Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from New Jersey. He talked about section 102. Section 101, which is the basis of all this really, talks about what the President did with his executive order, by improving performance of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects. Now, we are simply duplicating what the President has already said is okay in other areas. With that, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from New Jersey disparaged, I guess, sand and gravel. Madam Chairman, I would point out to you that I think, after the earthquakes in northern California, when roads collapsed, and after the earthquakes in southern California, when the roads collapsed, and when the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, I have to believe that those people felt that sand and gravel were very critical minerals at that time. That's why this bill is broad in its definition of ``critical minerals.'' With that, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this amendment attempts to pick which minerals are winners and losers in the Federal permitting sweepstakes. The underlying bill that we are talking about focuses on the permitting of mines that meet four clear categories of domestic need--and this is important--national security, energy infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and our national economic balance of trade. The amendment would restrict these down to just a 2008 study done by the National Research Council that took a limited and narrow look at only the aerospace, the electronic, and automotive industries when considering each mineral critical. However--and this is important, Madam Chairman--the report also states: All minerals and mineral products could be or could become critical to some degree, depending on their importance and availability. The criticality of a specific mineral can and likely will change as production technologies evolve and new products are developed. The definition of the strategic and critical minerals in H.R. 4402 is written broadly--we acknowledge that--to allow for the most flexibility when carrying out the provisions of this act. Less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group metals used for computer and electronics and the pending shortfall of copper availability. Today, the focus is primarily on the availability of rare Earth elements and rare Earth metals that are in China. Tomorrow, the shortage could be lithium for batteries, silica for solar panels, and any of a host of other minerals. Interestingly, in this talk of sand and gravel, during the U.S. Geological Survey's great shakeout in California, which simulated a massive earthquake and the problems that could be faced, they discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials--sand and gravel, Madam Chairman--if there were a major earthquake causing significant damage in the L.A. basin and the surrounding areas. I think that would be very critical if that were to happen. It happened in the last 25 years, twice in California and once in Minnesota. Mineral production is a key economic activity supplying strategic and critical metals and minerals essential for agriculture, communication, technology, construction, health care, manufacturing, transportation, and the arts. More specifically, strategic metals and metal alloys are an integral component of aerospace, defense, and other critical infrastructure. Minerals, Madam Chairman, are also necessary to satisfy the basic requirements of an individual's well-being, and that includes food, clothing, shelter and a clean and healthy environment. So we should not limit ourselves today by narrowly defining what is strategic and critical. That's precisely what this amendment does, and I think that's a wrong approach. So, with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote. Madam Chairman, I understand that the gentleman yielded back his time; is that correct?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, for the record, Madam Chair, natural gas is not affected at all by this bill. Madam Chair, I will submit for the Record excerpts from the March 2012 Report to Congress by the Department of Defense on the rare Earth materials in defense applications on national security dependence on a secure supply of high-tech critical minerals. Madam Chairwoman, my colleagues have talked about the fact that this administration claims that mining permitting timelines have been reduced. Yet this President has been in office now for 40 months, and while they are filing WTO complaints against China on rare Earth minerals, they have yet to permit one rare Earth mine here in America, and there doesn't seem like there's any on the horizon that will get approval. I want to also talk about one other thing, Madam Chairman. President Obama has been giving a lot of speeches claiming support for insourcing jobs to the United States from foreign nations. Currently, our Nation is dependent on foreign nations such as China and India for critical materials that American manufacturers and our economy depend upon. This bill will help reverse this dependency and insource these good-paying jobs right here to the United States. Yet the official position of the Obama administration is that they strongly oppose this jobs bill. Not only will this bill help create mining jobs in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and many other States, it will also help produce the critical materials and minerals that American manufacturers need and that millions of jobs depend on in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So President Obama can give speech after speech claiming support for insourcing jobs, but when he should take action to make that happen, the Obama administration essentially goes the other way, as he has done with this bill. Once again, Madam Chairman, this bill simply says that in a given time period there should be a decision made. It doesn't say it should be a positive or negative, but that a decision should be made. That's all. And when we're dealing with materials that are so important to our economy and to American jobs, we should be very much in favor of this legislation. For that reason, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4402, and I yield back the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I note for the Record excerpts from the March 2012 Report to Congress by the Department of Defense on the Rare Earth Materials in Defense Applications on national security dependence on a secure supply of high-tech critical minerals. Assessment of Rare Earth Materials Supply Chain A. Introduction This report is prepared pursuant to section 843 the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) and Senate Report 111-201, accompanying S. 3454, page 174. The Act requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the supply and demand for rare earth materials in defense applications and Senate Report 111-201 requests discussion of national security issues related to rare earth materials in the defense supply chain. C. Congressionally Mandated Assessment Criteria In section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, Congress mandated that the Department assess which, if any, of the rare earth materials meet the following two criteria: Criterion 1: ``The rare earth material is critical to the production, sustainment, or operation of significant United States military equipment.'' Criterion 2: ``The rare earth material is subject to interruption of supply, based on actions or events outside the control of the government of the United States.'' For each rare earth material that meets both criteria, section 843 requires a plan to ensure long-term availability, with a goal of establishing an assured source of supply of such material in critical defense applications by December 31, 2015. Section 843 states that the plan shall include consideration of risk mitigation methods and states that sintered neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) magnets meet the criteria for inclusion in the plan. F. Forecast of U.S. Supply vs. Key Defense Consumption--2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supply Consumption Surplus Deficit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dysprosium.................................................. 7 7 0 ........... Erbium...................................................... 1.2 1.14 0.056 ........... Europium.................................................... 21 11 10 ........... Gadolinium.................................................. 42 4 38 ........... Neodymium................................................... 2,232 110 2,122 ........... Praseodymium................................................ 824 14 810 ........... Yttrium..................................................... 26 119 ........... 93 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rare earth materials are widely used within the U.S. defense industrial base. Markets for rare earth materials are dominated by commercial end-uses, and the defense industrial base represents a small fraction of overall U.S. consumption. The seven rare earth elements in the preceding table are those which are the most prevalent among defense consumption for the purposes of procurement. The assessment determined that by 2013 U.S. production could satisfy the level of consumption required to meet defense procurement needs, with the exception of yttrium (estimates based on model using 2010 data). Since 2010, both expected DoD demand, and, more significantly, actual U.S. commercial demand have decreased significantly. As importantly, the U.S. and global market has responded to market conditions with new investments, corporate restructuring, and technical advances. All are trending positive for a market capable of meeting future U.S. Government demand. It is anticipated the domestic supply of REEs and rare-earth-containing products will continue to grow between now and 2015, and it will be possible for manufacturers within the defense industrial base to obtain some rare-earth-containing products from reliable foreign sources of supply. Despite the many positive developments that indicate an increasingly diverse and robust domestic and global supply chain for rare earth materials, the Department will continue to monitor these supply chains and take actions as indicated in the following sections. G. Dod's Recommended Plans to Assure Supplies of Rare Earth Materials The DoD plan for ensuring the long-term availability of rare earth materials applies a multi-pronged approach. The following options could be used in conjunction with existing DoD Defense Production Act Title I authorities (e.g., priority claim on U.S. supplies and foreign supplies that are imported into the United States): DoD will engage in continuous, rigorous monitoring of markets and production levels; DoD will undertake recurring reviews of defense industrial base materials supply chains; DoD will make preparations for the possible need to establish buffer stocks that are contractor-owned, U.S. Government-subsidized but not implemented unless certain predetermined marked indicators are met; and DoD will make preparations for the possible need to establish contingency measures to obtain vendor-managed inventories when pre-determined market and/or supply chain indicators occur. In addition to the elements of supply assurances in the plan above, the following methods will be considered during implementation of the DoD plan, as outlined in section 843: Assessment of available financing to industry, universities and not-for profits; Assessment of Defense Production Act benefits; Assessment of research and development funding for alternatives and substitutions; and Assessment of foreign trade practices with relevant U.S. Government components. H. Conclusions Rare earth materials are widely used within the defense industrial base. However, such end uses represent a small fraction of U.S. consumption. As a result, when looked at in isolation, the growing U.S. supply of these materials is increasingly capable of meeting the consumption of the defense industrial base. Over the past year, there have been a number of positive developments with regard to both supply and demand within the rare earth materials markets. Reactions to market forces have resulted in positive developments, such as prices decreasing by half from their peak levels in July 2011, increased investment and domestic supply of rare earth materials, corporate restructuring within the supply chain, and lower forecasts for non-Chinese consumption. By 2015, the Department believes this will help to stabilize overall markets and improve the availability of rare earth materials. The Department remains committed to pursuing a three- pronged approach to this important issue: diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and a focus on reclamation of waste as part of a larger U.S. Government recycling effort. In addition to the many positive developments that indicate an increasingly diverse and robust domestic and global supply chain for rare earth materials, the Department will continue to monitor these supply chains, prepare possible contingency plans for ensuring their availability, and implement such plans as appropriate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am simply saying that this underlying bill lays out four strategic areas in which we should have minerals to support those areas. And then we say there should be a timeframe, a defined timeframe, in which, unless there is an agreement it should be longer, activity should be done. It's pretty straightforward. This amendment, as offered, would very narrowly say what is critical. I think that's the wrong approach. So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this amendment would reverse course on the goal of this legislation to streamline red tape. This amendment could add an entire year to the time allowed for the government to make a decision on a permit. This would then drag out the process 40 percent longer than provided for in the underlying bill. The 30-month time period set by this legislation is accomplished by making government work more efficiently--and I, quite frankly, think that's what all Americans would like--by aligning some reviews and taking some actions concurrently. Establishing a simple deadline for the government to do their job in a timely fashion is reasonable, and I think it is reasonable. This is especially true since it doesn't change the standards and requirements that must be met to get approval. It simply provides that an agency work efficiently while still complying with all, and let me emphasize all, environmental laws and regulations, studies, consultations, draft and file documents--all of them--that are required in order for a final record of decision to be issued on a mine plan. All the same review, but just in 30 months instead of what has been taking, in many cases, over a decade. The underlying bill provides for flexibility on the 30-month permit timeline should a justifiable need arise for further analysis. Let me repeat: it allows for further time if that is needed. Yet this amendment would give a Federal agency an automatic excuse to prolong the process for a year, and there is no explanation that is needed. So this amendment presents bureaucracy with a ``drag your feet for free'' card. It would hand over another roll of red tape to the government and invite them to string up more obstacles and delay job creators from getting a straight answer. And keep in mind, the 30-month time period that we're talking about simply says ``an answer shall be given.'' It could be negative; it could be positive. This bill provides certainty for permit applicants by allowing the United States to be more competitive so that we can create more jobs here at home and produce more of the critical materials and minerals that are needed for our economy and therefore lessen our reliance on foreign sources. So I oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Florida, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. In response to my friend, the legislation says that both sides have to agree. I think that's a good way. The gentleman says that there's no evidence of that. Well, there's no evidence that the contrary would work either. So, to give more time--again, what we have heard over and over and over, and especially those Members and the author of this legislation who comes from a State that is heavily in the mining industry, the uncertainty is what the problem is. What this legislation does is provide certainty but flexibility. Now, I think that makes sense. If you probably walk to Main Street anyplace in America and said this is what the option is of a 30-month time period rather than up to 10 or more years, they would say, yeah, I think certainty makes a great deal of sense. So this amendment offered by my good friend from Florida I think extends it, doesn't need to be there, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this amendment is directly contrary to the intent of this bill that would create new jobs in the United States and ensure a stable domestic supply of the critical minerals that are so important to our economy. This amendment would impose an entirely new, retroactive fee on mining operations on Federal lands. It would impose a royalty that would be one of the highest of any country in the world and, thus, would probably drive more mining jobs overseas and put American manufacturing, once again, at risk. In the past, when we've had this issue in front of the Natural Resources Committee, we've had Democrat witnesses that have testified that an 8 percent gross royalty was unprecedented in the world and would not make economic sense, and yet this amendment is talking about a 12.5 percent gross royalty. In 2006, the World Bank report cautioned against gross royalty approaches as compared to ability-to-pay or profit-based approaches. Madam Chair, let me quote directly from that report: Nations should carefully weigh the immediate fiscal rewards to be granted from high levels of royalty against the long- term benefits to be gained from a sustainable mining industry that will contribute to long-term development, infrastructure, and economic diversification. So they argue directly against this type of approach. Let us keep our focus on what is important here today. We are dependent on foreign sources for minerals that sustain our economy. We all know that the more you tax something, the less you get. That's what this approach is. I could take the gentleman's, my good friend from Massachusetts, math that he had out there and change it a little bit and say this is where there would be a lot of job losses if this amendment were adopted and this were to become law, because that's the area that would be affected, the Western part of the United States. So, Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, who has the right to close on this amendment?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Once again, as that map is moving away, that's where the jobs would go if you add a gross tax to this activity. Let me point out just an economic issue here. Like oil and gas, probably not quite the same, you really don't know if there's any minerals in the ground until you dig. And if you put a royalty of 12\1/ 2\ percent, you are going to discourage that activity. What does that mean? When you discourage that activity, it means the potential for job creation and mineral production in this country goes away. Now, if that's the intent of some in this country and maybe some on the other side, okay, be honest about it. I don't think that's the right approach, so I would urge my colleagues to reject this gross tax amendment. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?