[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16360-16372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 481 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. 1937.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1323


                     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. 1937) 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 Mr. Marchant in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1937, the National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015. This bill was introduced 
by my good friend and colleague, Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada, 
and myself as the first cosponsor.
  Not a day goes by when Americans don't use a product that is made 
from critical minerals. In fact, life as we know it in the 21st century 
would not be possible without these minerals.
  There would be no computers, no BlackBerries, no iPhones. There would 
be no MRIs, CAT scans, or x-ray machines. There would be no wind 
turbines or solar panels. Mr. Chairman, the list is exhaustive of these 
things that depend on critical and strategic minerals that make our 
lives possible.
  Rare earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical 
minerals, are core components of these products in the 21st century. 
Yet, despite the tremendous need for rare earth elements, the United 
States has allowed itself to become almost entirely dependent on China 
and other foreign nations for these resources.
  America has a plentiful supply of rare earth elements, but roadblocks 
to the development of these critical materials have resulted in China 
producing 97 percent of the world's supply. That is 97 percent.
  Our current policies are handing China a monopoly on these elements, 
creating a dependence that has serious implications for American jobs, 
for our economy, and on our national security.
  Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and 
onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S. 
for more than 10 years. These unnecessary delays cost American jobs as 
we become more and more dependent on foreign countries, such as China, 
for these raw materials.
  The lack of domestically produced strategic and critical minerals are 
prime examples of how the U.S. has regulated itself into a 100 percent 
dependency on at least 19 critical and unique minerals. It has also 
earned the United States the unique and unfortunate distinction of 
being ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects.
  The 2014 ranking of countries for mining investment out of 25 major 
mining countries found that the 7- to 10-year permitting delays are the 
most significant risk to mining projects in the U.S. We are dead last 
in that ranking. I can't speak for the other countries, but the reason 
the U.S. is so slow to issue new mining permits is very simple: 
government bureaucracy.
  H.R. 1937, introduced by my colleague from Nevada, will help us end 
foreign dependence by streamlining government red tape that blocks 
America's strategic and critical mineral production. Instead of waiting 
for over a decade for mining permits to be approved, this bill sets a 
goal for the total review process for permitting at 30 months, 2\1/2\ 
years.
  Now, this isn't a hard deadline, Mr. Chairman. It can be extended. 
But it is a goal to push the bureaucrats into action on these important 
infrastructure projects. It shouldn't take a decade to get a project 
built for minerals that we need in our everyday lives and for our 
national security. No company can reasonably forecast the price of 
minerals 10 years in advance.
  Finally, above all, this is a Jobs bill. The positive economic impact 
of this bill will extend beyond just the mining industry. For every 
good-paying metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3 additional jobs 
are generated. For every nonmetal mining job created, another 1.6 jobs 
are created.
  This legislation gives the opportunity for American manufacturers, 
small businesses, technology companies, and construction firms to use 
American resources to help make the products that are essential to our 
everyday lives.

[[Page 16361]]

  As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare earth elements, 
we should respond with a U.S. mining renaissance that will bring mining 
and manufacturing jobs back.
  The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, H.R. 
1937, is important to our jobs and to our economy. We must act now to 
cut the Government red tape that is stopping American domestic 
production and furthering our dependence on foreign countries for our 
mineral needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill takes us in the wrong direction. It not only fails to make 
any meaningful reforms to our antiquated system of mining in this 
country, but it proposes to make them worse. We have a mining system 
that was put together in the 1870s when the number one goal for 
President Grant at that time was to get people to settle in the West. I 
am here to tell you, Mr. Chair, the West has been settled.
  As a resident of southern California, we have this 150-year-old bill 
that really makes things as easy as possible for miners. We still have 
a law that doesn't require any royalties to be paid on the extraction 
of hard rock minerals on public lands. Let's be clear. If you drill for 
oil or gas on public lands or mine coal or soda ash or potash or a 
number of other minerals, what do you do? You pay a royalty to the 
American taxpayer, but not if you mine copper or silver or platinum or 
gold or other valuables. You get to mine royalty free.
  When the Mining Law of 1872 was enacted, there was no such thing as 
environmental safeguards. There was no concept of the multiple uses of 
public lands to ensure that mining could coexist with grazing, with 
recreation or conservation. There were no requirements for miners to 
clean up after themselves when they were done mining. Simply mine as 
long as it is profitable, and when you are done, just pick up and 
leave, and don't worry about it, except that the people who live 
anywhere near the half million abandoned mines in this country need to 
worry about it. Communities located near the tens of thousands of miles 
of polluted rivers with toxic acid mine waste, they need to worry about 
it, and, certainly, the United States Congress needs to worry about it.
  But, instead of tackling this problem, what does this bill do? It 
declares that the biggest problem we have with mining in this country 
is that we are not doing it fast enough.
  So this bill proposes to undermine one of our bedrock environmental 
laws--the National Environmental Policy Act--and it makes land managers 
who are reviewing mine plans prioritize mineral production over every 
other potential use of the land, which threatens hunting, fishing, 
grazing, and conservation.
  Mr. Chair, it would be one thing if the data showed that a large 
number of mines were being delayed for no good reason; but, in fact, 
according to the data from the Bureau of Land Management, mines are 
getting approved much faster. We just heard that it takes a decade, but 
let's be clear what the data says.
  Between 2005 and 2008, on average, 54 percent of the plans were 
approved in less than 3 years. In 2009 to 2014, 69 percent of the plans 
were approved in less than 3 years. So, in reality, rather than taking 
a decade, we are seeing that the Obama administration is permitting 
mines at a much faster rate than the Bush administration.
  Now, I have an amendment that would address one of the key problems 
in this bill. This bill has an incredibly broad definition of what is a 
strategic and critical mineral. I have yet to hear anyone tell me--and 
we asked in committee--what mineral now doesn't qualify as strategic 
and critical under this bill. Certainly, none of the witnesses we had 
at our Natural Resources Committee hearing could, and the majority 
hasn't suggested anything. Now we are talking about expediting the 
process for sand and gravel, crushed stones, gold, silver, diamonds. 
All of these are now going to be considered strategic and critical by 
the definition in this bill. All get an expedited process for 
permitting, and they have weaker environmental reviews.
  But, even if this bill were limited to the definition for critical 
minerals that the rest of the world goes by--basically, that those 
minerals be important, they be unique, and, most importantly, we are 
defining them as strategic and critical minerals because they are 
subject to a supply risk--it is clear that this bill does not help.
  We had one rare earth element mine start up in this country a few 
years ago. The rare earth elements are ones that are truly critical. 
Two months ago, that mine stopped operating because prices were too 
low. That is what has happened. That one mine was already permitted, 
already built, and already operating, and it had to be shut down 
because of economics.
  I don't think changing the environmental laws in any way solves the 
problem of economics, but it certainly would help major international 
mining conglomerates--companies based in Canada or Australia. It is 
going to help them grease the skids when they want to open their next 
giant copper mine or gold mine or uranium mine right next to a national 
park or a sensitive watershed.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is bad policy. The outcomes here won't be any 
different than the outcomes over the past two Congresses. This bill is 
dead on arrival in the Senate, and the administration has already 
expressed its strong opposition.
  What should we be doing?
  We should be here today, discussing how to fix our outdated and 
antiquated mining laws, how to make mining companies pay their fair 
share, how to clean up the half million abandoned mines that litter our 
landscape from coast to coast. We shouldn't be here talking about a 
bill that is only going to make things worse.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1937.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out to my friend and colleague from California that the 
National Research Council study has said: ``All minerals and mineral 
products could be or could become critical to some degree depending on 
their importance and availability.''
  So you have to look at the total circumstances surrounding the 
current supply of a mineral and what that mineral is, and they all, 
literally, could fit that definition according to the National Research 
Council.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great 
State of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), my colleague, who is also the vice 
chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I want to thank Chairman Lamborn and my good friend and 
fellow Western Caucus member, Nevada Representative Amodei, for their 
work on this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by addressing why strategic minerals 
matter and why we ought to have a piece of legislation like this.
  My home State of Wyoming is the headquarters for our Nation's nuclear 
intercontinental ballistic missile force. These missiles ensure that 
those who would do us harm are deterred from using nuclear weapons. 
These weapons are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but they 
need regular maintenance and replacement components. Rare earth 
elements are an important part of these components--from batteries, to 
computer chips, to display screens and engines. These components--
components vital to our technological edge--would require elements that 
can be difficult to procure.
  Now, China controls nearly 80 percent of rare earth production. As we 
know, China has used this leverage to bully our allies, to limit 
exports at a time of a dispute, especially recently, with Japan over 
the control of islands in the South China Sea. The U.S. Navy plans to 
conduct operations in the area

[[Page 16362]]

to remind China of the importance of respecting maritime boundaries and 
the freedom of navigation; but China is using its 80 percent share of 
rare earth minerals to leverage our allies. They can do it anytime they 
want because they have such massive control of this resource.
  The bill that Mr. Amodei is sponsoring, the National Strategic and 
Critical Minerals Production Act, would simplify the permitting process 
for domestic mines that will provide resources used in components that 
are vital to our national security. That is why we need to do it.
  Here is an example of the existing problem.
  In my home State of Wyoming, the Bear Lodge Critical Rare Earth 
Project has been going through the current process since 2011. It will 
be the only large-scale production facility in the U.S. for some rare 
earth elements designated as critical by the U.S. Department of Energy. 
They have to coordinate their permit application between the Forest 
Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and the Department of Energy.
  Under Mr. Amodei's legislation, one Federal agency would become the 
lead agency and set project timelines for permit applications and 
decisions. The total review process would not be authorized to exceed 
30 months unless extended by all parties involved. These parties would 
include State and local governments and local stakeholders. This 
ensures that local voices will be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough how important I think this 
legislation is. I am a cosponsor of the legislation. It passed the 
House in previous Congresses on a bipartisan basis. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1937. I thank Mr. Amodei for his 
thoughtful consideration of this bill.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to point out that the proponent of the bill has 
said--I believe it was the National Research Council--that all minerals 
and products could be or could become critical to some degree. That is 
really what they said, but let's be clear what this bill says and what 
the National Research Council's definition is. That is, really, what we 
are talking about, and we are going to discuss that later on.
  Just what is the definition?
  In the bill that we see before us, in terms of strategic and critical 
minerals, the term ``strategic and critical'' means minerals that are 
necessary for national defense and national security requirements--
there certainly are some of those--for the national energy 
infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical 
power generation, and transmission and renewable energy products, for 
supporting the domestic manufacturing of any mineral for agriculture, 
housing, telecommunications, health care, transportation and 
infrastructure, or for the Nation's economic security and balance of 
trade. For that reason, they are saying let's shorten the process, 
eviscerate NEPA--the National Environmental Policy Act--and let's 
expedite this process.
  I ask you: What mineral is not included in this definition? They are 
including everything.
  Let's see what, in actuality, the National Research Council said. 
They published the report in 2008. It was called: ``Minerals, Critical 
Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it defined what should be our 
definition of strategic and critical minerals.
  It states: ``To be `critical,' a mineral must be essential in use.'' 
We agree. They talk about strategic, and those proponents talk about 
essential minerals; but the National Research Council also says: ``To 
be considered `critical and strategic,' it must be subject to supply 
restriction.'' We do not see anything in this bill about supply 
restriction.
  Therefore, what it is is a blank check for mining companies to mine 
anywhere, to have an expedited process so as not to protect 
communities; and I think that is a great mistake and takes us the wrong 
way and is exactly the opposite of what the National Research Council 
has called for.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is also a member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1937, the National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  This commonsense legislation will streamline the permitting process 
and allow for better coordination amongst the relevant State and 
Federal agencies in order to foster economic growth, create jobs, and 
ensure a robust domestic supply of strategic and critical minerals.
  People have been digging in Arizona for precious metals for 
centuries. In the 1850s, nearly one in every four people in Arizona was 
a miner. Without a doubt, mining fueled the growth that makes Arizona 
the State it is today. In fact, it is part of the five Cs that built 
Arizona with copper.

                              {time}  1345

  Today, the Arizona mining industry is alive. Minerals such as copper, 
coal, gold, uranium, lime, and potash are still mined throughout my 
district, but not at the levels they used to be.
  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, these types of jobs are few and far between.
  As I meet with companies that do business throughout my State, the 
message is clear: we could do better. The length, complexity, and 
uncertainty of the permitting process is stymieing development and 
discouraging investors from committing to U.S. mining.
  The folks on the ground tell me that because of regulatory excessive 
overreach by the Federal Government and the cumbersome permitting 
process, that it can take as long as 10 years. It is becoming a bad 
business decision to even attempt to get a new U.S. mine off the 
ground, despite a bountiful supply of domestic resources. We must 
correct this problem and prevent more American jobs from leaving 
America.
  Rare earth and other critical minerals have been discovered 
throughout rural Arizona, have been the main economic driver and 
provider of jobs for communities that otherwise probably wouldn't make 
it at all. The critical minerals produced in these areas are resources 
our country badly needs to meet the demand for production of everyday 
items like cell phones, computers, batteries, and cars.
  Let's lessen our dependency on importing critical minerals from 
countries like China and restore some sanity to our permitting and 
regulatory process so we can get American miners back to work. Imagine 
our slogan, ``Made in the USA with materials mined in the USA.'' Now, 
that is what this bill is all about.
  I applaud Mr. Amodei for his leadership on this critical issue and 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1937.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, today we are debating yet another 
Republican bill restricting access to the courts to only those with 
deep pockets. H.R. 1937 continues the alarming trend of Republican-
sponsored legislation that proposes to limit the average American's 
access to the courts so businesses that line the pockets of these 
politicians with campaign contributions can continue to profit.
  Misleadingly disguised as a bill stimulating the increased production 
of strategic minerals, this legislation is actually about shielding the 
mining industry's poor environmental practices from accountability to 
victims while simultaneously disenfranchising mining-impacted 
communities.
  H.R. 1937 allows regulators to exempt mining projects from the Equal 
Access to Justice Act, EAJA. The EAJA allows average Americans access 
to legal representation to protect their communities. Without EAJA, 
impacted communities cannot afford lawyers, much

[[Page 16363]]

less the litany of scientific and technical experts needed to mount a 
serious challenge to a multinational mining company. This exemption 
cripples the ability of those concerned with environmental protection 
to seek representation and redress in the courts.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and 
preserve justice for all.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), a senior member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I am very proud of this bill, and I 
am a sponsor of this bill, and no one is lining my pockets. I resent 
that comment. I am thinking of the United States of America and how we 
are importing these 31 known minerals and the process that we have to 
go through to mine our own natural resources in our great Nation.
  It impedes our capability to be secure, regardless of what one might 
say. You just don't do this overnight. You have to have time to 
develop, especially the rare earths. The rest of the minerals we are 
importing using outside people, countries to import those products 
from, which we live with. We have people in this Congress and across 
this place who say we don't need it. We have to follow the example.
  By the way, if a miner tries to develop a mine, you have to go 
through so many different permits; and then when you get done, guess 
what we have. The lawyers from the big, big environmental organizations 
like the Safari Club, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, all 58 
different groups, file suit by a legal body that impedes the progress 
for this Nation.
  We cannot continue to import all which we need to have this living 
style we have today, yet that is what a lot of people on that side of 
the aisle insist upon.
  This is a good bill. Mr. Amodei thought about this bill. How do we 
retain our security? But more than that, how do we keep jobs within the 
United States? His comment is ``made in the United States by resources 
mined in the United States.'' That is what we should be looking at as 
this Congress instead of following, I call it, the blind piper: We 
don't need to drill our oil; we will buy it from abroad. We don't need 
to mine our minerals; we will buy it from abroad. And, by the way, we 
will ship our jobs overseas, and we will be further in debt $18 
trillion.
  We need our resources. That is what made this Nation great. 
Everything in this room, in these hallowed Halls, this body came from 
the earth. It was mined, it was cut, it was manufactured from the 
earth. Why should we buy it from abroad?
  Let's be American. Let's mine for our resources. Let's cut our trees 
for our resources. Let's build our resources. As it says right up 
there: ``Let us use our resources God has given for the benefit of 
mankind.'' If we don't do that, we are abusing the job we have here.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would really like to discuss in a little bit more detail the idea 
that the permitting process is so onerous, that it takes so long to do 
it.
  In 2012, 2013, and 2014, let's talk about the last 3 years of 
permitting of mines, of plans of operation, what really is the data? I 
will tell you that of all the plans of operation that were approved in 
2012, 93 percent of them were done in 3 years or less; in 2013, 79 
percent were done in 3 years or less; and in 2014, it was 68 percent. 
In summary, in the last 3 years, close to 80 percent of all plans of 
operation were permitted in less than 3 years. So we are not talking 
about an onerous time.
  Also, let us remember that the same bill was twice introduced last 
year. It was twice introduced in the last session, and it was also 
introduced once in the 112th Congress. It never got taken up in the 
Senate.
  This bill, if it ever did get through, let's see what the 
administration says. I read to you a Statement of Administration 
Policy:
  ``The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1937, which would 
undermine existing environmental safeguards for, at a minimum, almost 
all types of hardrock mines on Federal lands. Specifically, H.R. 1937 
would undermine sound Federal decision-making by eliminating the 
appropriate reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act if 
certain conditions are met, circumventing public involvement in mining 
proposals, and bypassing the formulation of alternatives to proposals, 
among other things. The Administration also opposes the legislation's 
severe restrictions on judicial review. Although the legislation 
purports to limit litigation, its extremely short statute of 
limitations and vague constraints on the scope of prospective relief 
that a court may issue are likely to have the opposite effect.
  ``The Administration strongly supports the development of rare earth 
elements and other critical minerals, but rejects the notion that their 
development is incompatible with existing safeguards regarding the uses 
of public lands, environmental protection, and public involvement in 
agency decision-making.''
  If we are really concerned about updating this old law, let's work 
together and come up with a better definition of what is a critical and 
strategic mineral and let us not eviscerate the environmental 
protections and the public participation which we now afford people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an exchange of 
letters between Chairman Bishop and Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary 
Committee on this bill.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, 28 July 2015.
     Hon. Robert Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 9, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered favorably report H.R. 1937, 
     National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 
     2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support having the Committee on the 
     Judiciary represented on the conference committee. Finally, I 
     would be pleased to include this letter and your response in 
     the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources 
     to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record when the bill is considered by the 
     House. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and 
     for your continued strong cooperation between our committees.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rob Bishop,

                                                         Chairman,
     Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop, I am writing with respect to H.R. 
     1937, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals 
     Production Act of 2015,'' which the Committee on Natural 
     Resources recently ordered reported favorably. As a result of 
     your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 1937 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. 1937 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 ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration of H.R. 1937.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

[[Page 16364]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, they once asked the famous spitball 
pitcher Gaylord Perry if he put a foreign substance on the ball, and he 
calmly answered: No. Vaseline is 100 percent American product.
  We used to only have to import a handful of rare earth minerals in 
this country, like eight. Today, we are importing dozens of them 
because we have, with this administration, a policy of trying to 
stockpile these resources. Hopefully, when we get through them, we will 
be able to find some other country that can help us to resupply those 
resources, kind of like Blanche in ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' where 
we are dependent on the kindness of strangers at all times.
  Would it not be wiser for us simply to have a consistent policy where 
we actually have a workforce that is developing, on a regular basis, 
these rare earth minerals that we can have for our use so that we can 
have the jobs from them, it can help our economy, and it could give us 
the security we desperately need? We don't need to keep importing stuff 
into this country. I mean, we imported the Expos from Montreal to here 
in Washington. That should be sufficient. That is enough.
  I read an article the other day about mining rare earth minerals in 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo where rare minerals, necessary for 
iPhones and the Samsung Galaxy phones, were being produced. Miners used 
their bare hands to filter out the minerals in order to earn a whopping 
$5 a day. If the miners use their hands to find the rare minerals, how 
do you think they handled environment protections and how do you think 
they reclaimed these projects?
  What we need desperately is to use 21st century technology and pay 
our labor force 21st century wages to produce the strategic and 
critical minerals that are necessary for our way of life and not be 
dependent on other countries for these minerals and not take advantage 
of their miners. This is a no-brainer. Let's do the right thing. As 
Satchel Paige said: Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.
  We know what we are doing. Pass this bill. It is a good bill.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in 
contravention of the law and rules of the House.
  The Sergeant At Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Benishek), who is also a member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1937, 
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  Over the past several decades, our Nation has lagged far behind much 
of the world in the development and extraction of domestic mineral 
resources. Falling behind on this front has made our Nation dependent 
on foreign sources of many vital mineral resources that our economy and 
national defense need to continue functioning.
  Falling behind has also led to the loss of good-paying jobs 
throughout the country. We have seen this in my district in northern 
Michigan in the mines that have shut down and the mines that have not 
been permitted. There is a mine in the western part of my district that 
has been over 10 years in the permitting process and is still not near 
open. These jobs are critically needed in my district.
  The mines of the U.P. have served our country in times of need, 
providing many of the raw minerals that we have needed for national 
defense. If the resources that we have beneath our feet were needed 
today, these mines would have to go through a significant permitting 
process that would likely take almost 20 years.
  While I support making sure that we behave in an environmentally 
responsible manner, it is ridiculous that overly burdensome Federal 
regulations are keeping us from being competitive in the world economy. 
This bill will cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape that is 
holding our economy back, leading to a nation that is less dependent on 
foreign resources for vital natural resources and creating jobs.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the responsible development of 
our domestic natural resources and to vote in favor of this commonsense 
and long-overdue legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Silver State, Nevada (Mr. Amodei), a former member of the Committee 
on Natural Resources and the author of this bill.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, God forbid we place dealing with bedrock 
American issues ahead of the culture of political cliche. It is always 
nice to be informed of what the status is in the Intermountain West by 
people from towns that end in the name ``Beach.''
  I find it incredibly interesting that we have heard on several 
occasions that the administration's average for the supermajority of 
applications is 36 months or less and how we need to work together on 
things when the legislation on the floor right now calls for a 30-month 
timeframe, which is extendable, by the way, with the consent of both 
parties.
  So instead of, Well, let's have an amendment to make it 36 months and 
put this on the suspension calendar, we are subjected to ``This is 
bad'' and ``It disenfranchises the public'' and all that.
  Let's talk about what this is really about. There is an old saying in 
the law: When you have got the facts, you argue the facts. When you 
have got the law, you argue the law. When you don't have either, you 
just argue.
  Here we are. Because everybody in the room knows, depending on what 
side of the issue you are on, the big tool in this thing is, if we can 
outwait them, the capital will go elsewhere. Guess what. The folks that 
believe in that are winning.
  When we talk about those bedrock American issues, things like jobs, 
things like public participation--you know, 30 months, that is longer 
than we get to hang out here after the people of our district give us 
their voting card. That is longer--used to be--than somebody would take 
to try to talk you into voting for them for Governor or President.
  Nobody can accuse this legislation, at 2\1/2\ years, extendable by 
stipulation, of forcing the public to sit on their hands. Jobs, 
participation of the public, balance of trade, that is not important.
  I mean, why should we be concerned about balance of trade and 
exporting the minerals that this country is wealthy with? You want to 
talk about abandoned mines? In my State, those folks happen to be doing 
a great job. If you want to talk about the culture of the 1870s, yeah, 
but it has come a long way.
  God forbid, when we talk about paying your fair share, in my State, 
the industry pays north of $80,000 a year. Those people pay Federal 
income taxes. They buy goods and services that are federally taxed: 
gasoline, tires, all that stuff. But, no, let's send those jobs 
overseas where none of that happens. None of that happens. That is 
smart policy. I simply disagree.
  God forbid we talk about commercial supplies, national security, 
strategic supplies. Other speakers have talked about that. This is not 
some dream job for the minerals extraction industry.
  Oh, by the way, let's not look at the folks down in the Palmetto 
State right now who are experiencing phenomenal floods that might need 
materials to kind of rebuild their State.
  God forbid we talk about sand and gravel for those folks in the 
Golden State after the Loma Prieta earthquake and they needed to 
rebuild things called freeways lickety-split.
  This is not about supplying sand for your kid's sandbox. This is not 
about gravel for your driveway in your subdivision. This is about 
having flexibility to address issues that are mineral related. Because 
you know what, nobody has called this place, regardless of who is 
running it, nimble.

[[Page 16365]]

  When one of these issues comes up, God forbid you give them: That is 
right, folks. Hang on to your hats. Thirty months to try to get the 
permission from the Federal Government to extract minerals on that.
  With all due respect, what this is all about is: Do you continue to 
let folks who are opposed to things try to starve them out and wait and 
wait and wait until the capital goes elsewhere or do you take the folks 
and the administration's word: Nice job. Takes you 36 months? You want 
us to change it to 33 months and put it on the suspension calendar? I 
will do it. But short of that, me thinks thou doth protest too much.
  I solicit your earnest support, and I am looking forward to the 
Senate work on it this time because we are nimble compared to those 
folks on the north end of the building.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, we have heard in this discussion that we should have a 
sweeping definition, every mineral should be under the definition of a 
critical mineral, and that we should not be beholden to foreign sources 
if we don't do that. Well, I agree in many ways. We should not be.
  This bill doesn't really deal with that issue because, if the authors 
were really concerned about restrictions to the supply, they would make 
the definition of ``critical'' and ``strategic minerals'' much 
narrower. We would not give up our environmental protections. We would 
not give up our public participation. We would not give up our legal 
protections when, in fact, there is no danger to the Nation's supply of 
this mineral.
  The problems are really that we are now broadly including everything 
under this definition, and the bill that is in the Senate under--I 
think it is Senator Murkowski--has a much more limited definition of 
what is a strategic and critical mineral.
  I urge the authors here, the proponents, to really amend this bill so 
that we can all work together on this to really restrict the two very 
specific occasions of when we would enable a change in the protections 
that we already have under NEPA. Right now, everything is included. 
This eviscerates all of our protections. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, much has been debated here on the floor about what is 
strategic and what is not strategic. Let me suggest two ways that you 
could define strategic minerals.
  You could define it by making a definition so narrow that, in effect, 
the legislation picks winners and losers or you could write law that 
says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the 
driver of what is strategic and critical. That means the marketplace 
will decide what is strategic and critical.
  I think that is a much better approach when I talk about this because 
I recall hearing that, in the late 1890s, the U.S. Patent Office issued 
a statement--I think I have this correct here--saying that we ought to 
close down the U.S. Patent Office because everything that can be 
invented has been invented.
  That was in the 1890s. That was before airplanes. That was before 
cars were commercially available. That was before most 
telecommunications. This means all the minerals that go into these 
things weren't even thought of at that time.
  What we do in this bill is just very straightforward. We say that the 
strategic and critical minerals will meet any of the following four 
criteria--and, by the way, you can find these on page 5, section 3, 
under ``Definitions'':
  A, for national defense and national security. That is so evident, it 
hardly needs to be debated.
  B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines and 
refining. That is because of the importance of energy. That certainly 
should not be debated because we have to have a good energy source if 
we are going to have a growing economy.
  Also, C, to support domestic manufacturing. That includes, obviously, 
agriculture and housing as well. In other words, to support our 
economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of strategic and 
critical minerals for that?
  Finally, D, for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. 
That makes such good sense because we are seriously out of balance now 
with China.
  This approach is more of a long-term solution because 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, as the other 
side would suggest, that we don't know what that technology is, we 
have, in fact, been picking winners and losers, and that is the wrong 
approach.
  The right approach is what is embodied in this bill to say that these 
four conditions will be the ones that define strategic and critical 
minerals.
  Finally, let me close on this: Some people make fun of sand and 
gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that, after a major 
earthquake in northern or southern California, when the freeways 
collapse, I can tell you that cement and sand and gravel will 
absolutely fit that definition.
  In this bill, strategic and critical minerals are not defined, as 
some have suggested, as all minerals all the time. Instead, H.R. 1937 
allows any mineral to be deemed strategic and critical at a given time 
when the appropriate situation warrants it. This is vital to protecting 
our economy, our jobs, and our way of life.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 1937, a bill that 
weakens environmental safeguards while bolstering the mining industry's 
special privileges on federal lands.
  The language in the bill is written in such a way to cover virtually 
all hardrock mining on federal lands. Instead of using a scientific 
definition of a critical mineral, a mineral for which there is no 
substitute, H.R. 1937 considers gravel and sand to be critical 
minerals, leading to fast-tracked permits for practically any hardrock 
mines, even when the materials are plentiful. In addition, the bill 
classifies hardrock mines as infrastructure projects in order to allow 
hardrock mines to access a streamlined permit process intended for 
actual infrastructure projects such as surface transportation and 
pipelines, which have far less of an environmental impact.
  The bill directs the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service 
to simplify the process for obtaining permits to extract minerals from 
federal lands, including eliminating adequate reviews under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is widely known that the 
NEPA review process, through the formulation of alternative proposals 
and the consideration of public input, leads to improved federal 
decision-making and better projects. In the end, NEPA saves time, money 
and reduces negative impacts. Furthermore, NEPA is the primary 
balancing mechanism against the mining industry's privileged access to 
billions of dollars worth of minerals on federal lands. The mining 
industry already enjoys access to hardrock minerals on public lands 
without paying taxpayers anything.
  Finally, the bill limits the ability of aggrieved communities to use 
the court system to hold the government accountable when contamination 
from hardrock mining threatens their groundwater or drinking water. 
H.R. 1937 exempts legal cases brought against hardrock mines from the 
Equal Access to Justice Act, which means that winning plaintiffs cannot 
collect attorney fees from the government, ultimately ensuring that 
poor communities will never challenge these decisions in court.
  I support efforts to strengthen our mining regulations. H.R. 1937, 
however, is a step in the wrong direction. We should be looking to 
reform the antiquated General Mining Law of 1872. Nearly a century and 
a half later, a law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant remains the 
law of the land and carries with it a toxic legacy. The GAO estimates 
that there may be more than 160,000 abandoned hardrock mines and that 
20% of these sites (roughly 33,000) have degraded the environment by 
contaminating surface water and groundwater or leaving arsenic-
contaminated tailings piles.
  In its place, the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act, H.R. 
963, is a meaningful attempt at comprehensive reform and yet it

[[Page 16366]]

remains stuck in committee. Unlike the bill being considered on the 
floor today, H.R. 963 would protect communities and their surroundings 
by balancing mining with other uses of public land. This legislation 
would put in place environmental controls to protect water, create jobs 
and protect natural areas by funding the clean-up of abandoned mines, 
and compensate taxpayers for the extraction of natural resources.
  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, and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1937

       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 2015''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The industrialization of developing nations has driven 
     demand for nonfuel minerals 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 45 nonfuel mineral materials, 8 of 
     which the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation's 
     requirements, and for another 19 commodities the United 
     States imported more than 50 percent of the Nation's needs.
       (B) By 2014 the United States import dependence for nonfuel 
     mineral materials increased from 45 to 65 commodities, 19 of 
     which the United States imported for 100 percent of the 
     Nation's requirements, and an additional 24 of which the 
     United States imported for more than 50 percent of the 
     Nation's needs.
       (C) The United States share of worldwide mineral 
     exploration dollars was 7 percent in 2014, down from 19 
     percent in the early 1990s.
       (D) In the 2014 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment 
     (out of 25 major mining countries), found that 7- to 10-year 
     permitting delays are the most significant risk to mining 
     projects in the United States.

     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--
       (A) Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service 
     authorizations for pre-mining activities that require 
     environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (B) plans of operation issued by the Bureau of Land 
     Management and the Forest Service pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and 
     36 CFR 228A or the authorities listed in 43 CFR 3503.13, 
     respectively, as amended from time to time.

  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 within the lead agency 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.--
       (1) In general.--To the extent that the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     applies to the issuance of any mineral exploration or mine 
     permit, the requirements of such Act shall be deemed to have 
     been procedurally and substantively satisfied if the lead 
     agency determines that any State and/or Federal agency acting 
     pursuant to State or Federal (or both) statutory or 
     procedural authorities, has addressed or will address the 
     following factors:
       (A) The environmental impact of the action to be conducted 
     under the permit.
       (B) Possible adverse environmental effects of actions under 
     the permit.
       (C) Possible alternatives to issuance of the permit.
       (D) The relationship between local long- and short-term 
     uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement 
     of long-term productivity.
       (E) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 
     resources that would be involved in the proposed action.
       (F) That public participation will occur during the 
     decisionmaking process for authorizing actions under the 
     permit.
       (2) Written requirement.--In reaching a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the lead agency shall, by no later than 90 
     days after receipt of an application for the permit, in a 
     written record of decision--
       (A) explain the rationale used in reaching its 
     determination;
       (B) state the facts in the record that are the basis for 
     the determination; and
       (C) show that the facts in the record could allow a 
     reasonable person to reach the same determination as the lead 
     agency did.
       (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. For purposes of this 
     subsection, the lead agency shall consider the following 
     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) Memorandum of Agency Agreement.--If requested at any 
     time by a State or local planning agency, the lead agency 
     with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine 
     permit, in consultation with other Federal agencies with 
     relevant jurisdiction in the environmental review process, 
     may establish memoranda of agreement with the project 
     sponsor, State and local governments, and other appropriate 
     entities to accomplish the early coordination activities 
     described in subsection (c).
       (e) Schedule for Permitting Process.--For any project for 
     which the lead agency cannot make the determination described 
     in 102(b), 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 for the following:
       (1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (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.
       (f) Time Limit for Permitting Process.--In no case should 
     the total review process described in subsection (d) exceed 
     30 months unless extended by the signatories of the 
     agreement.
       (g) 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.
       (h) 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

[[Page 16367]]

     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.
       (i) 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.
       (j) 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 of 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 marketplace.

     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.

                  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. No amendment to this bill is in order except for those 
printed in House Report 114-301. 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 114-301.
  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 1 through 15 and insert the following:
       (1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic 
     and critical minerals''--
       (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means--
       (i) minerals and mineral groups identified as critical by 
     the National Research Council in the report titled 
     ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S Economy'' and 
     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) does not include sand, gravel, or clay.
       Page 5, line 25, after ``ties'' insert ``for strategic and 
     critical minerals''.
       Page 6, line 3, after ``operation'' insert ``for strategic 
     and critical mineral mines''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix a critical problem with this 
bill, namely, that the name of the bill doesn't match the substance of 
the bill.
  When you read the title, you would think this bill has something to 
do with critical and strategic minerals, but, in fact, as currently 
written, the bill would define practically every mined substance--and 
that is every mined substance in the United States--as being strategic 
and critical. Sand, gravel, gold, copper, clay, all of these, are 
strategic and critical under this bill, and I think that is going too 
far.
  In fact, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what mineral 
wouldn't fall under the definition of this bill. Certainly none of the 
witnesses at our June Committee on Natural Resources could name one.
  The National Research Council published a 2008 report called 
``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it states: 
To be critical, a mineral must be both essential in use and subject to 
supply restriction.
  They go on to point out some specific examples of minerals that are 
essential, but not critical, such as copper, iron ore, and construction 
aggregates, such as sand and gravel, except that this bill would 
completely ignore the National Research Council and many other 
organizations that know what criticality means and define all of 
these--copper, iron ore, sand, gravel, and more--as strategic and 
critical minerals.
  There is no doubt that these minerals are essential, but they are 
widely produced in the United States, and there is no danger of a break 
in the supply chain. Let me state that again. There is no danger of a 
break in the supply chain.
  Let's talk about the sand and gravel that was just mentioned before. 
There are roughly 6500 sand and gravel quarries in the United States. 
We are not going to run out of gravel by not permitting one more gravel 
mine.
  Gravel is important, but no one from the National Research Council or 
the Department of Energy or any organization that knows the real 
definition of critical minerals would consider sand and gravel to fall 
in that category, period, end of discussion.

[[Page 16368]]

  My amendment would ensure that the scientifically vetted definition 
determined by the NRC is what the Secretary of the Interior uses to 
assess the criticality of minerals to be mined under this bill. It 
would ensure that the bill actually addresses the intent that is 
suggested by its own title: critical minerals.

                              {time}  1415

  It puts no time limits on the identification of these minerals. So, 
as conditions change over time, the Secretary would be able to add or 
remove items from the list of critical minerals, as necessary.
  Republicans in the Senate understand this. Senator Murkowski, the 
chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which oversees 
mining, has introduced a bill that requires a methodology for 
determining which minerals would qualify as critical.
  That methodology is to be based on an assessment of--I quote in her 
bill--``whether the materials are subject to potential supply 
restrictions and also important in use.''
  I may not agree with everything that is in Senator Murkowski's bill, 
but I believe that she at least understands the definition of a 
critical mineral and is making a serious attempt to expand the 
production of minerals that are actually critically important and 
strategic.
  But without my amendment, this bill is just a guise for mining 
interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental 
protections for all hardrock mining.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response, I just have to say one word: earthquake.
  During the 2008 Great Southern California ShakeOut, which studied and 
analyzed the potential effects of a major earthquake, the USGS 
discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials, 
namely, sand and gravel, if there was a major earthquake, God forbid, 
causing significant damage in the L.A. basin and the surrounding areas.
  This amendment, if we accept it, would preclude that sand and gravel 
would be defined as critical, hindering expedited development of these 
resources.
  Furthermore, by explicitly excluding sand, gravel or clay, this 
amendment is at fundamental odds with the National Research Council 
study--I have quoted it earlier--which stated: ``All minerals and 
mineral products could be or could become critical to some degree, 
depending on their importance and availability.''
  The California Geological Survey recently released information 
forecasting a continuing shortage in California of permitted aggregate 
resources so as to meet only one-third of demand over the next 50 years 
in the State of California.
  So we have a shortage coming, whether people like it or not, and that 
is without a major earthquake. Once again, God forbid.
  The bill, as currently structured, does allow the market and the 
Nation's needs to define a mineral as critical, thereby allowing the 
flexibility necessary for carrying out the provisions of the act.
  However, this amendment would hinder the efficiency and fluidity this 
bill seeks to inject into the permitting process for critical and 
strategic minerals by imposing an extra bureaucratic determination to 
be made by the Secretary of the Interior. It also picks winners and 
losers in the mining industry.
  So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in conclusion, 
that we are talking about a definition of critical and strategic 
minerals that comes from the NRC, or the National Resource Council, 
that really talks about things that are essential.
  But it also says that, to be declared critical, it must have a danger 
of disruption in the supply chain. We must have a limit to where we can 
access other materials.
  As it was just pointed out, what happens if there is an earthquake in 
Southern California? God help us. Let's hope that there is not going to 
be an earthquake in Southern California. And there is a limitation on 
the supply.
  I would like to urge us to say that the Secretary has the ability to 
change what is on that list or not under my amendment.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  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 Mrs. Dingell

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-301.
  Mrs. DINGELL. 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 7, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 8, line 18, and insert the following:
       (b) Treatment of Permits Under NEPA.--Issuance of a mineral 
     exploration or mine permit shall be treated as a major 
     Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 
     human environment for purposes of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
       Beginning at page 9, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through page 12, line 21.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  There are several troubling positions in this legislation, many of 
which my other colleagues have already addressed this afternoon. But I 
am particularly concerned with how H.R. 1937 treats the National 
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as it has become known.
  If this bill were to become law, public comment would be severely 
limited and, in some instances, a proper environmental review may not 
be conducted at all.
  The underlying bill employs a functional equivalence standard, which 
would permit the lead agency to circumvent a NEPA review if other 
agencies have performed reviews that are determined to be equivalent. 
There are several problems with this approach.
  First, it is not clear that the six factors listed in the bill 
compromise all that a NEPA document would explore. So if functional 
equivalence was applied, the public may not have the complete story 
about the environmental impacts of a specific project.
  Second, case law demonstrates that functional equivalence has 
historically not been extended to other agencies beyond the EPA because 
they are simply not equipped to do that kind of work.
  That is why the committee heard testimony earlier this year that this 
provision ignores Congress' choices in NEPA, as well as the judiciary's 
struggle with functional equivalence.
  My amendment strikes the functional equivalence provisions and 
replaces it with the language that makes it clear that all mine 
explorations or mine permits are major Federal actions and would 
require an environmental impact statement under NEPA.
  It is well known that hardrock mining can have adverse health 
impacts, and these projects deserve a formal environmental review.
  NEPA has a simple premise: Look before you leap. This landmark law 
gives the public an opportunity to review

[[Page 16369]]

and comment on actions proposed by the government, adding to the 
evaluation process unique perspectives that highly specialized, 
mission-driven agencies might otherwise ignore.
  We should be preserving and protecting this important tool for public 
participation rather than undermining it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would urge rejection of this amendment because it would make the 
permitting process for critical and strategic minerals even worse than 
it currently is. It is already 7 to 10 or more years. It is dead last 
in the 25 major mineral-producing countries in the world, according to 
that recent study we cited earlier.
  This amendment would strike several key sections of the bill, 
including the NEPA provisions, the expedited schedule provision, the 
time limit provision, and the applicability of this law to existing 
permit application provision.
  First, this amendment seeks to remove the NEPA provisions. Our 
provision does not sidestep or avoid the NEPA process in any way; 
rather, it codifies a judicial determination for NEPA known as the 
functional equivalence doctrine.
  This doctrine provides that, when an agency action, whether State or 
Federal, has addressed the substantive requirements of NEPA, such 
action may be substituted as sufficient rather than having to prepare 
an entirely new and duplicative environmental study.
  This amendment rejects the functional equivalence doctrine and 
mandates that the issuance of every mineral exploration or mine permit 
constitutes a ``major Federal action,'' thereby requiring the 
development of costly and time-consuming environmental impact 
statements, regardless of a proposed project's size.
  Furthermore, this amendment strikes the provisions of the bill that 
requires the authorizing agency to develop a schedule for the permit 
process, and it removes the 30-month time constraints that would be put 
on said authorizing agency.
  In other words, it restores the current 7- to 10-year permit process 
that plagues the mining industry and the production of jobs and the 
growth of our economy.
  Let me mention one thing about automobile manufacturing in 
particular. An automobile contains rare earths for magnets, copper, 
aluminum, platinum, and many other critical minerals and elements.
  According to Rare Earth Technology Alliance, the average hybrid car 
contains 61 pounds of rare earth metals. So it is important that we 
pass this bill.
  This amendment unfortunately guts the bill. I would urge opposition 
to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly respond to some of the 
points made by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  I do recognize the importance of those metals in auto production. It 
is important to me. But this bill isn't going to impact them.
  To be frank, I think this bill is a solution in search of a problem. 
NEPA is often a scapegoat for permitting delays, but this does not hold 
up when you closely examine the facts.
  In fact, since 2008, the approval time for hardrock mines has 
decreased. Last year the average time it took to approve a plan of 
operations for a hardrock mine was 17 months--17 months--not 10 years.
  I want jobs as much as my colleagues do on the other side of the 
aisle, but I want to protect people. Project complexity, local 
opposition, and the lack of funding are almost always the culprits for 
a project being delayed, but everybody wants to blame NEPA unfairly.
  Hardrock mines could pose significant threats to public health, 
water, and the environment. We must ensure that every mining 
application is properly reviewed under NEPA, as my amendment proposes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind us all that America 
has a plentiful supply of rare earth elements, but there are roadblocks 
to developing them, such that China produces 97 percent of the world's 
supply and there are at least 19 unique minerals that the U.S. has zero 
supply of.
  So if we continue the current regime of 7 to 10 years to permit a 
mine project--and that is what will happen if we don't pass this bill--
then we are going to be dependent on other countries and automobile and 
all kinds of manufacturing will be affected.
  The 2014 ranking of countries for mining investment, out of the 25 
major mining companies, found that the delays that we have in this 
country are the worst in the world; yet, we have such tremendous 
resources if we were only to use them.
  So I think this bill is a good faith and reasonable effort to strike 
the balance between proper environmental protection by keeping 
functional equivalence and, yet, producing the minerals that will give 
us the jobs we need.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan will be 
postponed.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-301.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, 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 14, line 1, strike title II.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, just off the floor of the House of Representatives, steps 
outside the door, we have a magnificent statue of one of our Founding 
Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.
  Thomas Jefferson said: ``I consider trial by jury as the only anchor 
ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the 
principles of its constitution.''
  The amendment I offer today, Mr. Chair, ensures that an important 
right of the American people is preserved: the right to hold the 
government accountable for their actions, the right of ordinary 
Americans to go into court and hold the government accountable.
  The right to challenge the government in court should not be limited 
to large groups that are well funded and have the financial ability to 
pay for a lawyer, and that is exactly what this bill would do. This 
right should be extended to every American citizen, every small 
business, every nonprofit organization regardless of the size and scope 
of their wallets.
  Now, as a lifetime courtroom lawyer, I know the importance of being 
able to access the court system. For many years, I fought to make sure 
that ordinary Americans could have their day in court and hold 
wrongdoers accountable.
  Access to the courts is a key right envisioned by not only Thomas 
Jefferson, but all of the Founding Fathers, and is protected by the 
Equal Access to

[[Page 16370]]

Justice Act, the EAJA, which allows eligible individuals to recover 
fees and expenses from the government if they win their day in court. 
As a Congressman and former trial attorney, I cannot and will not stand 
by silently and watch this bill chip away at this American right 
without standing up and speaking out.
  By exempting exploration and mining permits from the Equal Access to 
Justice Act, this bill prevents valid claims from reaching the courts 
by prohibiting the government from reimbursing legal expenses to 
parties that win in court. This overturns 30 years of legal precedent 
aimed at opening the court's doors to the public.
  What I can't understand is why any of my colleagues across the aisle 
would want to limit review of the government's actions, given the 
fairly consistent message we hear that government has gotten too big 
and continues to come up with unnecessary rules and rulings.
  EAJA allows average citizens to challenge this kind of thing in 
court, challenge the very kind of supposed overreach that the majority 
always likes to talk about.
  We have heard time and time again from the majority that blocking 
access to the courts is necessary to halt frivolous and unnecessary 
litigation, as if judges are incapable or lack the intellectual rigor 
to be able to figure it out for themselves; but it is this bill that is 
frivolous and unnecessary, and the Congressional Budget Office proves 
it.
  The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimates that this bill, 
H.R. 1937, would reduce direct spending by less than $50,000 a year. We 
are throwing up a barrier to access the courts for a paltry $50,000 a 
year.
  But the larger point is this is money that is awarded to successful 
claimants against the government. Why would you want to punish the 
successful claimants in the name of cutting down on frivolous 
litigation? Frivolous litigation, by definition, is claims that are so 
bad, they couldn't possibly win in court and never do.
  The only reason I can see for the EAJA exemption in this bill is that 
it further solidifies industry's free pass to mine on U.S. public 
lands. First, this bill limits public and agency consideration by 
waiving the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and setting 
unrealistic time limits. Then title II puts the nail in the coffin by 
eliminating the public's last opportunity to review a mine's permit by 
challenging it in open court.
  My amendment today would strike all of title II, including the EAJA 
exemption, in order to maintain this vital, time-honored American 
public right to challenge the government's decisions in court.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes title II of the 
bill, which addresses the judicial review of agency actions relating to 
exploration and mine permits. This title is designed to address one of 
the primary contributors to the long permitting timelines and delays we 
have been talking about this afternoon: relentless litigation brought 
by environmental organizations.
  Regulatory agencies routinely try to craft a lawsuit-proof NEPA 
document. However, that is impossible. They are going to get sued no 
matter what. So title II seeks to provide some certainty in the 
litigation process. Rather than prohibit or block litigation, it does 
several reasonable things:
  It expedites the judicial process by requiring timely filings no 
later than 60 days after a final agency action. It just keeps the ball 
rolling. That is entirely reasonable.
  It requires the court to proceed expeditiously on reaching a 
determination in the case. That also is entirely reasonable.
  Furthermore, title II provides the project proponent a guaranteed 
right to intervene. If a company has invested millions or even billions 
of dollars in a project, they deserve an opportunity to go to court on 
something that could adversely impact their investment. That, too, is 
entirely reasonable.
  Also, title II limits certain prospective attorneys' fees under the 
Equal Access to Justice Act. This provision affects all parties to the 
lawsuit, including permitholders, and has as its purpose dissuading 
frivolous suits that would harm the Nation's ability to provide these 
vital resources. That, too, is entirely reasonable.
  So for those reasons, I would say, let's reject this amendment. Let's 
keep title II in the bill. It is essential to have a predictable and 
reasonable permitting timeline so that we can explore and develop these 
resources to make our economy stronger. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I acknowledge my colleague from Colorado. 
However, his silence on the point I was making is deafening.
  The point I made is that cutting out EAJA from this act means that 
you are attacking successful claims. If your point is to attack 
frivolous lawsuits, you don't cut out reimbursing legal fees and costs 
for successful claims. What are we really up to by doing that?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, just in answer to the gentleman's question, I 
would point out that what happens right now is that the EAJA is 
actually gamed. People can put in 15 or 20 frivolous claims, but if 
they have a finding on one substantial thing--and always, those 
lawsuits have a multitude of claims, but then one thing will be tucked 
in that is simply procedural that the agency forgot the deadline, it 
didn't have a meeting--and if the judge finds on one, then all are paid 
for. So they are allowed to bring frivolous actions with one 
substantiating claim, and it is those frivolous things that tie up and 
hold up development.
  No one objects to the fact that sometimes the agencies are wrong. 
People do object to the fact that frivolous lawsuits come under the 
cover of one thing that is just almost inane in the whole discussion.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I have a simple question.
  Name one Federal judge who has granted all of the attorneys' fees 
where there are 15 frivolous claims and one successful one.
  I have never heard of such a thing.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. I would be happy to respond. I will provide the 
documentation to the gentleman afterwards. I don't have it right here. 
But we see these things in New Mexico.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, I will just conclude, Mr. Chairman, 
by saying that this amendment is not a good amendment for the bill 
because it guts title II.
  We need some predictability in the litigation process as well as in 
the government bureaucratic process. This allows parties to go to 
court. It prevents the abuse of EAJA.
  It is not the legitimate use of that law that we are after; it is the 
abuse of that particular law. That is why it is addressed in this bill.
  I would 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. 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 Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 114-301.

[[Page 16371]]


  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike title III (page 15, beginning at line 15) and insert 
     the following:

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. SECRETARIAL ORDER NOT AFFECTED.

       This Act shall not apply to any mineral described in 
     Secretarial Order 3324, issued by the Secretary of the 
     Interior on December 3, 2012, in any area to which the Order 
     applies.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, 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. Chair, in the Permian Basin, which the Second 
District of New Mexico falls just in the corner of that, two or three 
counties have tremendous assets. It is home to some of the most 
prolific and purest forms of potash, which is used for fertilizer, and 
then it also has significant oil and gas.
  When I was elected to Congress in 2002, one of the first things that 
next year that we began to discover is that the oil and gas and potash 
industries have had an approximately 50-year running battle against 
each other. We began to try to sort through the differing opinions, 
working with the agency, the Interior Department, and over the next 10 
approximate years, worked out an agreement with the Secretary of the 
Interior and the two different industries on how to both get along in 
the same area. That was a significant undertaking. It was a significant 
finding by the Interior Department and, again, took almost 10 years of 
very delicate negotiations. So my amendment to this bill, H.R. 1937, is 
simply to clarify that nothing in the bill overturns that agreement 
that has been reached.
  Again, this agreement came under the Obama administration but dated 
back through the Bush administration, so it has been pretty well looked 
at by both sides, both parties, and has been functioning very well.
  It is my desire to simply get the clarifying language that nothing in 
the bill is going to change that Secretarial order, and, likewise, the 
amendment does nothing to change the language in the bill. It is just 
clarifying that this is what we are going to do.
  It is extremely important for New Mexico, but also for the Nation, 
because the potash provides the fertilizer for food sources across the 
Nation; but also, the oil and gas industry is providing much of the oil 
and gas that is coming into America's supply right now and driving down 
the price. The discoveries in that particular region will produce more 
oil and gas in one county than has been produced in the entire State 
for its entire history. So it is not as if these questions are 
insignificant.
  Again, my amendment is very straightforward. It just seeks to clarify 
that nothing is going to affect that Secretarial order.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. We support the amendment and commend the author for 
offering it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time that is allotted to the opposition to this amendment, although I 
do not intend to oppose it.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting that this 
amendment is coming up, as it has in the past, because it simply proves 
the point we have been trying to make.
  The larger point is that this bill is simply too broad. It covers 
every possible mineral you could mine, including potash. I think the 
gentleman from New Mexico would agree that potash is not a strategic 
and critical mineral. It does not need the environmental review waivers 
that this bill would provide.
  What many of my colleagues and I are saying is that potash is no 
different from many other minerals. The concern for southeastern New 
Mexico is that potash development and oil and gas drilling should be 
able to occur without conflict. This bill would threaten that.
  Well, we want to make sure that mineral development doesn't conflict 
with other things as well throughout the country, like hunting, 
fishing, camping, grazing, recreating, conserving, and other legitimate 
uses. Unfortunately, this bill threatens that, and we are likely not 
going to grant exemptions for these purposes like we are for the oil 
and gas industry.
  I would certainly like it if sportsmen were protected from hastily 
adopted and permitted sand and gravel quarries the same way you want 
your oil and gas drillers to be protected from hastily permitted potash 
mines.
  Interestingly, potash is a mineral where we import over 80 percent of 
our supply. We are entirely self-sufficient in sand and gravel. So, by 
that standard, you could say that potash is more critical and strategic 
than sand and gravel. But the majority will allow this amendment to be 
adopted because it benefits oil and gas producers.
  Mr. Chairman, meanwhile, the Lowenthal amendment, which takes sand 
and gravel out of this bill for the benefit of everyone else in this 
country, is likely to get voted down. I think that is unfortunate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, this is an amendment that does not 
change the underlying language of the bill. It simply seeks to clarify 
to all parties that no change was intended and no change will occur to 
the existing order from the Secretary.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge everyone to support the amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, 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.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 114-301.
  Mr. HASTINGS. 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 __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. _01. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.

       This Act shall not apply with respect to a proposed 
     strategic and critical minerals mining project unless the 
     project proponent demonstrates that the combined capacity of 
     existing mining operations in the United States producing the 
     same mineral product that will be produced by the project, 
     whether currently in operation or not, but not including 
     mining operations for which a reclamation plan is being 
     implemented or has been fully implemented, is less than 80 
     percent of the demand for that mineral product in the United 
     States.

     SEC. _02. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND 
                   SALE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

       If any intermediate or final mineral product produced by a 
     strategic and critical minerals mining project is to be 
     transported or sold outside the United States, and the 
     project proponent cannot demonstrate that the annual 
     production of such product in the United States exceeds 80 
     percent of the demand for that product in the United States, 
     the project proponent shall publish at least once prior 
     notice of their intent to make such transport or sale in 
     national newspapers or trade publications, by electronic 
     means, or both, and on any Internet site that is maintained 
     by the project proponent.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, when I saw H.R. 1937 as submitted, I 
agreed with the minority on the Energy and

[[Page 16372]]

Mineral Resources Subcommittee that it was in need of a significant 
amendment, in particular, in the definition of ``strategic and critical 
minerals.''
  The amendment submitted by Congressman Lowenthal is also a good basis 
and would correct the bill. However, as this has been rejected in the 
past, I took a less stringent approach that I believe would be a basis 
that would at least eliminate the most egregious aspects of the 
definition.
  This bill addresses a real problem, which is that long permitting 
delays for mining projects in the United States, especially in remote 
or environmentally sensitive areas, can reach 7 to 10 years in some 
cases.
  This represents a significant project risk for potential investors, 
which makes them historically more likely to develop projects outside 
of the United States when there are opportunities to produce the same 
mineral products.
  Increasing international government scrutiny on environmental issues 
for mining projects outside of the United States along with civil 
instability in many mineral resource-rich countries has prompted 
project proponents to look to the United States as a safer alternative, 
given that projects can be developed in a reasonable timeframe.
  That said, Mr. Chairman, the majority's claims of mining permit 
delays for all kinds of mining projects that prompted this bill are 
unfounded. Last year the average time it took to approve a plan of 
operations for a hardrock mine was 17 months, and since 2008, the 
approval time has actually decreased. As of last year, the Obama 
administration had approved 69 percent of hardrock mines within 3 
years.
  Rather than addressing the problem directly with the responsible 
agencies, as President Obama did in his Presidential order ``Improving 
Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure 
Projects'' dated March 22, 2012, this bill is an end run around the 
permitting process, the authority of the permitting agencies, and the 
courts.
  H.R. 1937 includes a very broad definition of ``strategic and 
critical minerals'' that does not take into account whether these 
minerals are actually in short supply in the United States. Under the 
definition as written, cement, and wallboard, as well as gold and 
diamonds would qualify. It makes one wonder if there is a strategic and 
critical shortage of jewelry in the United States.
  The authors of this bill say that they do not wish to identify which 
mineral products are ``strategic and critical'' since this may change 
over time with changes in national priorities. Therefore, this 
amendment adds a simple test. This amendment requires proposed 
``strategic and critical minerals'' projects to demonstrate that 
domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical minerals is less 
than 80 percent of domestic requirements. This would eliminate mineral 
products such as sand and gravel, which the authors claim the bill was 
never meant to encompass.
  The amendment also requires that unless or until the domestic 
capacity for a ``strategic and critical mineral'' product exceeds 80 
percent of domestic requirements, the public will be notified of the 
intent to transport or sell any final or intermediate strategic and 
critical mineral products outside of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble understanding 
where this amendment is headed and what it is really trying to do. If I 
understand correctly, it proposes to limit export of strategic and 
critical minerals if the supply of those minerals is greater than 80 
percent of domestic demand. As I am trying to figure that out, one 
thing that jumps out at me is why is 80 percent a significant 
milestone? It seems sort of plucked out of thin air. It seems 
arbitrary.
  How would you measure and find that 80 percent of something that is 
used in many ways around the country, I am not sure how that would be 
done, by advertising in national newspapers or something? I am just a 
little unsure.
  Also, the amendment appears to be internally inconsistent. On one 
hand, the amendment seeks to prevent the use of the bill's provisions 
if the supply is greater than 80 percent of domestic demands. On the 
other hand, the amendment says that the project proponent cannot show 
that production exceeds 80 percent of domestic demand, the project 
proponent must advertise that fact in a national newspaper, trade 
publications, or Web site.
  I am just a little confused as to what this amendment is really 
trying to get at. But it does seem to be, in the final analysis, a 
continuation of the overregulation that has produced this problem in 
the first place. We have so many regulatory obstacles to producing 
minerals that it does take 7 to 10 years.
  Now, if you take a certain slice out of that process, it may sound 
like a smaller period of time. But when you add in litigation and 
everything else that accompanies the process, it is literally 7 to 10 
years, especially for hardrock mine projects that produce rare earth 
minerals and things like that.
  There might be a few exceptions for clay or other items that are of 
less concern, but for hardrock mining, there is no way to avoid the 7 
to 10 years, unfortunately, in our country today. This would be another 
example of the kind of regulation that just gums up the whole process.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the rejection of this amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  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. 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.
  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. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, 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. 1937) 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.

                          ____________________