19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–583 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS 

PRODUCTION ACT OF 2012 

JULY 9, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4402] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4402) 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 United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness, 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 of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The industrialization of China and India has driven demand for nonfuel 

mineral commodities, sparking a period of resource nationalism exemplified by 

China’s reduction in exports of rare-earth elements 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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

(3) The exploration, production, processing, use, and recycling of minerals contribute significantly to the economic well-being, security and general welfare of 

the Nation. 

(4) The United States has vast mineral resources, but is becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of these mineral materials, as demonstrated by the following: 

(A) Twenty-five years ago the United States was dependent on foreign 

sources for 30 nonfuel mineral materials, 6 of which the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation’s requirements, and for another 16 commodities the United States imported more than 60 percent of the Nation’s 

needs. 

(B) By 2011 the United States import dependence for nonfuel mineral 

materials had more than doubled from 30 to 67 commodities, 19 of which 

the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation’s requirements, and 

for another 24 commodities, imported more than 50 percent of the Nation’s 

needs. 

(C) The United States share of world wide mineral exploration dollars 

was 8 percent in 2011, down from 19 percent in the early 1990s. 

(D) In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment, out of 25 

major mining countries, the United States ranked last with Papua New 

Guinea in permitting delays, and towards the bottom regarding government 

take and social issues affecting mining. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS.—The term ‘‘strategic and critical minerals’’ means minerals that are necessary— 

(A) for national defense and national security requirements; 

(B) for the Nation’s energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy 

production; 

(C) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation infrastructure; and 

(D) for the Nation’s economic security and balance of trade. 

(2) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ means any agency, department, or other unit 

of Federal, State, local, or tribal government, or Alaska Native Corporation. 

(3) MINERAL EXPLORATION OR MINE PERMIT.—The term ‘‘mineral exploration 

or mine permit’’ includes plans of operation issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and 36 CFR 228A 

respectively. 

TITLE I—DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC 

SOURCES OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL 

MINERALS 

SEC. 101. IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS. 

Domestic mines that will provide strategic and critical minerals shall be considered an ‘‘infrastructure project’’ as described in Presidential Order ‘‘Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects’’ dated March 

22, 2012. 

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit shall appoint a project lead who shall coordinate and consult 

with other agencies, cooperating agencies, project proponents and contractors to ensure that agencies minimize delays, set and adhere to timelines and schedules for 

completion of reviews, set clear permitting goals and track progress against those 

goals. 

(b) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine 

permit shall determine any such action would not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the procedural and substantive 

safeguards of the lead agency’s permitting process alone, any applicable State permitting process alone, or a combination of the two processes together provide an 

adequate mechanism to ensure that environmental factors are taken into account. 

(c) The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine 

permit shall enhance government coordination on permitting and review by avoiding 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

duplicative reviews, minimizing paperwork and engaging other agencies and stakeholders early in the process. The lead agency shall consider the following best practices: 

(1) Deferring to and relying upon baseline data, analysis and reviews 

preformed by State agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project. 

(2) Conducting reviews concurrently rather than sequentially to the extent 

practicable and when such concurrent review will expedite rather than delay a 

decision. 

(d) At the request of a project proponent, the project lead of the agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit shall enter into an 

agreement with the project proponent and other cooperating agencies that sets time 

limits for each part of the permit review process including the following: 

(1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

(2) A determination of the scope of any document required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

(3) The scope of and schedule for the baseline studies required to prepare a 

document required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

(4) Preparation of any draft document required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

(5) Preparation of a final document required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

(6) Consultations required under applicable laws. 

(7) Submission and review of any comments required under applicable law. 

(8) Publication of any public notices required under applicable law. 

(9) A final or any interim decisions. 

(e) In no case should the total review process described in subsection (d) exceed 

30 months unless agreed to by the signatories of the agreement. 

(f) The lead agency is not required to address agency or public comments that 

were not submitted during the public comment periods provided by the lead agency 

or otherwise required by law. 

(g) The lead agency will determine the amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a mineral exploration or mining site, which must 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. 

SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE. 

In developing the mineral exploration or mine permit, the priority of the lead 

agency shall be to maximize the development of the mineral resource, while mitigating environmental impacts, so that more of the mineral resource can be brought 

to the market place. 

SEC. 104. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINING 

PROJECTS. 

(a) PREPARATION OF FEDERAL NOTICES FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—The preparation of Federal Register notices required by law 

associated with the issuance of a mineral exploration or mine permit shall be delegated to the organization level within the agency responsible for issuing the mineral 

exploration or mine permit. All Federal Register notices regarding official document 

availability, announcements of meetings, or notices of intent to undertake an action 

shall be originated and transmitted to the Federal Register from the office where 

documents are held, meetings are held, or the activity is initiated. 

(b) DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINING PROJECTS.—Absent any extraordinary circumstance or except 

as otherwise required by any Act of Congress, each Federal Register notice described in subsection (a) shall undergo any required reviews within the Department 

of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture and be published in its final form 

in the Federal Register no later than 30 days after its initial preparation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

TITLE II—JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS RELATING TO EXPLORATION AND 

MINE PERMITS 

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE. 

In this title the term ‘‘covered civil action’’ means a civil action containing a claim 

under section 702 of title 5, United States Code, regarding agency action affecting 

a mineral exploration or mine permit. 

SEC. 202. TIMELY FILINGS. 

A covered civil action is barred unless filed no later than the end of the 60-day 

period beginning on the date of the final Federal agency action to which it relates. 

SEC. 203. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION. 

The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered civil action as expeditiously as possible. 

SEC. 204. LIMITATION ON PROSPECTIVE RELIEF. 

In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further 

than necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that violation. 

SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES. 

Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of title 28, United States 

Code (together commonly called the Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to a 

covered civil action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action receive payment from the Federal Government for their attorneys’ fees, expenses, and other 

court costs. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4402, as ordered reported, 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 United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012, addresses the most significant roadblock to mineral exploration and development in the United States: permitting 

timelines. Currently the average timeframe for acquiring permits 

for domestic mine development on federal lands takes an average 

of seven to ten years. This needless delay puts the United States 

at a competitive disadvantage with other mineral rich countries 

and leaves the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of minerals 

and mined materials, including rare earth elements. Today the 

U.S. is almost 100 percent dependent on China for rare earth elements, even though the U.S. has economic deposits of these mineral resources and at one time had the largest market share in the 

world. H.R. 4402 builds on successful highway legislation and Administrative guidance on permitting procedures for infrastructure 

and renewable energy projects by requiring the lead agency to coordinate and effectively communicate with all cooperating agencies, 

project proponents and other stakeholders. Furthermore, the bill 

eliminates duplicative analysis, provides for timely filings for litigants, and allows 30 months for the lead agency to prepare, consider and reach a decision on permitting for mine development. 

In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment, the 

United States ranked with Papua New Guinea as last out of 25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

major mining countries in permitting delays, and towards the bottom regarding taxes, fees and social issues affecting mining. Permitting timelines for hard rock mines on federal land take the 

longest of the 25 mineral producing nations. On average it can take 

seven to ten years or more to acquire all of the permits and to work 

through litigation brought by environmental groups. 

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 are also necessary to satisfy 

the basic requirements of an individual’s well-being: food, clothing, 

shelter, and a clean, healthy environment. 

Mining of mineral resources creates tangible value, introducing 

new money into the nation’s economic system. Additional tangible 

value is added to the raw mined product through manufacturing, 

construction, and other uses. Harvesting domestic mineral resources contributes to local economies, creates jobs, and benefits 

our nation’s overall economic security. 

According to the National Research Council, one of the primary 

advantages the United States possesses over its strongest industrial competitors is its domestic resource base. The United States 

is among the world’s largest producers of many important metals 

and minerals, particularly copper, gold, lead, molybdenum, silver, 

and zinc, and it still has substantial domestic reserves of these 

metals. Yet U.S. mineral exploration stagnated or declined during 

most of the 1990s and 2000s while global mineral exploration 

trends were strongly positive. 

In the early 1990s, the U.S. received 20 percent of the worldwide 

mineral exploration budget; today it hovers around 8 percent. 

Without increased domestic exploration, significant declines in U.S. 

mineral production are unavoidable as present reserves are exhausted. The lack of exploration expenditures and other factors described below has led to an increased import dependency for nonfuel mineral materials. For example 25 years ago the United States 

was dependent on foreign sources for 30 non-fuel mineral materials, six of which were entirely imported to meet the nation’s requirements and another 16 of which were imported to meet more 

than 60 percent of the nation’s needs. By 2011, the U.S. import dependence for non-fuel mineral materials had more than doubled 

from 30 to 67 commodities, 19 of which the U.S. imported 100 percent of the nation’s requirements and for another 24 commodities 

more than 50 percent of the Nation’s needs (see Appendix I). 

Working through the permitting process also became more cumbersome, as federal and state agencies with land management and 

regulatory responsibilities over mineral exploration and development projects worked at cross purposes to one another. Legal challenges to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses by 

anti-mining groups also contributed to the delays and uncertainties 

in obtaining the necessary permits for exploration and development. 

For example, a recent (July 2011) analysis of the time required 

for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare NEPA Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Supplemental EnvironVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:08 Jul 10, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR583P1.XXX HR583P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

mental Impact Statements (SEIS) for mine expansion projects in 

Nevada, compiled by a mine permitting consultant using data from 

BLM EIS documents and district office websites, found that the average elapsed time for EIS documents for 11 projects was 53 

months and the average elapsed time for SEIS documents for 6 

projects was 27 months. These EIS and SEIS documents were for 

expansion of operations at existing active mine sites, not virgin 

mine project areas with little existing surface disturbance. 

Currently the United States lacks a coherent national policy to 

assure domestic availability of minerals essential for national economic well-being, national security, and global economic competitiveness. The nation’s dependence on China for rare-earth elements 

and rare metals, elements necessary for telecommunications, military technologies, health-care technologies, and conventional and 

renewable energy technologies, is the most prominent example. The 

United States recently joined with Japan and the European Union 

to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization over China’s 

policy of restricting exports of these important mineral resources, 

resources that we have in economic quantities in our own country. 

H.R. 4402 deliberately contains a broad definition of ‘‘strategic 

and critical minerals’’ to allow for the greatest flexibility over time. 

In 2006, prior to the world-wide economic downturn, there was 

great concern over the future availability of platinum group metals 

and copper. At the time, projections in the demand for copper indicated that by 2016 30 large-scale copper deposits would have to 

come on line to meet world-wide demand; there were not enough 

copper deposits in the pipeline to make up for the projected demand curve. The economic downturn in 2008 and the delayed economic recovery have pushed the 2016 copper supply demand 

threshold further into the future. 

Even sand and gravel and other construction mineral materials 

can be in short supply or not available, as the United States Geological Survey discovered in 2009 during the ‘‘Great California 

Shakeout,’’ the first simulated major earthquake emergency response exercise conducted in Southern California. In its assessment 

of the scope of damage and the materials needed for reconstruction, 

the agency discovered there were not enough sand and gravel and 

other construction materials available in the region to meet the affected area’s needs. 

In the current mineral commodity market environment, most 

people are focused on rare earths and China’s restriction on the exports of those metals. Consequently, they want to restrict the definition of ‘‘strategic and critical minerals’’ to only include rare 

earths and a small number of other commodities. However, any 

mineral commodity can be in short supply at any given time and 

the United States needs to have the flexibility to allow for access 

to and development of those commodities that occur in economic 

quantities in this country. 

Finally, the President has recognized the problems associated 

with long permitting time-frames for infrastructure and renewable 

energy projects and has issued guidance documents requiring coordination and timely processing of permits to be issued by federal 

agencies with regulatory responsibilities for the project proponents 

to be able to begin construction in a timely manner. This legislation builds on this precedent set by the Administration by applying 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

the principles outlined in the guidance documents to mineral exploration and development projects. 

During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 4402, Congressman 

Mark Amodei (R–NV) offered a technical amendment to Title 1 of 

Section 102, which was adopted by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4402 was introduced on April 19, 2012, by Congressman 

Mark Amodei (R–NV). The bill was primarily referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The bill was also 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On April 26, 2012, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on 

the bill. On May 16, 2012, the Full Natural Resources Committee 

met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman 

Amodei offered amendment designated .001 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Rau ́l Grijalva (D– 

AZ) offered amendment designated .003 to the bill; the amendment 

was not adopted by voice vote. Congressman Paul Tonko (D–NY) 

offered amendment designated .001 to the bill; the amendment was 

not adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote of 12 to 19, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HR583P1.001
9 

Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated 

Markey.004 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote of 10 to 24, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here HR583P1.002
11 

The bill, as amended, was then adopted and ordered favorably 

reported to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call 

vote of 24 to 12, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HR583P1.003
13 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

The title of the bill is the ‘‘National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 finds that the industrialization of China and India has 

driven demand for non-fuel mineral commodities, sparking a period 

of resource nationalism exemplified by China’s reduction in exports 

of rare-earth elements, elements necessary for telecommunications, 

military technologies, health-care technologies, and conventional 

and renewable energy technologies. 

Further, the availability of minerals and metals are essential for 

economic growth, national security, technological innovation, and 

the manufacturing and agricultural supply chain. 

Finally, in the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment, 

out of 25 major mining countries, the United States ranked last 

with Papua New Guinea in permitting delays, and towards the bottom regarding government take and social issues affecting mining. 

Section 3. Definitions 

This section defines ‘‘strategic and critical minerals’’ as those 

that are necessary for national defense and national security requirements; for the nation’s energy infrastructure including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production; to support domestic 

manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, healthcare and transportation infrastructure; and for the nation’s economic security and balance of trade. 

Title I. Development of Domestic Sources of Strategic and 

Critical Minerals 

Section 101. Improving development of strategic and critical minerals 

Section 101 states that those domestic mines that provide strategic or critical minerals shall be treated as an ‘‘infrastructure 

project’’ as laid out in the President’s Executive Order ‘‘Improving 

Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure 

Projects,’’ dated March 22, 1012. 

Section 102. Responsibilities of the lead agency 

This section outlines responsibilities for the lead agency responsible for issuing mineral exploration or mine permits. Specifically, 

these include the identification of a project lead to coordinate with 

stakeholders, cooperating agencies and project proponents to minimize delays, set and adhere to timelines and schedules for completion of reviews, to establish clear permitting goals and to track 

progress in meeting those goals. 

It also provides for some NEPA relief if the lead agency and/or 

state agency have procedural and substantive safeguards built into 

their permitting process to ensure that environmental safeguards 

are taken into account. Further, it requires the lead agency to enhance government coordination on permitting and review by avoidVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:38 Jul 10, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR583P1.XXX HR583P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

ing duplicative reviews, minimizing paperwork and engaging other 

agencies and stakeholders early in the process. 

In addition, a project proponent can request that the project lead 

enter into an agreement that lays out a timeline for permit review 

process. The review process cannot exceed more than 30 months 

unless the signatories to the agreement agree to an extension of 

time. The lead agency only has to address agency or public comments that were submitted during any public comment period. 

Lastly, this section restates current bonding requirements. 

Section 103. Conservation of the resource 

Section 103 contains a ‘‘conservation of the resource’’ provision, 

providing that the responsibility of the lead agency is to maximize 

the development of the resource, while mitigating for environmental impacts so that more of the mineral resource can be 

brought to the marketplace. 

Section 104. Federal Register process for mineral exploration and 

mining projects 

This section reforms the process currently practiced by the Department of the Interior for placing and reviewing Federal Register 

notices for mineral exploration and mining projects that currently 

adds months and even years to the permitting process. 

Title II. Judicial Review of Agency Actions Relating to Exploration 

and Mining Permits 

Section 201. Definitions for title 

Section 201 defines ‘‘covered civil action’’ as one containing a 

claim under section 702 of title 5, United States Code, regarding 

agency action affecting a mineral exploration or mine permit. 

Sec. 202. Timely filings 

This section provides a 60-day window for parties to file a civil 

action affecting a covered civil action. 

Section 203. Expedition in hearing and determining the action 

Section 203 requires the court to hear and determine any covered 

action as expeditiously as possible. 

Section 204. Limitation on prospective relief. 

This section limits prospective relief unless the relief is narrowly 

drawn, is necessary to correct a violation of a legal requirement 

and is the least intrusive means to correct the violation. 

Section 205. Limitation on attorneys’ fees 

Section 205 provides that civil actions under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act are not allowed for covered civil actions and the federal 

government cannot pay for attorney’s fees, expenses or court costs. 

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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4402—National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production 

Act of 2012 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4402 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill could reduce mandatory payments for attorneys’ fees over the 2013–2022 

period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO 

estimates that any such impacts would be minimal. Enacting the 

bill would not affect revenues. 

The bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and the Forest Service to take certain actions aimed at streamlining the process for obtaining permits to extract minerals from 

federal lands. Based on information from the affected agencies, 

CBO estimates that the streamlining provisions would have no significant budgetary effect because those agencies are performing 

most of those activities under current law. The bill also would direct the agencies to expedite the publishing of notices in the Federal Register related to mineral exploration and mining projects. 

Based on information provided by BLM, CBO estimates that implementing that provision would cost less than $300,000 a year, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Those funds would 

be used to hire additional employees to allow the affected agencies 

to meet the timelines established in the bill. 

Finally, H.R. 4402 would exempt lawsuits that affect mineral 

production on federal lands from the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

Based on information from the Government Accountability Office, 

CBO estimates that over the next 10 years, the U.S. Treasury will 

make payments totaling less than $50,000 a year on behalf of the 

Department of the Interior and the Forest Service as a result of 

such lawsuits. Thus, we estimate that enacting the bill would result in a minimal decrease in direct spending for attorneys’ fees 

over the 2013–2022 period. 

H.R. 4402 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4402 

would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting 

the bill could reduce mandatory payments for attorneys’ fees over 

the 2013–2022 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

However, CBO estimates that any such impacts would be minimal. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, 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 United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. 

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. 

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 in existing law. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(17) 

APPENDIX I 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR583P1.004
(19) 

APPENDIX II: COMMITTEE LETTERS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, June 14, 2012. 

HanD–delivered. 

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. 

4402, the ‘‘National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act 

of 2012,’’ which the Committee on Natural Resources reported favorably, as amended, on May 16, 2012. As a result of your having 

consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 4402 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. 4402 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 HouseSenate 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. 4402, 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. 4402. 

Sincerely, 

LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, June 14, 2012. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act 

of 2012. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered 

reported the bill by a bipartisan vote on May 16, 2012. I appreciate 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

your support in bringing this legislation before the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand that the Committee on 

the Judiciary will forego action on the bill. 

The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual 

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4402 at this 

time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. 

In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would 

support your request to have the Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased 

to include your letter and this response in the bill report filed by 

the Committee on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

DOC HASTINGS, Chairman. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(21) 

APPENDIX III: DISSENTING VIEWS 

DISSENTING VIEWS—H.R. 4402: NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL

MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2012 

We oppose H.R. 4402 because despite the bill’s title, it has almost 

nothing to do with rare earths and other strategic and critical minerals. In fact, under the guise of promoting the development of 

minerals critical to U.S. national security, this legislation would 

dramatically reshape virtually all mining on public lands for nearly 

all minerals. 

H.R. 4402 is so broadly drafted that it would reduce or eliminate 

proper review under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for almost all types of mines on public lands—including 

hardrock mines such as silver and uranium; it could limit proper 

review of mines for minerals that are not remotely critical such as 

sand or gravel and it would even potentially apply to coal mines. 

There is virtually no type of mine that would be excluded from the 

truncated environmental review envisioned by this bill, where the 

mining industry, rather than the Interior Department, would be 

able to determine the time available for important environmental 

reviews. 

Moreover, according to Natural Resources Democratic staff analysis of data provided by the BLM for hardrock mines on public 

lands for which we have complete data, the average time it takes 

to approve a plan of operation for a mine has actually decreased 

under the Obama Administration. According to the BLM data, 

plans of operation for hardrock mines are being approved roughly 

17 percent more quickly under the Obama Administration than 

under the Bush Administration. Despite industry claims, 82 percent of plans of operation are approved within three years under 

the Obama Administration and according to the BLM, ‘‘it takes on 

average four years to approve a mining plan of operations for a 

large mine (more than 1,000 acres) on public lands.’’ 

We should be working together to formulate a strategy to develop 

our rare earth and other critical minerals, not giving additional 

handouts to an industry that can already extract billions of dollars 

in valuable minerals from public lands without paying a dime in 

royalties to taxpayers. Promoting the development of minerals that 

are critical to core national priorities and genuinely susceptible to 

supply disruption, like rare earth elements, should be an area 

where Democrats and Republicans can work together. 

Rare earth elements are indispensable to a wide range of military, electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a variety of 

clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, 

solar panels and energy efficient light bulbs. There are currently 

few or no ready substitutes for these minerals in industry, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

there are substantial risks to their overall supply since we rely almost completely on Chinese imports. 

This Committee has already reported out legislation on a bipartisan basis to lay the groundwork for developing critical and strategic minerals. Yet the Majority has not brought that bill to the 

House Floor for a vote and instead is moving H.R. 4402, which 

would fundamentally change the review of nearly all mining activities on public lands. 

This legislation would also undermine the requirement in current law that our public lands be managed for multiple uses by elevating mining above all other uses, potentially threatening hunting, fishing, recreation and other important activities. H.R. 4402 

would also needlessly limit judicial review of mining activities on 

public lands. 

The Majority rejected an amendment from National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Ranking Member Grijalva 

(D–AZ) that would have ensured that nothing in the bill affects the 

multiple use requirement in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 that protects hunting, fishing, grazing and other 

important activities on our public lands in addition as energy production. Representative Tonko (D–NY) offered an amendment that 

would have narrowed the scope of the bill solely to rare earths and 

other critical and strategic minerals which the Majority voted 

down, demonstrating that this legislation is intended to be much 

more far reaching than the bill’s title indicates. Finally, the Majority rejected an amendment offered by Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member Holt (D–NJ) that would 

have created a royalty for the extraction of hardrock minerals on 

public lands to ensure that the American people receive a fair return on these valuable minerals that mining companies are currently able to extract for free. 

Democrats will continue working to promote development of rare 

earth and other critical and strategic minerals, but we oppose eviscerating the proper review of virtually all mining on public lands 

under the guise of promoting the development of these minerals, as 

H.R. 4402 would do. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

RUSH HOLT. 

PAUL TONKO. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS