National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill takes us in the wrong direction. It not only fails to make any meaningful reforms to our antiquated system of mining in this country, but it proposes to make them worse. We have a mining system that was put together in the 1870s when the number one goal for President Grant at that time was to get people to settle in the West. I am here to tell you, Mr. Chair, the West has been settled.
As a resident of southern California, we have this 150-year-old bill that really makes things as easy as possible for miners. We still have a law that doesn't require any royalties to be paid on the extraction of hard rock minerals on public lands. Let's be clear. If you drill for oil or gas on public lands or mine coal or soda ash or potash or a number of other minerals, what do you do? You pay a royalty to the American taxpayer, but not if you mine copper or silver or platinum or gold or other valuables. You get to mine royalty free.
When the Mining Law of 1872 was enacted, there was no such thing as environmental safeguards. There was no concept of the multiple uses of public lands to ensure that mining could coexist with grazing, with recreation or conservation. There were no requirements for miners to clean up after themselves when they were done mining. Simply mine as long as it is profitable, and when you are done, just pick up and leave, and don't worry about it, except that the people who live anywhere near the half million abandoned mines in this country need to worry about it. Communities located near the tens of thousands of miles of polluted rivers with toxic acid mine waste, they need to worry about it, and, certainly, the United States Congress needs to worry about it.
But, instead of tackling this problem, what does this bill do? It declares that the biggest problem we have with mining in this country is that we are not doing it fast enough.
So this bill proposes to undermine one of our bedrock environmental laws--the National Environmental Policy Act--and it makes land managers who are reviewing mine plans prioritize mineral production over every other potential use of the land, which threatens hunting, fishing, grazing, and conservation.
Mr. Chair, it would be one thing if the data showed that a large number of mines were being delayed for no good reason; but, in fact, according to the data from the Bureau of Land Management, mines are getting approved much faster. We just heard that it takes a decade, but let's be clear what the data says.
Between 2005 and 2008, on average, 54 percent of the plans were approved in less than 3 years. In 2009 to 2014, 69 percent of the plans were approved in less than 3 years. So, in reality, rather than taking a decade, we are seeing that the Obama administration is permitting mines at a much faster rate than the Bush administration.
Now, I have an amendment that would address one of the key problems in this bill. This bill has an incredibly broad definition of what is a strategic and critical mineral. I have yet to hear anyone tell me--and we asked in committee--what mineral now doesn't qualify as strategic and critical under this bill. Certainly, none of the witnesses we had at our Natural Resources Committee hearing could, and the majority hasn't suggested anything. Now we are talking about expediting the process for sand and gravel, crushed stones, gold, silver, diamonds. All of these are now going to be considered strategic and critical by the definition in this bill. All get an expedited process for permitting, and they have weaker environmental reviews.
But, even if this bill were limited to the definition for critical minerals that the rest of the world goes by--basically, that those minerals be important, they be unique, and, most importantly, we are defining them as strategic and critical minerals because they are subject to a supply risk--it is clear that this bill does not help.
We had one rare earth element mine start up in this country a few years ago. The rare earth elements are ones that are truly critical. Two months ago, that mine stopped operating because prices were too low. That is what has happened. That one mine was already permitted, already built, and already operating, and it had to be shut down because of economics.
I don't think changing the environmental laws in any way solves the problem of economics, but it certainly would help major international mining conglomerates--companies based in Canada or Australia. It is going to help them grease the skids when they want to open their next giant copper mine or gold mine or uranium mine right next to a national park or a sensitive watershed.
Mr. Chair, this bill is bad policy. The outcomes here won't be any different than the outcomes over the past two Congresses. This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate, and the administration has already expressed its strong opposition.
What should we be doing?
We should be here today, discussing how to fix our outdated and antiquated mining laws, how to make mining companies pay their fair share, how to clean up the half million abandoned mines that litter our landscape from coast to coast. We shouldn't be here talking about a bill that is only going to make things worse.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1937.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to point out that the proponent of the bill has said--I believe it was the National Research Council--that all minerals and products could be or could become critical to some degree. That is really what they said, but let's be clear what this bill says and what the National Research Council's definition is. That is, really, what we are talking about, and we are going to discuss that later on.
Just what is the definition?
In the bill that we see before us, in terms of strategic and critical minerals, the term ``strategic and critical'' means minerals that are necessary for national defense and national security requirements--there certainly are some of those--for the national energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation, and transmission and renewable energy products, for supporting the domestic manufacturing of any mineral for agriculture, housing, telecommunications, health care, transportation and infrastructure, or for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. For that reason, they are saying let's shorten the process, eviscerate NEPA--the National Environmental Policy Act--and let's expedite this process.
I ask you: What mineral is not included in this definition? They are including everything.
Let's see what, in actuality, the National Research Council said. They published the report in 2008. It was called: ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it defined what should be our definition of strategic and critical minerals.
It states: ``To be `critical,' a mineral must be essential in use.'' We agree. They talk about strategic, and those proponents talk about essential minerals; but the National Research Council also says: ``To be considered `critical and strategic,' it must be subject to supply restriction.'' We do not see anything in this bill about supply restriction.
Therefore, what it is is a blank check for mining companies to mine anywhere, to have an expedited process so as not to protect communities; and I think that is a great mistake and takes us the wrong way and is exactly the opposite of what the National Research Council has called for.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would really like to discuss in a little bit more detail the idea that the permitting process is so onerous, that it takes so long to do it.
In 2012, 2013, and 2014, let's talk about the last 3 years of permitting of mines, of plans of operation, what really is the data? I will tell you that of all the plans of operation that were approved in 2012, 93 percent of them were done in 3 years or less; in 2013, 79 percent were done in 3 years or less; and in 2014, it was 68 percent. In summary, in the last 3 years, close to 80 percent of all plans of operation were permitted in less than 3 years. So we are not talking about an onerous time.
Also, let us remember that the same bill was twice introduced last year. It was twice introduced in the last session, and it was also introduced once in the 112th Congress. It never got taken up in the Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, we have heard in this discussion that we should have a sweeping definition, every mineral should be under the definition of a critical mineral, and that we should not be beholden to foreign sources if we don't do that. Well, I agree in many ways. We should not be.
This bill doesn't really deal with that issue because, if the authors were really concerned about restrictions to the supply, they would make the definition of ``critical'' and ``strategic minerals'' much narrower. We would not give up our environmental protections. We would not give up our public participation. We would not give up our legal protections when, in fact, there is no danger to the Nation's supply of this mineral.
The problems are really that we are now broadly including everything under this definition, and the bill that is in the Senate under--I think it is Senator Murkowski--has a much more limited definition of what is a strategic and critical mineral.
I urge the authors here, the proponents, to really amend this bill so that we can all work together on this to really restrict the two very specific occasions of when we would enable a change in the protections that we already have under NEPA. Right now, everything is included. This eviscerates all of our protections. I urge a ``no'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix a critical problem with this bill, namely, that the name of the bill doesn't match the substance of the bill.
When you read the title, you would think this bill has something to do with critical and strategic minerals, but, in fact, as currently written, the bill would define practically every mined substance--and that is every mined substance in the United States--as being strategic and critical. Sand, gravel, gold, copper, clay, all of these, are strategic and critical under this bill, and I think that is going too far.
In fact, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what mineral wouldn't fall under the definition of this bill. Certainly none of the witnesses at our June Committee on Natural Resources could name one.
The National Research Council published a 2008 report called ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it states: To be critical, a mineral must be both essential in use and subject to supply restriction.
They go on to point out some specific examples of minerals that are essential, but not critical, such as copper, iron ore, and construction aggregates, such as sand and gravel, except that this bill would completely ignore the National Research Council and many other organizations that know what criticality means and define all of these--copper, iron ore, sand, gravel, and more--as strategic and critical minerals.
There is no doubt that these minerals are essential, but they are widely produced in the United States, and there is no danger of a break in the supply chain. Let me state that again. There is no danger of a break in the supply chain.
Let's talk about the sand and gravel that was just mentioned before. There are roughly 6500 sand and gravel quarries in the United States. We are not going to run out of gravel by not permitting one more gravel mine.
Gravel is important, but no one from the National Research Council or the Department of Energy or any organization that knows the real definition of critical minerals would consider sand and gravel to fall in that category, period, end of discussion.
My amendment would ensure that the scientifically vetted definition determined by the NRC is what the Secretary of the Interior uses to assess the criticality of minerals to be mined under this bill. It would ensure that the bill actually addresses the intent that is suggested by its own title: critical minerals.
It puts no time limits on the identification of these minerals. So, as conditions change over time, the Secretary would be able to add or remove items from the list of critical minerals, as necessary.
Republicans in the Senate understand this. Senator Murkowski, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which oversees mining, has introduced a bill that requires a methodology for determining which minerals would qualify as critical.
That methodology is to be based on an assessment of--I quote in her bill--``whether the materials are subject to potential supply restrictions and also important in use.''
I may not agree with everything that is in Senator Murkowski's bill, but I believe that she at least understands the definition of a critical mineral and is making a serious attempt to expand the production of minerals that are actually critically important and strategic.
But without my amendment, this bill is just a guise for mining interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental protections for all hardrock mining.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in conclusion, that we are talking about a definition of critical and strategic minerals that comes from the NRC, or the National Resource Council, that really talks about things that are essential.
But it also says that, to be declared critical, it must have a danger of disruption in the supply chain. We must have a limit to where we can access other materials.
As it was just pointed out, what happens if there is an earthquake in Southern California? God help us. Let's hope that there is not going to be an earthquake in Southern California. And there is a limitation on the supply.
I would like to urge us to say that the Secretary has the ability to change what is on that list or not under my amendment.
I urge support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source