[House Report 118-416]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress    }                                       {     Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                       {    118-416

======================================================================



 
                 MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT OF 2024

                                _______
                                

 March 7, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2925]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining 
claims for ancillary activities, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends 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 ``Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. USE OF MINING CLAIMS FOR ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES.

  Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 
U.S.C. 28f) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Security of Tenure.--
          ``(1) Claimant rights.--
                  ``(A) Definition of operations.--In this paragraph, 
                the term `operations' means--
                          ``(i) with respect to a locatable mineral, 
                        any activity or work carried out in connection 
                        with--
                                  ``(I) prospecting;
                                  ``(II) exploration;
                                  ``(III) discovery and assessment;
                                  ``(IV) development;
                                  ``(V) extraction; or
                                  ``(VI) processing;
                          ``(ii) the reclamation of an area disturbed 
                        by an activity described in clause (i); and
                          ``(iii) any activity reasonably incident to 
                        an activity described in clause (i) or (ii), 
                        regardless of whether that incidental activity 
                        is carried out on a mining claim, including the 
                        construction and maintenance of any road, 
                        transmission line, pipeline, or any other 
                        necessary infrastructure or means of access on 
                        public land for a support facility.
                  ``(B) Rights to use, occupation, and operations.--A 
                claimant shall have the right to use and occupy to 
                conduct operations on public land, with or without the 
                discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, if--
                          ``(i) the claimant makes a timely payment 
                        of--
                                  ``(I) the location fee required by 
                                section 10102; and
                                  ``(II) the claim maintenance fee 
                                required by subsection (a); or
                          ``(ii) in the case of a claimant who 
                        qualifies for a waiver of the claim maintenance 
                        fee under subsection (d)--
                                  ``(I) the claimant makes a timely 
                                payment of the location fee required by 
                                section 10102; and
                                  ``(II) the claimant complies with the 
                                required assessment work under the 
                                general mining laws.
          ``(2) Fulfillment of federal land policy and management act 
        of 1976.--A claimant that fulfills the requirements of this 
        section and section 10102 shall be deemed to satisfy any 
        requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
        of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) for the payment of fair market 
        value to the United States for the use of public land and 
        resources pursuant to the general mining laws.
          ``(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection--
                  ``(A) diminishes any right (including a right of 
                entry, use, or occupancy) of a claimant;
                  ``(B) creates or increases any right (including a 
                right of exploration, entry, use, or occupancy) of a 
                claimant on lands that are not open to location under 
                the general mining laws;
                  ``(C) modifies any provision of law or any prior 
                administrative action withdrawing lands from location 
                or entry;
                  ``(D) limits the right of the Federal Government to 
                regulate mining and mining-related activities 
                (including requiring claim validity examinations to 
                establish the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit) 
                in areas withdrawn from mining (including under--
                          ``(i) the general mining laws;
                          ``(ii) the Federal Land Policy and Management 
                        Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
                          ``(iii) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et 
                        seq.);
                          ``(iv) sections 100731 through 100737 of 
                        title 54, United States Code (commonly referred 
                        to as the `Mining in the Parks Act');
                          ``(v) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
                        U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
                          ``(vi) division A of subtitle III of title 
                        54, United States Code (commonly referred to as 
                        the `National Historic Preservation Act')); or
                  ``(E) restores any right (including a right of entry, 
                use, or occupancy, or right to conduct operations) of a 
                claimant that existed prior to the date that the lands 
                were closed to or withdrawn from location under the 
                general mining laws and that has been extinguished by 
                such closure or withdrawal.''.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 2925 is to amend the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure 
for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, and for 
other purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    H.R. 2925 would codify and clarify longstanding precedent 
regarding mining permitting on federal lands in response to a 
recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit, often referred to as the ``Rosemont decision.'' 
In May of 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision revoking an 
approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project, 
located partially in the Coronado National Forest in Pima 
County, Arizona.\1\ The Center for Biological Diversity and 
other environmental groups' challenge to the Rosemont mine plan 
specifically concerned whether the Forest Service could approve 
disposal of overburden (waste rock) without first determining 
the validity of the mining claim that would be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Center for Biological Diversity, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Ninth Circuit's decision in this case limits the 
ability of the U.S. Forest Service to approve mining support 
facilities necessary for mining operations. The Rosemont 
decision requires that U.S. Forest Service approvals of 
ancillary facilities on mining claims be contingent on such 
claims being ``valid.''\2\ This new requirement ignores 
longstanding precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service 
regulations that allow approvals of operations ``on or off a 
mining claim'' so long as these operations meet environmental 
and regulatory standards.\3\ Essentially, this decision 
requires discovery and determination of a valid mineral 
deposit, meaning operators must prove the existence of a 
commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of 
operations that includes usage of the surface of that mining 
claim (such as for waste rock placements, mills, offices, 
roads, or transmission lines) can be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Id.
    \3\36 CFR Subpart A--Subpart A--Locatable Minerals. https://
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/part-228/subpart-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Rosemont decision upended 40 years of mining regulatory 
precedent and over a century of interpretation of the Mining 
Law of 1872.\4\ If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision 
would impact hardrock mining projects across Western states. 
The mineral-rich states of Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, 
and Idaho are located within the jurisdiction of the Ninth 
Circuit.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Sess. 2, ch. 152, 17 Stat. 91-96.
    \5\United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Map. https:/
/www.ca9.uscourts.gov/information/circuit-map/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of the Interior (DOI) published a 
Solicitor's opinion on the issue in May of 2023, which allows 
some disposal of waste rock in certain circumstances, but the 
enactment of H.R. 2925 is needed to remedy the uncertainty 
created by the Rosemont decision for all mines on federal lands 
going forward.\6\ H.R. 2925 would restore the longstanding 
interpretation of the Mining Law of 1872 and regulatory 
requirements for mining approvals on federal lands and provide 
much-needed certainty in response to the Rosemont decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\U.S. Department of the Interior. Office of the Solicitor. Use of 
Mining Claims for Mining Waste Deposition, and Recission of M-37012 and 
M-37057. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/m-37077-use-of-mining-
claims-for-mine-waste-deposition-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 2925 was introduced on April 27, 2023, by Rep. Mark 
Amodei (R-NV). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Mineral Resources. On January 31, 2024, the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on 
the bill. On February 6, 2024, the Committee on Natural 
Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy 
and Mineral Resources was discharged from further consideration 
of H.R. 2925 by unanimous consent. Representative Pete Stauber 
(R-MN) offered an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
designated Stauber_043. Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) 
offered a substitute amendment to the Amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute, designated Grijalva #1. The amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 yeas to 22 nays, as 
follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to 
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman 
#1. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
yeas to 21 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) offered an 
amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
designated Leger Fernandez #1. The amendment was not agreed to 
by a roll call vote of 18 yeas to 21 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) offered an 
amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
designated Stansbury #1. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
roll call vote of 17 yeas to 22 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to 
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, designated 
Grijalva #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 18 yeas to 21 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to 
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, designated 
Grijalva #3. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 19 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to 
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, designated 
Grijalva #11. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 18 yeas to 21 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to 
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, designated 
Grijalva #31. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to 
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman 
#2. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
yeas to 23 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) offered an 
amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
designated Stansbury #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
roll call vote of 18 yeas to 23 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Representative Seth Magaziner (D-RI) offered an amendment 
to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated 
Magaziner #12. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 17 yeas to 24 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated 
Stauber_043 was agreed to by voice vote. The bill, as amended, 
was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives 
by roll call vote of 24 yeas to 17 nays, as follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure: 
hearing by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
held on January 31, 2024.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.''

Section 2. Use of Mine claims for ancillary activities

    Section 2 amends Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 to allow mine operations to use, 
occupy, and conduct operations (including construction of roads 
and other mining infrastructure activity) on public land 
regardless of whether a mineral deposit has been discovered on 
the land so long as the claimant makes timely payments of 
required claims maintenance fees.

            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 and Congressional 
                               Budget Act

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    H.R. 2925 would expand the rights of hardrock mining 
claimants on federal land. Under the bill, claimants would have 
the right to use and occupy public land without having first 
discovered a valuable mineral deposit so long as they make 
timely payments of the required fees to stake and maintain 
their claim. Under current law, some claimants can have those 
fees waived, but the bill would not limit claimants mining 
rights if they received such a waiver. H.R. 2925 also would 
allow claimants to complete activities on unclaimed public land 
if the activity is associated with mining operations on claimed 
land.
    Background: The General Mining Act of 1872 allows 
individuals and commercial entities to prospect for hardrock 
(or nonfuel) minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper, on 
land in the public domain (primarily, federal land in western 
states). When miners make a discovery, they can locate, or 
stake, a claim, which gives them the right to mine, extract, 
and process those materials.
    Under current law, those individuals and entities must pay 
an annual maintenance fee of $165 per claim (which is adjusted 
over time to account for inflation) to the Department of the 
Interior (DOI), unless those fees are waived. However, the 
claimant is required to discover a physical exposure of the 
mineral deposits within the claim boundaries to have valid 
rights on that mineral. Without a discovery that solidifies 
those mining rights, the claimant loses the mining claim if the 
federal land is withdrawn from mining activities.
    Federal costs: By removing the requirement to have first 
discovered minerals on the land to receive mining rights, H.R. 
2925 would allow claimants who have not yet discovered minerals 
on the land to preserve their right to explore, discover, and 
develop minerals if the land where their mining claim is 
located is later withdrawn from being eligible for mining.
    CBO is aware of two current proposals to withdraw federal 
land from mining that would affect unsolidified mining claims: 
3,700 acres in the Hassayampa River corridor in Arizona, and 
221,000 acres in the Thompson Divide in Colorado. According to 
DOI, those two areas have a total of about 1,100 unsolidified 
mining claims.
    Under H.R. 2925, if those areas are withdrawn from mining, 
those unsolidified claims would remain active, and CBO expects 
they would continue to pay annual maintenance fees. Currently, 
those fees total about $200,000 a year. The receipts from those 
fees are classified in the budget as discretionary offsetting 
collections; that is, as a reduction in discretionary spending. 
Spending of those collections is subject to annual 
appropriation. Assuming appropriation of those future 
collections, CBO estimates that the additional amounts 
collected under the bill would be spent soon thereafter so that 
the net effect on discretionary spending would be negligible.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lilia Ledezma. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Director of Budget Analysis.
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to amend the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure 
for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, and for 
other purposes.

                           Earmark Statement

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 2925 
contains no unfunded mandates as defined in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

                           Existing Programs

    Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any 
directed rule makings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

               OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE X--NATURAL RESOURCE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           Subtitle B--Hardrock Mining Claim Maintenance Fee

SEC. 10101. FEE.

  (a) Claim Maintenance Fee.--
          (1) Lode mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel 
        sites.--The holder of each unpatented lode mining 
        claim, mill site, or tunnel site, located pursuant to 
        the mining laws of the United States before, on, or 
        after August 10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of 
        the Interior, on or before September 1 of each year, to 
        the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts, 
        a claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim or site, 
        respectively. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in 
        lieu of the assessment work requirement contained in 
        the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28-28e) and the 
        related filing requirements contained in section 314 
        (a) and (c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
        Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744 (a) and (c)).
          (2) Placer mining claims.--The holder of each 
        unpatented placer mining claim located pursuant to the 
        mining laws of the United States before, on, or after 
        August 10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of the 
        Interior, on or before September 1 of each year, the 
        claim maintenance fee described in subsection (a)(1), 
        for each 20 acres of the placer claim or portion 
        thereof. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in lieu of 
        the assessment work requirement contained in the Mining 
        Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 to 28e) and the related 
        filing requirements contained in section 314(a) and (c) 
        of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
        (43 U.S.C. 1744(a) and (c)).
  (b) Time of Payment.--The claim main tenance fee under 
subsection (a) shall be paid for the year in which the location 
is made, at the time the location notice is recorded with the 
Bureau of Land Management. The location fee imposed under 
section 10102 shall be payable not later than 90 days after the 
date of location.
  (c) Oil Shale Claims Subject to Claim Maintenance Fees Under 
Energy Policy Act of 1992.--This section shall not apply to any 
oil shale claims for which a fee is required to be paid under 
section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 
102-486; 106 Stat. 3111; 30 U.S.C. 242).
  (d) Waiver.--(1) The claim maintenance fee required under 
this section may be waived for a claimant who certifies in 
writing to the Secretary that on the date the payment was due, 
the claimant and all related parties--
          (A) held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, 
        or tunnel sites, or any combination thereof, on public 
        lands; and
          (B) have performed assessment work required under the 
        Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28-28e) to maintain the 
        mining claims held by the claimant and such related 
        parties for the assessment year ending on noon of 
        September 1 of the calendar year in which payment of 
        the claim maintenance fee was due.
  (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), with respect to any 
claimant, the term ``related party'' means--
          (A) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in 
        section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of 
        the claimant; and
          (B) a person who controls, is controlled by, or is 
        under common control with the claimant.
For purposes of this section, the term control includes actual 
control, legal control, and the power to exercise control, 
through or by common directors, officers, stockholders, a 
voting trust, or a holding company or investment company, or 
any other means.
          (3) If a small miner waiver application is determined 
        to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have 
        a period of 60 days after receipt of written 
        notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of 
        Land Management to: (A) cure such defect or defects, or 
        (B) pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such 
        period.
  (e) Security of Tenure.--
          (1) Claimant rights.--
                  (A) Definition of operations.--In this 
                paragraph, the term ``operations'' means--
                          (i) with respect to a locatable 
                        mineral, any activity or work carried 
                        out in connection with--
                                  (I) prospecting;
                                  (II) exploration;
                                  (III) discovery and 
                                assessment;
                                  (IV) development;
                                  (V) extraction; or
                                  (VI) processing;
                          (ii) the reclamation of an area 
                        disturbed by an activity described in 
                        clause (i); and
                          (iii) any activity reasonably 
                        incident to an activity described in 
                        clause (i) or (ii), regardless of 
                        whether that incidental activity is 
                        carried out on a mining claim, 
                        including the construction and 
                        maintenance of any road, transmission 
                        line, pipeline, or any other necessary 
                        infrastructure or means of access on 
                        public land for a support facility.
                  (B) Rights to use, occupation, and 
                operations.--A claimant shall have the right to 
                use and occupy to conduct operations on public 
                land, with or without the discovery of a 
                valuable mineral deposit, if--
                          (i) the claimant makes a timely 
                        payment of--
                                  (I) the location fee required 
                                by section 10102; and
                                  (II) the claim maintenance 
                                fee required by subsection (a); 
                                or
                          (ii) in the case of a claimant who 
                        qualifies for a waiver of the claim 
                        maintenance fee under subsection (d)--
                                  (I) the claimant makes a 
                                timely payment of the location 
                                fee required by section 10102; 
                                and
                                  (II) the claimant complies 
                                with the required assessment 
                                work under the general mining 
                                laws.
          (2) Fulfillment of federal land policy and management 
        act of 1976.--A claimant that fulfills the requirements 
        of this section and section 10102 shall be deemed to 
        satisfy any requirements under the Federal Land Policy 
        and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) for 
        the payment of fair market value to the United States 
        for the use of public land and resources pursuant to 
        the general mining laws.
          (3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection--
                  (A) diminishes any right (including a right 
                of entry, use, or occupancy) of a claimant;
                  (B) creates or increases any right (including 
                a right of exploration, entry, use, or 
                occupancy) of a claimant on lands that are not 
                open to location under the general mining laws;
                  (C) modifies any provision of law or any 
                prior administrative action withdrawing lands 
                from location or entry;
                  (D) limits the right of the Federal 
                Government to regulate mining and mining-
                related activities (including requiring claim 
                validity examinations to establish the 
                discovery of a valuable mineral deposit) in 
                areas withdrawn from mining (including under--
                          (i) the general mining laws;
                          (ii) the Federal Land Policy and 
                        Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 
                        et seq.);
                          (iii) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
                        1131 et seq.);
                          (iv) sections 100731 through 100737 
                        of title 54, United States Code 
                        (commonly referred to as the ``Mining 
                        in the Parks Act'');
                          (v) the Endangered Species Act of 
                        1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
                          (vi) division A of subtitle III of 
                        title 54, United States Code (commonly 
                        referred to as the ``National Historic 
                        Preservation Act'')); or
                  (E) restores any right (including a right of 
                entry, use, or occupancy, or right to conduct 
                operations) of a claimant that existed prior to 
                the date that the lands were closed to or 
                withdrawn from location under the general 
                mining laws and that has been extinguished by 
                such closure or withdrawal.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    This legislation would undermine the entirety of public 
lands management, tipping the scale even further in the mining 
industry's favor. H.R. 2925 would remove the requirement for a 
``valuable mineral discovery'' before a mining claim can be 
considered valid under the 1872 Mining Law.
    The valuable mineral discovery requirement, otherwise known 
as the validity test, requires a mining company to prove there 
is a valuable mineral deposit underneath their claim before 
obtaining exclusive rights to occupy and mine that land. This 
validity test is the only limited guardrail the federal 
government has on mining claims under the nation's antiquated 
mining law. Without the validity test, any American citizen or 
company--or American subsidiary of a foreign-owned company--
could permanently lock up almost any public land for negligible 
fees and then conduct whatever ``mining-related activities'' 
they so choose, including burying the land in toxic mining 
waste.
    In addition, bad actors could easily exploit the broad 
language of this bill to claim the rights to public lands with 
no genuine intention to mine, and the federal government would 
have virtually no ability to invalidate those nuisance claims. 
There would be no recourse for other public land users, 
including for conservation, recreation, renewable energy 
development, and even actual mining.
    Hardrock mining, or the extraction of minerals such as 
gold, silver, copper, uranium, and lithium, is the U.S.'s 
number one source of toxic pollution.\1\ Yet, the industry 
operates under the long-outdated Mining Law of 1872, which 
contains no environmental or community protections. The law is 
a relic irrelevant to modern mining, but it remains almost 
entirely unchanged since it was enacted more than 150 years 
ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\``EPA: Metal Mining Most Toxic Industry in America'' Earthworks 
(2006) https://earthworks.org/releases/
epa_metal_mining_most_toxic_industry_in_america/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The General Mining Law of 1872 (Mining Law) codified state 
and local mining customs, laws, and regulations that developed 
during the California gold rush of 1848/1849.\2\ The Mining Law 
granted generous rights to miners on public lands, including 
giving mining priority over all other potential uses of public 
lands, with mining as the ``highest and best use'' unless those 
lands are expressly withdrawn from mining (e.g., national 
parks, monuments, wilderness areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\John D. Leshy. 1987. The Mining Law: A Study in Perpetual 
Motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Mining Law allows miners to ``claim'' up to 20 acres of 
federal land for mineral exploration and extraction. To stake a 
mining claim, any American citizen or company can prospect and 
locate claims on public lands that are not already withdrawn. 
Claimants place four stakes in the ground on eligible land and 
submit their claim and nominal fees to their local county and 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office. The cost to register a 
new claim is $225 per 20 acres ($11.25 per acre one-time fee) 
and then $165 per 20 acres each year thereafter to maintain the 
claim ($8.25 per acre annually). Mining claims are held in 
perpetuity if the claimant pays its annual fee. Waivers for 
maintenance fees are available for claimants with ten or fewer 
mining claims.
    A valid mining claim gives the claim holder broad rights to 
occupy and conduct mining-related operations on a claim, which 
takes priority over all other potential uses of that public 
land.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\``The locators of all mining locations heretofore made [. . .] 
shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all 
surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, 
lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth. [. . .] Nothing in 
this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode 
[. . .] to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by 
another.'' Mining Law of 1872, section 2322 (30 USC 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, a claim is valid only if it is shown to contain 
valuable minerals. If the government challenges the validity of 
the claim, the claimant must demonstrate proof of a valuable 
mineral deposit; in practice, though, claims have been 
considered valid unless proven otherwise. To formally 
invalidate a claim, the agency must go through a long and 
costly mineral examination to prove there are no minerals 
present. In most circumstances, a claimant can simply re-claim 
an area immediately after their original claim is invalidated. 
Land management agencies have historically treated all claims 
as valid--and granted the claimants all the rights to that 
land--unless there was a pressing reason to check the claim's 
validity.
    When a mining company wants to begin operations, it submits 
a mining plan of operation to the BLM or the Forest Service for 
environmental review. Because mining operates outside of the 
land-use planning process and because the Mining Law grants 
miners ``the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment'' of 
their claim and the minerals it contains,\4\ BLM and the Forest 
Service cannot deny a mine's right to operate; they can only 
require mitigation measures to prevent ``unnecessary or undue 
degradation.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\30 U.S.C. Sec. 26.
    \5\43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are no environmental provisions, tribal consultation, 
community protection, or permitting requirements in the Mining 
Law. Hardrock mining activities are covered in part by other 
federal laws such as the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA; also known as Superfund); the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA); and the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act (FLPMA). BLM and the Forest Service maintain regulations to 
manage mining activities, but this patchwork of laws and 
regulations leaves major gaps.6}7 BLM's current 
mining regulations were written by the Bush Administration in 
2001 (which overturned stronger Clinton-era regulations) and 
are very similar to BLM's 1980 regulations. Forest Service 
regulations have not been meaningfully updated since 1974. In 
2018, the Trump administration began the process of updating 
the Forest Service regulations but did not complete the work 
before leaving office.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\43 C.F.R. Subpart 3809.
    \7\36 C.F.R. Part 228 Subpart A.
    \8\U.S. Forest Service, Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; 
request for comment, 83 FR 46451. September 13, 2018. https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/13/2018-19961/locatable-
minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike coal, oil, and gas, mining companies pay no 
royalties to the federal government for the publicly owned 
minerals they extract. Multinational mining companies have 
extracted more than $300 billion worth of precious metals from 
public lands without paying a cent in royalties to the American 
people.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Project on Government Oversight, Congress Must Establish a 
Hardrock Mining Royalty, 2021 https://www.pogo.org/fact-sheets/
congress-must-establish-a-hardrock-mining-royalty-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
upheld that the Rosemont copper mine in southeastern Arizona 
could not dump its mining waste on an invalid mining claim in 
the Coronado National Forest. Initially, the Forest Service 
assumed that the Rosemont Copper Company had valid mining 
claims where it planned to dump its waste. However, the court 
upheld a lower court's finding of those waste dump claims as 
invalid because they had not been shown to contain valuable 
minerals. Furthermore, a company wouldn't use an area with a 
valuable mineral deposit as a waste dump. The ruling, known as 
the ``Rosemont decision,'' affirmed that claims without 
valuable mineral deposits were not valid.
    The mining industry argues they need H.R. 2925 as a ``fix'' 
because the Rosemont decision limited their ability to use 
mining claims for important ``ancillary uses,'' like dumping 
toxic waste on public lands. Without a valid mining claim, a 
mining company doesn't have automatic priority use of public 
lands, as they would otherwise. A company could still request 
to use the public land as a waste dump, but it would have to 
undergo the same multiple-use balancing determinations as other 
uses of public lands and be less likely to be approved. There 
are other methods for procuring land adjacent to a mine to use 
as a mining waste storage area, such as land swaps or buying 
private land, but the mining industry vastly prefers to use 
mining claims due to their ease and affordability--they are 
lucrative handouts.
    In 2023, the DOI Solicitor issued an opinion referencing 
the many other options for procuring land for mining waste 
under current law. However, the mining industry remains 
persistent in pushing for a ``legislative fix.'' The mining 
industry argues that this legislation would provide 
``certainty'' for mining and mineral exploration, but all but 
one potential Rosemont-related legal challenge to mines being 
permitted were resolved within days to months. Indeed, within 
days of the Rosemont decision, the Rosemont mine purchased 
adjacent private land to use for its mining waste.
    Under current law, the valuable mineral requirement is the 
only guardrail limiting where individuals or companies can hold 
valid claims on our open public lands. Former DOI Solicitor 
John Leshy wrote in a letter to the Committee that the plain 
text of this bill gives anyone who stakes a mining claim the 
``right to use and occupy public land'' for the low price of 
about $10 an acre a year.
    This bill also creates loopholes for non-mining bad actors. 
Specifically, ``mining-related operations'' is defined so 
broadly that bad actors could easily build all kinds of 
industrial facilities across public lands--power plants, 
processing facilities, or even gemstone shops--and call them 
``mining-related.''
    Without the requirement of a valuable mineral discovery, 
all of our public lands that are not already withdrawn from 
mining (National Parks, wilderness areas, etc.) would be open 
to harmful mining and ill-defined ``mining-related 
activities.''
    Due to the ease of staking a claim and the difficulty of 
invalidating one, there is a long history of ``nuisance'' 
claims on public lands. Individuals or companies will file 
nuisance claims to block anticipated land uses--like 
withdrawals, other mines, or renewable energy development. 
These claims can impede these other uses and cost the federal 
government and private entities substantial sums to buy them 
out.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\U.S. Government Accountability Office, 1990, Unauthorized 
Activities Occurring on Hardrock Mining Claims RCED-90-111 Federal Land 
Management: Unauthorized Activities Occurring on Hardrock Mining Claims 
(gao.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should reject this misguided proposal.

                                          Raul M. Grijalva,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]