National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4402.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the United States of America is rarely last at anything. Unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to permitting mining projects. In 2012, the U.S. was ranked dead last, along with Papua New Guinea, out of 25 major mining companies on the pace of mining permitting. Now I can't speak for Papua New Guinea, but the reason the U.S. is so slow to issue new mining permits is simple: government bureaucracy.

Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects for more than a decade. These unnecessary delays cost Americans jobs as we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for raw ingredients to fuel manufacturing and our economy. The lack of American-produced strategic and critical minerals are prime examples of how America has regulated itself into 100 percent dependence on at least 19 unique elements.

Rare Earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical minerals, are often used as core components for the manufacturing of everything from national security systems to consumer electronics to medical equipment to renewable energy components and everyday household items. Even though America has a plentiful supply of rare Earth elements, our negative approach to producing these crucial materials has resulted in China producing 97 percent of the world's rare Earth elements. Just like the United States' dependence on foreign oil causes pain at the pump, Americans will soon feel the impact of China's monopoly on the rare Earth element market. Those impacts will be felt when they need a CAT scan or they want to buy a new computer for their small business or purchase an iPhone or install solar panels on their roof.

H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, introduced by our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) will help to end this foreign dependence by streamlining government red tape that blocks strategic and critical mineral production. First and foremost, this is a jobs bill, and the positive impact of this bill's intent will extend beyond the mining industry. For every metals mining job created, an estimated 2.2 additional jobs are generated. And for every nonmetal mining job created, another 1.6 jobs are created. This legislation gives the opportunity for American manufacturers, for small business technology companies, and construction firms to use American resources to help make the products that are essential for our everyday lives, and in the process this will put Americans back to work.

As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare Earth elements, we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to the United States. The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act will help supply our national security, high-tech, health care, agriculture, construction, communications, and energy industries with homemade American materials. This bill is the latest example of House Republicans' commitment to and focus on American job creation. The House has passed over 30 job creation bills that still sit in the Senate, where their leaders, unfortunately, refuse to take any action.

This includes several bills from the Natural Resources Committee to increase production of our all-of-the-above energy resources and to protect our public access to public land.

H.R. 4402 will enable new American mineral production. We must act now to cut the government red tape that is stopping American mineral production that furthers our dependence on foreign minerals.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this underlying legislation; and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee on the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I would yield to the gentleman from Georgia, if he can tell me, in this 11-page bill, where environmental laws are gutted, and I'll yield to the gentleman if he can give me a specific, what page.

I'm asking you a question, and I'll yield to you if you respond to my question.

What page?

What page? I asked the gentleman--I'm yielding to him to respond to me at what page. The gentleman cannot respond.

The gentleman obviously can't respond. I reclaim my time.

I am very pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from New Jersey.

He talked about section 102. Section 101, which is the basis of all this really, talks about what the President did with his executive order, by improving performance of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects. Now, we are simply duplicating what the President has already said is okay in other areas.

With that, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Before I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from New Jersey disparaged, I guess, sand and gravel. Madam Chairman, I would point out to you that I think, after the earthquakes in northern California, when roads collapsed, and after the earthquakes in southern California, when the roads collapsed, and when the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, I have to believe that those people felt that sand and gravel were very critical minerals at that time. That's why this bill is broad in its definition of ``critical minerals.''

With that, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the great State of Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Madam Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

I yield 1 minute again to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Madam Chair, I would just advise my friend that I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, for the record, Madam Chair, natural gas is not affected at all by this bill.

Madam Chair, I will submit for the Record excerpts from the March 2012 Report to Congress by the Department of Defense on the rare Earth materials in defense applications on national security dependence on a secure supply of high-tech critical minerals.

Madam Chairwoman, my colleagues have talked about the fact that this administration claims that mining permitting timelines have been reduced. Yet this President has been in office now for 40 months, and while they are filing WTO complaints against China on rare Earth minerals, they have yet to permit one rare Earth mine here in America, and there doesn't seem like there's any on the horizon that will get approval.

I want to also talk about one other thing, Madam Chairman. President Obama has been giving a lot of speeches claiming support for insourcing jobs to the United States from foreign nations. Currently, our Nation is dependent on foreign nations such as China and India for critical materials that American manufacturers and our economy depend upon. This bill will help reverse this dependency and insource these good-paying jobs right here to the United States. Yet the official position of the Obama administration is that they strongly oppose this jobs bill. Not only will this bill help create mining jobs in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and many other States, it will also help produce the critical materials and minerals that American manufacturers need and that millions of jobs depend on in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

So President Obama can give speech after speech claiming support for insourcing jobs, but when he should take action to make that happen, the Obama administration essentially goes the other way, as he has done with this bill.

Once again, Madam Chairman, this bill simply says that in a given time period there should be a decision made. It doesn't say it should be a positive or negative, but that a decision should be made. That's all. And when we're dealing with materials that are so important to our economy and to American jobs, we should be very much in favor of this legislation.

For that reason, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4402, and I yield back the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I note for the Record excerpts from the March 2012 Report to Congress by the Department of Defense on the Rare Earth Materials in Defense Applications on national security dependence on a secure supply of high-tech critical minerals.

Assessment of Rare Earth Materials Supply Chain

A. Introduction

This report is prepared pursuant to section 843 the Ike

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2011 (Public Law 111-383) and Senate Report 111-201,

accompanying S. 3454, page 174. The Act requires the

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the

supply and demand for rare earth materials in defense

applications and Senate Report 111-201 requests discussion of

national security issues related to rare earth materials in

the defense supply chain.

C. Congressionally Mandated Assessment Criteria

In section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, Congress mandated that the

Department assess which, if any, of the rare earth materials

meet the following two criteria:

Criterion 1: ``The rare earth material is critical to the

production, sustainment, or operation of significant United

States military equipment.''

Criterion 2: ``The rare earth material is subject to

interruption of supply, based on actions or events outside

the control of the government of the United States.''

For each rare earth material that meets both criteria,

section 843 requires a plan to ensure long-term availability,

with a goal of establishing an assured source of supply of

such material in critical defense applications by December

31, 2015.

Section 843 states that the plan shall include

consideration of risk mitigation methods and states that

sintered neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) magnets meet the

criteria for inclusion in the plan.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Rare earth materials are widely used within the U.S.

defense industrial base. Markets for rare earth materials are

dominated by commercial end-uses, and the defense industrial

base represents a small fraction of overall U.S. consumption.

The seven rare earth elements in the preceding table are

those which are the most prevalent among defense consumption

for the purposes of procurement. The assessment determined

that by 2013 U.S. production could satisfy the level of

consumption required to meet defense procurement needs, with

the exception of yttrium (estimates based on model using 2010

data). Since 2010, both expected DoD demand, and, more

significantly, actual U.S. commercial demand have decreased

significantly. As importantly, the U.S. and global market has

responded to market conditions with new investments,

corporate restructuring, and technical advances. All are

trending positive for a market capable of meeting future U.S.

Government demand. It is anticipated the domestic supply of

REEs and rare-earth-containing products will continue to grow

between now and 2015, and it will be possible for

manufacturers within the defense industrial base to obtain

some rare-earth-containing products from reliable foreign

sources of supply. Despite the many positive developments

that indicate an increasingly diverse and robust domestic and

global supply chain for rare earth materials, the Department

will continue to monitor these supply chains and take actions

as indicated in the following sections.

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

The DoD plan for ensuring the long-term availability of

rare earth materials applies a multi-pronged approach. The

following options could be used in conjunction with existing

DoD Defense Production Act Title I authorities (e.g.,

priority claim on U.S. supplies and foreign supplies that are

imported into the United States):

DoD will engage in continuous, rigorous monitoring of

markets and production levels;

DoD will undertake recurring reviews of defense industrial

base materials supply chains;

DoD will make preparations for the possible need to

establish buffer stocks that are contractor-owned, U.S.

Government-subsidized but not implemented unless certain

predetermined marked indicators are met; and

DoD will make preparations for the possible need to

establish contingency measures to obtain vendor-managed

inventories when pre-determined market and/or supply chain

indicators occur.

In addition to the elements of supply assurances in the

plan above, the following methods will be considered during

implementation of the DoD plan, as outlined in section 843:

Assessment of available financing to industry, universities

and not-for profits;

Assessment of Defense Production Act benefits;

Assessment of research and development funding for

alternatives and substitutions; and

Assessment of foreign trade practices with relevant U.S.

Government components.

H. Conclusions

Rare earth materials are widely used within the defense

industrial base. However, such end uses represent a small

fraction of U.S. consumption. As a result, when looked at in

isolation, the growing U.S. supply of these materials is

increasingly capable of meeting the consumption of the

defense industrial base. Over the past year, there have been

a number of positive developments with regard to both supply

and demand within the rare earth materials markets. Reactions

to market forces have resulted in positive developments, such

as prices decreasing by half from their peak levels in July

2011, increased investment and domestic supply of rare earth

materials, corporate restructuring within the supply chain,

and lower forecasts for non-Chinese consumption. By 2015, the

Department believes this will help to stabilize overall

markets and improve the availability of rare earth materials.

The Department remains committed to pursuing a three-

pronged approach to this important issue: diversification of

supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of

waste as part of a larger U.S. Government recycling effort.

In addition to the many positive developments that indicate

an increasingly diverse and robust domestic and global supply

chain for rare earth materials, the Department will continue

to monitor these supply chains, prepare possible contingency

plans for ensuring their availability, and implement such

plans as appropriate.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this amendment attempts to pick which minerals are winners and losers in the Federal permitting sweepstakes. The underlying bill that we are talking about focuses on the permitting of mines that meet four clear categories of domestic need--and this is important--national security, energy infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and our national economic balance of trade.

The amendment would restrict these down to just a 2008 study done by the National Research Council that took a limited and narrow look at only the aerospace, the electronic, and automotive industries when considering each mineral critical. However--and this is important, Madam Chairman--the report also states:

All minerals and mineral products could be or could become

critical to some degree, depending on their importance and

availability. The criticality of a specific mineral can and

likely will change as production technologies evolve and new

products are developed.

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

Today, the focus is primarily on the availability of rare Earth elements and rare Earth metals that are in China. Tomorrow, the shortage could be lithium for batteries, silica for solar panels, and any of a host of other minerals.

Interestingly, in this talk of sand and gravel, during the U.S. Geological Survey's great shakeout in California, which simulated a massive earthquake and the problems that could be faced, they discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials--sand and gravel, Madam Chairman--if there were a major earthquake causing significant damage in the L.A. basin and the surrounding areas. I think that would be very critical if that were to happen. It happened in the last 25 years, twice in California and once in Minnesota.

Mineral production is a key economic activity supplying strategic and critical metals and minerals essential for agriculture, communication, technology, construction, health care, manufacturing, transportation, and the arts. More specifically, strategic metals and metal alloys are an integral component of aerospace, defense, and other critical infrastructure.

Minerals, Madam Chairman, are also necessary to satisfy the basic requirements of an individual's well-being, and that includes food, clothing, shelter and a clean and healthy environment. So we should not limit ourselves today by narrowly defining what is strategic and critical. That's precisely what this amendment does, and I think that's a wrong approach. So, with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I understand that the gentleman yielded back his time; is that correct?

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I will reserve my time, and I will not object if the gentleman wants to reclaim his time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

I am simply saying that this underlying bill lays out four strategic areas in which we should have minerals to support those areas. And then we say there should be a timeframe, a defined timeframe, in which, unless there is an agreement it should be longer, activity should be done. It's pretty straightforward. This amendment, as offered, would very narrowly say what is critical. I think that's the wrong approach.

So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would reverse course on the goal of this legislation to streamline red tape. This amendment could add an entire year to the time allowed for the government to make a decision on a permit. This would then drag out the process 40 percent longer than provided for in the underlying bill.

The 30-month time period set by this legislation is accomplished by making government work more efficiently--and I, quite frankly, think that's what all Americans would like--by aligning some reviews and taking some actions concurrently.

Establishing a simple deadline for the government to do their job in a timely fashion is reasonable, and I think it is reasonable. This is especially true since it doesn't change the standards and requirements that must be met to get approval. It simply provides that an agency work efficiently while still complying with all, and let me emphasize all, environmental laws and regulations, studies, consultations, draft and file documents--all of them--that are required in order for a final record of decision to be issued on a mine plan. All the same review, but just in 30 months instead of what has been taking, in many cases, over a decade.

The underlying bill provides for flexibility on the 30-month permit timeline should a justifiable need arise for further analysis. Let me repeat: it allows for further time if that is needed. Yet this amendment would give a Federal agency an automatic excuse to prolong the process for a year, and there is no explanation that is needed.

So this amendment presents bureaucracy with a ``drag your feet for free'' card. It would hand over another roll of red tape to the government and invite them to string up more obstacles and delay job creators from getting a straight answer. And keep in mind, the 30-month time period that we're talking about simply says ``an answer shall be given.'' It could be negative; it could be positive.

This bill provides certainty for permit applicants by allowing the United States to be more competitive so that we can create more jobs here at home and produce more of the critical materials and minerals that are needed for our economy and therefore lessen our reliance on foreign sources.

So I oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Florida, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

In response to my friend, the legislation says that both sides have to agree. I think that's a good way. The gentleman says that there's no evidence of that. Well, there's no evidence that the contrary would work either.

So, to give more time--again, what we have heard over and over and over, and especially those Members and the author of this legislation who comes from a State that is heavily in the mining industry, the uncertainty is what the problem is. What this legislation does is provide certainty but flexibility. Now, I think that makes sense. If you probably walk to Main Street anyplace in America and said this is what the option is of a 30-month time period rather than up to 10 or more years, they would say, yeah, I think certainty makes a great deal of sense.

So this amendment offered by my good friend from Florida I think extends it, doesn't need to be there, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is directly contrary to the intent of this bill that would create new jobs in the United States and ensure a stable domestic supply of the critical minerals that are so important to our economy.

This amendment would impose an entirely new, retroactive fee on mining operations on Federal lands. It would impose a royalty that would be one of the highest of any country in the world and, thus, would probably drive more mining jobs overseas and put American manufacturing, once again, at risk.

In the past, when we've had this issue in front of the Natural Resources Committee, we've had Democrat witnesses that have testified that an 8 percent gross royalty was unprecedented in the world and would not make economic sense, and yet this amendment is talking about a 12.5 percent gross royalty.

In 2006, the World Bank report cautioned against gross royalty approaches as compared to ability-to-pay or profit-based approaches. Madam Chair, let me quote directly from that report:

Nations should carefully weigh the immediate fiscal rewards

to be granted from high levels of royalty against the long-

term benefits to be gained from a sustainable mining industry

that will contribute to long-term development,

infrastructure, and economic diversification.

So they argue directly against this type of approach.

Let us keep our focus on what is important here today. We are dependent on foreign sources for minerals that sustain our economy.

We all know that the more you tax something, the less you get. That's what this approach is. I could take the gentleman's, my good friend from Massachusetts, math that he had out there and change it a little bit and say this is where there would be a lot of job losses if this amendment were adopted and this were to become law, because that's the area that would be affected, the Western part of the United States.

So, Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), once again, the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Chair, who has the right to close on this amendment?

I would just advise the gentleman that I have no more requests for time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Once again, as that map is moving away, that's where the jobs would go if you add a gross tax to this activity.

Let me point out just an economic issue here. Like oil and gas, probably not quite the same, you really don't know if there's any minerals in the ground until you dig. And if you put a royalty of 12\1/ 2\ percent, you are going to discourage that activity.

What does that mean?

When you discourage that activity, it means the potential for job creation and mineral production in this country goes away.

Now, if that's the intent of some in this country and maybe some on the other side, okay, be honest about it.

I don't think that's the right approach, so I would urge my colleagues

to reject this gross tax amendment. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I think that his amendment makes eminently good sense. It's exactly these sort of rulings that tie up our natural resources, and we should be utilizing them.

I think the gentleman has a good amendment, and I support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to point out that the areas that this amendment affects have already been set aside for mineral development. I want to repeat that, Mr. Chairman: these have already been set aside for mineral development. That policy has not changed at all. All it ensures is that we are going to have access to it.

I just want to address the irony that the gentleman pointed out. This is for rare Earth. This particular one in his State is where we have rare Earth, and now they say they don't want it. There is some irony here, and I can't quite get my arms around it.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

This is, as he said in his opening remark: simply a commonsense approach that those that are in the process now should avail themselves of potential changes in law.

It is an excellent amendment, and I support it.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

May I inquire how much time remains?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to make a point here. The Natural Resources Committee I have the privilege to chair has been investigating the payment of attorneys' fees and court costs to revolving door plaintiffs in environmental lawsuits.

For example, we have learned that based on information that's supplied by the Department of Justice, over $2 million in taxpayer dollars have been paid to a single organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, and they have done that for 50 lawsuits that have been filed under a single environmental statute.

This organization, which would qualify, by the way, for payments if the gentleman from Florida's amendment is adopted, they have offices in 15 States and they pay their executive director in the six figures. The question arises: Why should taxpayers be paying for their attorneys?

It seems like these lawsuit-happy environmental groups make a living from suing the Federal Government. When they sue the Federal Government, they divert resources from the Federal Government to carry out its statutory duties when it comes to environmental issues or permitting issues or whatever. I think that this amendment is ill advised by singling out some people that should not be covered.

I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is an anti-mining, anti-jobs amendment, and it is not a pro-sportsman amendment.

I believe strongly in multiple uses of our Federal lands. It is something that as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I take very, very seriously, and multiple means economic activity and recreational activity.

Earlier this year, this House worked to promote legislation advocating hunting and fishing on Federal lands. It was primarily aimed at promoting and protecting sportsmen's access to Federal lands. Sportsmen's access includes hunting and fishing. This bill had strong bipartisan support from most of America's sportsmen's organizations, and it received strong bipartisan support here in this body. However, Mr. Chairman, I must note that the sponsor of this amendment, my good friend from Arizona, opposed that bill that was for hunting and fishing for sportsmen.

Federal Land Management allows one use to be disrupted to ensure that we make the best and highest use of our lands. That's common sense. If the best use is rare Earth mining to secure our Nation against foreign resource nationalism and so forth, we should use the land for that. While at the same time that mine is being developed, we allow for mitigation to balance out disturbance of other activities. If a company disturbs an acre here, they can mitigate that with an acre there. The amendment completely ignores that reality.

So we should call this amendment for what it is. It's an attempt to stop mining on Federal lands, which, of course, will make us more dependent on foreign minerals. This amendment contradicts the express purpose of this legislation, which is to require the lead agency responsible for permitting strategic and critical mineral exploration and mining projects to reduce the permitting timelines through better coordination. This amendment would empower a Federal agency to unilaterally choose to red-tape another process that can take--which we've seen in the past--up to a decade long to complete a permitting process.

As a matter of fact, I might say, Mr. Chairman, the only effect of this amendment and other amendments that we've heard is to protect bureaucratic red tape, which is what the underlying bill wants to streamline. It makes sense. But every amendment we've heard coming from the other side seems to want to protect that point.

So this amendment falls under that same category. It does not deserve our support. I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just simply say that this is an amendment, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, that simply is antimining at its best, because there is, in current law, a procedure for giving higher access to certain activities and then there is the mitigation process. But to suggest that this is something that would protect sportsmen defies logic. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the NRA has come out against the Grijalva amendment.

So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is about American jobs and not only American mining jobs. Our manufacturing sector, as part of it, uses the minerals from these mining jobs. So it is much broader than that.

I have to comment on the tone here that we've heard over and over from the other side on this issue. The bill streamlines the bureaucracy and red tape. Every amendment that was offered today and the tone of all of their debate on this was to side with the bureaucracy that imposes more red tape.

What is even more ironic is that this is about mining in America. The arguments from the other side all day were ``don't mine in America.'' What's the motion to recommit? Don't sell what we're going to mine in America. They didn't want to mine in the first place, and now they're saying we can't sell it if we mine it. It doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Speaker, this is a jobs bill for American workers. I urge rejection of the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

It is really quite fitting that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is taking up a bill today to weaken environmental regulations for the hard rock mining industry. Because just last night the Republican candidate for President held a lavish $25,000-a-plate fundraising dinner out in Montana. For those who don't know, the Daly mansion where that event was held was owned by a famous guy, Marcus Daly, was one of the three ``copper kings'' of Montana during the Gilded Age. He was infamous for his epic battles with other robber barons for control over the copper industry in Montana and around the country.

In fact, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision to invalidate the Montana election law of 1912 overturned a law that was originally enacted to respond to the very excesses of mining barons like Marcus Daly.

So here we are out here on the House floor embracing the Gilded Age. But here in the Republican House, we are

not in a Gilded Age; we are in a Giveaway Age where every week the Republicans seek to hand even more giveaways to the oil, the gas, the timber, the coal, and the mining industries. The bill we are considering today is so broadly drafted where apparently sand, gravel, and crushed stone are considered rare and strategic that the majority actually appears to be trying to usher in a new stone age. Under this bill, the next time you go to the beach, you should put some sand in your pocket because the majority apparently believes that it is a rare element. That gravel in your driveway is protected because, under this bill, it is apparently strategic to America's national security.

Rare Earth elements are indispensable to a wide range of military, electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a variety of clean energy technologies. But this bill isn't giving us just the futuristic technologies of the Jetsons. It's giving us the prehistoric technologies of the Flintstones. Volumes of reports have been written about rare Earth minerals and other critical and strategic minerals; and none of them define things like gravel, sand, and clay as critical or strategic minerals.

What we could be doing and what we should be doing on this House floor is developing a policy to break China's grip on the rare Earth minerals that are important to our high-technology sector and to national defense. But we aren't doing that with this bill. No, what we are doing here is using strategic and critical minerals as a pretext for gutting environmental protections relating to virtually all mining operations.

Now, because the majority has cast so many votes to benefit these industries that it gets hard to keep track, we have created this chart to help everyone keep track of which industry is benefiting each week in the GOP giveaway game show. Yesterday, my colleague from Utah seemed extremely interested in making sure this chart functioned properly in order to aid the body. So I brought it back today so we can give it a spin and make sure we all remember who is getting a special giveaway today. But for the Republican Congress, this isn't the game show ``Wheel of Fortune.'' This is the Wheel of Fortune 500 Companies where we can spin to see which large, multinational companies will get handouts.

In ``Jeopardy,'' you state your answer in the form of a question. In the GOP House of Giveaways, answers are stated in the form of questionable policies. And the GOP's final answer in their running game of ``Who Wants to Be a Millionaire'' is always the same: it is the largest corporations in America at the expense of American taxpayers and the environment. In fact, the majority is bringing this bill chock- full of giveaways to the mining industry on the floor without addressing the 140-year-old loophole that allows mining companies to extract gold, silver, uranium, and other hard rock minerals from public lands without paying taxpayers any royalty payments.

This rip-off is even worse when you see that every western State actually charges royalties of between 2 and 12 percent for companies to mine hard rock minerals on State lands; but on Federal lands, which might be right next door, the mining companies don't have to pay taxpayers a dime in royalties.

The robber barons are long gone, but mining companies can still operate under a law put in place during their heyday. Yet the majority's answer is not only to do nothing to end this free mining on public lands. They are trying to hand even more giveaways to this industry in this bill. This is a bad bill, and it should be defeated. I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey as much time as he may consume.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Chair, how much time remains on either side?

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I ask once again how much time is remaining.

At this point, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This legislation is fundamentally a solution in search of a problem. According to the analysis of data provided by the BLM for hard rock mines on public lands for which we have complete data, the average time it takes to approve a plan of operation for a mine has actually decreased under the Obama administration.

According to the BLM data, plans of operation for hard rock mines are being approved roughly 17 percent more quickly under the Obama administration than under the Bush administration. Thank you again, President Obama, for the great job you're doing in changing the way in which the Bush administration held up those permits.

Despite the majority's claims, 82 percent of plans of operation for hard rock mines are approved within 3 years under the Obama administration. According to the BLM, it takes, on average, 4 years to approve a mining plan of operations for a large mine. That's more than 1,000 acres on public lands.

My colleagues on the other side have asked repeatedly what the problem is with their legislation that would truncate and eviscerate proper review of all mines on public lands if the majority of plans are approved within 3 years. It is because a little more than 15 percent of hard rock mines take more than 4 years to approve. For these mines, where mining companies may not have submitted a complete application and may not have posted a sufficient bond to ensure the mine is cleaned up where additional environmental review is required because the mine is large or potentially damaging to our environment and public health, this bill would prevent proper review.

We're already approving hard rock mines more quickly under the Obama administration than under the Bush administration. We should not be eviscerating proper review of virtually all mining operations on public lands, as this Republican bill would do, and we should certainly not be doing it under the pretense of developing critical and strategic minerals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, this bill is not aimed at ensuring that we can guarantee that we increase the production of the kinds of rare Earth that we need in order to compete against China. By the way, if we're really going to be using China as the guise for the reduction in the environmental laws in the United States because they have rare Earth, and we're ramping up our production of rare Earth, what we should really be talking about is why in the world are the Republicans supporting the sale of our oil and our natural gas to China.

If they're using precious minerals as an economic weapon against the United States, then why don't we use natural gas and oil, which we have, against them because that's the most precious of all minerals.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Oil and gas really drive the economy of the world, and every time I bring an amendment out here on the floor that says, well, let's drill for oil and natural gas on the public lands of the United States, but we can't export it after we discover it here, drill for it here, to China, the Republicans, every time, vote not to put a ban on that. At the same time, they are over there with crocodile tears very concerned about China having all of these precious metals that they won't sell to us.

Well, you want to know the best way to get China to sell that stuff to us? For us not to sell the stuff we have to them, that they need to manufacture those materials. That's the game.

So you can't have it both ways. You just can't have it both ways. Either this is a great threat to our country and we're going to use the precious metals we have, the precious minerals that we have, oil and gas as our weapon against China, or we're doomed. We don't have a real strategy.

Again, this is not a coherent strategy to deal with the country of China and their economic strategy to undermine our competitiveness.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

I thank the Chair.

China's rare Earth policies do burn America's high-tech manufacturing competitiveness, and the Republicans just want to throw gas on the fire, American natural gas.

Our greatest competitive advantage in manufacturing right now is low- priced domestic natural gas, but the Republicans want to export that competitive edge to China and to develop a global natural gas market so that the United States natural gas prices triple here domestically, or quadruple to match the prices the rest of the world pays.

China will not send their rare Earth minerals to the United States, but Republicans have continually voted to allow exports of our low-cost natural gas, our manufacturing advantage, to China.

This is a one-way ticket to manufacturing oblivion. Natural gas in our country is six to seven times less expensive than natural gas in China. It is four times less expensive than natural gas in Europe. That is our competitive advantage.

What the Republicans have consistently done since they have taken over the majority is to put in place policies to export our natural gas that is six times less expensive to China that will then be used in the manufacture of every product that they will then sell back to us, undermining every manufacturing industry in the United States as we supply the very valuable precious natural gas they need in order to harm dramatically the American economy.

Where do they show up? They show up here with crocodile tears about the restrictions that the National Environmental Policy Act places upon mining for sand, mining for gold, mining for silver. You really think that's the way we're going to get back into a better competitive stance against the Chinese as you're saying no, let's sell our natural gas that's six times less expensive than the natural gas they have in America fueling their industries?

That's just an upside-down policy. It's just dealing with the periphery of the challenge that China presents to us, and not even in an effective way, rather than going right to the core of how they are exploiting this mindless commitment to not the American Petroleum Institute, but we might as well call it the world petroleum institute because they don't represent American interests.

That's what we have to do here on the floor of the House of Representatives. That's what our amendments do

today to make sure that we do for our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So what is the majority doing in this bill? They're saying that sand is a ``critical'' material; gravel, clay. There's no crisis in the sand industry. We don't need to wad it down, the environmental protections for drilling for sand or gravel or clay. There is no crisis. That's what this whole bill is. It's a Trojan horse. It's moving in to undermine environmental protections where they're working and where there's no need to reduce them.

If they want to talk about scandium or europium or cerium or terbium or some other critical strategic material that we should be discussing out here that we need for cell phones or we need

for solar panels or we need for our defense systems, that's one thing. But that's not what this is about. This is about watering down environmental protections for sand and clay and endangering the health and well-being of the Nation for no reason whatsoever because there's no strategic relationship between those very prosaic minerals and our national security.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment in order under the rule.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment in order today, and the reason I have it in order is that it's a very simple amendment. It would update an antiquated mining law to end the free ride that mining companies extracting minerals like gold and silver and uranium on public lands currently enjoy. It would then send that money to benefit Western States by dedicating the funding to cleaning up the more than 160,000 abandoned mines we have in the West.

The underlying bill would extend a host of new giveaways to the mining industry while doing nothing to ensure taxpayers are getting a proper return on these valuable minerals like gold and silver and uranium on public lands.

It is well past time to fix this law that was passed during the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. My amendment would require mining companies to pay taxpayers 12.5 percent of the value of these hard rock minerals taken off of the public lands. That is the same royalty rate that coal and oil

and natural gas companies pay to the Federal Government to mine and drill on public lands.

While mining companies pay no royalty on Federal lands to mine for gold and silver, they do pay a royalty on State lands that would abut those Federal lands. Twelve Western States already require mining companies to pay royalties up to 12 percent on mining on their State lands. Colorado charges up to 12 percent on minerals taken from their State lands. Utah, Wyoming, and California all charge up to 10 percent. Nevada charges up to 5 percent. But when it comes to mining on Federal lands, which could be right next door to the State lands, these multinational mining companies, they still get to play Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker. They pay Federal taxpayers--all of the rest of us in the country--no royalties while reaping this massive windfall. So what my amendment would do is it would ensure that the States where this mining is occurring reap the benefits.

According to the GAO, there are more than 160,000 abandoned gold and silver and copper and uranium and other mines in the West. Some estimates put that number as high as 500,000 abandoned mines. These mines stopped production decades or, in some cases, more than a century ago and have no responsible parties to carry out the proper environmental remediation. The result is that the streams and the rivers, the aquifers, the soils continue to be contaminated by mercury and thorium and arsenic and other toxic pollutants. In fact, the GAO says that more than 33,000 mines are already a danger to the public health and environment. Arizona has some 50,000 abandoned hard rock mines; California has more than 47,000; Utah and Nevada have 17,000 and 16,000, respectively.

According to the Congressional Research Service, cleaning up abandoned mine sites can cost tens of millions of dollars per mine. Well, my amendment would generate nearly $400 million over the next 10 years that would be dedicated to cleaning up these sites. This would ensure that mining companies are paying their fair share to aid our Western States in cleaning up these dangerous and toxic sites.

At this point, I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, could you advise us as to how much time is remaining?

Then I yield myself the balance of my time.

So this is a very simple amendment. What it says is this: that these big mining companies--and the ones I'm talking about have a market capitalization of $90 billion--well, they just have to pay to drill on public lands, Federal public lands.

Right now they're paying to drill on State public lands, and when they come over to the Federal public lands it's like free parking, free rent. You don't have to pay anything.

Well, where are you going? You're going to where it's free. And who's letting them have it for free? Uncle Sam. Uncle Sucker.

So what the Markey amendment says is we're going to raise $400 million, charging them to drill for these precious minerals on Federal lands, and we're going to give the $400 million over to the States so that they can clean up their old mines where there are environmental problems.

So if you care about the environmental problems in these Western States, here's your ability to send $400 million in, collected where the big companies are now paying nothing to mine on Federal lands, in order to help deal with environmental problems there. Not in Massachusetts, not in the East, but right here, right where this mining goes on, right where the environmental disasters occur.

Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This bill is ostensibly a bill that is supposed to be discussing rare Earth. It's supposed to be discussing strategic minerals that we can use in our competition to produce high-tech products that we're competing with the Chinese and others in order to produce in our country.

The kinds of strategic materials that we're talking about are scandium, cerium, europium, and terbium. These are not minerals that people ordinarily hear about. And from the high-tech manufacturing sector, we hear that they're central to their ability to be able to compete.

What the underlying bill would do is to reduce or eliminate the proper review of mining operations on public lands for virtually all types of minerals; not just for those rare Earths that I just mentioned, but also for gold, silver, uranium, and things like sand and gravel that are clearly--I think we should all be able to agree upon the fact that sand and gravel are not strategic minerals for our country. They're plentiful. They're available. We don't need to be watering down environmental laws in our attempt to be able to have enough sand and gravel and clay in the United States of America.

This amendment would not only allow for insufficient review for future mining operations, it would allow mining operations that are currently being reviewed to also escape proper scrutiny. Even worse, this amendment is drafted in such a way that it could potentially even apply to mining operations that already have been approved.

Following environmental review, mines sometimes have to put in place mitigation measures to protect the public health and the environment. Under this amendment, there is the potential that those companies could seek to have those mitigation measures thrown out. In an effort to save potentially millions of dollars, I understand what the company is trying to do. That might be good for that company, but it's not good for the environment or for the American people who already have mitigation agreements in place to protect against the mining company endangering the health, the well-being, and the water table of the area where the mining is going on. It wouldn't just cover europium; it would cover, potentially, gravel, sand, and other elements that clearly don't need that kind of protection.

This amendment would likely invite a hailstorm of litigation, which I would think that my colleagues on the other side would like to avoid. I would also like to think that my colleagues on the other side would rather have the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and other Federal agencies continue to move forward to approve new mines, not be bogged down relitigating mines that have already been approved.

This amendment makes a bad bill even worse and would have a number of unintended consequences that could invite litigation and actually delay the approval of future mines.

I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I understand the business plan here of these mining interests that don't even pay royalties to drill on the Federal lands of our country. Let's just continue this business plan. That's what they're saying to themselves. Maybe we can get it out of this Republican Congress. So, in addition to not paying, let's also have rules that say we're going to water down the environmental laws, as well, not only for europium and cerium and other rare Earths, but also for sand and for gravel and for clay. I understand. That's a great business plan.

It's not for the American people. They get watered-down environmental laws, and they also don't even get paid the royalties on the Federal lands of our country. It's just one big, bad deal for the United States taxpayers, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend, the ranking member.

Madam Chair, today we're considering the so-called National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012. Now, despite the bill's title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic and critical minerals production.

In fact, under the guise of promoting the development of minerals critical to the United States' national security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public lands for almost all minerals. You heard Mr. Markey talk about gravel and sand and other things that can fall under the definition here of critical minerals.

There's a list of problems with this bill that is long, and several of the amendments we'll consider today will attempt to address the egregious provisions that would truncate important environmental review.

Make no mistake, this is a giveaway. It is free mining, no royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption from legal enforcement of the protections. And it's unnecessary.

Madam Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has already reported out legislation, on a bipartisan basis, to lay the groundwork for developing critical and strategic mineral production. Nearly a year ago, July of 2011--yes, 12 months ago--the committee reported out H.R. 2011, on a bipartisan basis, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011, by unanimous consent. That bill would improve our understanding of critical strategic mineral deposits and aid in their development.

That legislation is not only bipartisan, it's supported by the National Mining Association, for heaven's sake. The president and CEO of the National Mining Association, Hal Quinn, issued a statement when the bill was passed out of committee, saying, ``The House Natural Resources Committee took important bipartisan action today to ensure U.S. manufacturers, technology innovators, and our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the products they produce and use.''

He went on to say that legislation ``will provide a valuable assessment of

our current and future mineral demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through domestic minerals production.''

Yes, a year ago we reported out a bill, on a bipartisan basis, that would do what this legislation purports to do. Instead, we're taking up this legislation, which is a giveaway.

The legislation we could be dealing with actually deals with strategic and critical minerals. If the majority were to bring it to the floor, I'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming, bipartisan way and would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law.

We should be able to work in this fashion when it comes to improving our supply of rare earths and other strategic minerals and ensuring that we're not dependent on China and other nations for their supply, but the majority is not interested, evidently, in working in a bipartisan fashion. Instead, they're moving this bill, H.R. 4402, which has almost nothing to do with strategic minerals and is really about giveaways to the mining industry. This bill is a Trojan horse and has no chance of becoming law.

Why are we playing these games? Why are, I should say, they playing these games with our need to develop strategic minerals? We should be working in the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill.

The majority should shelve this giveaway to the mining industry and bring up the other Critical Minerals Policy Act to the floor immediately.

I thank the gentleman.

I just wanted to address the point raised by the committee chair. Where in the bill, he asks, are there exemptions from environmental review?

Well, section 102 is where they are, right at the front of this bill, page 4, if he wanted to know the page number. Under section 102, the lead agency can determine whether the NEPA law, the National Environmental Policy Act, even applies to a particular project. The whole idea of the National Environmental Policy Act is that there would be an independent review that involves public input, input from all affected interests, and input from somebody who speaks for the land and somebody who speaks for the trees.

One of my colleagues a few moments ago said mining affects only a tiny, tiny fraction of the land. Well, that is, if you ignore everybody who's downstream and downwind.

Section 102 allows deferring and relying on data from reviews that have been performed not under NEPA standards. The majority says, well, State reviews should suffice.

Well, does anybody remember a State called Montana that was controlled by copper interests? Do you think that State's reviews of a copper mining environmental impact would suffice?

Well, that's the kind of thing that would be permitted under this legislation. It would be whether to prepare a document, the determination of the scope of any review, the submission and review of any comments from the public. They could say no public comments are permitted. I consider that a real abrogation of our responsibility and, yes, a real removal of environmental protection.

I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to clarify further the point raised by the chairman that

this does not eviscerate environmental protections.

I talked about section 102, and the chairman came back and said, well, section 101 just refers to the Presidential order that allows certain infrastructure projects to move ahead with expedited environmental review. First of all, it is only expedited environmental review--it is not with removal of environmental review--and that was talking about specific critical construction projects.

What this would do would allow the exemption, essentially, from environmental review for any of the materials that go into the construction project, including gravel and sand. All of that would be exempt because the mining companies could negotiate a timetable for each step of the review process. The mining companies could enter into a negotiation for determining whether there would be public comment or whether partial previous reviews would suffice.

Furthermore, section 103 directs the agency overseeing this project to prioritize, to give the highest priority, to maximizing the production of the mineral resource. In other words, that relegates any review, any challenge to the regulatory process, to secondary, tertiary or nonexistent status. It says maximizing production has the highest priority. This is a giveaway to mining companies. This is not about providing strategic and critical minerals.

The other side has talked at length about the importance of these minerals to our modern technology today for batteries and cars and magnets and all sorts of other things. They're right, we should be ensuring a good supply of these things; but this bill does not do it.

Madam Chair, I have used the phrase ``giveaway,'' as have others today several times. The ranking member spoke about the wheel of giveaways. One day, it's oil. Another day, it's timber. Today, it's mining. There is also a lot of concern about the special interests that are represented here by this.

I offered an amendment to this bill to ensure that the companies involved, the mining companies, could not continue to extract valuable minerals for free, minerals that belong to the American people, without accountability for their expenditures to obtain political influence. My amendment, which unfortunately was not allowed by the Rules Committee, would have simply required that mineral exploration and mining companies disclose their contributions for political influence over the previous 5 years in order to obtain new leases--perfectly legal and, I would say, perfectly reasonable.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United ruled that corporations may spend freely in elections, which I believe constituted a blow to popular democracy. It overturned a century-old doctrine going back to Teddy Roosevelt restricting corporate money in campaigns. The flawed decision opened floodgates on corporate spending to influence, maybe even to dominate, our elections. Because of that decision, American democracy has come to be defined by super PACs and similar organizations.

The amendment I offered would have helped to restore some sanity and transparency to this process by requiring that mining companies disclose their campaign contributions over the previous 5 years in order to receive new leases for public lands.

As Speaker Boehner said on ``Meet the Press'' a few years back:

I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full

disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise

and how it is spent. I think that sunlight is the best

disinfectant.

I agree. We should be doing that in this case as well. Promoting the development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities and that are genuinely susceptible to supply disruption, like rare Earth elements, should be an area where Democrats and Republicans can work together, not one where special interests advance one partisan interest over another. Unfortunately, the majority's hurry to give yet another handout to the mining industry means that we are not having that debate here today.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Almost 15 years ago, the Forest Service began the process of reviewing the management of the last remaining, undeveloped forests, the so-called roadless areas.

In 2001, the Bush administration, yes, the George W. Bush administration, issued regulations to protect these areas in an effort recognized as one of the most far-reaching conservation initiatives taken by the Federal Government in decades.

Now, a decade later, after litigation, 60 million acres of our forests, and the clean water derived from those forests, are now protected from harmful development. Three hundred fifty four municipal water supplies flow through roadless areas on their way to homes and businesses. These areas include sacred sites for Native Americans. They include biological strongholds for fish and wildlife. The continued protection of these areas is something that people all over America care about.

I know the gentleman thinks that this is somehow infringing on Alaska. The point that must be made is this is in the national interest, and continued protection of these areas is common sense. It is what I know my constituents tell me they want.

For the record, there are already 380,000 miles of roads in the rest of our national forests, with only 20 percent maintained to adequate standards of safety.

The gentleman from Alaska offers an amendment that purports to waive the roadless rule for the purposes of mineral development. However, both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management say that the current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing development sites in our forests. All the current policy requires is careful consideration before access for mining operations is permitted.

I recognize that southeast Alaska, we all recognize that southeast Alaska is a unique place that requires access by boat and helicopter. However, mine operators have been able to get the approval necessary for that access. This is a waiver that is overly broad, which Federal agencies tell us is unnecessary for the purposes purported here. And it just invites conflict where, for a decade now, there has been resolution.

Congress has debated the roadless policy for a decade--actually for many decades, but for a decade--and opponents of the policy have had their day in court. Congress, the public, and the courts agree that they have supported the protections, including protections for those holding valid existing mineral rights. This amendment is not necessary, and I urge its defeat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman is right, this affects more than Alaska. This affects the country at large. The roadless rule has been debated. It has been litigated. It should be considered settled.

The Young amendment, as the gentleman has explained, derives from his interest in having road access for mineral development in Alaska. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--I repeat--say that the current policy does not prevent the mineral developers from accessing development sites. We don't need to overturn a well-debated, well-litigated, settled matter of the roadless rule.

Just to be clear, the amendment that the gentleman from Alaska offers would exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in land use designations, et cetera, from the procedures detailed and the rules promulgated under title 36, Code of Federal Regulations.

This is sweeping and it is not necessary.

Again, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, of course we want this country to have the minerals that it's dependent on; but need I repeat again that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management say that current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing the development sites. This amendment is not necessary, and it would overturn very important resolutions that protect the public lands in the public interest.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded debate on a bill that will make it easier for the mining industry to profit from digging up valuable minerals on land owned by the American taxpayer.

What would the American people get in return? Nothing, except poorer public health, a dirtier environment, and fewer opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreation.

Instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending the statute that was signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant. Can you imagine that? The mining law of 1872, which is our mining law today, gives away the valuable minerals we should be saving for ourselves or, at the very least, getting some revenue from. But no, 140 years later, we still have this bill which has long outlived its usefulness.

Over the 25 years that I've served in Congress, every attempt to repeal this law has failed. Today, we compound the problem by voting on legislation that will give even more power to mining interests. Adding insult to injury, the companies benefiting from this bill can continue to take minerals owned by the American taxpayers royalty free, even if they're foreign companies and even if they have cheated or are delinquent on their taxes.

There is still time to fix three of the most glaring loopholes contained in this bill, and my amendment does just that. It will not kill the bill, and we will immediately move forward with the final vote on its passage. However, if adopted, my amendment will insert safeguards into the final legislation to protect our national security and to protect American jobs.

First, my amendment prevents mining contracts from being awarded to companies that have failed to pay their taxes. Last week, the Las Vegas Sun reported that mining companies in Nevada have underpaid their taxes by $8.7 million since 2008. At a time when cities and towns across America are going bankrupt and we're facing disaster in many areas of the country and some in Congress threaten to cut Medicare and food stamps in the name of fiscal responsibility, we must and should hold corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the American people. If mining companies are to profit from our natural resources, they must be required to pay their fair share.

I'm the author of the Reciprocal Market Access Act, a bipartisan bill that would finally put an end to the wholesale exporting of American manufacturing jobs to China. My amendment

today echos this plan. With the passage of this amendment today, we would make sure that the door is closed when China comes knocking to profit from our precious natural resources.

Finally, my amendment protects American jobs by prohibiting outsourcing and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment made in the United States. Isn't that little enough to ask?

The sweat and blood of middle class Americans built the United States, and it's time this Congress put their interests first. With my amendment today, we can do just that, by putting in place safeguards that will protect American jobs and ensure that mining equipment is made in America.

I'm introducing my amendment on behalf of the people of Rochester, New York. Some of the greatest workers that the country has ever known live there. My constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners of our Nation's natural resources, and not a single one of them wants this Congress to simply give them away to China or outsource precious American jobs.

Over the last 2 years, the majority has consistently pandered to corporate interests. Listen to this, because we've been very concerned this week with how many times we voted to repeal health care. Try this one on. We have voted more than 100 times this term, the last 18 months, over 100 times to benefit the oil industry. As demonstrated last night by a wonderful CBS News program, it costs millions and millions of dollars. They estimate that just the health care votes over and over cost the taxpayers $50 million.

Last year, we voted--as you remember, I voted against it, of course-- to give Federal land to a single foreign mining company that has ties to Iran's nuclear program. That was mining of uranium, free, about 8 miles from the Grand Canyon. I don't know how much more stupid we can get. I think it is absolutely obvious to us that a law passed in 1872 is nowhere near adequate for what we need today.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to protect American workers, American resources, and to protect our friends who are extremely worried about Iran by making sure that they do not benefit at all.

Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded debate on a bill that will make it easier for the mining industry to profit from digging up valuable minerals on land owned by the American taxpayer. And what would the American people get in return? Nothing except poorer public health, a dirtier environment, and fewer opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreation.

Instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending the statute that was signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. In an effort to spur development of the West, the law gave almost unlimited power to mining companies. 140 years later, this law has outlived its usefulness, yet over the 25 years I've been in Congress, every attempt to repeal this law has failed. Now today, we compound the problem by voting on legislation that will give even more power to mining interests.

Adding insult to injury, the companies benefitting from this bill can continue to take minerals owned by American taxpayers--royalty-free-- even if they're foreign companies, and even if they have cheated on their taxes.

There is still time to fix three of the most glaring loopholes contained in this bill, and my amendment does just that. The amendment will not kill the bill, and we will immediately move forward with a final vote on its passage.

However, if adopted, my amendment will insert safeguards into the final legislation that will protect our national security and protect American jobs.

First, my amendment prevents mining contracts from being awarded to companies that have failed to pay their taxes. Last week, the Las Vegas Sun reported that mining companies in Nevada have underpaid their taxes by $8.7 million since 2008. At a time when cities and towns across America are going bankrupt, and some in Congress threaten to cut Medicare and other vital programs in the name of fiscal responsibility, we must hold corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the American people. If mining companies are to profit from our natural resources, they must be required to pay their fair share.

Second, my amendment ensures that neither Iran nor China is allowed to profit from today's bill. Under my amendment, mineral resources deemed critical or strategic will be prohibited from export to Iran or China. No company that is owned by Iran or China will be allowed to mine American minerals, and under no circumstances will American minerals be exported to either of these nations.

In an age when Iran is threatening the security of our ally Israel, and the stability of the entire Middle East, this Congress must ensure that not a single American resource goes to supporting the dangerous Iranian regime. My amendment would leave no doubt that the United States stands by our allies and that not an ounce of American minerals ends up in Iranian hands.

Furthermore, as my constituents know all too well, China routinely engages in unfair and anti-competitive behavior that has stolen American jobs and weakened our middle class. It is time that this Congress, and this country, stops the decades-long giveaway to China.

I am the author of the Reciprocal Market Access Act, a bipartisan bill that would finally put an end to the wholesale exporting of American manufacturing jobs to China, and my amendment today echoes this plan. With passage of my amendment today, we would make sure that the door is closed when China comes knocking to profit from our precious natural resources.

Finally, my amendment protects American jobs by prohibiting outsourcing, and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment that is made in the United States.

The sweat and blood of middle class Americans built the United States, and it is time that this Congress put their interests first. With my amendment today, we can do just that, by putting in place safeguards that protect American jobs and ensure that mining equipment is made in the USA.

I am introducing my amendment on behalf of the people of Rochester NY--they are some of the greatest workers that the world has ever known. My constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners of our Nation's natural resources, and I know that not a single one of them wants this Congress to simply give away our valuable assets to China, or outsource precious American jobs.

Over the last 2 years, the Majority has consistently pandered to corporate interests. The Majority has voted more than 100 times to benefit the oil industry, and even voted last year to give away Federal land to a single foreign mining company that has ties to Iran's nuclear program.

The Majority has also answered the wishes of the health insurance industry, including voting more than 30 times to dismantle historic healthcare reforms. They've continued this corporate care-giving right up until today as we prepare to vote on a bill that is a giveaway to corporate mining interests.

What we should be doing is voting on a jobs bill that helps people, not fattens corporate profits. But if the Majority insists on moving forward with flawed bills, we can at least close loopholes in order to protect the American people. By fixing three vital flaws within today's bill, my amendment will allow each of us to vote for our constituents and stand up for the middle class.

Again, my amendment will not kill the bill. If my amendment is adopted, the bill as amended will immediately be voted upon. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and stand with me as I fight to protect our natural resources and American-made jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 726 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4402, which is the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, and makes in order seven specific amendments out of ten which were filed at the Rules Committee. Five of the seven are Democratic amendments and two are Republican. So this is a fair and generous rule and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, and especially the underlying legislation, which is H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012.

I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who understands this situation very well and has put a great deal of time and effort into coming up with a rational and legitimate solution to a problem which we face. Mr. Amodei, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), are to be commended in forwarding this bill to the full House for our consideration today.

Our Nation has been blessed with tremendous natural resources, and over the last century these abundant resources are one of the key reasons that has allowed our Nation to emerge as a leading world economic and industrial power. In many aspects, we have only scratched the surface with regard to the development of these abundant natural resources, whether it be in energy, such as coal or oil shale or natural gas deposits, or whether it be in various natural minerals.

One of the cornerstones of manufacturing in the United States includes the access to a stable and steady supply of these types of resources. Unfortunately, in recent decades, much of the development and mining of these domestic mineral resources has been hampered or shut down entirely by a combination of special-interest politics by certain self-appointed environmental groups and by bureaucratic red tape here in Washington. Often these two factors seem to go hand in hand, particularly under the current administration.

We have all felt the pain of seeing what these failed policies have done to energy production in our country. We are more dependent than ever on foreign sources, increasing our trade imbalance, sending our dollars overseas, often to areas of the world that do not have our best interests at heart. It has led to escalating gas prices and escalating price spikes for energy and other commodities, and has made our economy more vulnerable to external international forces largely beyond our immediate control. These failed policies have also led to job losses in the United States in the energy and mining sector, which historically and ironically have been some of the highest paying jobs that middle class work has available.

The bureaucratic delays and regulations regarding the mining of strategic and critical minerals is the exact same

thing. By their very nature, these minerals are absolutely essential to manufacturing in electronics, metal alloys, ceramics, glass, magnets, and catalysts used in countless commercial and, especially, defense applications.

Procurement of certain strategic and critical minerals is so crucial that the Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency manage stockpiles of such materials which are deemed so critical that an adequate supply must be maintained at all times to ensure national military preparedness and readiness.

More and more, we have seen that these materials are unfortunately being purchased from overseas and not from U.S. producers, making us wholly dependent upon other countries to ensure our own national security. Critical weapons visions, such as night vision equipment, advanced lasers, avionics, fighter jet canopies, missile guidance systems, and many, many others could not be built without these rare Earth minerals.

The primary duty of Congress under the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. This bill takes us in the right direction for helping to restore U.S. domestic production of critical and strategic minerals by facilitating a more timely permitting process review for mineral exploration projects and to ensure that such essential mineral mining projects are not delayed unnecessarily by frivolous litigation.

Let me be clear, this bill does not predetermine the outcome of agency review of such permit applications. It merely brings clarity to the process and ensures that the appropriate agencies will not unreasonably delay consideration but will, at the conclusion of 30 months, issue either a ``yes'' or ``no'' decision based on the merits of each individual application.

This bill will also help cut the flow of frivolous lawsuits, which are often filed simply as delay tactics.

It's a good bill. It's a fair rule and a good underlying bill, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who understands this issue very directly with his experience both on the Resources Committee as well as in his home State of New Mexico.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would stay here a second, I understand from the Congressional Quarterly that it is your birthday today. In which case, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I wish you a happy birthday.

I appreciate the visual that you had. Unfortunately, as you tried to spin it, we realized it didn't work. So hopefully that is for your birthday party because nothing else works. But I appreciate and I wish you a happy birthday.

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 30 seconds.

And as someone with whiter hair than you have, I understand what you're talking about.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who does indeed have some of these industries in his district and understands full well what this bill is actually attempting to accomplish.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Could I inquire of the gentleman from Colorado how many additional speakers he has.

Then, Madam Speaker, let me yield myself just 1 minute.

To try and put things in parameter of what we're actually doing in this bill, in the sixties to the eighties, the United States was actually the leader in the production of most of these minerals. Today, 97 percent of the rare Earth oil, or 97 percent of the rare Earth oxide, 89 percent of the rare Earth alloy, 75 percent of--I can't pronounce the words--and 60 percent of the small cobalt magnets all come from China. We have lost that to them. The reason for doing that is actually part of bureaucratic delay.

Once again, unlike a lot of comments that have been made about this bill, it doesn't pick winners or losers. It doesn't even change the process. All it does is tell the bureaucracy in Washington to do it, to do it within 30 days, making sure that we have now sped up the process so that we now can do something. Instead of in 7 years, in 4 years, does not help reality. That's the point of this bill. It has nothing to do with other issues. It's only trying to

get the process to be sped up so decisions are made in a timely fashion.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation, who will do a couple of things, I hope, as he gets up there. One, he will remind us all that no environmental laws are waived by this process; it's about timing. And, number two, he will clarify that when I said 30 days, I meant 30 months. That's why I don't talk well without a script in front of me.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), who has clearly understood this issue and put it together.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Great bill, fair rule. I urge adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.