[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13813-13822]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington would we be having a 
debate about whether 4 years is okay or 2\1/2\ years is okay when we're 
talking about a jobs bill. And only in Washington would we talk about 
cherry-picking when we're talking about the vast majority of the 
production that is sought for permitting, and the vast number of jobs 
that is created is not--I want to make this very clear so the record is 
clear--is not handled within 3 years.
  Now, it may be true that it's less than the Bush administration, 
which is fine. Let's assume that it is.
  But when you're talking about primarily issues that deal with Western 
lands whose States are at or near a majority of Federal ownership, and 
you want to talk about the middle class, and you want to talk about 
generating jobs, and you want to say, hey, by the way, you can take as 
long as you want; we don't know if you're going to have a job in that 
industry or not because there are no rules.
  Only in Washington would we be defending no time limits whatsoever. 
To say 30 months is a bad idea, with language that says, if both sides 
agree, you can take longer, is not an unreasonable environmental or 
administrative stance.
  Nobody wants a nice, crisp denial in 30 months; and by the way, if 
the application should be denied, then I presume that it will be 
denied.
  But what we're seeing now, and you can find no legislative history 
for this anywhere in any of the applicable environmental regulations 
and statutes, of which all still apply, there is nothing that says, by 
the way, if nothing else works, just see if you can drag it out as long 
as possible and hope that that capital goes away. Because when you talk 
about permitting attractiveness, it's not what these folks are those 
folks say, it's where the capital goes. And the capital isn't going 
here.
  And the strategic interest of having to go to China for your rare-
earths or having to go to other countries to produce those is not 
apparent.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  My friend on the other side of the aisle says that, evidently, the 
agencies that are reviewing these massive projects, projects that can 
permanently degrade the environment, permanently degrade the 
environment, hurt public health, affect communities, they're doing it 
just to be mean to the mining interests.
  No, I don't think so. They are charged with protecting the lands that 
belong to Americans, the health of Americans, and the long-term welfare 
of the communities.
  Now, as for China, let's talk about China. We should be talking about 
China. We should be concerned about what happens to the rare-earth 
minerals around the world and in this country being locked up by China.
  Talk to any business searching the venture capital community for 
start-up funding, and one of the first things that they will be asked 
is, what is your China plan, because if you don't have a China plan, 
you won't be very successful.
  The bill that we're considering today, once again, shows that 
Republicans, in their eagerness to have giveaways for the mining 
industry, are wandering in total darkness when it comes to developing a 
strategy for dealing with China.
  In the Findings section of the bill before us it says:

       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.

  True. And these are the rare-earth elements that are necessary for 
telecommunications and military technologies and health care 
technologies and conventional energy and renewable energy technologies.
  So what would this bill do about China's export restrictions?
  What would this bill do to ensure that China not restrict exports of 
rare-earths to us, or that we keep the rare-earth elements in this 
country to be used as strategic input to these strategic industries?
  Nothing.
  I have news for my colleagues. We do, in the United States, produce 
rare-earth. We mine and concentrate rare-earth elements. The Molycorp 
facility in California mines one of the richest rare-earth deposits in 
the world. They're ramping up to 40,000 tons of production by next 
year. That will be a quarter of the global production.

                              {time}  1430

  But guess what? Guess where they are sending much of that production? 
Yes, China. That's right. Our rare-earths will go to China to be 
refined into alloys and metals. And there they will stay, if the 
Chinese Government so determines, for Chinese high-tech manufacturers. 
What are we doing about that in this legislation? Nothing.
  So why are we doing this legislation first when the bigger problem is 
how are we going to have a reliable supply of these strategic minerals.
  The Republican solution is, China, we waived our environmental laws. 
We're going to turn these out faster and faster from these public lands 
that belong to the American people. We'll send them to you, China, so 
you can refine them. And please send them back to us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from 
New Jersey if he has any further speakers. I'm prepared to close if the 
gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. HOLT. I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the 
remaining time.
  In closing, let me just repeat what we've heard over and over. This 
is unnecessary. It's not dealing with the

[[Page 13814]]

real problems first. It is a giveaway to the mining industry to exempt 
them from regulations, to exempt them from paying a reasonable royalty 
to the American people for use of the American people's lands. It would 
alter nearly all mining operations on public lands in the United States 
by reducing or even eliminating review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act. It would change these mining operations not just for these 
rare-earth elements but for copper, uranium, sand, and gravel.
  The Interior Department testified this legislation would remove many 
of the environmental safeguards for almost all types of hardrock mines 
on public lands, bypass evaluation of potential impacts under the 
National Environmental Policy Act, and limit public involvement in 
agency decisionmaking.
  Can that be a good idea--to eliminate all those things and not 
actually deal with the production and supply and availability of 
strategic minerals?
  The authors of the bill say it's needed ``because it could take a 
developer years to get all government permits in place.'' Well, that's 
up to the developer to get those in. And it's up to the government 
agencies to make sure they do it in a way that protects the public 
health, protects the public lands, protects the future of communities 
that would be affected by this.
  This bill is not about fixing delays, but really about preventing 
proper environmental review and safety and public health reviews.
  We should be updating the Mining Act of 1872. We are a century or a 
century-and-a-half late in updating that mining law. Maybe there was a 
time in the 19th century where we wanted to send people out to develop 
the great expanses of the western United States and give them carte 
blanche. We've come a long way since then.
  We should get up to date here in the House of Representatives. We 
should be dealing with the hundred thousand known abandoned mines that 
are a danger to people and to the environment. Promoting the 
development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities 
and that are genuinely susceptible to disruptions should be an area 
where both sides, Republicans and Democrats, can work together. 
Instead, we're dealing with special interests, giving them free rein in 
a handout.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, before I make my closing remarks, I want to thank 
Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee for his cooperation in 
helping schedule this bill for consideration. We have an exchange of 
letters to that effect.
  Mr. Chairman, much has been debated here on the floor about what is 
strategic and what is not strategic. Let me posit a suggestion here on 
the fact that there are two ways that you could define this. You could 
define it by making a definition so narrow that in effect the 
legislation picks winners and losers. Or you could write statutory law 
that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be 
the driver of what is strategic. That means the marketplace is the one, 
then, that decides what is strategic. I think that's a much better 
approach because when I talk about this, I recall hearing that in the 
late 1890s the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--and I could be 
off a little bit--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent 
Office because everything that has been invented, has been invented. 
This is in the 1890s. This is before we were flying airplanes. This is 
before the car became commercially available. This means all the 
minerals that go into those things weren't even thought of at the time.
  So what we do then in this bill is just very straightforward. We say 
that the strategic minerals will meet these criteria. By the way, you 
can find this on page 5, section 3, ``Definitions'':

       (A) For national defense and national security.

  That is so self-evident, it hardly needs to be debated.
  Second:

       For the Nation's energy infrastructure, including 
     pipelines, refining.

  That's from an energy standpoint. That certainly should not be 
debated because we have to have a good energy source if we're going to 
have a growing economy.
  And:

       (C) To support domestic manufacturing.

  Of course, that includes agriculture and housing. In other words, to 
support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of 
strategic minerals for that?
  Finally:

       (D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of 
     trade.

  That makes eminently good sense because we are seriously out of 
balance now with China, as has been brought up.
  So this approach is more of a long-term solution because I dare say 
that 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find 
that will be used for new technology. But if we have defined it so 
narrowly that we don't know what that technology is, we have in fact 
been picking winners and losers. That's the wrong approach. The right 
approach is what's embodied in this bill to say that these conditions 
will be the ones that will define strategic minerals.
  Finally, let me close on this: everybody likes to make fun of sand 
and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that after the 
earthquakes in northern and southern California, when the freeways 
collapsed, I can tell you very, very strategically that cement and sand 
and gravel fit that category.
  So under the conditions, I think this fits what we are attempting to 
do in the long term.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2013.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hastings, I am writing with respect to H.R. 
     761, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals 
     Production Act of 2013,'' which the Committee on Natural 
     Resources reported favorably. As a result of your having 
     consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 761 that fall within 
     the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
     agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration 
     of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the 
     House floor for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks 
     that you support any such request.
       I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 761, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration of H.R. 761.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, July 3, 2013.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn HOB, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production 
     Act of 2013. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources 
     ordered reported the bill, as amended, on May 15, 2013. I 
     appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before 
     the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand 
     that the Committee on the Judiciary will forego action on the 
     bill.
       The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at 
     this time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the 
     bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the 
     Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference 
     committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter 
     and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional

[[Page 13815]]

     Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our 
     understanding.
       Thank you for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Doc Hasting,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support efforts to enhance 
our domestic security by reducing our reliance on foreign sources of 
strategic and critical minerals, but aside from its short title, the 
pending legislation has nothing to do with that goal.
  In fact, this legislation provides relief to any and all types of 
minerals on public lands--minerals such as gold, silver and copper 
produced under the Mining Law of 1872.
  These are minerals that are mined for free, with no royalty charged 
in return for their removal from lands owned by all Americans.
  Yet, the pending legislation would provide multi-national 
conglomerates with even more relief in their pursuit of mining free 
gold from federal lands.
  It is not limited in scope to, for instance, rare earth minerals used 
in fuel cells and solar panels among other applications. Rare earths 
are certainly strategic and critical.
  Instead, the bill provides relief to any ``mineral exploration or 
mine permit'' with plans of operations issued by the BLM under its 3809 
regulation and the Forest Service under it counterpart regulations.
  Read the bill. Look up those regulations.
  The BLM 3809 regulations are clear, they apply to ``all operations 
authorized by the mining laws on public lands where the mineral 
interest is reserved to the United States.''
  The Forest Service regulations referenced in the bill state they 
apply to ``the surface of National Forest System lands in connections 
with operations authorized by the United States mining laws . . .''
  So I say to my colleagues, understand what you will be voting on. 
Understand that this bill provides additional relief to mostly foreign 
owned companies who are extracting gold, silver and other hardrock 
minerals from our lands, our public lands, without paying a royalty in 
return.
  Mine coal on federal lands, you pay a royalty. Drill for oil and 
natural gas on public lands, you pay a royalty. But not gold, not 
silver, and not copper.
  I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
``National Strategic and Critical Minerals Protection Act,'' a bill 
that has very little to do with development of rare earth elements or 
minerals that are vulnerable to supply disruption.
  The bill before us today is so broadly drafted that it would reduce 
or eliminate environmental review for almost all type of mines on 
public land, including common materials like sand, clay, and gravel. It 
needlessly limits judicial review of mining activities. And it 
arbitrarily prioritizes mining over every other use of public lands, 
including hunting, fishing, grazing, and conservation.
  If the majority would like to encourage production of truly strategic 
and critical minerals on public lands, we should work together on a 
targeted solution that develops our natural resources while protecting 
our environment. Today's bill is not that solution. I urge a no vote.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 761

       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 2013''.

     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 worldwide 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; or
       (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 C.F.R. 3809 and 36 C.F.R. 228A or the 
     authorities listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13, 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 mine permit shall appoint a 
     project lead who shall coordinate and consult with 
     cooperating agencies and any other agency involved in the 
     permitting process, project proponents and contractors to 
     ensure that agencies minimize delays, set and adhere to 
     timelines and schedules for completion of the permitting 
     process, set clear permitting goals and track progress 
     against those goals.
       (b) Determination Under NEPA.--To the extent that the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applies to any 
     mineral exploration or mine permit, the lead agency with 
     responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine 
     permit shall determine that the action to approve the 
     exploration or mine permit does 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 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) Coordination on Permitting Process.--The lead agency 
     with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine 
     permit shall enhance government coordination for the 
     permitting process 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, analyses 
     and reviews performed by State agencies with jurisdiction 
     over the proposed project.
       (2) Conducting any consultations or reviews concurrently 
     rather than sequentially to the extent practicable and when 
     such concurrent review will expedite rather than delay a 
     decision.
       (d) Schedule for Permitting Process.--At the request of a 
     project proponent, the lead agency, cooperating agencies and 
     any other agencies involved with the mineral exploration or 
     mine permitting process shall enter into an agreement with 
     the project proponent that sets time limits for each part of 
     the permitting 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

[[Page 13816]]

     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) Time Limit for Permitting Process.--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) Limitation on Addressing Public Comments.--The lead 
     agency is not required to address agency or public comments 
     that were not submitted during any public comment periods or 
     consultation periods provided during the permitting process 
     or as otherwise required by law.
       (g) Financial Assurance.--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.
       (h) Application to Existing Permit Applications.--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.
       (i) Strategic and Critical Minerals Within National 
     Forests.--With respect to strategic and critical minerals 
     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.

     SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE.

       In evaluating and issuing any 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 against the Federal Government 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. RIGHT TO INTERVENE.

       The holder of any mineral exploration or mine permit may 
     intervene as of right in any covered civil action by a person 
     affecting rights or obligations of the permit holder under 
     the permit.

     SEC. 204. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.

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

     SEC. 205. 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. 206. 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 the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 113-
214. 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. Lowenthal

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 113-214.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. 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 5, strike lines 3 through 16 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 5, strike lines 21 through 26 and insert the 
     following:
       (3) 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 347, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I was puzzled when I read the bill title, 
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, and then 
went on to read the bill text. Surely there must have been a mistake 
when drafting this bill. Strategic and critical minerals were certainly 
not meant to include sand, gravel, and clay.
  But right now, section 3 of this bill is written so broadly that it 
would include very common nonstrategic and noncritical minerals--even 
going so far, as I mentioned, to encompass materials such as sand, 
gravel, and clay.
  The Interior Department recently testified before my colleagues on 
the Natural Resources Committee and confirmed that this is, in fact, 
exactly the case. The bill that we are now considering is written 
expansively beyond critical minerals.
  The Interior Department testified:

       This legislation would remove many of the environmental 
     safeguards for almost all kinds of hardrock mines on public 
     lands, bypassing evaluation of potential impacts under NEPA, 
     and limit public involvement in agency decisionmaking.

  That's why I introduce an amendment that would simply narrow the 
bill's definition of purported strategic and critical minerals to 
actual strategic and critical minerals, as defined by the National 
Research Council.
  Why is my amendment critical? It is because instead of ostensibly 
fast-tracking only strategic and critical minerals, which this bill I 
think does poorly, this legislation appears to be a guise for mining 
interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental 
protections not just for

[[Page 13817]]

strategic and critical minerals, but for all hardrock mining.
  We could have a debate about how to ensure America's supply of 
strategic and critical minerals, but first we have to get the 
definition right.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time 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.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment really picks up on what my arguments 
were at the end of the general debate because the effect of this 
amendment would be to pick winners and losers by narrowly defining a 
use. And as I stated in my closing remarks, we have four categories 
that I think are very broad and change over a period of time.
  So what this amendment does is try to restrict what may be decided as 
a critical mineral. Of course, that will change over time. If this 
amendment is adopted--and I, obviously, urge rejection of this 
amendment--but if it were to be adopted, I can make a prediction that I 
know would come back, and that is we'll be back here in the future 
saying there's another set of critical minerals that we need to define. 
And we keep doing that over and over and over. Isn't it much better to 
define the categories and then apply those minerals to those 
categories? Because they will change.
  I find it kind of interesting, too, Mr. Chairman, because I closed my 
general debate remarks by talking about sand and gravel. My good friend 
from southern California, I guess, alluded to the fact that sand and 
gravel don't fit into that category. I'm not going to ask him to answer 
me, but I'll just ask the question rhetorically, I wonder if he felt 
that way after the earthquake collapsed freeways in southern 
California. Would he have liked to wait maybe 4 years for the 
permitting process to get sand and gravel in order to build those 
freeways that are so important to southern California?
  I asked that question rhetorically, of course, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1445

  But I just want to say that this amendment would do exactly opposite 
of what the intent of this bill is about, and that is that it picks 
winners and losers. I urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I welcome those comments, but let's be real clear what 
I'm talking about. I am talking about eliminating a giveaway of almost 
all hard rock mining, to really defining what is strategic and critical 
as defined by the robust methodology in the National Research Council's 
report.
  Now, what do I mean by a robust methodology? It says if we look at 
all the mining that we have, if we look at what we have to define as 
strategic, we have to look along two dimensions in a scientific way. We 
have to know: What is the impact of this mineral or this mining if 
there was a supply restriction? What would be the impact if there was a 
supply restriction? Would it impact defense? Would it impact national 
security? If it does have an impact, then it has a high rating on that.
  Also, what about the supply risk? We need to measure, if we do not 
develop this mine at this place, are there other places that we can? 
If, in fact, a mineral has high supply risk, high impact, not only are 
those minerals defined now, but the Secretary of the Interior, using 
this methodology, will define. This clearly defines what is needed in 
terms of strategic and critical, and not just everything.
  I remind you that right now we are loosening in the bill the 
environmental protections, public participation, judicial review for 
everything. We're doing it, as was pointed out, for national defense, 
he said, anything that meets national security requirements, for energy 
infrastructure, pipelines, refining capacity, power generation, 
domestic manufacturing--which includes everything, whether it's 
important or not--health care, telecommunications, transportation. What 
we're doing is we're gutting protections for everything, not those that 
are just needed.
  I present a methodology which will allow a real clear definition, not 
just of what's in the bill now, but include a methodology that the 
Secretary of the Interior can include if the material is really needed 
to be mined.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. China is not trying to lock up the world's sand and gravel. 
We do have to worry about the supply of yttrium and gadolinium and 
these other things that are necessary for jet engines and magnets and 
hard drives in laptops and so forth.
  Let me just address the point that has to do with this definition 
that my friend from Washington talks about, winners and losers. Yes, 
this bill has winners and losers. The winners would be the mining 
companies. The losers would be local communities, the environment, 
water quality, wildlife, and the American taxpayers.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman 
is prepared to close.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Again, I introduced this amendment that would narrow 
the bill's definition to not what is purported to be strategic but 
actually what is strategic, that if we're going to give benefits, they 
must be strategic, and my amendment provides for an actual way of 
measuring that.
  I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think the gentleman from New Jersey did say this picks winners and 
losers--at least he didn't deny it--and then he tried to turn it around 
and say that we pick winners and losers. I will acknowledge that from 
this standpoint: the winners will be those States that have huge, huge 
swaths of Federal land. The winners will be the communities in those 
States that have large swaths of Federal land that want to create jobs, 
because jobs are created because of the natural resources in those 
States. So from that sense, yes, we are picking winners and losers, 
and, frankly, I am proud of that.
  But I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. In listening to my friend's 
argument on this, keep in mind what this bill does. This bill tries to 
provide certainty for those that would want to get into the mining 
business by saying that you have to have a decision made in 30 months. 
Now, the decision doesn't have to be affirmative, but there has to be a 
decision.
  What this gentleman is saying, what the effect of this amendment is, 
as I hear his argument, is there is one more layer we have to go 
through before it is strategic, and that's the Secretary of the 
Interior. Does that not suggest that that might be a political problem, 
then, rather than a problem based on what is needed? No. The four broad 
categories is a much, much better way to do it.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is misplaced. I urge its rejection, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Veasey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 113-214.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 13818]]

  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, after line 26, insert the following:

     SEC. 4. PUBLICATION OF CRITICAL MINERALS.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal 
     Register--
       (1) by not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a list of the minerals that are 
     strategic and critical minerals for purposes of this Act; and
       (2) every 5 years thereafter, an updated list of such 
     minerals.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Veasey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to offer this amendment because, Mr. Chairman, mineral 
exploration and mining have a deep history in our country. We have vast 
resources in America that we have been able to use for our own 
security, innovation, and economic benefit. This is why we must 
continue to explore these resources in a smart, environmentally 
sensitive manner.
  It is dangerous for America to depend on countries like China for 
rare-earth elements and rare metals. These elements are necessary for 
telecommunications, military technologies, health care technologies, as 
well as conventional and renewable energy technologies. But the 
underlying bill goes far beyond these specific minerals in defining 
what constitutes ``strategic and critical.''
  While the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act 
gives four characteristics for what should be a strategic and critical 
mineral, it leaves the exact minerals open to interpretation. The 
majority has stated that their purpose in leaving the definition so 
broad is to allow for flexibility over time. This bill would cover 
virtually all hard rock mining on Federal lands.
  I think most Americans will agree that sand and gravel are important 
to our economy, but how many would be willing to go on Federal lands, 
places such as the Grand Canyon, in order to mine these two elements?
  That is why I have proposed my amendment to H.R. 761. My amendment 
would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to specifically 
list what are strategic and critical minerals and make this information 
available to the public. After a given number of years looking at the 
global and national landscape for mineral exploration, the Secretary 
would have the authority to change this list as factors dictate. This 
allows for flexibility in responding to global mineral markets while 
protecting our public resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I know both Democrats and Republicans strongly support 
the development of rare-earth elements and other critical minerals 
necessary for our national security and national competitiveness, but 
we must refrain from allowing the mining industry to define what is 
critical solely in accordance with their economic needs. That is why I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to define what 
minerals are of national public interest and to protect the prestige of 
our public lands.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time 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.
  Clearly, with the last amendment and this amendment, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are really disturbed about what strategic 
is. I guess I can understand that. I obviously disagree with that.
  This is very similar to the last amendment, except it specifically 
gives the Secretary of the Interior that power to decide what is 
critical or not.
  Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think from a policy standpoint 
we should give that much power to anybody to say what is critical and 
not as far as minerals concerned that support our economy. Let me just 
give you a case in point of how we run into problems with this.
  Less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group 
metals used in computers and electronics and the pending shortfall of 
copper. So because we hadn't defined these broad categories--see, if we 
had this bill in place 10 years ago, this category would have taken 
care of itself because the market would have suggested we need new 
minerals in order to support a certain sector of the economy. But no, 
when you pick winners and losers, then you have to go through the whole 
process and the hand-wringing and the high prices and all of those 
things that slow down the economy.
  So, once again, in deference to my good friend that offered this 
amendment, in a bill that is trying to add certainty to the regulatory 
process, this adds another layer of uncertainty by giving it to the 
Secretary of the Interior. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that 
is good policy.
  This goes along again with the last amendment. By voice vote, that 
was rejected. This should be rejected in a like manner. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Washington, in this bill, who would decide what is a strategic and 
critical mineral?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be more than happy to tell you. 
And I made this. If you look on page five, under Definitions: Strategic 
and Critical Minerals. The term ``strategic and critical minerals'' 
means minerals that are necessary--and there's four categories--for 
national defense and national security requirements. I can't predict in 
25 years which mineral will support our weapons, for example, but that 
is a category in which that would be a critical mineral.
  B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines, 
refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and 
renewable energy production. Now, I have no idea what, in the future, 
critical minerals we will need to support those activities, but I know 
before wind and solar took hold, nobody was worrying about those 
minerals. But this category, if you had it by category, you would not 
have to go through the hand-wringing to find out where that source is.
  C, to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, 
telecommunications, health care, and transportation infrastructure.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, I want to ask 
the gentleman: Who would decide what is strategic and a critical 
mineral? I mean, I listened to the gentleman in his explanation, and I 
never heard exactly who would decide in his explanation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VEASEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, just let me finish then because 
there's only one more, and I do want to say that.
  For the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. So once that 
category is defined and somebody wants to refine some element--I don't 
know, pick a name; there are all these new names; I can't pronounce 
them anyway--and they find out that there's a new industry that wants a 
certain element, if an entrepreneur wants to mine for that, they make 
the permit and it's decided by the Federal agency. Very simple. And if 
it fits this category, he gets the permit. That's the beauty of it.
  Mr. VEASEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that 
would be the Secretary of the Interior.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  I just want to say that we have somewhat exhausted this; but the 
difference between this gentleman's amendment and the broad categories 
I say is that he--he--or I should say the Secretary of the Interior--
picks that. The Secretary picks it.

[[Page 13819]]

  Under the underlying bill, yes, the Secretary picks it; but if it 
meets these broad categories, then, of course, he has to pick that 
mineral. That makes perfectly good sense because it responds to the 
marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 113-214.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning at page 6, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 7, line 9, and insert the following:
       (b) Determination Under NEPA.--The lead agency with 
     responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine 
     permit shall determine any such action would constitute a 
     major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 
     the human environment within the meaning of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
       Beginning at page 7, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through page 9, line 7.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Here we go again. Another week, another attempt by the House majority 
to gut critical environmental protections that we know save lives and 
communities. Right before we left for the August recess, a break I 
urged the Republican leadership to forego, the House passed a reckless 
offshore oil drilling bill that risks our shoreline communities along 
the Atlantic, Pacific, and gulf coasts. And for what? To continue our 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  H.R. 761 is not unknown to Congress. In fact, we had passed a rule 
and were set to consider it only a few weeks ago before the House 
majority abruptly pulled it from the floor and rammed through a 
partisan farm bill instead--a bill that protected farm subsidies, crop 
insurance guarantees, and handouts for Big Agribusiness, including some 
Members of this very body, at the expense of the neediest among us, 
including more than 210,000 children.
  Yet here we are today. Once again, the House majority is attempting 
to not only remove environmental safeguards provided under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, but to set arbitrary deadlines for its 
approval process.
  I am pleased to once again offer this commonsense amendment that will 
preserve NEPA protections and ensure that a thorough safety review is 
conducted.
  In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, a 
bipartisan act with strong Republican support, including President 
Richard Nixon, who understood then that environmental impacts on large 
projects must be explored, understood, and eventually mitigated.
  Under NEPA, any infrastructure project that could have a significant 
impact is now subject to an environmental impact statement, which 
outlines the purpose of the project, possible alternatives, the 
affected environment, and the consequences of completing the project. 
The findings are then considered prior to final project approval.
  Projects with less environmental impact may be subjected to a less 
detailed environmental assessment instead. Some projects, like the 
construction of a foot trail, may be deemed to have no significant 
environmental impact and can receive a categorical exclusion.
  Make no mistake, the bill before us today has no foot path. We are 
talking about major mining projects that could devastate entire 
communities. There are many aspects of mineral exploration policy for 
which statutory changes should be considered, such as closing Clean Air 
Act and Clean Water Act loopholes. Unfortunately, that's not what we're 
doing here.
  As I've noted before, considering that all other major projects, even 
transit projects with clear environmental benefits, must still go 
through an environmental impact statement, it is absurd to turn around 
and exclude from such analysis activities or put an arbitrary time 
limit on it that has such potential to actually destroy ecosystems and 
regional economies.
  My commonsense amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply restore that 
process so that there can be peace and comfort of mind to affected 
communities, and I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, if you like the current 7- to 10-year 
timeframe to do mining permits in this country, then you will love this 
amendment; but this bill is all about making it possible to do mining 
in this country and use our natural resources in a reasonable, 
commonsense way.
  Other countries, like Australia and Canada, have a 2-year time cycle 
from beginning to end to get your application and permit done so you 
can begin mining. In this country, it's 7 to 10 years. That's why we 
have declining activity of the well-paying jobs that mining produces, 
the resources that are available from mining so we don't have to rely 
on countries like China.
  This amendment would eviscerate, this amendment would gut, what this 
bill is trying to do. It's unnecessary because NEPA already applies. 
NEPA remains in force. This just allows needless and endless 
bureaucratic delays by allowing NEPA to do an environmental impact 
statement at almost every step in the whole process.
  It is important to have a certainty of when the process is over so 
you know whether or not you can invest in a long-term project like 
this. Seven to 10 years is beyond any of our economic cycles. It is not 
feasible from a business standpoint to wait that long in a commodity 
market like minerals and metals to make these investment decisions. You 
have to have certainty, you have to have closure, you have to have a 
time certain that you're done.
  So the 30-month timeframe is critical. We respect and uphold NEPA. It 
remains in effect, but we get rid of the ability to do it at every step 
in the process.
  This amendment would be a backward step and back to the current 
status quo which makes it harder to have mining projects in this 
country with the jobs that they create, with the benefit to our economy 
that these minerals allow for.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a strong ``no'' on this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time is left on 
this side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I certainly respect my friend and his point of view about the mining 
industry. I wish it were true that the other side of the aisle respects 
the NEPA process; but, frankly, we've had bill after bill and amendment 
after amendment in excess of 100 that actually attack everything from 
the Clean Water Act to the Clean Air Act that have resisted regulation 
even when it comes to public health and particulate matter, for 
example. They have assaulted the NEPA process every step of the way.
  In this bill, there's a huge carve-out for one industry--the mining 
industry. It is not true that the average is 7 to 10 years. It may be 
true that some have had that. But it is also true that a NEPA process 
protects communities. It answers questions. It answers the very 
uncertainty my friend talked about.

[[Page 13820]]

But sometimes it answers that uncertainty in a way that the industry 
and its supporters don't like.
  I think our job here is not so much to protect wealthy advocates of a 
particular industry who may also positively influence the financing of 
campaigns. I think our first duty is to protect public health and 
safety, those communities that have found themselves devastated because 
proper environmental analysis, in fact, had not been done. We have seen 
that all across America from Appalachia to southern Illinois to in the 
West.
  I, too, want to make sure we unlock strategic minerals and that the 
United States has them available when it needs it. But I don't believe 
that the tradeoff has to be at the expense of every community that 
could potentially be the site of a mine.
  Mr. Chairman, I actually strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
for this commonsense amendment to restore an environmental analysis 
process that, in fact, has worked.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind my colleague from Virginia that this 
administration has streamlined NEPA for several uses during its time in 
office for renewable energy projects, for highways, for the so-called 
``stimulus'' that we had in 2007. So this administration at times, 
anyway, sees the need to balance the creation of jobs with protecting 
the environment, but not allowing environmental regulations to be used 
to endlessly delay projects.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I'm afraid, would endlessly delay the 
production of the projects that we need to produce critical and 
strategic minerals. For that reason I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and 
friend from New Mexico, Representative Pearce.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make a comment to my friend from Virginia that 
we in the West are being protected from ourselves, we are being 
protected from jobs. The devastation is in our jobs.
  I have one county--I have 18 counties--one county is 7,000 square 
miles. That is three times the size of Delaware. It is six times the 
size of Rhode Island. It has a population of 3,725 people. The jobs 
have gone away. There used to be 11 rare-earth mineral mines in the 
southern district of New Mexico. Today there are none. All of those 
jobs have gone to China.
  This is just a commonsense bill that says we are going to go through 
the process. We have economies that are being devastated, but it's not 
an environmental devastation. It is from the environmentalist who will 
sue to stop every single job in the West. We've lost our mining jobs; 
we've lost our timber jobs. These are areas that are not sitting out 
here making life unlivable and unhealthy; these are areas that are 
looking for jobs.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment with respect to my 
friend.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time 
and say that if you think it's a good situation for the United States 
to be lumped in with Papua, New Guinea, dead last among mining 
countries in this world, as shown by a recent study, in that it takes 7 
to 10 years to get mining projects off the ground, then you would like 
this amendment. But if you don't, if you think we can protect the 
environment at the same time as creating jobs and strike that balance, 
which this bill does, then you will vote ``no'' on this amendment and 
``yes'' on H.R. 761.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 113-214.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 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 9, line 14, before ``The lead agency'' insert the 
     following:
       (1) In general.--
       Page 9, line 21, before the period insert ``, the cost of 
     cleanup in the event of any release occurring at such site, 
     and the costs incurred by the United States to implement this 
     subsection''.
       Page 9, after line 21, insert the following:
       (2) Form.--Such financial assurance shall be in the form of 
     a surety bond, letter of credit, or other instrument that 
     would routinely be accepted in commerce.
       (3) Amount based on type of operation.--The amount of such 
     financial assurance shall be based on the type of mining 
     operation to be conducted.
       (4) Inspections.--The lead agency shall conduct annual 
     inspections and reviews of financial insurance required under 
     this subsection.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, 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, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me read the amendment. It's very short:

       The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral 
     exploration or mine permit may not issue such permit until 
     the applicant for the permit has fully reimbursed the United 
     States, each State, and each Native American tribe for all 
     costs incurred by the United States and such State and such 
     tribe respectively for issuance of the permit. Such 
     reimbursement shall include costs of all Federal, State and 
     tribal reviews and approvals required for the permit, 
     contracting costs and salaries, including benefits for State 
     and Federal employees and the conduct of reviews by State, a 
     State that under authority delegated to the State under 
     Federal law.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today to H.R. 761 would 
reimburse the costs of permitting in order that the National 
Environmental Policy Act requirements be met. Those who complain about 
the National Environmental Policy Act permitting--and it has been said 
here repeatedly on the floor, and when I was managing the rule earlier 
today, it was said--often cite timing as a concern. With budget cuts, 
furloughs, and other competing work, it is not possible to meet all the 
demands. The reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve 
this issue and provide for meaningful public participation in the 
decisionmaking process for the use of Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ultimately ask that my amendment be made in 
order.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intention behind this 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I do want to 
reassure him, though, that the bill and current law already satisfy 
what he is after, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Let me read specifically from the language of the bill. This is on 
page 9. I'm going to read a paragraph, and, hopefully, this will 
alleviate your concerns:

       (g) Financial Assurance. 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.

  So, in case the company goes bankrupt--in the worst case scenario--it

[[Page 13821]]

has to post a bond, and I believe it's equal to 140 percent of what the 
reclamation cost would be.
  We already have comprehensive regulations in addition to the bill 
language from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest 
Service. These regulations have been revised during both the Clinton 
and Bush administrations so that, today, both BLM and Forest Service 
regulations require that exploration and mining activities have the 
resources necessary to ensure reclamation after it's over even if the 
company goes bankrupt.
  I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, but I believe it is 
completely unnecessary. So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge 
a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I need to make a correction.
  I had two amendments in the Rules Committee last night. The one that 
I just read into the Record and that my friend and colleague just 
responded to was the one that was not made in order, but I will be very 
brief because the one that was made in order, amendment No. 4, which we 
are addressing, requires financial assurance in the form of a surety 
bond, a letter of credit, or other instrument that would routinely be 
accepted in commerce.
  In the interest of time, I would only offer, Mr. Chairman, that my 
full statement on amendment No. 4 be placed in the Record. I am sure my 
colleague has time to respond to amendment No. 4. If he does not, I 
would be prepared to yield to him whatever time I have in order for him 
to respond.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today to H.R. 761, would 
reimburse the cost of permitting and order that the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements be met. Those who complain 
about NEPA permitting, often cite timing as a concern. With budget 
cuts, furloughs, and other competing work, it is not possible to meet 
all demands.
  Reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve this issue, 
and provide for meaningful public participation in the decision-making 
process for the use of Federal lands.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the Committee to make my amendment in 
order.

       At the end of title I (page 12, after line 2) add the 
     following:

     SEC. _01. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF MINERAL 
                   EXPLORATION OR MINE PERMIT.

       (a) Recovery of Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The lead agency with responsibility for 
     issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit may not issue 
     such permit until the applicant for the permit has fully 
     reimbursed the United States, each State, and each Indian 
     tribe for all costs incurred by the United States, such 
     State, and such tribe, respectively, for issuance of the 
     permit.
       (2) Costs included.--Such reimbursement shall include--
       (A) costs of all Federal, State, and tribal reviews and 
     approvals required for the permit; and
       (B) contracting costs and salaries (including benefits) for 
     State and Federal employees.
       (b) Conduct of Reviews by States.--A State that, under 
     authority delegated to the State under Federal law, performs 
     any function required for the issuance of a mineral 
     exploration or mine permit shall perform such function in 
     accordance with all requirements that would apply under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) to performance of such function by a Federal agency.
       (c) Extension of Time Limits.--Any period of time 
     established by Federal law for the issuance of a mineral 
     exploration or mine permit shall be extended by the period of 
     any delay in such issuance that is attributable to a failure 
     of the permit applicant to timely complete any action 
     required for such issuance, including any failure to timely 
     submit any request or payment.

  Mr. LAMBORN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize by saying that we 
already have it in current law and that it's already addressed in this 
bill that there must be adequate financial assurances given, including 
the posting of bonds to ensure that the reclamation can take place by 
contract for third parties if the company goes bankrupt or, for 
whatever reason, can't follow through. All of our western public land 
States also have comprehensive regulatory and bonding programs covering 
hard rock mining. That's in addition to the Federal laws and 
regulations. In many of these States, the Federal and State agencies 
work together to jointly manage the reclamation and bonding projects.
  As of June of 2013, BLM, in conjunction with its State partners, 
currently holds more than $2.2 billion in financial assurances to 
reclaim potential mining sites around the U.S. So you can see this is 
an active and well-funded program that is in place. Under regulation, 
these holdings are reviewed and adjusted annually to make sure that 
costs won't spiral out of control if we have inflation or unforeseen 
contingencies. In some instances, mining companies are required to 
establish trust funds and to build them over the course of the mine 
life to ensure adequate funding for any long-term treatment facilities 
that might be necessary to meet Federal, State, or tribal environmental 
standards.
  So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are already in place 
appropriate and adequate protections and regulations and that the bill 
respects that also. I respect the gentleman for his intentions on this 
amendment, but I believe that it is unnecessary, and for that reason, I 
would urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would just say to my colleague that there 
are deficiencies and inadequacies of funding in the measures that you 
cited, and they do not cover the cost of cleanup and accidents. That's 
why we are addressing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask and urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on 
this measure.
  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. Mr. Chairman, 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. 5 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 113-214.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The 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. SECRETARIAL ORDER NOT AFFECTED.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to affect any 
     aspect of Secretarial Order 3324, issued by the Secretary of 
     the Interior on December 3, 2012, with respect to potash and 
     oil and gas operators.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment today to H.R. 761, the 
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  My amendment is very simple. It only serves to clarify the scope of 
the bill by stating that it does not impact the rules put in place by 
Secretarial Order No. 3324, issued by the Secretary of the Interior 
late last year. That order sets in place buffer zones between potash 
mines and oil and gas drilling, among other requirements. The Permian 
Basin's potash reserves are some of the purist in the world, and our 
oil and gas drilling plays a key role in the current energy boom that 
the country is experiencing.
  There is a very long history between potash and drilling operators in 
the region, and the secretarial order helped to clarify some of those 
issues. I've spent the better part of my career in Congress working to 
facilitate an agreement between these two industries to ensure both are 
able to thrive simultaneously. While some have criticisms of the 
secretarial order, it is an important step in the process of assuring 
the safe extraction of mineral resources.

[[Page 13822]]

  My amendment simply clarifies that the text of the bill cannot be 
used by the Bureau of Land Management to show favoritism for either 
potash or oil and gas leases within the area laid out in the 
secretarial order. It does not affect the underlying bill, and it does 
not cost the American taxpayers a single dime. It brings economic 
stability to the Permian Basin and ensures that these two mineral 
resources can be safely and properly developed side by side.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time that is allotted to 
the opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose 
it.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak 
on this amendment because it makes a point very well that I was making 
earlier today.
  We have criticized this bill because, while it is being sold as 
necessary for critical and strategic minerals, the definition is so 
broad that it would cover virtually all mining on public lands. Mr. 
Pearce shares our concern. The gentleman is worried that, if H.R. 761 
is enacted, the definition is broad enough that it would cover even 
potash.
  Now, potash is important as fertilizer for crops and for other 
purposes, but let's be clear--it is not used very much in high-tech 
manufacturing; it is not used in manufacturing items that are important 
for our national defense; and it is not scarce. It is one of a long 
list of minerals that produces money for miners, but it should not be 
covered under this very broad definition in the underlying bill.
  I agree with Mr. Pearce that potash could be covered under this 
legislation, and we agree that elevating mining for potash on public 
lands under this bill could impact other uses of those lands, including 
the development of oil and gas, so I am happy to support this amendment 
to clarify this overly broad definition.
  I would like to note that we had an amendment a few moments ago, 
offered by our colleague Mr. Lowenthal, which would fix the definition 
in this bill by limiting the bill to truly strategic and critical 
minerals determined to be, as the gentleman Mr. Lowenthal described, a 
really thorough and, let's say, academic definition of those minerals. 
It would address not only Mr. Pearce's concerns, but it would solve one 
of the overall problems of this bill.
  I am happy to support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for 
making our case for us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to differ with the gentleman 
from New Jersey, my friend.
  He said that potash is not very high-tech. When you use a scoop 
shovel to follow the cows around and use the byproduct from the cattle 
to fertilize with, potash is extremely high-tech.
  So, with that one exception, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing in this bill impacts the important multiple use 
mission of our Nation's public lands. One of the great stories of 
America is that our Nation recognizes the importance of balancing our 
land use for many different needs, including mineral and oil and gas 
development, renewable energy projects, grazing, timber harvests, 
hunting, fishing, recreation, and other important activities that bring 
economic vitality to our public lands.
  This legislation doesn't change that. It simply addresses the long 
bureaucratic and burdensome permitting timelines required for mineral 
exploration and mine development by building on executive orders 
requiring coordination by regulatory agencies to process permits for 
infrastructure projects in a timely manner and without compromising 
environmental safeguards.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no other comments, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fortenberry, 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. 761) 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, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________