Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Last year, in my home State of Washington, over 300,000 acres burned. And yet the Forest Service has yet to service anything. And I dare say now that whatever value there is to that salvage timber, it probably has gone away. I think this amendment addresses that issue very, very well, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for offering this amendment. I think his amendment takes care of a unique problem, although it may be applicable in other parts. But I think the gentleman has the right approach, and I support his amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. If I were to categorize this amendment, it would just simply prohibit the Forest Service from removing or eliminating roads without public involvement. In my district, in the Naches Ranger District, there was a case where they were in fact using other funds that were used to maintain roads, and they were using them to close roads, but all the time there was no public involvement. I think your amendment addresses that issue, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. The issue of salvage is a very important part of proper management in forests, and I think your amendment adds to that. I support your amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 761.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. Not a day goes by when Americans don't use a product that is made from critical minerals. In fact, life as we know it in the 21st century would not be possible without these minerals. There would be no computers, no Blackberrys or iPhones. There would be no MRI, CAT scan, or X-ray machines. There would be no wind turbines or solar panels. Mr. Chairman, the list is exhaustive of these things that depend on critical minerals that make modern life possible. Rare-earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical minerals, are core components of these products in the 21st century. Yet despite the tremendous need for rare-earth elements, the United States has allowed itself to become almost entirely dependent on China and other foreign nations for these resources. America has a plentiful supply of rare-earth elements, but roadblocks to the development of these crucial materials have resulted in China producing 97 percent of the world's supply. Our current policies are handing China a monopoly on these elements, creating a dependence that has serious implications on American jobs, on our economy, and on our national security. Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S. for more than 10 years. These unnecessary delays cost American jobs as we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for these raw ingredients. The lack of America-produced strategic and critical produced minerals are prime examples of how America has regulated itself into a 100 percent dependence on at least 19 unique minerals. It has also earned the United States the unfortunate distinction of being ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects. In 2012, the U.S. was ranked last, along with Papua New Guinea, out of 25 major mining countries on the pace of permitting. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for Papua New Guinea, but the reason the U.S. Government is so slow to issue new mining permits is very simple: government bureaucracy. H.R. 761, introduced by our colleague from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, will help us to end the foreign dependence by streamlining government red tape that blocks America's strategic and critical mineral production. Instead of waiting for over a decade for mining permits to be approved, this bill sets a goal of total review process for permitting at 30 months. Now this isn't a hard deadline, Mr. Chairman. It can be extended. But it is a goal to push the bureaucrats into action on these important infrastructure projects. It shouldn't take a decade to get a project built for minerals that we need in our everyday life and for our national security. Finally, Mr. Chairman, above all, this is a jobs bill. The positive economic impact of this bill will extend beyond just the mining industry. For every metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3 additional jobs are generated. And for every nonmetal mining job created, another 1.6 jobs are created. This legislation gives the opportunity for American manufacturers, small businesses, technology companies, and construction firms to use American resources to help make the products that are essential to our everyday lives. As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare-earth elements, we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to America. The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act is important to our jobs and to our economy. We must act now to cut the government red tape that is stopping American mineral production and furthering our dependence on foreign minerals. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a new member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from New Jersey if he has any further speakers. I'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, before I make my closing remarks, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee for his cooperation in helping schedule this bill for consideration. We have an exchange of letters to that effect. Mr. Chairman, much has been debated here on the floor about what is strategic and what is not strategic. Let me posit a suggestion here on the fact that there are two ways that you could define this. You could define it by making a definition so narrow that in effect the legislation picks winners and losers. Or you could write statutory law that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the driver of what is strategic. That means the marketplace is the one, then, that decides what is strategic. I think that's a much better approach because when I talk about this, I recall hearing that in the late 1890s the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--and I could be off a little bit--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent Office because everything that has been invented, has been invented. This is in the 1890s. This is before we were flying airplanes. This is before the car became commercially available. This means all the minerals that go into those things weren't even thought of at the time. So what we do then in this bill is just very straightforward. We say that the strategic minerals will meet these criteria. By the way, you can find this on page 5, section 3, ``Definitions'': (A) For national defense and national security. That is so self-evident, it hardly needs to be debated. Second: For the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining. That's from an energy standpoint. That certainly should not be debated because we have to have a good energy source if we're going to have a growing economy. And: (C) To support domestic manufacturing. Of course, that includes agriculture and housing. In other words, to support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of strategic minerals for that? Finally: (D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. That makes eminently good sense because we are seriously out of balance now with China, as has been brought up. So this approach is more of a long-term solution because I dare say that 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find that will be used for new technology. But if we have defined it so narrowly that we don't know what that technology is, we have in fact been picking winners and losers. That's the wrong approach. The right approach is what's embodied in this bill to say that these conditions will be the ones that will define strategic minerals. Finally, let me close on this: everybody likes to make fun of sand and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that after the earthquakes in northern and southern California, when the freeways collapsed, I can tell you very, very strategically that cement and sand and gravel fit that category. So under the conditions, I think this fits what we are attempting to do in the long term. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 28, 2013. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hastings, I am writing with respect to H.R. 761, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013,'' which the Committee on Natural Resources reported favorably. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 761 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 761, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration of H.R. 761. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment really picks up on what my arguments were at the end of the general debate because the effect of this amendment would be to pick winners and losers by narrowly defining a use. And as I stated in my closing remarks, we have four categories that I think are very broad and change over a period of time. So what this amendment does is try to restrict what may be decided as a critical mineral. Of course, that will change over time. If this amendment is adopted--and I, obviously, urge rejection of this amendment--but if it were to be adopted, I can make a prediction that I know would come back, and that is we'll be back here in the future saying there's another set of critical minerals that we need to define. And we keep doing that over and over and over. Isn't it much better to define the categories and then apply those minerals to those categories? Because they will change. I find it kind of interesting, too, Mr. Chairman, because I closed my general debate remarks by talking about sand and gravel. My good friend from southern California, I guess, alluded to the fact that sand and gravel don't fit into that category. I'm not going to ask him to answer me, but I'll just ask the question rhetorically, I wonder if he felt that way after the earthquake collapsed freeways in southern California. Would he have liked to wait maybe 4 years for the permitting process to get sand and gravel in order to build those freeways that are so important to southern California? I asked that question rhetorically, of course, Mr. Chairman. But I just want to say that this amendment would do exactly opposite of what the intent of this bill is about, and that is that it picks winners and losers. I urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. I think the gentleman from New Jersey did say this picks winners and losers--at least he didn't deny it--and then he tried to turn it around and say that we pick winners and losers. I will acknowledge that from this standpoint: the winners will be those States that have huge, huge swaths of Federal land. The winners will be the communities in those States that have large swaths of Federal land that want to create jobs, because jobs are created because of the natural resources in those States. So from that sense, yes, we are picking winners and losers, and, frankly, I am proud of that. But I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. In listening to my friend's argument on this, keep in mind what this bill does. This bill tries to provide certainty for those that would want to get into the mining business by saying that you have to have a decision made in 30 months. Now, the decision doesn't have to be affirmative, but there has to be a decision. What this gentleman is saying, what the effect of this amendment is, as I hear his argument, is there is one more layer we have to go through before it is strategic, and that's the Secretary of the Interior. Does that not suggest that that might be a political problem, then, rather than a problem based on what is needed? No. The four broad categories is a much, much better way to do it. I think the gentleman's amendment is misplaced. I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Clearly, with the last amendment and this amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really disturbed about what strategic is. I guess I can understand that. I obviously disagree with that. This is very similar to the last amendment, except it specifically gives the Secretary of the Interior that power to decide what is critical or not. Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think from a policy standpoint we should give that much power to anybody to say what is critical and not as far as minerals concerned that support our economy. Let me just give you a case in point of how we run into problems with this. Less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group metals used in computers and electronics and the pending shortfall of copper. So because we hadn't defined these broad categories--see, if we had this bill in place 10 years ago, this category would have taken care of itself because the market would have suggested we need new minerals in order to support a certain sector of the economy. But no, when you pick winners and losers, then you have to go through the whole process and the hand-wringing and the high prices and all of those things that slow down the economy. So, once again, in deference to my good friend that offered this amendment, in a bill that is trying to add certainty to the regulatory process, this adds another layer of uncertainty by giving it to the Secretary of the Interior. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is good policy. This goes along again with the last amendment. By voice vote, that was rejected. This should be rejected in a like manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be more than happy to tell you. And I made this. If you look on page five, under Definitions: Strategic and Critical Minerals. The term ``strategic and critical minerals'' means minerals that are necessary--and there's four categories--for national defense and national security requirements. I can't predict in 25 years which mineral will support our weapons, for example, but that is a category in which that would be a critical mineral. B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production. Now, I have no idea what, in the future, critical minerals we will need to support those activities, but I know before wind and solar took hold, nobody was worrying about those minerals. But this category, if you had it by category, you would not have to go through the hand-wringing to find out where that source is. C, to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, health care, and transportation infrastructure.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?