29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–138 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS 

PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013 

JULY 8, 2013.—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. 761] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 761) 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 2013’’. 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
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 worldwide 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; or 

(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 C.F.R. 3809 and 36 C.F.R. 228A 

or the authorities listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13, 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 cooperating agencies and any other agency involved in the permitting process, 

project proponents and contractors to ensure that agencies minimize delays, set and 

adhere to timelines and schedules for completion of the permitting process, set clear 

permitting goals and track progress against those goals. 

(b) DETERMINATION UNDER NEPA.—To the extent that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applies to any mineral exploration or mine permit, the 

lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit 

shall determine that the action to approve the exploration or mine permit does 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 permitting process alone, any 

applicable State permitting process alone, or a combination of the two processes toVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:18 Jul 09, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR138P1.XXX HR138P1

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

gether provide an adequate mechanism to ensure that environmental factors are 

taken into account. 

(c) COORDINATION ON PERMITTING PROCESS.—The lead agency with responsibility 

for issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit shall enhance government coordination for the permitting process by avoiding 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, analyses and reviews performed by State agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project. 

(2) Conducting any consultations or reviews concurrently rather than sequentially to the extent practicable and when such concurrent review will expedite 

rather than delay a decision. 

(d) SCHEDULE FOR PERMITTING PROCESS.—At the request of a project proponent, 

the lead agency, cooperating agencies and any other agencies involved with the mineral exploration or mine permitting process shall enter into an agreement with the 

project proponent that sets time limits for each part of the permitting 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) TIME LIMIT FOR PERMITTING PROCESS.—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) LIMITATION ON ADDRESSING PUBLIC COMMENTS.—The lead agency is not required to address agency or public comments that were not submitted during any 

public comment periods or consultation periods provided during the permitting process or as otherwise required by law. 

(g) FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.—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. 

(h) APPLICATION TO EXISTING PERMIT APPLICATIONS.—This section shall apply 

with respect to a mineral exploration or mine permit for which an application was 

submitted before the date of the enactment of this Act if the applicant for the permit 

submits a written request to the lead agency for the permit. The lead agency shall 

begin implementing this section with respect to such application within 30 days 

after receiving such written request. 

(i) STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS WITHIN NATIONAL FORESTS.—With respect 

to strategic and critical minerals within a federally administered unit of the National Forest System, the lead agency shall— 

(1) exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in Land Use Designations, 

other than Non-Development Land Use Designations, in existence as of the date 

of the enactment of this Act from the procedures detailed at and all rules promulgated under part 294 of title 36, Code for Federal Regulations; 

(2) apply such exemption to all additional routes and areas that the lead 

agency finds necessary to facilitate the construction, operation, maintenance, 

and restoration of the areas of identified mineral resources described in paragraph (1); and 

(3) continue to apply such exemptions after approval of the Minerals Plan of 

Operations for the unit of the National Forest System. 

SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE. 

In evaluating and issuing any 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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. 

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 against the Federal Government 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. RIGHT TO INTERVENE. 

The holder of any mineral exploration or mine permit may intervene as of right 

in any covered civil action by a person affecting rights or obligations of the permit 

holder under the permit. 

SEC. 204. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION. 

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

SEC. 205. 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. 206. 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. 761 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. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013, addresses the most significant roadblock to mineral exploration and development in the United States: permitting 

timelines. Currently the average timeframe for acquiring permits 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

for domestic mine development on federal lands takes 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. 

Through 2011 the U.S. was 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. 761 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 three most recent Behre Dolbear’s ‘‘Ranking of Countries 

for Mining Investment’’ reports, the United States ranks last with 

Papua New Guinea out of 25 major mining countries in permitting 

delays, and towards the bottom regarding government take and social issues affecting mining. According to Behre Dolbear, the 

United States has been last out of 25 major mining countries in 

permitting delays since 2005. 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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 2012, the U.S. import dependence for non-fuel mineral materials more than doubled from 30 to 61 commodities, with 17 commodities imported entirely to meet the Nation’s requirements, and 

another 24 commodities required imports of more than 50 percent. 

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 Environmental 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. In 

March 2012, the United States 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. 761 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 demand for copper indicated 

that by 2016 30 large-scale copper deposits would have to come on 

line to meet world-wide demand; at the time there were not enough 

copper deposits in the permitting 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 reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:18 Jul 09, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR138P1.XXX HR138P1

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

sponse 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 reconstruction 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 

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

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 761 was introduced on February 15, 2013, by Congressman 

Mark Amodei (R–NV). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources. In addition, the bill was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. On March 21, 2013, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on the 

bill. On May 15, 2013, 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 an amendment designated #1 to the bill; the 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Rush Holt 

(D–NJ) offered an amendment designated .001 to the bill; the 

amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 16 to 18, as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 here HR138.001

Date: May 15,2013 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

I 13th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 

Meeting on! Amendment on: H.R. 761 - Holt.OOt, Not agreed to by vote of 16 yeas and 18 nays 

MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres MEMBERS Yea 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Dnncan, SC 

Mr. Markey, MA, Ranking Ms. Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr, Yonng,AK Mr. Tipton, CO 

Mr. Defazio, OR X Mr. Cardenas, CA X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ 

Mr. Faleomavaega, AS Mr. Horsford, NV 

Mr, Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mr. Pallone, NJ X Mr. Huffinan, CA X 

Mr, Lamborn, CO X Mr. Sontherland, FL 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Wittman, VA Mr. Flores, TX 

Mr. Holt, NJ X Ms. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Broun, GA Mr. Runyan, NJ 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Ms. Bordallo, GU Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. Thompson, P A X Mr. Stewart, UT 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Mr. Daines, MT 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. Cramer, ND 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

Mr. Pierluisi, PR 

TOTALS 16 

Nay Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

18 
9 

Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered an amendment designated 

.002 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 

of 18 to 23, as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 here HR138.002

Date: May 15,2013 

Committee on Natural Resources 

u.s. House of Representatives 

113 th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 2 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 761 - Holt.002, Not agreed to by vote of 18 yeas and 23 nays 

MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres MEMBERS Yea Nay 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan, SC X 

Mr. Markey, MA, Ranking Ms. Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr. Young,AK X Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Defazio, OR X Mr. Cardenas, CA X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Faleomavaega, AS Mr. Horsford, NV X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mr. Pal/one, NJ X Mr. Huffman, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr. Holt, NJ X M,. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Broun, GA Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Ms. Borda/lo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK X 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Lummis, WY I X Mr. Cramer, ND X 

M,. Tsongas, MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

Mr. Pierluisi, PR 

TOTALS 18 23 

Pres 
11 

No further amendments were offered and 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 17, as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 here HR138.003

Committee on Natural Resources 

u.s, House of Representatives 

113th Congress 

Date: May 15, 2013 Recorded Vote#: 3 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 761 - To adopt and favorably report the bill to the House, as amended, 

agreed to by a vote of 24 yeas to 17 nays 

~ MEMBERS Yea Nay Pres MEMBERS Yea Nay 

astings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duucan, SC X 

Mr, Markey, MA, Ranking Ms, Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr. Young, AK X Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr, Defazio, OR X Mr, Cardenas, CA X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr, Faleomavaega, AS Mr, Horsford, NV X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mr, Pallone, NJ X Mr, HujJinan, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO Ix Mr. Southerlaud, FL X 

Mrs, Napolitano, CA X Mr, Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr, Holt, NJ X M" Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Broun, GA Mr. Ruuyan, NJ X 

Mr, Grijalva, AZ X Mr, Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV X 

Ms, Bordallo, GU X Mr, Garcia, FL X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK X 

Mr, Costa, CA X r, Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X r. Stewart, UT X 

Mr, Sablan, CNMI X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Lummis, 'YY X Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms, Tsongas, MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

Mr, Pierlulsi, PR 

TOTALS 24 17 

Pres 
13 

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. 

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. 761—National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act 

of 2013 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 761 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill could reduce mandatory payments for attorneys’ fees over the 2014–2023 

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

estimates that any such effects 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 availability of appropriated funds. 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. 761 would exempt lawsuits that affect mineral exploration or mining permits on federal lands from the Equal Access 

to Justice Act. That act requires the U.S. Treasury to pay the attorneys’ fees for certain plaintiffs who prevail in court proceedings 

against the federal government. Over the 2003–2012 period, total 

payments made on behalf of BLM and the Forest Service from the 

Judgment Fund of the U.S. Treasury to cover attorneys’ fees under 

that act averaged about $1 million a year. Based on information 

from the Government Accountability Office, the Treasury Department, and the affected land management agencies, CBO estimates 

that only a small portion of that amount was paid to plaintiffs who 

prevailed in cases that affected mineral exploration or mining perVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:15 Jul 09, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR138P1.XXX HR138P1

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

mits. We estimate that enacting H.R. 761 would reduce direct 

spending by less than $50,000 a year over the 2014–2023 period. 

H.R. 761 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, 

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. 761 

would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 

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. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

LETTER EXCHANGES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, June 28, 2013. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

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 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. 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. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, July 3, 2013. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

of 2013.’’ As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered reported the bill, as amended, on May 15, 2013. I appreciate 

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. 761 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(17) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 761 because despite its title, this legislation has 

absolutely nothing to do with the development of rare earths and 

other strategic minerals. This Republican bill hands yet another 

giveaway to the mining industry by dramatically reshaping how we 

permit virtually all mining on public lands and by gutting key protections for local communities, our water and our environment. 

This bill is so broadly drafted that it would reduce or eliminate 

proper review under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for nearly all types of mines on public lands. It would 

short-circuit proper review of mines for minerals such as gold, silver, copper and uranium; mines for minerals that are not remotely 

critical and strategic, such as sand or gravel; even coal mines on 

public lands could potentially enjoy the giveaways in this bill. 

The Interior Department has stated that ‘‘This legislation would 

remove many of the environmental safeguards for almost all types 

of hardrock mines on public lands, bypass evaluation of potential 

impacts under NEPA, and limit public involvement in agency decision-making.’’ 

This legislation is so controversial the Senate refused to consider 

it last Congress. H.R. 761 as reported out of the Committee is virtually unchanged from the last Congress and will likely suffer the 

same fate. 

The Majority’s claims with respect to mining permit delays are 

unfounded. As of last year, the average time it takes to approve a 

plan of operations for a hardrock mine has actually decreased 

under the Obama Administration compared to the Bush Administration. Despite industry claims, according to the Interior Department ‘‘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.’’ As of last year, the Obama Administration had approved 82 

percent of hardrock mines within three years. This bill is about 

preventing proper environmental review for the small number of 

mines that are potentially significantly damaging to public health 

or our water or environment and where additional review is therefore warranted. 

H.R. 761 also threatens hunting, fishing, grazing and conservation by elevating mining above all other uses of our public lands. 

Indeed, the Interior Department has testified before the Committee 

that ‘‘H.R. 761 includes numerous provisions that circumvent 

sound Federal decision-making and existing law calling for the 

multiple uses of public lands.’’ 

The Majority rejected an amendment offered by Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member Holt (D–NJ) that 

would have narrowed the scope of the bill to only apply to minerals 

that are, in fact, critical and strategic. An amendment from Ranking Member Holt to update our antiquated mining law to require 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

gold, silver, and uranium mines to pay a royalty and use that revenue to clean up abandoned mines in the West was also voted 

down by the Majority. 

Democrats believe that we should finally update the Mining Law 

of 1872 to ensure that mining companies are not able to extract 

valuable minerals that belong to the American people for free. 

Democrats also believe that we should update this law to assist 

local communities in Western states with the cleanup and remediation of the hundreds of thousands of toxic abandoned mines in 

these states. Unfortunately, this Republican legislation does nothing to close these egregious loopholes that large, multinational mining companies enjoy when mining on our public lands and instead 

provides even more giveaways and handouts to this industry. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

Ranking Democratic Member, Natural Resources 

Committee. 

RUSH D. HOLT, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING