[House Report 112-583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Rept. 112-583
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2012
_______
July 9, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4402]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 4402) to require the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop
domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of
strategic and critical importance to United States economic and
national security and manufacturing competitiveness, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Strategic and Critical
Minerals Production Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The industrialization of China and India has driven
demand for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of
resource nationalism exemplified by China's reduction in
exports of rare-earth elements necessary for
telecommunications, military technologies, healthcare
technologies, and conventional and renewable energy
technologies.
(2) The availability of minerals and mineral materials are
essential for economic growth, national security, technological
innovation, and the manufacturing and agricultural supply
chain.
(3) The exploration, production, processing, use, and
recycling of minerals contribute significantly to the economic
well-being, security and general welfare of the Nation.
(4) The United States has vast mineral resources, but is
becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of these
mineral materials, as demonstrated by the following:
(A) Twenty-five years ago the United States was
dependent on foreign sources for 30 nonfuel mineral
materials, 6 of which the United States imported 100
percent of the Nation's requirements, and for another
16 commodities the United States imported more than 60
percent of the Nation's needs.
(B) By 2011 the United States import dependence for
nonfuel mineral materials had more than doubled from 30
to 67 commodities, 19 of which the United States
imported 100 percent of the Nation's requirements, and
for another 24 commodities, imported more than 50
percent of the Nation's needs.
(C) The United States share of world wide mineral
exploration dollars was 8 percent in 2011, down from 19
percent in the early 1990s.
(D) In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining
Investment, out of 25 major mining countries, the
United States ranked last with Papua New Guinea in
permitting delays, and towards the bottom regarding
government take and social issues affecting mining.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic
and critical minerals'' means minerals that are necessary--
(A) for national defense and national security
requirements;
(B) for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including
pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power
generation and transmission, and renewable energy
production;
(C) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture,
housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and
transportation infrastructure; and
(D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of
trade.
(2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency,
department, or other unit of Federal, State, local, or tribal
government, or Alaska Native Corporation.
(3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral
exploration or mine permit'' includes plans of operation issued
by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service
pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and 36 CFR 228A respectively.
TITLE I--DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC SOURCES OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL
MINERALS
SEC. 101. IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS.
Domestic mines that will provide strategic and critical minerals
shall be considered an ``infrastructure project'' as described in
Presidential Order ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and
Review of Infrastructure Projects'' dated March 22, 2012.
SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY.
(a) In General.--The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a
mineral exploration or mine permit shall appoint a project lead who
shall coordinate and consult with other agencies, cooperating agencies,
project proponents and contractors to ensure that agencies minimize
delays, set and adhere to timelines and schedules for completion of
reviews, set clear permitting goals and track progress against those
goals.
(b) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall determine any such action would not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the procedural and substantive
safeguards of the lead agency's permitting process alone, any
applicable State permitting process alone, or a combination of the two
processes together provide an adequate mechanism to ensure that
environmental factors are taken into account.
(c) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall enhance government coordination on
permitting and review by avoiding duplicative reviews, minimizing
paperwork and engaging other agencies and stakeholders early in the
process. The lead agency shall consider the following best practices:
(1) Deferring to and relying upon baseline data, analysis and
reviews preformed by State agencies with jurisdiction over the
proposed project.
(2) Conducting reviews concurrently rather than sequentially
to the extent practicable and when such concurrent review will
expedite rather than delay a decision.
(d) At the request of a project proponent, the project lead of the
agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall enter into an agreement with the project proponent and
other cooperating agencies that sets time limits for each part of the
permit review process including the following:
(1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(2) A determination of the scope of any document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(3) The scope of and schedule for the baseline studies
required to prepare a document required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(4) Preparation of any draft document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(5) Preparation of a final document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(6) Consultations required under applicable laws.
(7) Submission and review of any comments required under
applicable law.
(8) Publication of any public notices required under
applicable law.
(9) A final or any interim decisions.
(e) In no case should the total review process described in
subsection (d) exceed 30 months unless agreed to by the signatories of
the agreement.
(f) The lead agency is not required to address agency or public
comments that were not submitted during the public comment periods
provided by the lead agency or otherwise required by law.
(g) The lead agency will determine the amount of financial assurance
for reclamation of a mineral exploration or mining site, which must
cover the estimated cost if the lead agency were to contract with a
third party to reclaim the operations according to the reclamation
plan, including construction and maintenance costs for any treatment
facilities necessary to meet Federal, State or tribal environmental
standards.
SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE.
In developing the mineral exploration or mine permit, the priority of
the lead agency shall be to maximize the development of the mineral
resource, while mitigating environmental impacts, so that more of the
mineral resource can be brought to the market place.
SEC. 104. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINING
PROJECTS.
(a) Preparation of Federal Notices for Mineral Exploration and Mine
Development Projects.--The preparation of Federal Register notices
required by law associated with the issuance of a mineral exploration
or mine permit shall be delegated to the organization level within the
agency responsible for issuing the mineral exploration or mine permit.
All Federal Register notices regarding official document availability,
announcements of meetings, or notices of intent to undertake an action
shall be originated and transmitted to the Federal Register from the
office where documents are held, meetings are held, or the activity is
initiated.
(b) Departmental Review of Federal Register Notices for Mineral
Exploration and Mining Projects.--Absent any extraordinary circumstance
or except as otherwise required by any Act of Congress, each Federal
Register notice described in subsection (a) shall undergo any required
reviews within the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Agriculture and be published in its final form in the Federal Register
no later than 30 days after its initial preparation.
TITLE II--JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS RELATING TO EXPLORATION AND
MINE PERMITS
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE.
In this title the term ``covered civil action'' means a civil action
containing a claim under section 702 of title 5, United States Code,
regarding agency action affecting a mineral exploration or mine permit.
SEC. 202. TIMELY FILINGS.
A covered civil action is barred unless filed no later than the end
of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the final Federal agency
action to which it relates.
SEC. 203. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.
The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered civil
action as expeditiously as possible.
SEC. 204. LIMITATION ON PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.
In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or approve any
prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a
legal requirement, and is the least intrusive means necessary to
correct that violation.
SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES.
Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of title 28,
United States Code (together commonly called the Equal Access to
Justice Act) do not apply to a covered civil action, nor shall any
party in such a covered civil action receive payment from the Federal
Government for their attorneys' fees, expenses, and other court costs.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 4402, as ordered reported, is 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.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals
Production Act of 2012, addresses the most significant
roadblock to mineral exploration and development in the United
States: permitting timelines. Currently the average timeframe
for acquiring permits for domestic mine development on federal
lands takes an average of seven to ten years. This needless
delay puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage with
other mineral rich countries and leaves the U.S. more dependent
on foreign sources of minerals and mined materials, including
rare earth elements. Today the U.S. is almost 100 percent
dependent on China for rare earth elements, even though the
U.S. has economic deposits of these mineral resources and at
one time had the largest market share in the world. H.R. 4402
builds on successful highway legislation and Administrative
guidance on permitting procedures for infrastructure and
renewable energy projects by requiring the lead agency to
coordinate and effectively communicate with all cooperating
agencies, project proponents and other stakeholders.
Furthermore, the bill eliminates duplicative analysis, provides
for timely filings for litigants, and allows 30 months for the
lead agency to prepare, consider and reach a decision on
permitting for mine development.
In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment, the
United States ranked with Papua New Guinea as last out of 25
major mining countries in permitting delays, and towards the
bottom regarding taxes, fees and social issues affecting
mining. Permitting timelines for hard rock mines on federal
land take the longest of the 25 mineral producing nations. On
average it can take seven to ten years or more to acquire all
of the permits and to work through litigation brought by
environmental groups.
Mineral production is a key economic activity, supplying
strategic and critical metals and minerals essential for
agriculture, communication, technology, construction, health
care, manufacturing, transportation, and the arts. More
specifically, strategic metals and metal alloys are an integral
component of aerospace, defense, and other critical
infrastructure. Minerals are also necessary to satisfy the
basic requirements of an individual's well-being: food,
clothing, shelter, and a clean, healthy environment.
Mining of mineral resources creates tangible value,
introducing new money into the nation's economic system.
Additional tangible value is added to the raw mined product
through manufacturing, construction, and other uses. Harvesting
domestic mineral resources contributes to local economies,
creates jobs, and benefits our nation's overall economic
security.
According to the National Research Council, one of the
primary advantages the United States possesses over its
strongest industrial competitors is its domestic resource base.
The United States is among the world's largest producers of
many important metals and minerals, particularly copper, gold,
lead, molybdenum, silver, and zinc, and it still has
substantial domestic reserves of these metals. Yet U.S. mineral
exploration stagnated or declined during most of the 1990s and
2000s while global mineral exploration trends were strongly
positive.
In the early 1990s, the U.S. received 20 percent of the
worldwide mineral exploration budget; today it hovers around 8
percent. Without increased domestic exploration, significant
declines in U.S. mineral production are unavoidable as present
reserves are exhausted. The lack of exploration expenditures
and other factors described below has led to an increased
import dependency for non-fuel mineral materials. For example
25 years ago the United States was dependent on foreign sources
for 30 non-fuel mineral materials, six of which were entirely
imported to meet the nation's requirements and another 16 of
which were imported to meet more than 60 percent of the
nation's needs. By 2011, the U.S. import dependence for non-
fuel mineral materials had more than doubled from 30 to 67
commodities, 19 of which the U.S. imported 100 percent of the
nation's requirements and for another 24 commodities more than
50 percent of the Nation's needs (see Appendix I).
Working through the permitting process also became more
cumbersome, as federal and state agencies with land management
and regulatory responsibilities over mineral exploration and
development projects worked at cross purposes to one another.
Legal challenges to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analyses by anti-mining groups also contributed to the delays
and uncertainties in obtaining the necessary permits for
exploration and development.
For example, a recent (July 2011) analysis of the time
required for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare
NEPA Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS) for mine expansion
projects in Nevada, compiled by a mine permitting consultant
using data from BLM EIS documents and district office websites,
found that the average elapsed time for EIS documents for 11
projects was 53 months and the average elapsed time for SEIS
documents for 6 projects was 27 months. These EIS and SEIS
documents were for expansion of operations at existing active
mine sites, not virgin mine project areas with little existing
surface disturbance.
Currently the United States lacks a coherent national
policy to assure domestic availability of minerals essential
for national economic well-being, national security, and global
economic competitiveness. The nation's dependence on China for
rare-earth elements and rare metals, elements necessary for
telecommunications, military technologies, health-care
technologies, and conventional and renewable energy
technologies, is the most prominent example. The United States
recently joined with Japan and the European Union to file a
complaint with the World Trade Organization over China's policy
of restricting exports of these important mineral resources,
resources that we have in economic quantities in our own
country.
H.R. 4402 deliberately contains a broad definition of
``strategic and critical minerals'' to allow for the greatest
flexibility over time. In 2006, prior to the world-wide
economic downturn, there was great concern over the future
availability of platinum group metals and copper. At the time,
projections in the demand for copper indicated that by 2016 30
large-scale copper deposits would have to come on line to meet
world-wide demand; there were not enough copper deposits in the
pipeline to make up for the projected demand curve. The
economic downturn in 2008 and the delayed economic recovery
have pushed the 2016 copper supply demand threshold further
into the future.
Even sand and gravel and other construction mineral
materials can be in short supply or not available, as the
United States Geological Survey discovered in 2009 during the
``Great California Shakeout,'' the first simulated major
earthquake emergency response exercise conducted in Southern
California. In its assessment of the scope of damage and the
materials needed for reconstruction, the agency discovered
there were not enough sand and gravel and other construction
materials available in the region to meet the affected area's
needs.
In the current mineral commodity market environment, most
people are focused on rare earths and China's restriction on
the exports of those metals. Consequently, they want to
restrict the definition of ``strategic and critical minerals''
to only include rare earths and a small number of other
commodities. However, any mineral commodity can be in short
supply at any given time and the United States needs to have
the flexibility to allow for access to and development of those
commodities that occur in economic quantities in this country.
Finally, the President has recognized the problems
associated with long permitting time-frames for infrastructure
and renewable energy projects and has issued guidance documents
requiring coordination and timely processing of permits to be
issued by federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities for
the project proponents to be able to begin construction in a
timely manner. This legislation builds on this precedent set by
the Administration by applying the principles outlined in the
guidance documents to mineral exploration and development
projects.
During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 4402,
Congressman Mark Amodei (R-NV) offered a technical amendment to
Title 1 of Section 102, which was adopted by voice vote.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 4402 was introduced on April 19, 2012, by Congressman
Mark Amodei (R-NV). The bill was primarily referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The bill was also
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On April 26, 2012,
the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing
on the bill. On May 16, 2012, the Full Natural Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Amodei offered amendment designated .001 to the
bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Raul
Grijalva (D-AZ) offered amendment designated .003 to the bill;
the amendment was not adopted by voice vote. Congressman Paul
Tonko (D-NY) offered amendment designated .001 to the bill; the
amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote of 12
to 19, as follows:
Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered amendment designated
Markey.004 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a
bipartisan roll call vote of 10 to 24, as follows:
The bill, as amended, was then adopted and ordered
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a
bipartisan roll call vote of 24 to 12, as follows:
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The title of the bill is the ``National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012.''
Section 2. Findings
Section 2 finds that the industrialization of China and
India has driven demand for non-fuel mineral commodities,
sparking a period of resource nationalism exemplified by
China's reduction in exports of rare-earth elements, elements
necessary for telecommunications, military technologies,
health-care technologies, and conventional and renewable energy
technologies.
Further, the availability of minerals and metals are
essential for economic growth, national security, technological
innovation, and the manufacturing and agricultural supply
chain.
Finally, in the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining
Investment, out of 25 major mining countries, the United States
ranked last with Papua New Guinea in permitting delays, and
towards the bottom regarding government take and social issues
affecting mining.
Section 3. Definitions
This section defines ``strategic and critical minerals'' as
those that are necessary for national defense and national
security requirements; for the nation's energy infrastructure
including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power
generation and transmission, and renewable energy production;
to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing,
telecommunications, healthcare and transportation
infrastructure; and for the nation's economic security and
balance of trade.
Title I. Development of Domestic Sources of Strategic and
Critical Minerals
Section 101. Improving development of strategic and critical minerals
Section 101 states that those domestic mines that provide
strategic or critical minerals shall be treated as an
``infrastructure project'' as laid out in the President's
Executive Order ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting
and Review of Infrastructure Projects,'' dated March 22, 1012.
Section 102. Responsibilities of the lead agency
This section outlines responsibilities for the lead agency
responsible for issuing mineral exploration or mine permits.
Specifically, these include the identification of a project
lead to coordinate with stakeholders, cooperating agencies and
project proponents to minimize delays, set and adhere to
timelines and schedules for completion of reviews, to establish
clear permitting goals and to track progress in meeting those
goals.
It also provides for some NEPA relief if the lead agency
and/or state agency have procedural and substantive safeguards
built into their permitting process to ensure that
environmental safeguards are taken into account. Further, it
requires the lead agency to enhance government coordination on
permitting and review by avoiding duplicative reviews,
minimizing paperwork and engaging other agencies and
stakeholders early in the process.
In addition, a project proponent can request that the
project lead enter into an agreement that lays out a timeline
for permit review process. The review process cannot exceed
more than 30 months unless the signatories to the agreement
agree to an extension of time. The lead agency only has to
address agency or public comments that were submitted during
any public comment period. Lastly, this section restates
current bonding requirements.
Section 103. Conservation of the resource
Section 103 contains a ``conservation of the resource''
provision, providing that the responsibility of the lead agency
is to maximize the development of the resource, while
mitigating for environmental impacts so that more of the
mineral resource can be brought to the marketplace.
Section 104. Federal Register process for mineral exploration and
mining projects
This section reforms the process currently practiced by the
Department of the Interior for placing and reviewing Federal
Register notices for mineral exploration and mining projects
that currently adds months and even years to the permitting
process.
Title II. Judicial Review of Agency Actions Relating to Exploration and
Mining Permits
Section 201. Definitions for title
Section 201 defines ``covered civil action'' as one
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
This section provides a 60-day window for parties to file a
civil action affecting a covered civil action.
Section 203. Expedition in hearing and determining the action
Section 203 requires the court to hear and determine any
covered action as expeditiously as possible.
Section 204. Limitation on prospective relief.
This section limits prospective relief unless the relief is
narrowly drawn, is necessary to correct a violation of a legal
requirement and is the least intrusive means to correct the
violation.
Section 205. Limitation on attorneys' fees
Section 205 provides that civil actions under the Equal
Access to Justice Act are not allowed for covered civil actions
and the federal government cannot pay for attorney's fees,
expenses or court costs.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 4402--National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of
2012
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4402 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill
could reduce mandatory payments for attorneys' fees over the
2013-2022 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
However, CBO estimates that any such impacts would be minimal.
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
The bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and the Forest Service to take certain actions aimed at
streamlining the process for obtaining permits to extract
minerals from federal lands. Based on information from the
affected agencies, CBO estimates that the streamlining
provisions would have no significant budgetary effect because
those agencies are performing most of those activities under
current law. The bill also would direct the agencies to
expedite the publishing of notices in the Federal Register
related to mineral exploration and mining projects. Based on
information provided by BLM, CBO estimates that implementing
that provision would cost less than $300,000 a year, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Those funds would be
used to hire additional employees to allow the affected
agencies to meet the timelines established in the bill.
Finally, H.R. 4402 would exempt lawsuits that affect
mineral production on federal lands from the Equal Access to
Justice Act. Based on information from the Government
Accountability Office, CBO estimates that over the next 10
years, the U.S. Treasury will make payments totaling less than
$50,000 a year on behalf of the Department of the Interior and
the Forest Service as a result of such lawsuits. Thus, we
estimate that enacting the bill would result in a minimal
decrease in direct spending for attorneys' fees over the 2013-
2022 period.
H.R. 4402 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 4402 would have no significant impact on the
federal budget. Enacting the bill could reduce mandatory
payments for attorneys' fees over the 2013-2022 period;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO
estimates that any such impacts would be minimal.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill, as ordered reported, is 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.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II: COMMITTEE LETTERS
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2012.
HanD-delivered.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings: I am writing with respect to H.R.
4402, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act of 2012,'' which the Committee on Natural Resources
reported favorably, as amended, on May 16, 2012. As a result of
your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 4402 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. 4402 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation, and that our
Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the
bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee
also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this or similar legislation, and asks that you support any such
request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4402, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration
of H.R. 4402.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act of 2012. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources
ordered reported the bill by a bipartisan vote on May 16, 2012.
I appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before
the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand that
the Committee on the Judiciary will forego action on the bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4402 at
this time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference
committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter
and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee on
Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
APPENDIX III: DISSENTING VIEWS
Dissenting Views--H.R. 4402: National Strategic and Critical Minerals
Production Act of 2012
We oppose H.R. 4402 because despite the bill's title, it
has almost nothing to do with rare earths and other strategic
and critical minerals. In fact, under the guise of promoting
the development of minerals critical to U.S. national security,
this legislation would dramatically reshape virtually all
mining on public lands for nearly all minerals.
H.R. 4402 is so broadly drafted that it would reduce or
eliminate proper review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) for almost all types of mines on public lands--
including hardrock mines such as silver and uranium; it could
limit proper review of mines for minerals that are not remotely
critical such as sand or gravel and it would even potentially
apply to coal mines. There is virtually no type of mine that
would be excluded from the truncated environmental review
envisioned by this bill, where the mining industry, rather than
the Interior Department, would be able to determine the time
available for important environmental reviews.
Moreover, according to Natural Resources Democratic staff
analysis of data provided by the BLM for hardrock mines on
public lands for which we have complete data, the average time
it takes to approve a plan of operation for a mine has actually
decreased under the Obama Administration. According to the BLM
data, plans of operation for hardrock mines are being approved
roughly 17 percent more quickly under the Obama Administration
than under the Bush Administration. Despite industry claims, 82
percent of plans of operation are approved within three years
under the Obama Administration and according to the BLM, ``it
takes on average four years to approve a mining plan of
operations for a large mine (more than 1,000 acres) on public
lands.''
We should be working together to formulate a strategy to
develop our rare earth and other critical minerals, not giving
additional handouts to an industry that can already extract
billions of dollars in valuable minerals from public lands
without paying a dime in royalties to taxpayers. Promoting the
development of minerals that are critical to core national
priorities and genuinely susceptible to supply disruption, like
rare earth elements, should be an area where Democrats and
Republicans can work together.
Rare earth elements are indispensable to a wide range of
military, electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a
variety of clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines,
hybrid vehicles, solar panels and energy efficient light bulbs.
There are currently few or no ready substitutes for these
minerals in industry, and there are substantial risks to their
overall supply since we rely almost completely on Chinese
imports.
This Committee has already reported out legislation on a
bipartisan basis to lay the groundwork for developing critical
and strategic minerals. Yet the Majority has not brought that
bill to the House Floor for a vote and instead is moving H.R.
4402, which would fundamentally change the review of nearly all
mining activities on public lands.
This legislation would also undermine the requirement in
current law that our public lands be managed for multiple uses
by elevating mining above all other uses, potentially
threatening hunting, fishing, recreation and other important
activities. H.R. 4402 would also needlessly limit judicial
review of mining activities on public lands.
The Majority rejected an amendment from National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Ranking Member Grijalva
(D-AZ) that would have ensured that nothing in the bill affects
the multiple use requirement in the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 that protects hunting, fishing, grazing
and other important activities on our public lands in addition
as energy production. Representative Tonko (D-NY) offered an
amendment that would have narrowed the scope of the bill solely
to rare earths and other critical and strategic minerals which
the Majority voted down, demonstrating that this legislation is
intended to be much more far reaching than the bill's title
indicates. Finally, the Majority rejected an amendment offered
by Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member
Holt (D-NJ) that would have created a royalty for the
extraction of hardrock minerals on public lands to ensure that
the American people receive a fair return on these valuable
minerals that mining companies are currently able to extract
for free.
Democrats will continue working to promote development of
rare earth and other critical and strategic minerals, but we
oppose eviscerating the proper review of virtually all mining
on public lands under the guise of promoting the development of
these minerals, as H.R. 4402 would do.
Edward J. Markey.
Rush Holt.
Paul Tonko.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Raul M. Grijalva.
Ben Ray Lujan.