other uses on our public lands while paying no 
royalties to the American taxpayer. On top of that, the bulk of the 
resources taken from our public lands is exported worldwide to 
countries like China.
  Multinational mining companies get our resources free of charge while 
visitors have to pay a user fee to use some of our public lands. Now 
their needs are not as important to the Republicans as free access for 
the mining interests in this country.
  It's very sad and ironic. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment 
to maintain a balance for the American people in their use of their 
public lands.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an anti-mining, anti-jobs amendment, and it is 
not a pro-sportsman amendment.
  I believe strongly in multiple uses of our Federal lands. It is 
something that as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I take 
very, very seriously, and multiple means economic activity and 
recreational activity.

                              {time}  1130

  Earlier this year, this House worked to promote legislation 
advocating hunting and fishing on Federal lands. It was primarily aimed 
at promoting and protecting sportsmen's access to Federal lands. 
Sportsmen's access includes hunting and fishing. This bill had strong 
bipartisan support from most of America's sportsmen's organizations, 
and it received strong bipartisan support here in this body. However, 
Mr. Chairman, I must note that the sponsor of this amendment, my good 
friend from Arizona, opposed that bill that was for hunting and fishing 
for sportsmen.
  Federal Land Management allows one use to be disrupted to ensure that 
we make the best and highest use of our lands. That's common sense. If 
the

[[Page 11287]]

best use is rare Earth mining to secure our Nation against foreign 
resource nationalism and so forth, we should use the land for that. 
While at the same time that mine is being developed, we allow for 
mitigation to balance out disturbance of other activities. If a company 
disturbs an acre here, they can mitigate that with an acre there. The 
amendment completely ignores that reality.
  So we should call this amendment for what it is. It's an attempt to 
stop mining on Federal lands, which, of course, will make us more 
dependent on foreign minerals. This amendment contradicts the express 
purpose of this legislation, which is to require the lead agency 
responsible for permitting strategic and critical mineral exploration 
and mining projects to reduce the permitting timelines through better 
coordination. This amendment would empower a Federal agency to 
unilaterally choose to red-tape another process that can take--which 
we've seen in the past--up to a decade long to complete a permitting 
process.
  As a matter of fact, I might say, Mr. Chairman, the only effect of 
this amendment and other amendments that we've heard is to protect 
bureaucratic red tape, which is what the underlying bill wants to 
streamline. It makes sense. But every amendment we've heard coming from 
the other side seems to want to protect that point.
  So this amendment falls under that same category. It does not deserve 
our support. I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to my good friend from 
New Mexico and a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Lujan.
  Mr. LUJAN. This amendment is straightforward. It's about protecting 
hunting and fishing. That's how simple this is. Sadly, a similar 
amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee, who had a similar debate 
over oil and gas leasing. But I rise in strong support of the Grijalva 
amendment, and I urge my Republican colleagues to take a step back and 
consider the true impacts their policies are having on public lands.
  Public lands are just that: lands for the public to enjoy and use for 
the great benefits that they provide. Generations of New Mexicans have 
used our State lands for hunting, fishing, recreation, and grazing. 
Mineral development is important, but let's do it where it makes sense.
  We have seen bill after bill on this floor that are giveaways to Big 
Oil companies, mining companies, and corporate interests that don't 
consider the long-term detrimental impacts to wildlife habitat and 
public use for recreational use. Today's bill would require the Federal 
Government to maximize the development of mining on public lands and 
limit access to land for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. 
All the Grijalva amendment says is let's protect that little area.
  This is a bad bill to hunters, anglers, and ranchers, and I urge 
support of the Grijalva amendment to H.R. 4402 to protect our access to 
public lands.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just simply say that this is an amendment, as I mentioned in 
my earlier remarks, that simply is anti-mining at its best, because 
there is, in current law, a procedure for giving higher access to 
certain activities and then there is the mitigation process. But to 
suggest that this is something that would protect sportsmen defies 
logic. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the NRA has come out against 
the Grijalva amendment.
  So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-590 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Young of Alaska.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 251, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               AYES--162

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry

[[Page 11288]]


     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Murphy (PA)
     Rush
     Welch

                              {time}  1158

  Messrs. FRELINGHUYSEN, McINTYRE and TURNER of Ohio changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               AYES--162

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--252

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Costa
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Rush
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1203

  Mr. TURNER of Ohio changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WELCH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page 11289]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 253, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               AYES--163

     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--253

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Ribble
     Rush

                              {time}  1207

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 464, the Markey amendment, had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 178, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               AYES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

[[Page 11290]]



                               NOES--178

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Davis (IL)
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Ribble
     Rush

                              {time}  1211

  Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 465 on H.R. 4402, 
the Young (AK) Amendment, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when 
I should have voted ``no.''
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 
465, the amendment offered by my friend Congressman Young of Alaska.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 248, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 466]

                               AYES--167

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1214

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. West). The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

[[Page 11291]]

Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. West, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4402) to 
require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 
to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and 
mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to United States 
economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 726, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Slaughter moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4402 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 9, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 105. PROHIBITION ON ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO PERSONS, 
                   CORPORATIONS, AND SUBSIDIARIES THAT ARE 
                   DELINQUENT ON TAXES.

       No Federal mineral exploration or mine permit shall be 
     issued pursuant to this Act to a person, corporation, 
     partnership, trust, or other form of business organization 
     that has failed to pay any tax required under State or 
     Federal law, or to a subsidiary of such a corporation, 
     partnership, or other form of business organization.

     SEC. 106. PROHIBITIONS REGARDING CHINA AND IRAN.

       (a) Prohibition on Export.--Each Federal mineral 
     exploration or mine permit issued pursuant to this Act shall 
     include provisions that prohibit export to the China or Iran 
     of strategic and critical minerals produced under the permit.
       (b) Prohibition on Issuance of Permits.--No Federal mineral 
     exploration or mine permit may be issued pursuant to this Act 
     to--
       (1) any company in which China or Iran has an ownership 
     interest; and
       (2) any person (including any successor, assign, affiliate, 
     member, or joint venturer with an ownership interest in any 
     property or project any portion of which is owned by such 
     person) that is in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act of 
     1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) or the Comprehensive Iran 
     Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 
     U.S.C. 8501 et seq.).
       (c) Presidential Waiver of Prohibitions With Respect to 
     China.--The President may waive the prohibitions under 
     subsections (a) and (b) with respect to China upon 
     certification that the Government of China has removed its 
     export restraints on strategic and critical minerals.

     SEC. 107. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS REGARDING USE OF AMERICAN 
                   MINING EQUIPMENT AND OUTSOURCING OF AMERICAN 
                   JOBS.

       Each Federal mineral exploration or mine permit issued 
     pursuant to this Act shall include provisions that--
       (1) require, to the extent practicable, that all mining 
     equipment used under the permit must be manufactured in the 
     United States; and
       (2) prohibit the permit holder from outsourcing American 
     jobs.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes on her motion.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded debate on a bill 
that will make it easier for the mining industry to profit from digging 
up valuable minerals on land owned by the American taxpayer.

                              {time}  1220

  What would the American people get in return? Nothing, except poorer 
public health, a dirtier environment, and fewer opportunities for 
hunting, fishing, and recreation.
  Instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending 
the statute that was signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant. Can you 
imagine that? The mining law of 1872, which is our mining law today, 
gives away the valuable minerals we should be saving for ourselves or, 
at the very least, getting some revenue from. But no, 140 years later, 
we still have this bill which has long outlived its usefulness.
  Over the 25 years that I've served in Congress, every attempt to 
repeal this law has failed. Today, we compound the problem by voting on 
legislation that will give even more power to mining interests. Adding 
insult to injury, the companies benefiting from this bill can continue 
to take minerals owned by the American taxpayers royalty free, even if 
they're foreign companies and even if they have cheated or are 
delinquent on their taxes.
  There is still time to fix three of the most glaring loopholes 
contained in this bill, and my amendment does just that. It will not 
kill the bill, and we will immediately move forward with the final vote 
on its passage. However, if adopted, my amendment will insert 
safeguards into the final legislation to protect our national security 
and to protect American jobs.
  First, my amendment prevents mining contracts from being awarded to 
companies that have failed to pay their taxes. Last week, the Las Vegas 
Sun reported that mining companies in Nevada have underpaid their taxes 
by $8.7 million since 2008. At a time when cities and towns across 
America are going bankrupt and we're facing disaster in many areas of 
the country and some in Congress threaten to cut Medicare and food 
stamps in the name of fiscal responsibility, we must and should hold 
corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the American people. 
If mining companies are to profit from our natural resources, they must 
be required to pay their fair share.
  I'm the author of the Reciprocal Market Access Act, a bipartisan bill 
that would finally put an end to the wholesale exporting of American 
manufacturing jobs to China. My amendment today echos this plan. With 
the passage of this amendment today, we would make sure that the door 
is closed when China comes knocking to profit from our precious natural 
resources.
  Finally, my amendment protects American jobs by prohibiting 
outsourcing and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment made 
in the United States. Isn't that little enough to ask?
  The sweat and blood of middle class Americans built the United 
States, and it's time this Congress put their interests first. With my 
amendment today, we can do just that, by putting in place safeguards 
that will protect American jobs and ensure that mining equipment is 
made in America.
  I'm introducing my amendment on behalf of the people of Rochester, 
New York. Some of the greatest workers that the country has ever known 
live there. My constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners 
of our Nation's natural resources, and not a single one of them wants 
this Congress to simply give them away to China or outsource precious 
American jobs.
  Over the last 2 years, the majority has consistently pandered to 
corporate interests. Listen to this, because we've been very concerned 
this week with how many times we voted to repeal health care. Try this 
one on. We have voted more than 100 times this term, the last 18 
months, over 100 times to benefit the oil industry. As demonstrated 
last night by a wonderful CBS News program, it costs millions and 
millions of dollars. They estimate that just the health care votes over 
and over cost the taxpayers $50 million.
  Last year, we voted--as you remember, I voted against it, of course--
to give Federal land to a single foreign

[[Page 11292]]

mining company that has ties to Iran's nuclear program. That was mining 
of uranium, free, about 8 miles from the Grand Canyon. I don't know how 
much more stupid we can get. I think it is absolutely obvious to us 
that a law passed in 1872 is nowhere near adequate for what we need 
today.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to protect American workers, 
American resources, and to protect our friends who are extremely 
worried about Iran by making sure that they do not benefit at all.
  Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded debate on a bill that will make it 
easier for the mining industry to profit from digging up valuable 
minerals on land owned by the American taxpayer. And what would the 
American people get in return? Nothing except poorer public health, a 
dirtier environment, and fewer opportunities for hunting, fishing and 
recreation.
  Instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending 
the statute that was signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. In an 
effort to spur development of the West, the law gave almost unlimited 
power to mining companies. 140 years later, this law has outlived its 
usefulness, yet over the 25 years I've been in Congress, every attempt 
to repeal this law has failed. Now today, we compound the problem by 
voting on legislation that will give even more power to mining 
interests.
  Adding insult to injury, the companies benefitting from this bill can 
continue to take minerals owned by American taxpayers--royalty-free--
even if they're foreign companies, and even if they have cheated on 
their taxes.
  There is still time to fix three of the most glaring loopholes 
contained in this bill, and my amendment does just that. The amendment 
will not kill the bill, and we will immediately move forward with a 
final vote on its passage.
  However, if adopted, my amendment will insert safeguards into the 
final legislation that will protect our national security and protect 
American jobs.
  First, my amendment prevents mining contracts from being awarded to 
companies that have failed to pay their taxes. Last week, the Las Vegas 
Sun reported that mining companies in Nevada have underpaid their taxes 
by $8.7 million since 2008. At a time when cities and towns across 
America are going bankrupt, and some in Congress threaten to cut 
Medicare and other vital programs in the name of fiscal responsibility, 
we must hold corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the 
American people. If mining companies are to profit from our natural 
resources, they must be required to pay their fair share.
  Second, my amendment ensures that neither Iran nor China is allowed 
to profit from today's bill. Under my amendment, mineral resources 
deemed critical or strategic will be prohibited from export to Iran or 
China. No company that is owned by Iran or China will be allowed to 
mine American minerals, and under no circumstances will American 
minerals be exported to either of these nations.
  In an age when Iran is threatening the security of our ally Israel, 
and the stability of the entire Middle East, this Congress must ensure 
that not a single American resource goes to supporting the dangerous 
Iranian regime. My amendment would leave no doubt that the United 
States stands by our allies and that not an ounce of American minerals 
ends up in Iranian hands.
  Furthermore, as my constituents know all too well, China routinely 
engages in unfair and anti-competitive behavior that has stolen 
American jobs and weakened our middle class. It is time that this 
Congress, and this country, stops the decades-long giveaway to China.
  I am the author of the Reciprocal Market Access Act, a bipartisan 
bill that would finally put an end to the wholesale exporting of 
American manufacturing jobs to China, and my amendment today echoes 
this plan. With passage of my amendment today, we would make sure that 
the door is closed when China comes knocking to profit from our 
precious natural resources.
  Finally, my amendment protects American jobs by prohibiting 
outsourcing, and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment 
that is made in the United States.
  The sweat and blood of middle class Americans built the United 
States, and it is time that this Congress put their interests first. 
With my amendment today, we can do just that, by putting in place 
safeguards that protect American jobs and ensure that mining equipment 
is made in the USA.
  I am introducing my amendment on behalf of the people of Rochester 
NY--they are some of the greatest workers that the world has ever 
known. My constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners of our 
Nation's natural resources, and I know that not a single one of them 
wants this Congress to simply give away our valuable assets to China, 
or outsource precious American jobs.
  Over the last 2 years, the Majority has consistently pandered to 
corporate interests. The Majority has voted more than 100 times to 
benefit the oil industry, and even voted last year to give away Federal 
land to a single foreign mining company that has ties to Iran's nuclear 
program.
  The Majority has also answered the wishes of the health insurance 
industry, including voting more than 30 times to dismantle historic 
healthcare reforms. They've continued this corporate care-giving right 
up until today as we prepare to vote on a bill that is a giveaway to 
corporate mining interests.
  What we should be doing is voting on a jobs bill that helps people, 
not fattens corporate profits. But if the Majority insists on moving 
forward with flawed bills, we can at least close loopholes in order to 
protect the American people. By fixing three vital flaws within today's 
bill, my amendment will allow each of us to vote for our constituents 
and stand up for the middle class.
  Again, my amendment will not kill the bill. If my amendment is 
adopted, the bill as amended will immediately be voted upon. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment, and stand with me as I fight to 
protect our natural resources and American-made jobs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is about 
American jobs and not only American mining jobs. Our manufacturing 
sector, as part of it, uses the minerals from these mining jobs. So it 
is much broader than that.
  I have to comment on the tone here that we've heard over and over 
from the other side on this issue. The bill streamlines the bureaucracy 
and red tape. Every amendment that was offered today and the tone of 
all of their debate on this was to side with the bureaucracy that 
imposes more red tape.
  What is even more ironic is that this is about mining in America. The 
arguments from the other side all day were ``don't mine in America.'' 
What's the motion to recommit? Don't sell what we're going to mine in 
America. They didn't want to mine in the first place, and now they're 
saying we can't sell it if we mine it. It doesn't make any sense.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a jobs bill for American workers. I urge 
rejection of the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181, 
noes 231, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                               YEAS--181

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich

[[Page 11293]]


     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--231

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Coble
     Dicks
     Flores
     Gallegly
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Rush
     Scott, Austin
     Towns
     Woodall

                              {time}  1243

  Mr. YODER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COSTELLO, GONZALEZ, PETERSON, and BOREN changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 467 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 160, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               AYES--256

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--160

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver

[[Page 11294]]


     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Reyes
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1250

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________