[House Report 115-631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-631
======================================================================
NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT
_______
April 11, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 520]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 520) to require the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop
domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of
strategic and critical importance to the economic and national
security and manufacturing competitiveness of the United
States, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Strategic and Critical
Minerals Production Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the industrialization of developing nations has driven
demand for nonfuel minerals necessary for telecommunications,
military technologies, healthcare technologies, and
conventional and renewable energy technologies;
(2) the availability of minerals and mineral materials are
essential for economic growth, national security, technological
innovation, and the manufacturing and agricultural supply
chain;
(3) minerals and mineral materials are critical components of
every transportation, water, telecommunications, and energy
infrastructure project necessary to modernize the crumbling
infrastructure of the United States;
(4) the exploration, production, processing, use, and
recycling of minerals contribute significantly to the economic
well-being, security, and general welfare of the United States;
and
(5) the United States has vast mineral resources but is
becoming increasingly dependent on foreign sources of mineral
resources, as demonstrated by the fact that--
(A) 25 years ago, the United States was dependent on
foreign sources for 45 nonfuel mineral materials, of
which--
(i) 8 were imported by the United States to
fulfill 100 percent of the requirements of the
United States for those nonfuel mineral
materials; and
(ii) 19 were imported by the United States to
fulfill greater than 50 percent of the
requirements of the United States for those
nonfuel mineral materials;
(B) by 2015 the import dependence of the United
States for nonfuel mineral materials increased from
dependence on the import of 45 nonfuel mineral
materials to dependence on the import of 47 nonfuel
mineral materials, of which--
(i) 19 were imported by the United States to
fulfill 100 percent of the requirements of the
United States for those nonfuel mineral
materials; and
(ii) 22 were imported by the United States to
fulfill greater than 50 percent of the
requirements of the United States for those
nonfuel mineral materials;
(C) according to the Department of Energy, the United
States imports greater than 50 percent of the 41 metals
and minerals key to clean energy applications;
(D) the United States share of worldwide mineral
exploration dollars was 7 percent in 2015, down from 19
percent in the early 1990s;
(E) the 2014 Ranking of Countries for Mining
Investment, which ranks 25 major mining countries,
found that 7- to 10-year permitting delays are the most
significant risk to mining projects in the United
States; and
(F) in late 2016, the Government Accountability
Office found that--
(i) ``the Federal government's approach to
addressing critical materials supply issues has
not been consistent with selected key practices
for interagency collaboration, such as ensuring
that agencies' roles and responsibilities are
clearly defined''; and
(ii) ``the Federal critical materials
approach faces other limitations, including
data limitations and a focus on only a subset
of critical materials, a limited focus on
domestic production of critical materials, and
limited engagement with industry''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means--
(A) any agency, department, or other unit of Federal,
State, local, or tribal government; or
(B) an Alaska Native Corporation.
(2) Alaska native corporation.--The term ``Alaska Native
Corporation'' has the meaning given the term ``Native
Corporation'' in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602).
(3) Lead agency.--The term ``lead agency'' means the agency
with primary responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration
or mine permit for a project.
(4) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral
exploration or mine permit'' includes--
(A) an authorization of the Bureau of Land Management
or the Forest Service, as applicable, for premining
activities that requires an environmental impact
statement or similar analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.);
(B) a plan of operations issued by--
(i) the Bureau of Land Management under
subpart 3809 of part 3800 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations (or successor regulations);
or
(ii) the Forest Service under subpart A of
part 228 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations); and
(C) a permit issued under an authority described in
section 3503.13 of title 43, Code of Federal
regulations (or successor regulations).
(5) Project.--The term ``project'' means a project for which
the issuance of a permit is required to conduct activities for,
relating to, or incidental to mineral exploration, mining,
beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities--
(A) on a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site
claim for any locatable mineral; or
(B) in conjunction with any Federal mineral (other
than coal and oil shale) that is leased under--
(i) the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired
Lands (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.); or
(ii) section 402 of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. App.).
SEC. 4. IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS.
(a) Definition of Strategic and Critical Minerals.--In this section,
the term ``strategic and critical minerals'' means minerals that are
necessary--
(1) for the national defense and national security
requirements;
(2) for the energy infrastructure of the United States,
including--
(A) pipelines;
(B) refining capacity;
(C) electrical power generation and transmission; and
(D) renewable energy production;
(3) for community resiliency, coastal restoration, and
ecological sustainability for the coastal United States;
(4) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing,
telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation
infrastructure; or
(5) for the economic security of, and balance of trade in,
the United States.
(b) Consideration of Certain Domestic Mines as Infrastructure
Projects.--A domestic mine that, as determined by the lead agency, will
provide strategic and critical minerals shall be considered to be an
infrastructure project, as described in Executive Order 13807.
SEC. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY.
(a) In General.--The lead agency shall appoint a project lead within
the lead agency, who shall coordinate and consult with cooperating
agencies and any other agencies involved in the permitting process,
project proponents, and contractors to ensure that cooperating agencies
and other agencies involved in the permitting process, project
proponents, and contractors--
(1) minimize delays;
(2) set and adhere to timelines and schedules for completion
of the permitting process;
(3) set clear permitting goals; and
(4) track progress against those goals.
(b) Determination Under NEPA.--
(1) In general.--To the extent that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
applies to the issuance of any mineral exploration or mine
permit, the requirements of that Act shall be considered to
have been procedurally and substantively satisfied if the lead
agency determines that any State or Federal agency acting under
State or Federal law has addressed or will address the
following factors:
(A) The environmental impact of the action to be
conducted under the permit.
(B) Possible adverse environmental effects of actions
under the permit.
(C) Possible alternatives to issuance of the permit.
(D) The relationship between long- and short-term
uses of the local environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity.
(E) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources that would be involved in the proposed
action.
(F) That public participation will occur during the
decisionmaking process for authorizing actions under
the permit.
(2) Written requirement.--In making a determination under
paragraph (1), not later than 90 days after receipt of an
application for the permit, the lead agency, in a written
record of decision, shall--
(A) explain the rationale used in reaching the
determination;
(B) state the facts in the record that are the basis
for the determination; and
(C) show that the facts in the record could allow a
reasonable person to reach the same determination as
the lead agency did.
(c) Coordination on Permitting Process.--
(1) In general.--The lead agency shall enhance government
coordination for the permitting process by--
(A) avoiding duplicative reviews;
(B) minimizing paperwork; and
(C) engaging other agencies and stakeholders early in
the process.
(2) Considerations.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the lead
agency shall consider--
(A) deferring to, and relying on, baseline data,
analyses, and reviews performed by State agencies with
jurisdiction over the proposed project; and
(B) to the maximum extent practicable, conducting any
consultations or reviews concurrently rather than
sequentially if the concurrent consultation or review
would expedite the process.
(3) Memorandum of agency agreement.--If requested at any time
by a State or local planning agency, the lead agency, in
consultation with other Federal agencies with relevant
jurisdiction in the environmental review process, may establish
memoranda of agreement with the project sponsor, State and
local governments, and other appropriate entities to accomplish
the coordination activities described in this subsection.
(d) Schedule for Permitting Process.--
(1) In general.--For any project for which the lead agency
cannot make the determination described subsection (b), at the
request of a project proponent, the lead agency, cooperating
agencies, and any other agencies involved with the mineral
exploration or mine permitting process shall enter into an
agreement with the project proponent that sets time limits for
each part of the permitting process, including--
(A) the decision on whether to prepare an
environmental impact statement or similar analysis
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(B) a determination of the scope of any environmental
impact statement or similar analysis required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.);
(C) the scope of, and schedule for, the baseline
studies required to prepare an environmental impact
statement or similar analysis required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.);
(D) preparation of any draft environmental impact
statement or similar analysis required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.);
(E) preparation of a final environmental impact
statement or similar analysis required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.);
(F) any consultations required under applicable law;
(G) submission and review of any comments required
under applicable law;
(H) publication of any public notices required under
applicable law; and
(I) any final or interim decisions.
(2) Time limit for permitting process.--Except if extended by
mutual agreement of the project proponent and the lead agency,
the time period for the total review process described in
paragraph (1) shall not exceed 30 months.
(e) Limitation on Addressing Public Comments.--The lead agency shall
not be required to address any agency or public comments that were not
submitted--
(1) during a public comment period or consultation period
provided during the permitting process; or
(2) as otherwise required by law.
(f) Financial Assurance.--The lead agency shall determine the amount
of financial assurance required for reclamation of a mineral
exploration or mining site, on the condition that the financial
assurance shall cover the estimated cost if the lead agency were to
contract with a third party to reclaim the operations according to the
reclamation plan, including construction and maintenance costs for any
treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal, State, or tribal
environmental standards.
(g) Projects Within National Forests.--With respect to projects on
National Forest System land, the lead agency shall--
(1) exempt from the requirements of part 294 of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations)--
(A) all areas of identified mineral resources in land
use designations, other than nondevelopment land use
designations, in existence on the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(B) all additional routes and areas that the lead
agency determines necessary to facilitate the
construction, operation, maintenance, and restoration
of an area described in paragraph (1); and
(2) continue to apply the exemptions described in paragraph
(1) after the date on which approval of the minerals plan of
operations described in section 3(4)(B)(ii) for the National
Forest System land.
(h) Application to Existing Permit Applications.--
(1) In general.--This section applies to a mineral
exploration or mine permit for which an application was
submitted before the date of enactment of this Act if the
applicant for the permit submits a written request to the lead
agency for the permit.
(2) Implementation.--The lead agency shall begin implementing
this section with respect to an application described in
paragraph (1) not later than 30 days after the date on which
the lead agency receives the written request for the permit.
SEC. 6. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINING
PROJECTS.
(a) Departmental Review.--Absent any extraordinary circumstances, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture, as applicable, and except as otherwise required by law,
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as
applicable, shall ensure that each Federal Register notice associated
with the issuance of a mineral exploration or mine permit and required
by law shall be--
(1) subject to any required reviews within the Department of
the Interior or the Department of Agriculture, as applicable;
and
(2) published in final form in the Federal Register not later
than 45 days after the date of initial preparation of the
notice.
(b) Preparation.--The preparation of any Federal Register notice
described in subsection (a) shall be delegated to the organizational
level within the lead agency.
(c) Transmission.--All Federal Register notices described in
subsection (a) regarding official document availability, announcements
of meetings, or notices of intent to undertake an action shall
originate in, and be transmitted to the Federal Register from, the
office in which, as applicable--
(1) the documents or meetings are held; or
(2) the activity is initiated.
SEC. 7. SECRETARIAL ORDER NOT AFFECTED.
This Act shall not apply to any mineral described in Secretarial
Order 3324, issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 3,
2012, in any area to which the order applies.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 520 is to require the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently
develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials
of strategic and critical importance to the economic and
national security and manufacturing competitiveness of the
United States.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Domestic mining is essential to the economic well-being,
national security, and continued technological advancement of
the United States. Mining provides essential metals and
minerals for industries across the country, including
agriculture, telecommunications, construction, health care,
manufacturing, transportation, and renewable energy. It also
supplies raw materials necessary to rebuild America's
infrastructure.
H.R. 520 supports robust mineral production in the United
States by boosting efficiency in the permitting process for
these resources, emphasizing coordination between federal and
State agencies, minimizing delays and duplicative reviews, and
creating more predictable timeframes.
H.R. 520 also aligns with policy objectives in President
Trump's Executive Order 13817 (82 FR 60835) outlining a federal
strategy to ensure a reliable supply of critical minerals. The
federal government is instructed to ``[streamline] leasing and
permitting processes to expedite exploration, production,
processing, reprocessing, recycling, and domestic refining of
critical minerals.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\President Donald J. Trump, ``Presidential Executive Order on a
Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical
Minerals,'' The White House, December 20, 2017. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-
federal-strategy-ensure-secure-reliable-supplies-critical-minerals/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, industrial materials production, including sand,
gravel, and crushed stone, had a total value of $48.9 billion,
while metal mines' production was valued at $26.3 billion.\2\
Every building, bridge, highway, and infrastructure project
relies on mined materials, such as the metallurgical coal and
iron ore used in steel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\United States Geological Survey, ``Mineral Commodities Summaries
2018,'' January 31, 2018. https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/
2018/mcs2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the existence of substantial reserves of critical
resources in the United States, the issue of import reliance
has become an increasing area of concern. In 1986, the United
States was dependent on foreign sources for 30 non-fuel mineral
materials; in 2017, the number of net import reliant
commodities more than doubled to 64.\3\ Of these, 21
commodities were imported at a rate of 100%.\4\ China provides
the greatest number of these materials to the United States,
acting as a major supplier of 26 commodities in 2017.\5\ As
such, the United States is dependent on China for many
necessary components of technology used from laptops to cell
phones, as well as military applications and healthcare. In the
event of disruptions to the global supply chain, the United
States needs a robust domestic mineral supply to meet strategic
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id.
\4\Id.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before any mining project may occur in the United States,
the interested parties must first proceed through the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
process, undergo extensive permitting analysis at the federal
and State level, demonstrate financial assurance, and engage
with stakeholders. These tasks take years to complete.
Acquiring all necessary permits is a particularly time-
consuming, confusing, and expensive process. Agencies at both
the State and federal level share different regulatory and land
management responsibilities for aspects of the mining
permitting process, resulting in an unclear delineation of
authority.
Today, the United States averages 7 to 10 years for final
permitting approval, and permitting delays are considered the
greatest risk to the economic viability of mining projects in
the United States.\6\ In comparison, countries like Canada and
Australia have demonstrated a capacity to follow specific
permitting timelines while maintaining environmental
protections. These countries' permitting timeframes average
around two years,\7\ and are ranked as the top two countries
for mining investment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Behre Dolbear, ``2014 Ranking of Countries for Mining
Investment,'' 2014. http://www.dolbear.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/
2014-Where-to-Invest.pdf.
\7\SNL Metals & Mining, ``Permitting, Economic Value and Mining in
the United States,'' June 2015. https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/
2016/09/SNL_Permitting_Delay_Report-Online.pdf.
\8\Behre Dolbear, ``2014 Ranking of Countries for Mining
Investment''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 520 improves and streamlines the permitting process.
It authorizes a lead agency to coordinate between federal
agencies, States, and project proponents to minimize delays,
create and adhere to permitting timelines, set clear permitting
goals, and track progress against those goals.
H.R. 520 also includes a provision on NEPA determination,
under which the authorized lead agency will consider NEPA
satisfied with respect to the permit if a State or federal
agency takes specified considerations into account, including
the environmental impact of the action to be conducted under
the permit. If the lead agency cannot make this determination,
the agency will work with the project proponent and other
relevant parties to create a permitting timeline, which cannot
exceed 30 months. This expedites permitting reviews while
maintaining robust environmental protections.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act.''
Section 2. Findings
Section 3. Definitions
Section 4. Improving development of strategic and critical minerals
This section defines ``strategic and critical minerals'' as
minerals that are necessary: (1) for national defense and
national security requirements; (2) for domestic energy
infrastructure; (3) for community resiliency, coastal
restoration, and the ecological sustainability for the coastal
United States; (4) to support domestic manufacturing,
agriculture, housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and
transportation infrastructure; or (5) for the nation's economic
security and trade balance.
A domestic mine that provides strategic and critical
minerals shall be treated as an ``infrastructure project'' as
described in Executive Order 13807.
Section 5. Responsibilities of the lead agency
The lead agency shall appoint a project lead to coordinate
and consult with cooperating agencies and other agencies
involved in the permitting process, project proponents, and
contractors to: (1) minimize delays; (2) set and adhere to
permitting timelines and schedules; (3) set clear permitting
goals; and (4) track progress against those goals.
If the lead agency determines that any State or federal
agency has addressed or will address the environmental impact
of the action to be conducted under the permit, as well as
other specified considerations, then NEPA is considered
satisfied with respect to mineral exploration or mine permits.
This section requires a written record of decision from the
lead agency regarding its determination under NEPA within 90
days after receipt of a permit application.
This section requires the lead agency to enhance government
coordination on permitting and review by avoiding duplicative
reviews, minimizing paperwork, and engaging other agencies and
stakeholders early in the process.
The lead agency shall consider data and analysis from the
State of jurisdiction and, as much as is practical,
consultations and reviews shall be conducted concurrently
rather than sequentially.
This section allows the lead agency, upon request from a
State or local planning agency, to establish memoranda of
agreement with the project sponsor and other appropriate
entities to accomplish coordination activities.
If the lead agency cannot make the NEPA determination, a
project proponent can request that the project lead enter into
an agreement that sets time limits for each part of the
permitting process; this review process cannot exceed 30
months, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon.
The lead agency only has to address agency or public
comments that are submitted during the public comment period.
The lead agency shall determine financial assurance
requirements for reclamation of a mineral exploration or mining
site.
This section exempts certain projects on National Forest
Service land from part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, or successor regulations.
Applies this section to any existing mineral exploration or
mine permit if the applicant submits a written request to the
lead agency; this section will apply to existing permit
applications no later than 30 days after the lead agency
receives the request.
Section 6. Federal Register process for mineral exploration and mining
projects
This section reforms the process currently practiced by the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture,
for placing and reviewing Federal Register notices for mineral
exploration and mine permits.
Section 7. Secretarial Order not affected
Areas covered by Secretarial Order 3324, issued by the
Secretary of the Interior on December 3, 2012, are not affected
by this Act.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 520 was introduced on January 13, 2017, by Congressman
Mark E. Amodei (R-NV). The bill was referred to the Committee
on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On February 15,
2018, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. On
March 7, 2018, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Paul A. Gosar (R-AZ) offered an amendment
designated #1; it was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Garret
Graves (R-LA) offered an amendment designated #1; it was
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA)
offered an amendment designated 043; it was not adopted by a
roll call of 16 yeas and 20 nays, as follows:
Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute designated 002; it was not adopted
by a roll call of 17 yeas and 20 nays, as follows:
No further amendments were offered and the bill, as
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 21 yeas and
16 nays, as follows:
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 520, the National
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 520--National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act
H.R. 520 would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and the Forest Service to take actions aimed at simplifying the
permitting process for extracting certain minerals from federal
lands. The bill would direct the affected agencies to
coordinate with other agencies to reduce permitting delays and
expedite the publishing of notices in the Federal Register
related to mineral exploration and mining projects.
Based on information from the affected agencies, CBO
estimates that those provisions would have no significant
budgetary effect because the agencies are already performing
most of the activities. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing
that provision would cost less than $300,000 a year, or roughly
the equivalent of two full-time employees. Such spending would
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Those
employees would help the affected agencies enhance interagency
cooperation and meet the expedited timelines established in the
bill.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 520 would not affect
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 520 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 520 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to require the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently
develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials
of strategic and critical importance to the economic and
national security and manufacturing competitiveness of the
United States.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 520 is virtually identical to bills with the same
title that have been reported out of the Natural Resources
Committee in each of the three previous Congresses, so details
on our opposition to the bill's weakened environmental review
process for new mines and the overly broad definition of
``critical and strategic minerals'' has already been well
documented in prior dissenting views.\1\ The fact that this is
the fourth committee report for the same bill highlights the
key problem with the Majority's strategy on this issue: they
continue to pass extreme, partisan legislation that they are
able to get through the House on party-line votes but unable to
advance in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\H. Rept. 112-583 accompanying H.R. 4402; H. Rept. 113-138
accompanying H.R. 761; H. Rept. 114-253 accompanying H.R. 1937
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Majority was serious about legislating on critical
and strategic minerals, they would work to develop a bipartisan
compromise that addressed the legitimate need to diversify our
sources of truly critical and strategic minerals. During
markup, Committee Democrats offered two amendments using
Republican language on critical minerals in an effort to break
the partisan logjam and report something that would have a more
realistic chance of being signed into law. Neither one received
a single Republican vote.
The first amendment, from Mr. Lowenthal, would have
replaced the definition of ``critical and strategic minerals''
in H.R. 520 with the definition from Executive Order 13817, ``A
Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of
Critical Minerals,'' signed by President Trump on December 20,
2017.\2\ While we do not completely agree with the definition
in Executive Order 13817, and believe the draft list of
critical minerals published by the Department of the Interior
is inappropriately broad,\3\ the fact that the list excludes
any minerals at all makes it orders of magnitude more selective
than H.R. 520. The Majority argued at markup that Mr.
Lowenthal's amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill by
eliminating the flexibility necessary to account for changing
needs and technologies. The fact that the Administration's
draft list of critical minerals was published less than two
months after the Executive Order shows that the Majority's
concern about flexibility is completely unfounded. There is no
need to define every single mineral as critical in advance if
it will only take a couple of months to designate a mineral as
critical using a more reasonable definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\82 FR 60835 (December 26, 2017)
\3\83 FR 7065 (Feburary 16, 2018)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second amendment, offered by Ranking Member Grijalva,
was a substitute for the entire bill using language from S.
2012 in the 114th Congress, Senator Murkowski's (R-AK)
bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016, which
passed the Senate with 85 votes. Once again, the Majority
turned their back on productively advancing legislation that
could realistically be signed into law and make a positive
contribution to critical minerals issues in the United States.
Instead, they voted to advance their highly partisan
legislation that reads like a mining industry wish list and has
zero chance of becoming law.
Both amendments demonstrated our willingness to work with
the Majority on compromise critical minerals legislation, but
the Majority made it very clear that they intend to adhere to
their futile all-or-nothing approach that only succeeds in
accomplishing nothing.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources.
Grace Napolitano.
Jared Huffman.
Darren Soto.
[all]