Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with sadness in the aftermath of a terrible act of violence that took the lives of three innocent victims and injured nine others in my hometown of Colorado Springs, Colorado, last Friday. Among those lives that were tragically lost was Iraq war veteran and father of two, Ke'Arre Stewart; wife and mother of two, Jennifer Markovsky; and University of Colorado-Colorado Springs police officer, husband, father of two and the pastor at Hope Chapel, Garrett Swasey, who bravely rushed to the scene to help save others. Officer Swasey immediately left his own jurisdiction and rushed to the scene when he got word that an officer was down. These three innocent individuals and their families, friends, and loved ones were the victims of senseless violence. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the brave first responders and law enforcement officers who responded on that day. Their heroism prevented a bad situation from being so much worse. I would also like to thank everyone for their outpouring of support and prayers for Colorado Springs. We are a resilient and supportive community that will come together and will pull through this tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand with me and my colleagues from the Colorado delegation and with the community of Colorado Springs for a moment of silence and to reflect upon the lives that were lost and to pray for their families and loved ones.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBORN. We support the amendment and commend the author for offering it.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind us all that America has a plentiful supply of rare earth elements, but there are roadblocks to developing them, such that China produces 97 percent of the world's supply and there are at least 19 unique minerals that the U.S. has zero supply of. So if we continue the current regime of 7 to 10 years to permit a mine project--and that is what will happen if we don't pass this bill-- then we are going to be dependent on other countries and automobile and all kinds of manufacturing will be affected. The 2014 ranking of countries for mining investment, out of the 25 major mining companies, found that the delays that we have in this country are the worst in the world; yet, we have such tremendous resources if we were only to use them. So I think this bill is a good faith and reasonable effort to strike the balance between proper environmental protection by keeping functional equivalence and, yet, producing the minerals that will give us the jobs we need. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble understanding where this amendment is headed and what it is really trying to do. If I understand correctly, it proposes to limit export of strategic and critical minerals if the supply of those minerals is greater than 80 percent of domestic demand. As I am trying to figure that out, one thing that jumps out at me is why is 80 percent a significant milestone? It seems sort of plucked out of thin air. It seems arbitrary. How would you measure and find that 80 percent of something that is used in many ways around the country, I am not sure how that would be done, by advertising in national newspapers or something? I am just a little unsure. Also, the amendment appears to be internally inconsistent. On one hand, the amendment seeks to prevent the use of the bill's provisions if the supply is greater than 80 percent of domestic demands. On the other hand, the amendment says that the project proponent cannot show that production exceeds 80 percent of domestic demand, the project proponent must advertise that fact in a national newspaper, trade publications, or Web site. I am just a little confused as to what this amendment is really trying to get at. But it does seem to be, in the final analysis, a continuation of the overregulation that has produced this problem in the first place. We have so many regulatory obstacles to producing minerals that it does take 7 to 10 years. Now, if you take a certain slice out of that process, it may sound like a smaller period of time. But when you add in litigation and everything else that accompanies the process, it is literally 7 to 10 years, especially for hardrock mine projects that produce rare earth minerals and things like that. There might be a few exceptions for clay or other items that are of less concern, but for hardrock mining, there is no way to avoid the 7 to 10 years, unfortunately, in our country today. This would be another example of the kind of regulation that just gums up the whole process. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the rejection of this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), who is also a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, much has been debated here on the floor about what is strategic and what is not strategic. Let me suggest two ways that you could define strategic minerals. You could define it by making a definition so narrow that, in effect, the legislation picks winners and losers or you could write law that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the driver of what is strategic and critical. That means the marketplace will decide what is strategic and critical. I think that is a much better approach when I talk about this because I recall hearing that, in the late 1890s, the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--I think I have this correct here--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent Office because everything that can be invented has been invented. That was in the 1890s. That was before airplanes. That was before cars were commercially available. That was before most telecommunications. This means all the minerals that go into these things weren't even thought of at that time. What we do in this bill is just very straightforward. We say that the strategic and critical minerals will meet any of the following four criteria--and, by the way, you can find these on page 5, section 3, under ``Definitions'': A, for national defense and national security. That is so evident, it hardly needs to be debated. B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines and refining. That is because of the importance of energy. That certainly should not be debated because we have to have a good energy source if we are going to have a growing economy. Also, C, to support domestic manufacturing. That includes, obviously, agriculture and housing as well. In other words, to support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of strategic and critical minerals for that? Finally, D, for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. That makes such good sense because we are seriously out of balance now with China. This approach is more of a long-term solution because 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, as the other side would suggest, that we don't know what that technology is, we have, in fact, been picking winners and losers, and that is the wrong approach. The right approach is what is embodied in this bill to say that these four conditions will be the ones that define strategic and critical minerals. Finally, let me close on this: Some people make fun of sand and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that, after a major earthquake in northern or southern California, when the freeways collapse, I can tell you that cement and sand and gravel will absolutely fit that definition. In this bill, strategic and critical minerals are not defined, as some have suggested, as all minerals all the time. Instead, H.R. 1937 allows any mineral to be deemed strategic and critical at a given time when the appropriate situation warrants it. This is vital to protecting our economy, our jobs, and our way of life. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would urge rejection of this amendment because it would make the permitting process for critical and strategic minerals even worse than it currently is. It is already 7 to 10 or more years. It is dead last in the 25 major mineral-producing countries in the world, according to that recent study we cited earlier. This amendment would strike several key sections of the bill, including the NEPA provisions, the expedited schedule provision, the time limit provision, and the applicability of this law to existing permit application provision. First, this amendment seeks to remove the NEPA provisions. Our provision does not sidestep or avoid the NEPA process in any way; rather, it codifies a judicial determination for NEPA known as the functional equivalence doctrine. This doctrine provides that, when an agency action, whether State or Federal, has addressed the substantive requirements of NEPA, such action may be substituted as sufficient rather than having to prepare an entirely new and duplicative environmental study. This amendment rejects the functional equivalence doctrine and mandates that the issuance of every mineral exploration or mine permit constitutes a ``major Federal action,'' thereby requiring the development of costly and time-consuming environmental impact statements, regardless of a proposed project's size. Furthermore, this amendment strikes the provisions of the bill that requires the authorizing agency to develop a schedule for the permit process, and it removes the 30-month time constraints that would be put on said authorizing agency. In other words, it restores the current 7- to 10-year permit process that plagues the mining industry and the production of jobs and the growth of our economy. Let me mention one thing about automobile manufacturing in particular. An automobile contains rare earths for magnets, copper, aluminum, platinum, and many other critical minerals and elements. According to Rare Earth Technology Alliance, the average hybrid car contains 61 pounds of rare earth metals. So it is important that we pass this bill. This amendment unfortunately guts the bill. I would urge opposition to it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a senior member of the Natural Resources Committee. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Bishop and Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee on this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, 28 July 2015. Hon. Robert Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 9, 2015, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered favorably report H.R. 1937, National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on the Judiciary. I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support having the Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered by the House. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and for your continued strong cooperation between our committees. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out to my friend and colleague from California that the National Research Council study has said: ``All minerals and mineral products could be or could become critical to some degree depending on their importance and availability.'' So you have to look at the total circumstances surrounding the current supply of a mineral and what that mineral is, and they all, literally, could fit that definition according to the National Research Council. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), my colleague, who is also the vice chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Silver State, Nevada (Mr. Amodei), a former member of the Committee on Natural Resources and the author of this bill.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1937, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015. This bill was introduced by my good friend and colleague, Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada, and myself as the first cosponsor. 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 BlackBerries, no iPhones. There would be no MRIs, CAT scans, 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 and strategic minerals that make our lives 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 critical materials have resulted in China producing 97 percent of the world's supply. That is 97 percent. Our current policies are handing China a monopoly on these elements, creating a dependence that has serious implications for American jobs, for 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, such as China, for these raw materials. The lack of domestically produced strategic and critical minerals are prime examples of how the U.S. has regulated itself into a 100 percent dependency on at least 19 critical and unique minerals. It has also earned the United States the unique and unfortunate distinction of being ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects. The 2014 ranking of countries for mining investment out of 25 major mining countries found that the 7- to 10-year permitting delays are the most significant risk to mining projects in the U.S. We are dead last in that ranking. I can't speak for the other countries, but the reason the U.S. is so slow to issue new mining permits is very simple: government bureaucracy. H.R. 1937, introduced by my colleague from Nevada, will help us end 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 for the total review process for permitting at 30 months, 2\1/2\ years. 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 lives and for our national security. No company can reasonably forecast the price of minerals 10 years in advance. Finally, above all, this is a Jobs bill. The positive economic impact of this bill will extend beyond just the mining industry. For every good-paying metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3 additional jobs are generated. 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 a U.S. mining renaissance that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back. The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, H.R. 1937, is important to our jobs and to our economy. We must act now to cut the Government red tape that is stopping American domestic production and furthering our dependence on foreign countries for our mineral needs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a procedural motion designed to slow down consideration of this important jobs bill. It is a purely procedural motion, not a substantive motion. I urge us to reject the motion. It is important to pass this bill. Right now it takes 7 to 10 years to approve a mining project in the U.S. Mr. Speaker, this is dead last among major mining countries. The critical and strategic minerals we mine in this country go into vital infrastructure and manufacturing to improve our way of life. Mr. Speaker, when we use American resources to create American jobs, we reduce our dependency on foreign countries like China. This bill will reduce bureaucratic red tape, speed up the legal and permitting process, and create certainty so that mining projects will stay here in America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support H.R. 1937 to use American resources for American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.