Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong but respectful opposition to H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, as it has been named here, the fifth bill this week brought to you by our friends across the aisle, the GOP, who, unfortunately, this week seem to stand for guns, oil, and pollution.

My home State of New Mexico has a wealth of minerals, many of which are critical to the clean energy transition. We also have a very long history of mining. Mining, of course, has created thousands of jobs, supported economies across the Southwest and the country, and, of course, is an important part of our economies and communities. It has also left a toxic legacy of pollution in its wake.

As we move to the clean energy future, we cannot repeat the shortsightedness and injustices of the past. The Mining Law of 1872-- let me say that again, 1872--a 150-year-old law that was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant after the Civil War, is still the law that governs mining on public lands to this day.

It gives mining companies rights over public lands that all other industries could only dream of. It makes mining the top priority use of our public lands and gives companies the right to develop any valid mining claim, no matter if that land is a sacred site, a beloved local recreation spot, the headwaters of a critical watershed, or a priority area for other kinds of development--not even if it would pollute a nearby community's water supply.

The Mining Act of 1872--not the bill before us but the one that is currently in effect--contains no environmental or community protections, does not require Tribal consultation, and does not charge companies a cent--not one--in royalties for the minerals that they extract on our public lands. Oil, gas, and coal don't even have that good of a deal.

Mr. Speaker, you heard that right. These mining companies, many of which are foreign-owned at this point, don't pay a cent back to the American people for the royalties of those publicly owned minerals. Not even Big Oil has a deal that good.

We cannot build a sustainable mining future for the United States on such a flawed foundation. This is a law from when the government was helping out prospectors, when it was chasing manifest destiny, and we didn't care if we destroyed everything in our wake.

Wake up. It is the year 2024. We don't have to manage our public lands using laws from the 1870s. Many of us agree that the mining law is badly in need of reform. Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leaders, local leaders, environmental advocates, even members of the mining industry themselves think that it is insufficient. What is astounding about the bill that is on the floor today, the so-called Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is that it doesn't clarify the situation at all. In fact, it chooses to take us in the opposite direction, to before the 1870s. This bill removes the one frail safeguard that we have in that mining law of 1872. Under current law, a mining claim is valid only if it contains valuable minerals. Miners get the rights to the land only if there is something they can show to be mined there.

Under this bill, any American or, frankly, any American subsidiary of a foreign company, including those that are located in adversarial countries, can put four stakes in the ground on open public lands and pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that land forever.

This bill would create a free-for-all on our public lands. It would enable our public lands to be given away, not just to the highest bidder but to the first person who got there.

Mining companies--or really anyone with any motive--could lock up any public lands to conduct whatever mining-related activities they want, from destroying sacred sites to building a power plant to encroaching on recreational areas.

What if the public wanted to use the land for recreation? What if it was an important site for cultural reasons? What if we wanted to put renewable energy on that land?

Too bad. Under this bill, the mining industry can use it for whatever it wants, including to dump toxic waste.

Now, some of my colleagues say that this is just codifying the existing practice, but let me tell you, that is not true.

As bad as the mining law is already, and we are talking about the one from the 1870s, it at least allows for the invalidating of claims when the claimant can't show or prove that the lands actually contain a valuable mineral, but this bill doesn't do that.

We have seen that in Ranking Member Grijalva's backyard where the proposed Rosemont mine wanted to dump toxic waste on public land. It wasn't allowed because the mine's land claim was invalid.

Now, here is the thing: When the company lost its case in court, it immediately--and when I say immediately, I mean the same day. That company announced that it found an alternative waste site on private lands. Wow.

Clearly, there was not an imminent need. The company simply would have preferred to put its dumpsite on land that was basically for free from the American people.

Let's be honest about what this bill is. It is essentially stripping away the only safeguards we have in a deeply flawed, very old mining law to give away more giveaways to corporate polluters.

On behalf of Ranking Member Grijalva, whom our prayers and our thoughts are with today, I include in the Record a letter from the Pima County Board of Supervisors in support of responsible mining and in opposition to this bill.

County Administrator's Office,

Pima County Governmental Center,

Tucson, AZ, May 23, 2023.

Hon. Congressman Raul Grijalva,

House of Representatives,

Tucson, AZ.

Dear Congressman Grijalva: On May 16, 2023, the Pima County

Board of Supervisors approved the attached Resolution 2023-12

opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act (H.R. 209) and

the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (S. 1281), and supporting

meaningful mining reform. Since then, we became aware of H.R.

2925, which is identical to S. 1281. All three of these bills

contain similar language intended to legislatively reverse

decisions by the U.S. District Court for Arizona and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which halted the construction

of the proposed Rosemont mine on the eastern slopes of the

Santa Rita Mountains, within the Coronado National Forest.

Located south of Tucson, within Pima County, this mountain

range provides disproportionally high amounts of water for

runoff and ground water recharge for the greater Tucson

basin, is recognized worldwide for its biodiversity, is

culturally important to a number of tribes, and serves as a

respite for Southern Arizonans. The ruling confirmed that the

Forest Service should have required proof that the mining

company's unpatented mining claims were valid before

permitting the mining company to dump waste rock and tailings

on public land.

All three bills contain language that would allow those

with mining claims to ``use, occupy and conduct operations on

public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable

mineral deposit.'' In addition, those with claims could carry

out mining activities on other federal lands absent of

claims. This legislation prioritizes mining over other

equally important interests and is likely to result in

significant unintended consequences. This legislation would

remove the ability of federal land management agencies to

balance the need for other equally important uses of public

land. Furthermore, this legislation is not needed. The mining

industry still has the ability to gain access to public land

via land exchanges, special use permits, and other permitted

means. However, because these actions are discretionary, they

allow for an informed and balanced approach to managing a

multitude of uses across public lands.

This legislation also has a number of unintended

consequences that are alarming for the State of Arizona and

Pima County. Not only would these bills increase the ability

for nuisance claims on Federal land that could block other

necessary federal projects and increase destructive

speculation without mineral extraction, our understanding is

that they could also impact split estate lands. Split estate

lands are lands where the surface is owned separately from

the subsurface mineral rights. In Arizona, this is a common

occurrence. For instance, the surface can be owned privately,

by a local government like Pima County, or managed in trust

by the Arizona State Land Department; whereas the subsurface

mineral rights are publically owned and managed by the

Federal Government. Mining companies or others can make claim

to these subsurface minerals, the exploration and development

of which can significantly impair the rights of the surface

owner to use the surface for its intended purposes.

As the Bureau of Land Management explains on their website:

``When the surface rights to a piece of land and the

subsurface rights (such as the rights to develop minerals)

are owned by different parties, the mineral rights often take

precedence over other rights.''

In addition, the legislation essentially makes mill site

claims moot, which were one way that mines could gain access

to federal land for waste and tailings in areas that

specifically did not have mineral value. Congressional or

administrative mineral withdrawals would also be

substantially impacted, or complicated. Valid unpatented

mining claims are protected or excluded from withdrawals, but

this legislation makes moot the concept of ``validity.''

What is needed is comprehensive and meaningful mining

reform, not these shortsighted changes that provide the

mining industry with exclusive rights to public land.

Please know that Pima County is not anti-mining. The copper

mines in Pima County have contributed significantly to

national and international copper supplies. Pima County has a

good relationship with our two largest copper producers,

Freeport-McMoRan and ASARCO, and in particular has taken

actions to support expansion of existing mining operations in

the area southwest of Tucson. This area is less biologically

diverse and more suitable for development, according to the

County's comprehensive Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10 permit, both of

which were developed based on the best available science and

informed by extensive public input. This area also has

significant copper reserves for future development. Pima

County has also worked cooperatively with two copper mining

companies that proposed reopening an underground mine on Mt.

Lemmon, north of Tucson, both of which voluntary offered to

comply with the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and

related conservation guidelines.

In summary, Pima County strongly opposes S. 1281, H.R. 2925

and H.R. 209 and the damaging intended and unintended

consequences to the public health, safety and welfare of our

community. In addition, we continue to seek comprehensive

mining reform akin to the comprehensive, science-based and

community informed conservation planning undertaken by our

local community in partnership with Federal agencies.

Sincerely,

Jan Lesher,

Pima County Administrator.

Attachment:

Resolution of the Pima County Board of Supervisors Opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act,

and Supporting Meaningful Mining Reform

Whereas, Pima County and the Pima County Board of

Supervisors have long advocated for meaningful reform of the

1872 Mining Law, acknowledging that mining is necessary and

should occur in places and with methods that protect the

health, safety, and welfare of our County's residents; and

Whereas, on January 2, 2023, the ``Permitting for Mining

Needs Act of 2023'' was introduced as H.R. 209 in the United

States House of Representatives; and

Whereas, on April 25, 2023, the ``Mining Regulatory Clarity

Act'' was introduced as S. 1281 in the United States Senate;

and

Whereas, both Acts do not provide meaningful mining reform

and instead would make it easier for mining companies to gain

access to federal lands at the expense of all other uses such

as recreation, tourism, conservation, watershed protection,

climate mitigation, traditional uses by Tribal Nations,

cultural and historic preservation, healthy forest

management, and other uses that contribute significantly to

the local, state, and national economies; and

Whereas, both Acts would allow mining companies to ``. . .

use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land, with or

without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.'' This

includes dumping waste and tailings on federal land without

the need to prove valid mining claims, as well as on federal

land absent of claims; and

Whereas, both Acts would authorize actions where mining

companies secure rights on our federal public lands through

unpatented mining claims without proving that the claims are

valid, actions that have occurred for too many years; and

Whereas, both Acts are intended to legislatively reverse

recent decisions by the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona (``District Court'') in 2019 and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Ninth Circuit'') in 2022

halting the construction of the proposed Rosemont Mine on the

eastern slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains, located in Pima

County, and the dumping of waste rock and tailings on 2,500

acres of unpatented mining claims in the National Forest; and

Whereas, the District Court's ruling, which the Ninth

Circuit later affirmed, confirmed a long-standing concern,

raised by Pima County since the beginning of the Rosemont

Mine federal review process in 2006, that Federal agencies

such as the U.S. Forest Service failed to consider whether

Rosemont held valid unpatented mining claims; and

Whereas, the District Court's ruling confirmed that the

Forest Service needs to consider reasonable alternatives when

reviewing mining proposals, providing the opportunity for a

more balanced approach to public lands management.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved That:

1. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes the

Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory

Clarity Act, as well as any similar legislation that attempts

to allow mining projects on public lands in areas without

mining claims and in areas with unproven mining claims, and

supports meaningful mining reform;

2. The Pima County Board of Supervisors calls on Arizona's

Congressional delegation to oppose the Permitting for Mining

Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act;

3. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs the County

Administrator and the County's Federal lobbyists to take the

necessary measures to communicate Pima County's opposition to

the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory

Clarity Act;

4. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs that

communications to our Congressional delegation emphasize Pima

County's support for meaningful mining reform and our record

of supporting mining projects in Pima County that adhere to

local health, safety, and conservation guidelines;

5. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes piece-meal

legislation that does not address the issue of mining reform

comprehensively; and

6. The Pima County Board of Supervisors affirms support for

the rulings by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, which is consistent with past resolutions and

actions of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the mining industry that gets

to have free rein on these lands from other uses.

One of the things that is important to understand about the language in this bill is that any actor with a few dollars to spare could lock up these public lands and just sit on them until somebody buys them out.

That means anyone who wants to use the land, and that could be for recreation, renewable energy, transmission, or even for another mining claim, would be blocked out so long as somebody was sitting on that claim. Again, this bill takes away the only requirement to show an interest in actually mining the land and just rewards the first person to make a claim.

This bill is not only a giveaway to the mining industry; it is literally a giveaway of our public lands. It is completely mystifying because this isn't even what the American people want.

Our friends across the aisle continue to push for an agenda that the American people haven't even asked for. They voted to cut veterans' benefits, to raise healthcare costs, and to enrich and provide these corporate giveaways, just like in this bill. Where is this coming from? I ask my friends: Where is this coming from?

I urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic polluter giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I deeply appreciate my friends across the aisle for their clarification of their intent, but unfortunately, we can't go forward based on intent. We actually have to go forward based on the bill that they introduced and are asking us to vote on.

I am going to do a little reading from your bill to help clarify for the American people what this bill actually says.

First of all, it addresses security of tenure. For folks that aren't familiar with this kind of jargon, that means ownership, who gets to hold the rights to this land.

Then it defines the kinds of operations that would be tied to this tenure. So let me read them to you. This is what it says in the bill: ``Prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, extraction, or processing.'' It also goes on to clarify that you can do any activity that is found to be reasonably incident to an activity described in another clause of this bill.

It goes on to say right here in the bill, words on the page, and this is what we were asked to vote on: The ``Rights to Use, Occupation and Operations''--which we have already laid out is basically anything you want to do on the land--``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. . . . `'

Yo. This is a giveaway of our public lands. You can say whatever you want on the floor, but the bill that we are voting on literally says: Whatever you want to do on that land, as long as you pay the fee of $10, you show up, and you

make the claim, it is yours. This is a giveaway of public lands. It guts the only safeguard from our Mining Law of 1872.

I want to just make that clarification, and in a moment, we will get more into Rosemont, but I do want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to take on some of these arguments to make sure that folks understand the broader context in which American mining and manufacturing occurs.

First of all, we just heard some claims that these mining companies can't figure out how to get their mines permitted. Well, I hate to inform my colleagues across the aisle, but most of our companies these days are multibillion-dollar, multinational companies that spend literally millions of dollars a year to lobby Federal, State, and local entities and to employ folks to navigate these processes. These are not entities that are struggling to figure out processes.

Secondly, the United States has not disallowed mining. There are many mines in operation. If my friends across the aisle would like to visit New Mexico, I can take you to one of the largest copper mines in North America. There is lots of mining happening in the United States.

It is true that up until the 1990s, we were a net exporter of critical minerals here in the United States. What caused American production to tank was not laws and regulations; it was global commodity prices, just like oil and gas. What happens when there is international competition is that local entities cannot compete because of competitiveness on the global commodities market.

We are all for American competition. We are all for Made in America. That is why our President, of course, has led, and the Democratic Congress passed, three major bills for a renaissance of American manufacturing and our economy: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the American Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which are making the largest single investment in reshoring American jobs in modern history. That is the reality of what is happening on the ground.

I want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend and my sister from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Ledger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we do have mining in our backyards. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico and I both noted, we have multiple mines in New Mexico. What we don't want are mines poisoning our watersheds and destroying sacred sites irrevocably. What we fear and what we know, based on the language that is in the bill that we will be voting on and that we are debating today, is that that would be the outcome of what they are trying to pass.

I also want to clarify for the record that we actually had Secretary Deb Haaland this morning in front of our committee. She stated this morning that the Biden administration has approved 40 new mines or mining modification permits just since President Biden took office, including 5 critical minerals mines, so the assertion that we heard this afternoon that there has been no new mining is just false.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address the specific example that was just brought forward about a mining exclusion in the Grand Canyon because I believe that the exclusion that we are talking about was to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Now, I ask the American people: Is that what you would like to see?

In New Mexico, we know the legacy of uranium mining. Our communities are dying from it, the mining communities whose water has been poisoned for generations and those who have been impacted by the materials that were built from that uranium.

That is why Congresswoman Leger Fernandez has been leading an effort that is bipartisan and bicameral with our colleagues from New Mexico to get a RECA amendment passed in this Chamber so that we can help address those communities.

That is why we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 2925 would like to argue that this bill is a surgical fix to a problem created by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on the Rosemont Copper Mine. If this is surgery, then like the mining law of 1872, it is surgery with an ax, not a scalpel. If that evokes an image for you of our post-Civil War surgical maneuvers, then that is what this bill

does because it takes away guardrails to protect our communities.

Let's clarify. In 2022, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the proposed Rosemont mine in southern Arizona could not use invalid mining claims to permanently bury Colorado's thousands of acres of national forests in mining waste, including sites that were sacred to multiple Tribes. The court ruled that it was not a valid mining claim to do this.

The requirement that mining claims must contain valuable minerals for the claim to be valid is a core tenet of the mining law. It is the one, as we have said, fragile guardrail that we have in this antiquated law.

For over 150 years, the mining law of 1872 has given mining precedence over all other uses and values of our public lands. This imbalance of power has left a toxic trail of pollution, destruction, and desecration of sacred sites, and it continues to impact our communities today.

We urgently need to reform the mining law. Instead, the bill that is being put forward here today would make things worse and take us back. It is such a breathtaking giveaway of our public lands that former Department of the Interior Solicitor John Leshy said that it should be called the mining charity act because of the giveaways for these mining companies rather than the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.

This bill allows anyone to put a stake in the ground in any open public land and pay less than $10 a year to make a claim to those rights forever. Our public land managers have long said that once there is a mining claim in place, they cannot say no to anything mining related on that land.

If this bill becomes law, then the mining industry would be free to pick and choose which of our public lands to lock away and then permanently bury, destroy watersheds, or pollute our communities, to do whatever it wants on those lands that it has tied up. The unintended consequences of this bill go far beyond mining and could hurt our communities irrevocably.

I want to reiterate that this bill empowers anyone with a few dollars, including foreign companies in adversarial nations, to blanket our public lands in untouchable mining claims and block other uses of this land. This bill will create chaos, not clarity, on our public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2925.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.

In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona. Commonly called the Rosemont decision, this determination upended decades of regulatory 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.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.

However, operators' plans of operations must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads. The mining plan of operations is key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which in turn factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are commercially developable and, therefore, valid.

In short, the court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the actual process of how one develops a mine. This bill would restore status quo as it existed before the misguided Rosemont decision and clarify that mine operators can continue to operate on Federal lands as they have for decades.

According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, ``It is the policy of the United States that . . . the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals.'' The Rosemont decision blatantly disregards this statement.

With mineral demand expected to grow exponentially in the coming decades, Congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to access our own resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2925, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, I greatly appreciate her passion to protect this administration, to protect an administration that is having an attack on American mining, on American energy that is causing prices to increase, for inflation to go up, and it is causing us to be more dependent on our adversaries like China for minerals and elements, like Russia, OPEC, Venezuela, all of the above, Iran, for our energy. I understand that she is passionate about that, and I respect her passion.

When we talk about an old, archaic mining law that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law in 1872, I am reminded of something our Founders did long before that.

In 1787, they passed or established our Constitution that says that there is separation of powers, that the legislative branch legislates and that the executive branch enforces.

Now, almost 250 years later, we have got an administrative branch, and thanks to the administrative state in the Administrative Powers Act, we have bureaucrats that think their job is to legislate.

We are not changing the law, the mining law. We are pushing back on rules that are being pushed out by an administration that thinks it is their job to legislate.

I will remind my friends across the aisle that 2 years ago, they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They had an opportunity to change the mining law, and they didn't do it. We are not changing the mining law. We are pushing back on overreaching regulations from the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I talked earlier about the Constitution and how it is the legislature that makes the laws, it is not through an administrative rule and it is also not by court decision, not the third branch of government that gets to make the laws. It is Congress that gets to make the laws.

When the Court has stepped in and made a ruling that creates uncertainty, it is causing mines not to be developed in the United States. Mining companies don't know if they can get a permit. If they cannot get a permit, they have to prove that there is material there before they get a chance to develop the permit. We need this legislative fix that only Congress can provide, to provide clarity and certainty so that we can develop these mineral resources here in the United States, which simply isn't happening today.

I will remind my friends across the aisle that under the law that this bill would codify, operators must still, as they have for decades, submit a mine plan of operations to the BLM or Forest Service for approval before building a new mine under the authorities that we would be giving them in this legislation.

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service both have strict time-bound requirements on what a claimant must do to maintain a claim and what they can do with a claim on Federal land to conduct mining.

If a claim holder does not meet these requirements, BLM or the Forest Service has the power to enforce compliance or immediately suspend the claimant from the area.

Now, while my friends across the aisle are doubling down on this administration's attack on American mining and energy development, while they are cheering on the Ninth Circuit, Republicans are taking action.

Mining is not happening in the United States because of the impediments that my friends across the aisle are causing.

Where is mining taking place? It is happening in China. If you go back just to 1995 and take one mineral that is critical to the lower- carbon energy sector that my friends talk about so much, you can't do that without copper. In 1995, the United States produced over three times more copper than China. If you look at 2020, China is producing about 10 times more copper than we are.

This is one metal. We could repeat this chart for critical elements and for other metals. If you look at it for steel, we produced more steel than China in 1995. They produce 12 times more steel than we do today.

When these renewable energy projects take place, when mandates are put out there to build electric vehicles, where are these materials coming from? We don't have the processing capacity anymore either. We have got two copper smelters. China has got over 50.

China controls 60 percent of global production, an estimated 90 percent of

processing, and over 75 percent of manufacturing of critical minerals. In terms of individual minerals, China refines 72 percent of global- refined cobalt, 98 percent of global gallium, and 85 percent of global- refined rare-earth elements.

China also currently dominates the world's electric battery market, producing about 90 percent of the raw materials and 77 percent of global EV battery manufacturing capacity.

Disallowing domestic mining will only drive both our allies and ourselves into further reliance on China. We are disallowing mining at the same time we are putting mandates out there for people to drive electric vehicles.

By breaking even the first link in the Chinese global supply chain, we will be able to send strong market signals to American companies looking to invest in domestic mining and processing ventures. That is what H.R. 2925 would do.

The Republican ideas are pro-America and pro-American supply chain. They are using the resources that God has blessed us with. If we don't pass this bill, we are just going to be more reliant on China, and we are going to see less development in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very rich that my friends across the aisle are bringing China into the equation now. The simple fact is that, under this administration and under this court ruling, nobody is going to be mining in the United States. They know China is not going to mine anything here under their policies, but also no American companies are going to be able to develop mines under their policies.

At the same time, they are pushing this electrification of everything and electric vehicles. They approved billions and billions of dollars in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That is hard to say because we all know it drove inflation higher. In that bill, the IRA, they approved billions of dollars to invest in things that require metals and critical minerals.

The question was asked in the opening statement: Who wants this? Who wants mining in the United States?

I think the answer is everybody wants what comes from mining except my friends across the aisle. They don't want it in their backyard. They want their cake, and they want to be able to eat it, too. They want to have all these metals and critical elements that can be used to make and manufacture the things that they think are going to save the planet, but they just don't want it to happen here in the U.S., where we have the strictest mining laws, the strictest labor laws, and the strictest safety laws. We do things right here. We recover mines correctly.

What they want to do is have all their electric cars, solar farms, windmills, and transmission lines and magically get this material from somewhere else.

There are mines. There are still mines all across this country, but the

fact is they are not even coming close to meeting the demands that we have. Even though we have everything we need in the U.S., it is just in the ground.

Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 would require more copper than has been produced over the entire course of human history. That is the challenge we face under Democratic policy: a demand for more copper than we have mined in human history between now and 2050 if we were going to get to net zero emissions.

How are we going to do that if we don't use the elements and minerals that God has blessed us with here in our country? The simple answer is that we are going to have to rely on somebody else to supply that. Guess who the number one supplier of nearly every one of those metals and elements is in the world today? It is China. That is the simple fact.

We can make a decision to either support H.R. 2925 and support American minerals and resources, or we can leave the status quo under the Rosemont court ruling and rely more on China and others, even Russia. We have talked about nuclear power, which could be a great contributor to zero emission energy. Most of our uranium now comes from Russia.

So whom do we want to rely on? Where do we want that wealth to go when Americans spend their money on energy and minerals? I would rather it stay here in America supporting American mining, supporting American jobs, and supporting American processing and manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this story, as well. My colleagues can try to frame it that they are okay with it in their backyard because they have some of it there, but for the future, they don't want any more of it in their backyard.

I am from Arkansas. We have about 10 percent of our landmass as Federal lands, but when you go out West, Federal lands can account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain States and can account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.

When you look at that, Mr. Speaker, more than one-half of federally owned public lands are already either restricted or banned to mining operations due to withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Antiquities Act, and specific congressional actions.

If land hasn't been withdrawn from operation under the mining law, such as the land outside the Grand Canyon, then no new mining claims can be staked.

So, I am asking, how much is enough? How much of our land do we have to lock up and say that you can't have access, can't manage it, can't produce energy off of it, and can't mine on it?

It seems as if, as time goes on, the answer is all of it. We want to lock all of it up. We want to be reliant on somebody else who is doing a lot more damage to the environment somewhere on the planet than we do here in the U.S. when we mine in a very environmentally friendly manner and sustainably with the highest levels of standards.

Mr. Speaker, we can try to frame this any way you want to, but when we are having to import so much of our metals and critical minerals when they are right here in the ground in the United States, then that is a ``not in my backyard'' policy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assert my firm belief that we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Nobody was ever proposing to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon, but a favorite talking point of my colleagues across the aisle is to say that these evil mining companies are going to be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

It is as if there is going to be this big excavator reaching over the side, digging out and making the Grand Canyon even more grand. The uranium deposits are well outside the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park. They are in land north of the Grand Canyon between the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park and the State of Utah.

It is an easy talking point to say that we are going to ban mining in the Grand Canyon. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I don't know anybody who wants to mine in the Grand Canyon.

I do want to reiterate and push back on the assertion that the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is unnecessary and that mining companies should have to prove the existence of a valid claim before beginning any operations.

A 2020 Department of the Interior solicitor's opinion stated: ``As a practical matter, requiring the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit before allowing any reasonably incident mining uses, including the removal of any minerals, puts the cart before the horse, since such uses and removal are necessary to make a discovery. If entering open lands to explore for and develop minerals is considered `unauthorized' unless or until miners have proven a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, they could not, as a practical matter, ever discover a valuable mineral deposit and all mining would effectively be prohibited. Such an outcome was clearly not the intent of Congress, in no small part because such an interpretation would also leave many, if not most, miners legally in trespass.'' That all came from that solicitor's opinion.

It is clear that H.R. 2925 is a legislative fix that only Congress can provide. It is needed to provide clarity and certainty in the United States' ability to responsibly mine materials essential to our national security and to make us economically competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2925. Contrary to the misconceptions that I have heard regarding the bill, this legislation does not grant mining companies free license to do whatever they want on Federal lands. It does not exempt mining activity from NEPA or any other environmental review. It does not allow companies to subvert governmental authority or oversight. It simply restates over a century of mining law and decades of regulatory practice.

In passing this bill, we will reaffirm American miners' rights to operate under the law, just as they have done for decades, to provide the essential materials we depend on every day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Amodei for his work to bring H.R. 2925 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2925.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.

In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine project in Arizona.

This determination commonly called the Rosemont decision upended decades of regulatory precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service regulations that allow approvals of operation on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory standards.

Essentially, this court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the process of how a company actually develops a mine. I think there is some confusion about the mine approval process and what the term ``valid'' claim means.

First, when looking to develop a mine, an operator must submit something called a Mine Plan of Operations to the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This plan must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads.

The Mine Plan of Operations is key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which, in turn, factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are commercially developable and, therefore, valid.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.

Remember, a mine cannot move forward if the Federal Government does not approve any facet of the Mine Plan of Operations. Further, mineral validity cannot be determined until after the economic viability of a site--as is laid out in the Mine Plan of Operations--is verified by the Federal Government, as well.

H.R. 2925, Mr. Speaker, would reverse this backward determination of the court, allowing American mining to resume on Federal lands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear: This bill will not allow mining companies to do whatever they want on public land. That is a fact.

Mining activity will not occur if any facet of a mine plan of operations has not passed our strict Federal guidelines and our strict environmental guidelines.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), my good friend, for his words of support for this legislation.

Again, this legislation would correct a misguided court decision revoking an approved mine for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona.

Arizona produced the second-most amount of minerals in the United States in 2023. It also has over 30 million acres of Federal lands. If the Rosemont decision stands, over 40 percent of Arizona's lands will be taken offline in the U.S. in the battle to produce enough minerals to meet our ever-growing needs.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the Democrats brought an expert forward, Madam Speaker, an anti-mining expert. In fact, she said we have to stop hard-rock mining because the reclamation process doesn't work. I invited her to our great State of Minnesota to show her a reclaimed mine where we have deer hunting, bears, eagles, bees, birds, haymaking. We have drinking water that comes from mines that are not in operation. We have recreation in our mines in Minnesota and elsewhere in this country.

This hard-rock mining expert said it is too dry in Arizona and too wet in Minnesota to mine. I asked where she would like us to mine these minerals for our national security. She said the quiet part out loud. She said nowhere. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow mining to happen in this country.

The Communist country of China was just mentioned. This administration today, Madam Speaker, is in consultation with Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child slave labor owned by the Chinese Communist country.

The Biden administration is entering into memorandums of understanding to have critical minerals mined by child slave labor in Congo, where there are zero environmental standards and zero labor standards, to meet their green agenda, Madam Speaker. They are okay with that but will not allow mining to happen in this country that follows our environmental and labor standards.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I live in the heart of mining country, and the best water in Minnesota is in the heart of mining country. We can drink it right out of the ground in Buhl, Minnesota.

I can tell you that this country better take part in mining domestically. Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves, Madam Speaker, in deep, deep trouble.

The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense say we need more domestic mining. We cannot rely on China and other adversarial nations. This is a simple fix.

We believe the court erred, so it is our job to re-legislate this part of mining that is so important to the United States of America. It is so important to our communities where we are blessed to have these natural resources.

For my good friends and colleagues from California, let's go back many years. California started on a gold rush. It began because of mining. Safe to say, we don't want to follow California much longer, with what is happening in that great State.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I believe this is going to pass in a bipartisan fashion. It is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to passing it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The disastrous results of the Rosemont decision will redirect the huge amounts of capital needed to mine domestically to countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia.

When we choose this out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality approach to

mining, development flows to other nations with significantly lower environmental and labor standards. Indonesia, for example, is currently the world's largest nickel producer and its dominance is only expected to grow in the coming years.

Indonesian mining is accomplished with sweeping deforestation and pollution, many of which are financed, again, by the Chinese Communist Party. These operations consistently ignore environmental impacts on local communities and leave the land far worse off than they found it.

On the other hand, American mines, like this mine project in Nevada, adhere to the best standards in the world and are committed to restoring the land after minerals are extracted.

In fact, again, mines are not even permitted until the Federal Government approves a full Mine Plan of Operations, which must include a robust plan and financial assurance for reclamation after the project is complete.

Madam Speaker, this is simple. Either we do it here or we let foreign adversarial nations take over. This is a strategic national security interest.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Federal lands account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain Western States, and these same States account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is needed to ensure that we have certainty of access to these essential mineral deposits.

If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, clean mining practices that provide billions in taxes that support our roads, bridges, schools, and other essential services, along with the essential materials to the American people, then we also need to support H.R. 2925.

Madam Speaker, really quick, you are hearing the other side of the aisle not necessarily debate the actual legislation. We have heard them talk about the process. When you can't debate the legislation, then you go after the process.

This is a very, very good piece of legislation, and I look forward to it passing in just the next hour or so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Let's be clear: There are no mines operating on Federal lands that are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Zero. Zero. Anybody that mines in the United States will follow our environmental standards and our labor standards. It doesn't matter which company it is. They are going to follow our rules.

For this administration to turn a blind eye to the atrocities and the human rights violations to meet their green agenda, it is unconscionable. We can do it here in the United States with the best labor standards, the best environmental standards, with our technology, and be proud of these minerals that we produce. We can lead the rest of the world on how to do it. Nobody does it better than the United States of America and our workers, period.

Madam Speaker, let me address some of the misinformation we have heard about this bill. This bill does not allow mining companies to continue to operate under conditions that don't follow our labor and environmental standards.

If the outlandish circumstances that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been telling you will happen if this bill is enacted could have actually happened all along, including land lock-ups and subversion of environmental and governmental oversight, then why didn't it happen?

It is because the harm they claim this bill could inflict upon our Federal lands is actually not true. It is inaccurate.

This bill would, however, allow America to become a global leader in mineral production once again.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Governor of Nevada in support of H.R. 2925.

Office of the Governor,

May 1, 2024.

Hon. Dina Titus,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steven Horsford,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Susie Lee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Titus, Horsford, and Lee: I write in

support of the Congressman Amodei's Mining Regulatory Clarity

Act of 2024 (H.R. 2925) and encourage you to vote in favor of

this critical bill when it reaches the House floor. In doing

so you will stand in solidarity with Senator Cortez Masto and

Senator Rosen, sponsors of the Senate companion bill (S.

1281), and the State of Nevada to support a key pillar of our

economy. Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its

decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, also known as the Rosemont decision, the

future of hardrock mining in Nevada and the West has been

plagued by uncertainty. This matter must be favorably

resolved for the Silver State and bipartisan, bicameral

legislation must be signed by the

President to help ensure the economic viability of our robust

mining industry.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (MRCA) simply reinstates

the contemporary mining policy and permitting practices that

were upended by the Rosemont decision. Contrary to the scare

tactics of critics, the MRCA does not open the door to

unrestricted use of public lands, block renewable energy,

recreation, or conservation, or allow mining in National

Parks, wilderness areas, and other special areas. Rather, it

provides much-needed business certainty and protects the

14,700 direct high-paying jobs and an additional 20,000

indirect jobs that are supported by the mining industry in

the state. In addition to providing employment with high,

family supporting salaries averaging over $100,000, the

industry provides $4.9 billion of our state's gross domestic

product and $12.7 billion in economic output.

Schools and local governments in each of your districts

also benefit from the $389 million the industry paid in state

and local taxes. More than half of the mining Net Proceeds of

Minerals (NPOM) tax revenue goes to the Nevada State

Education Fund. The other half goes to the county where the

minerals were produced. Gold and silver operators further

contribute to the State Education Fund through the Gold and

Silver Excise Tax, or Mining Education Tax which was

established during the 81st Nevada Legislative Session; and

in fiscal year 2023, contributed approximately $68 million to

the State. Beginning in fiscal year 2024, revenue from the

Mining Education Tax will go directly into the State

Education Fund. The Rosemont decision ends hardrock mining as

we know it and threatens the livelihoods and institutions

that rely on it.

Nevada is counting on you to unite and join Senators Cortez

Masto and Rosen and Congressman Amodei to provide certainty

to one of Nevada's critical industries. I look forward to

continuing to work collaboratively to ensure Nevada remains

well positioned as a leader in domestic mineral production,

from lithium and other critical materials to precious metals.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Joe Lombardo,

Governor.

Madam Speaker, I support fair labor standards, high environmental standards, and increasing our national security. In short, I support domestic mining. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and support H.R. 2925.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, and I will remind my friends across the aisle that mining is already happening on American lands and on our public lands.

However, this week, instead of working on meaningful legislation on behalf of the American people, our friends have opted instead to focus on a toxic free-for-all on our public lands and have opted to focus on legislation to rollback energy efficiency in home appliances.

In fact, they put forward a bill this week called Hands Off Our Home Appliances because they are so concerned about the American people that they want to regulate the efficiency of their toasters, their dishwashers, their refrigerators, and undermine the ability of our immigrant and our Hispano communities to have representation in the United States Census and, yes, to allow a free-for-all on our public lands.

Now, the American people are not asking us to do this. They are asking us to work on real problems: to work on the economy, inflation, helping families put food on the table and a roof over their head, protecting our reproductive rights and access to the ballot box, protecting our democracy, and dealing with the international crises that are happening on multiple continents.

My question is: Why the heck are we back on the House floor one week after we voted, on a bipartisan basis, to send this bad bill back to committee when it couldn't even be supported on the floor once?

Yet here we are, and our friends are trying to pass it once again, without revision, without changes because they think they found a few extra spare votes.

Let's talk about mining laws. The existing mining law of 1872 already gives our mining companies, including foreign-owned companies, the right to extract on our publicly-owned lands. They can also do so without having to pay even one cent in royalties. That includes companies that are controlled by governments of adversarial nations.

This is not only a shameful giveaway, but a huge national security vulnerability for the United States. This bill is not about clarifying a court decision, it is about giving more minerals away to those who would like unfettered access to our public lands. It would give opportunities for multinational corporations and adversarial nations to control even more of our resources without having to pay royalties to the U.S. Government, and to tie up claims on our public lands, whether or not there are minerals actually present there.

This would make it impossible to invalidate a mining claim, even if their real intent was other things, maybe to lock up development on other uses or buying them for other uses, including construction of transmission lines or other things that they would want to do.

This should be of deep concern to anyone who does not want adversarial nations or the companies that operate in them to control our public lands or minerals.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that it is either mine here or mine abroad and create a false equivalency, but it is not that simple. Some of the countries that are trying to expand their mining operations here in the United States, in fact, many of these multinational corporations are owned as subsidiaries under countries like China and other countries that we have adversarial relationships with.

They also engage in practices that we know cause human rights abuses, things like slave labor elsewhere in the world. While my friends across the aisle have tried to claim that this is really about mining on American lands, it is about granting unfettered access to these corporations.

In fact, these entities can ship the minerals that they take from American lands anywhere in the world and smelt those materials on the cheap, often relying on human rights abuses abroad to cut costs.

As I said, we already had this debate last week. The outcome was the entire House, right here on this floor, voted to send this toxic bill back to the Natural Resources Committee. In fact, that hasn't happened in years because this bill was so flawed and such a giveaway to foreign national owned companies and a threat to our national security that it was agreed that it wasn't ready for prime time and shouldn't be passed on the floor.

My colleague from New Mexico, Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, offered to send the bill back to committee so that we could discuss amending the bill to ban these adversarial corporations operating in adversarial nations from mining and locking up our public lands.

I have to say, I was heartened. We had six Republicans join the Democrats to do just that. They said they were not going to vote for that bill. Well, it was about time. We need some bipartisan support to double down on protecting U.S. interests.

In fact, as I said, it has been decades since the House sent a bill back to committee like that, but as we see today, here we are. Republican leadership is trying once again to get the bill passed through brute force without addressing serious concerns, without sending it back to committee, without going through due process. Here we are, debating it and about to take a vote again.

These concerns aren't new. Last year, the bill was included in H.R. 1. At that time, one of my Republican colleagues offered a very similar amendment banning mining on our public lands by foreign companies with records of human rights violations. We are literally talking about companies that have child slave labor records. That amendment passed through committee on a bipartisan basis, yet they stripped it out and are trying to pass the bill without it here today on the floor.

I find it absolutely jaw-dropping and extremely telling that this was the amendment that was stripped out of the bill and that we are back here a week later after this bill failed on the floor.

I think it is very clear what is going on here. This is really about advancing the interests of corporations, interests on our public lands, and opening them up for exploitation.

I think it is important that we talk about how outrageous this is. We have to ensure that our public lands are not open to our adversaries, to these multinational corporations that will exploit our minerals for free. We need some bipartisan action to make sure that that cannot happen.

We should be back in committee discussing the vulnerabilities, discussing the national security implications, discussing American competitiveness, discussing energy policy, not trying to jam through a bill that will violate human rights and international trade.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert my side eye, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, which rolls out the welcome mat to our foreign adversaries to exploit our minerals and violate human rights as well as national security.

We must defeat this bill. We did last week. We debated the merits. It is bad for America. It is bad for national security. It is bad for our economy. It is bad for American mining. It is bad for the environment, and that is why we must send it back.

Madam Speaker, I support the gentlewoman's motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding, and I thank her for also actually reading the bill. Sometimes the truth matters in these debates.

We have to take many things with a grain of salt. We have been lectured about national security from folks who just last week voted to deny aid to Ukraine. The pro-Putin caucus is actually lecturing us about national security. You have to take it all with a grain of salt or maybe with a glass of vodka in this particular case.

In regard to this bill, the mining industry says they need this bill to provide regulatory clarity. Well, if it is clarity our colleagues across the aisle are seeking, this bill certainly delivers it because in the name of regulatory clarity, they would let any mining company do, essentially, whatever they want in any open area of public lands.

We have our long-outdated Mining Law of 1872 that already gives more rights to miners than any other public land users by far.

Under current law, as long as they have four stakes in the ground and keep up with their nominal annual fees, any open public lands are theirs for the taking.

Of course, for our colleagues across the aisle, that is not enough. For the mining industry, it is never enough.

Under this bill, the land that they are after wouldn't even need to have valuable minerals for miners to hold a valid mining claim. Under this bill, they actually don't even need to have a mining claim at all. This bill would allow any activity even slightly related to prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, extraction, or processing of minerals, regardless of whether that activity is carried out on a mining claim. It also waives any payment of fair market value for the use of public lands and resources for mining-related activities.

My colleagues say they are interested in clarity. Let's be very clear what all of this means. If a mining corporation decided to build a large-scale power plant directly outside a national park to support their claim, they could do it under this bill. That same mining corporation could build a polluting processing plant right next to the power plant and suck the aquifers dry to support their mine, under this bill.

They could build a network of pipelines and roads or anything else the mining company decides is ``necessary infrastructure'' across grazing areas or priority areas for renewable energy development or anything else they want.

They could also permanently bury sacred sites near their mining claim. They could bury it in toxic waste under this bill. None of these tangential activities would have to go through the usual evaluation of public lands use because they would be given the same priority rights the mining industry already enjoys on public lands.

If all of that wasn't enough, under this bill, the mining industry, or, frankly, any bad actor with a handful of dollars, could effectively block any other use of our public lands, like recreation, like natural carbon storage, access to traditional and cultural resources, renewable energy projects, or any number of other important uses.

This bill says that anyone--and I do mean anyone--could do any so- called mining-related activities on or off a mining claim for a mere $10 per acre per year.

This entire bill is one of the most egregious giveaways of our public lands and resources most of us have ever seen, and that is saying something because we have seen a lot of proposed giveaways from our friends across the aisle. Our public lands would become the mining industry's playground or dumping grounds as they see fit.

There are other important uses for our public lands. Our public lands and waters should also be considered for solar, for wind, and for geothermal resources. This bill threatens to hand absolute control to mining companies and would jeopardize the crucial role public lands can play in responsible, renewable energy production, among other important uses.

Our public lands serve as substantial carbon sinks, aiding both communities and ecosystems in adapting to the challenges brought on by the climate crisis that our friends ignore and deny.

These lands should not belong to the mining industry and other exploitive actors. They should belong to all Americans.

Our public lands deserve our protection. We need real reform of this antiquated mining law from 1872 to put other uses of our public lands on equal footing with the mining industry. We need to prioritize Tribal sovereignty, community input, and environmental protection to give Americans a fair return for their public minerals.

The good news is, that bill already exists, and I am a proud cosponsor of ranking member Grijalva's Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act. It would do all of those important things. That is the bill we should be considering today. Instead, we have the bill before us that would double down on the mining law of 1872's worst ideas.

This is the wrong move for a modern, sustainable mining industry, it is the wrong move for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''